Pimoa Chamberlin & Ivie, 1943
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.855.33501 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:097ECBD8-1CFE-4CED-B6AF-1533A61D1D66 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F6CF0BC7-870D-7914-3202-2AB0BBE64278 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Pimoa Chamberlin & Ivie, 1943 |
status |
|
Genus Pimoa Chamberlin & Ivie, 1943 View in CoL View at ENA
Pimoa : Chamberlin and Ivie 1943: 9; Hormiga 1994a: 4; Hormiga and Lew 2014: 1; Mammola et al. 2016: 1.
Type species.
Labulla hespera Gertsch & Ivie, 1936, from California, USA.
Diagnosis.
Males of Pimoa can be distinguished from Weintrauboa Hormiga, 2003 by the elongate cymbial process (CP) with many cuspules (vs cymbial process (CP) and cuspules absent) (Fig. 1 A–C; Hormiga 2003: figs 1, 2). From Putaoa Hormiga & Tu, 2008, it can be distinguished by the absence of distinctly large macrosetae on the palpal tibia (vs presence of a large macroseta) (Fig. 1 A–C; Hormiga and Tu 2008: figs 3, 5-6). Females of Pimoa can be distinguished from Weintrauboa by the protruding epigyne with a distinct dorsal plate (DP) (vs dorsal plate absent) (Fig. 2A, B; Hormiga 2003: figs 2-3). From Putaoa , it can be distinguished by the absence of lateral openings on the epigyne (vs two distinct lateral openings) (Fig. 2A, B; Hormiga and Tu 2008: figs 2, 4, 8).
Composition.
Thirty-three valid species of Pimoa are currently known from the western Nearctic (14), western Mediterranean (4) and South Asia (15) ( WSC 2019).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.