Type Material

 

            Holotype: “Male cotype (syntype) from Sidney, Nebraska, July 9, 1939 (J.C. Swinbank), in AMNH; and the other from Harrisburg, Nebr., June 16, 1939 (V.C. Jacobson), in Dept. Ent., Univ. Nebr” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10). 

 

            Measurements: “Males (9) somewhat variable in size; CP varies in size from 10.0-12.3 (mean 11.2). Legs shorter than usual for males of series. A/CP varies from 5.8-6.2 (mean 5.9)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10).

“Females (8) quite variable in size; CP varies from 8.3-12.5 (mean 11.0). Legs shorter than those of other females of series. A/CP varies from 4.8-5.3 (mean 5.0)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10).

 

            Ctenidia Description: “Only 1 of 9 specimens examined had 5 ctenidia, the others had either 2 or 4…Ctenidia long and slender varying from 2-5 (mean 3) (figs. 14-15)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10).

            

            Operculum Description: “Females distinguished by slender mesally dentate or uniformly tapered anterior lobes of opercula, concave lateral margins of posterior opercular notch and narrow crescentic vulvular openings…Opercular notches smallest for this series, varying from 21-37% (mean 27) (figs. 18-19) of the opercula” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10).

            

            Chelicerae Description: “anterior tooth of movable cheliceral finger conical, associated with a posteriorly extended low obscure ridge, and a laterally distinct ventral notch on movable cheliceral finger. Dorsal process of fixed cheliceral finger peaked over distal half of the fondal notch…Fondal notches longer than wide but just average for series; length/width ratio varies from 1.1-1.5 (mean 1.4) (fig. 11)…Males have a small to medium sized mesal tooth on movable cheliceral finger; mode medium sized” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10).

 

Diagnosis: “This species has a great number of affinities with kiseri, as stated under that species. The 2 could well prove to be synonyms but for the present they are maintained separately because of differences in position of the dorsal process of the male fixed cheliceral finger, male ctenidia, and female opercular notch and coloration. Muma’s (1951) description and figures of this species are reasonably accurate, except for his figure 79 of the opercula, which does not delineate the vulvular opening adequately” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 10).

 

Other Information: