Neopachyloides peruvianus (Roewer, 1956) Roewer, 1956

Pinto-da-Rocha, Ricardo, Benedetti, Alipio Rezende, de Vasconcelos, Eduardo Gomes & Hara, Marcos Ryotaro, 2012, New systematic assignments in Gonyleptoidea (Arachnida, Opiliones, Laniatores), ZooKeys 198, pp. 25-68 : 30

Neopachyloides peruvianus (Roewer, 1956) new comb., new subfamily assignment Fig. 4

Ceropachylinus peruvianus Roewer, 1956: 440, fig. 19 (♂); Kury 2003: 158; (male holotype, Peru, near San Luis de Shuaro, 700-750 m, Koepcke leg, 17.III.1955, SMF 9791/1, examined).

Diagnosis.

Neopachyloides was a hitherto monotypic genus that resembles Ampycinae genera with a paired armature on ocularium and free tergite III with a median, long spiniform apophysis asin Ampycella Roewer, 1929, Ampycus Simon, 1879, Hutamaia Soares & Soares, 1977 and Sibollus Roewer, 1929. Neopachyloides can be distinguished from these genera by the following combination of characteristics: scutal area III with a paramedian pair of enlarged, pointed tubercles, scutal area IV undivided and free tergite II unarmed. Neopachyloides peruvianus can be distinguished from Neopachyloides spinipes Roewer, 1913 by the dorsal scutum covered by granules and scutal areas I–II unarmed (Fig. 4A).

Description.

Penis (Fig. 4 B–C; holotype): ventral plate with sub hexagonal shape, deep cleft on distal margin, 4 pairs of distal setae (distalmost curved and basalmost small), 3 pairs of basal setae straight. Glans very long (⅔ of ventral plate length), stylus smooth and curved dorsally, without dorsal and ventral processes.

Taxonomical note.

The assignment of Neopachyloides peruvianus to Neopachyloides is based on overall similarity and should be considered tentative. Neopachyloides peruvianus is the only Ampycinae which presents just one scutal area armed with a paramedian enlarged pair of tubercles (most genera present 3 scutal areas armed with a paramedian pair of enlarged tubercles, as Ampycus , Hexabunus and Pirunipygus or all of them unarmed). We preferred to place Neopachyloides peruvianus under Neopachyloides instead of proposing a new genus because monophyly of Ampycinae genera (most of them monotypic) are doubtful. See taxonomical note of Pirunipygus paradoxus for the reasons of the new placement of Neopachyloides peruvianus .