Type Material

 

Holotype: “Holotype male, 7 km WSW of Juchitepec (19º06’N, 98º52’W), Mexico State, Mexico, 24 August 1987, J. Doyen (CAS). Paratypes: Mexico: Mexico State: 1 male, same collection data as holotype (CAS); 1 male, same collection data as holotype (DMNS)” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 722).

 

Measurements: “Male holotype: total length 14, cheliceral length 3.3, cheliceral width 1.3, propeltidium length 1.5, propeltidium width 2.3, palpus length 13.5, first leg length 10.0, fourth leg length 14.0. Ratios: A/CP 7.8, CL/CW 2.5, PL/PW 0.43, no fond, CW/FFW 2.6. Metatarsus/tarsus ratio 4.2. Male paratypes (2): total length 13-15, cheliceral length 3.4-3.6, cheliceral width 1.3-1.6, propeltidium length 1.9-2.0, propeltidium width 2.3-2.7, palpus length 13.0-16.0, first leg length 10.0-11.0, fourth leg length 14.0-17.0. Ratios: A/CP 6.2-7.0, CL/CW 2.25-2.40, PL/PW 0.75-0.80, no fond, CW/FFW 2.6-3.2. Metatarsus/tarsus ratio 4.25-4.50” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 722-723).

 

Chelicerae Description: “Cheliceral FF with no teeth or denticles, blade shaped with a circular region where you would normally find the fondal notch. Small ventral cup anteriorly extending to a broad, shallow mesoventral groove. MF with large PT and a cusp-like structure for an AT; small IT on the PT; no MST (Figs. 10 & 11)” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 724).

 

Chelicerae Setae Description: “Flagella complex of tubular to slightly striate bristles” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 724).

 

Palpal Description: “Coloration in alcohol a blotchy, vibrant violet brown on the dorsal aspect of most of palpus (Fig. 13) . . . . No scopula . . . The everted palpal suctorial organ is shown in Fig. 15” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 723-724).

 

Ctenidia Description: “seven short, needle-like ctenidia (Fig. 17)” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 724).

 

Diagnosis: “This species is distinguished from Eremochelis rossi Muma 1987 on the basis of coloration, shape of fixed finger, and ctenidial number and shape” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 722).

Other Information: “This species is tentatively placed in the Eremochelis bilobatus group but clearly needs to be part of a new group which would include E. albaventralis, E. rossi Muma 1987, E. cochiseae Muma 1989, E. kerni Muma 1989 and possibly the two members of the E. andreasana group, E. andreasana Muma 1962 and E. larrea Muma 1962. This distinction is based mainly on the unique shape of the male chelicera” (Brookhart & Cushing, 2005, p. 724).