Holotype: "Male and female types from Arizona (Arkansas?), no locality, No. 7297, Roewer No. 9129, supposedly deposited in MNHN are actually in ZSM. These specimens agree with Kraepelin's (1899) description and are therefore the types of the species. Thos in MNHN (Muma 1970) are not the types" (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 22). Note on the distribution according to Muma & Brookhart (1988), which the type species are known only from Arizona (certainly not Arkansas) with no locality recorded.

Chelicerae Description: "Male distinguished by small, low, rounded dorsal spur on fixed cheliceral finger, closely grouped intermediate teeth and lack of distinct rounded anterior process on movable cheliceral finger, and lack of post-stigmatic abdominal ctenidia. Dorsal process of fixed cheliceral finger peaked in basal half of fondal notch" (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 22).

Operculum Description: "Females distinguished by elongate, slender, anterior lobes or opercula, large concave sided posterior notch of opercula, and wide, bowed, vulvular openings" (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 22).

Diagnosis: "The above diagnoses and descriptions are based on Kraepelin's 1899 descriptions, pages 242 and 243, and figures 20a and 20b, and descriptive notes, computations, and illustrations of the types, made by the senior author in the late 1960's. Until additional specimens of this species have been collected, there will continue to be questions concerning this species. Why are the male and female types in the ZSM when Kraepelin recorded them in the Simon collection? Where did the so labeled paratypes come from since Kraepelin did not record them? Finally, where in Arizona is the species located? Muma (1970) erred in stating that the female in the ZSM was a specimen of Eremobates formidabilis (Simon). He further erred in referring to an "abortive setal socket" on the make in the Simon collection and in stating that the specimens in the Simon collection agreed with Kraepelin's (1899) description" (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 22-23).