Type Material
Holotype: “Male holotype, female allotype, and male paratype from Madera Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona, July 16, 1940 (Gertsch and Hook), in the American Museum of Natural History. Ramsay Canyon, Huachuca Mountains, Arizona, July 10 to 15, 1941, three males, one female (A. B. Klots). Male and female paratypes also in the Museum of Comparative Zoology and the United States National Museum” (Muma, 1951, p. 82).
Measurements: Males: Total length, 19.0 mm to 25.0 mm. Chelicerae, 5.6 – 5.9 mm length; 2.8 – 3.1 mm width. Propeltidium, 2.6 – 2.8 mm length; 4.8 – 4.9 mm width. Palpi, 18.0 – 19.0 mm. 1st Legs, 15.0 – 16.0 mm. 4thLegs, 23.0 – 25.0 mm. Holotype, larger measurements.
Females: Total length, 26.0 to 28.0 mm. Chelicerae, 5.4 – 6.2 mm length; 2.5 – 3.0 mm width. Propeltidium, 2.8 – 2.9 mm length; 4.4 – 4.9 mm width. Palpi, 15.0 – 17.0 mm. 1st Legs, 13.0 – 15.0 mm. 4th Legs, 21.0 – 23.0 mm. Allotype, smaller measurements.
Chelicerae Description: Male: “Movable finger with the anterior tooth low, flattened, flanged ectally, and occurring near the middle of the length of the finger, and the mesal setae plumose on the basal half of the finger, and simple on the distal half. Flagellum complex with the basal plumose setae only weakly curved and lying nearly parallel with the mesal groove. Mesal groove not distinctly enlarged at the base” (Muma, 1951, p. 80).
Female: “Structure the same as in pallipes except that the intermediate teeth behind the principal tooth on the fixed finger commonly are two in number” (Muma, 1951, p. 82).
Diagnosis: “Females of this species agree rather closely with Roewer's Eremostata dinamita from Mexico in general description and opercular form. However, the dentition differs widely from Roewer's figure of the dentition pattern, so that angustus is maintained as a separate species. The great distance separating the collection localities of the two species supports this stand. Males of this species agree closely in dentition pattern with those in Roewer's figure of Eremoseta titschacki Roewer, but several differences are to be found in Roewer's description and figure. Roewer mentions no mesal groove of the fixed finger for titschacki, does not describe or figure a low ridge replacing the anterior tooth of the movable finger, and figures all of the mesal setae of the movable finger as plumose” (Muma, 1951, p. 82).
Other Information:
