Type Material

 

            Holotype: “Male holotype from San Diego, CA, May 9, 1969 by B. J. Kaston; female allotype from San Diego, CA, pit traps, June 1971 by B. J. Kaston, both deposited in FSCA” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39).

 

            Measurements: “Males (6) slightly variable in size; CP varies from 9.25-9.75 (mean 9.50). Legs moderately long; A/CP; varies from 6.33-6.47 (mean 6.36). Fondal notches vary from 0.78-0.89 (mean 0.82). Mesal tooth absent or indistinct. Short abdominal ctenidia vary from 5-6 (mean 5.6). Number of papillae in basal palpal metatarsal scopula varies 17-58 (mean 41.6). One male from Los Angeles County lacked a scopula” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39). 

“Female allotype has a CP of 10.0; A/CP of 5.0, indistinct mesal tooth, and posterior opercular notch occupies 27% of opercular area and is more or less triangular in outline” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39).

 

            Palpal Description: “17-58 papillae in basal palpal, metatarsal scopula” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39).

 

            Ctenidia Description: “6 short to long abdominal ctenidia on first post-stigmatic sternite (figs. 150-151)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39).

            

            Operculum Description: “Females distinguished by opercula twice as wide as long; short to long, broad, anterior, opercular lobes; small posterior opercular notch with slightly convex lateral margins; a wide, bowed, vulvular opening located near posterior margin of opercula (figs. 154, 155, and 156)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39). 

            

            Chelicerae Description: “Males distinguished by large triangular to rounded, blade-like dorsal process on fixed cheliceral finger peaked over distal half of fondal notch; fondal notch much narrower than width of base of fixed cheliceral finger and slightly wider than deep; distinct rounded to subquadrate anterior process on movable cheliceral finger; unusually distinct ventral notch of movable cheliceral finger from lateral view (fig. 149)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 39). 

 

Diagnosis: “Although this species seems to have some affinities with the scopulatus-viccinus complex, it is most closely related to E. scopulatellus, which tends to be a more northern form, with distinctively different markings” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).

 

Other Information: