Type Material

 

            Holotype: “Eremobates mormonus (Roewer), sensu Muma, 1951, p. 67 (not Eremopera mormona Roewer, 1934, p. 561)” (Muma, 1970, p. 18). “Male holotype from dry valley 14 miles SE of Monterey, Monterey County, California, by E. F. Ricketts, in AMNH” (Muma, 1970, p. 18).

 

            Measurements: “Males (10) somewhat variable in size; CP varies from 8.0-11.2 (mean 9.6). Legs long; A/CP varies from 6.7-7.4 (mean 6.9). Fondal notches slightly narrower than base of fixed cheliceral finger and almost as long as wide; length/width ratio varies from 0.8-1.0 (mean 0.9). Mesal tooth of movable cheliceral finger is either indistinct or missing. One or both intermediate teeth of movable cheliceral finger may be missing and anterior process is occasionally subquadrate or conical (fig. 81). Both mean and modal number of short post-stigmatic abdominal ctenidia is 4 (fig. 81), but occasional specimens have 5 or 6” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 28). 

“Females (6) also somewhat variable in size; CP varies from 9.3-11.2 (mean 10.6). Legs short; A/CP varies from 5.2-5.6 (mean 5.4). Mesal tooth of movable cheliceral finger either indistinct or missing (figs. 83-84). Opercula 1.9 times wider than long with anterior lobes strongly enlarged distally; posterior opercular notches with either straight or indistinctly convex lateral margins and occupying 33-41% of opercula (mean 38) (figs. 85-86)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 28).

 

            Ctenidia Description: “4 short post-stigmatic abdominal ctenidia” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 27). 

            

            Operculum Description: “Females distinguished by abruptly enlarged almost capitate anterior lobes of opercula, moderate sized almost straight sided posterior opercular notch, and wide, bowed vulvular openings extending to posterior ends of posterior opercular lobes” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 27).

            

            Chelicerae Description: “Males distinguished by blade-like to subtriangular dorsal process peaked at or near distal end of fondal notch on fixed cheliceral finger; widely spaced intermediate teeth and distinctly rounded anterior process on movable cheliceral finger” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 27). 

 

Diagnosis: “The relationship of this species to other members of this species cannot be ascertained with certainty until the females of pyriflora have been identified. However, it should be noted that the male of kraepelini has a dorsal process of the fixed cheliceral finger similar to those of pallidus, grracilidens, titschacki, pyriflora, andotavonae, and the female opercula are similar to those of titschacki and otavonae. It should also be noted that the opercula of this species is very similar to or identical with the opercula cited as a female of tuberculatus Kraepelin, by Roewer (1934) and copied by Muma (1951) and here shaded (fig. 87), for comparison with figure 85 and 86. Roewer probably had a female of this species, not that of tuberculatus” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 28). 

 

Other Information: