Type Material

 

            Holotype: “Male holotype and male paratype from 22 miles SE of Chihuahua, Mexico, 25 August 1980 collected by J. B. Karren from the USU collection (both deposited at DMNH)” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).

 

            Measurements: “Male holotype: total length 20, chelicera length 6.0, chelicera width 2.8, propeltidium length 3.2, propeltidium width 4.2, palpus length 20, first leg length 15, fourth leg length 20. Ratios: A/CP 6.0, CL/ CW 2.1, FL/FW 1.7, WFF/FFW 0.83, CW/ WFF 4.7. Male paratype: total length 23, chelicera length 5.4, chelicera width 2.3, propeltidium length 2.2, propeltidum width 3.7, palpus length 19, first leg length 15, fourth leg length 23. Ratios: A/CP 7.5, CL/ CW 2.3, FL/FW 1.0, WFF/FW 0.83, CW/ WFF 3.6” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).

 

         Palpal Description: “Palpus with 50–59 small, white papillae on dorsomesal area of palpal metatarsus, entire palpus with numerous short cylindrical setae interspersed with thin, elongated setae” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).

 

            Chelicerae Description: “Chelicera typical of members of pallipes group with a deep, thin mesoventral groove running from chelicera tip to under origins of flagella complex, widening slightly posteriorly. Fixed finger narrow, smooth, without denticles. Movable finger with large PT, AT smaller, two IT with the posterior larger and on the PT, MST visible but small. Fondal notch V shaped, longer than wide. Fondal teeth graded I, III, II, IV ectally and mesally (Figs. 10 & 11). Flagella complex typical of pallipes group with large apical plumose bristle occupying 90% of mesovental groove” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).

 

            Ctenidia Description: “Two short ctenidia on ventral, fourth abdominal segment, extending less than half the length of the succeeding segment (Fig. 12)” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).

 

Diagnosis: “Eremobates chihuaenis is placed in the Eremobates pallipes group (Muma 1951) based on the shape and position of the mesoventral groove of the male fixed finger and the unmodified dorsal aspect of the fixed finger of the male chelicera. The relatively large posterior tooth located on the PT of the male MF as well as the narrow mesoventral groove distinguishes it from other species of the group. It goes to couplet two in Brookhart & Muma (1981)” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).

 

Other Information: “Muma (1987) listed four members of the pallipes group from Mexico, E. dinamita (Roewer 1934), E. durangonus (Roewer 1934), both from Durango, Mexico, E. putnami (Banks 1898) from Baja California, and E. formicarius (C. L. Koch 1842) from Puebla, Mexico. Brookhart & Muma (1981) also postulated that E. woodruffiBrookhart & Muma 1981 was at the northern end of its range in the Big Bend region of Texas because of immatures resembling this species found 3 miles south of Renosa, Mexico in the state of Tamalipas. Only E. woodruffi occupies an area that might be sympatric with E. chihuaensis. E. woodruffi differs in coloration and male cheliceral profile from E. chihuaensis. Females are unknown for both of the previous two species. The relationship of E. chihuaensis to each of these species cannot be clarified until more specimens are collected from Mexico” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2002, p. 87).