• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Division of plant industry
 Foreword
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Literature cited
 Index to scientific names
 Back Cover
















Synoptic review of North American, Central American, and West Indian Solpugida (Arthropoda: Arachnida) (Arthropods of Fl...
CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000085/00001
 Material Information
Title: Synoptic review of North American, Central American, and West Indian Solpugida (Arthropoda: Arachnida) (Arthropods of Florida)
Series Title: Arthropods of Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Muma, Martin H.
Publisher: Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1970
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 48886806
System ID: UF00000085:00001

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
    Division of plant industry
        Page ii
        Page ii-a
    Foreword
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Literature cited
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Index to scientific names
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Back Cover
        Back Cover 1
        Back Cover 2
Full Text


ARTHROPODS OF FLORIDA
AND NEIGHBORING LAND AREAS
VOLUME 5


A SYNOPTIC REVIEW OF NORTH
AMERICAN, CENTRAL AMERICAN,
AND WEST INDIAN SOLPUGIDA
(ARTHROPODA: ARACHNIDA)

MARTIN H. MUMA


FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
DOYLE CONNER, COMMISSIONER










ARTHROPODS OF FLORIDA

AND NEIGHBORING LAND AREAS

VOLUME 5


1970



A SYNOPTIC REVIEW OF NORTH

AMERICAN, CENTRAL AMERICAN,

AND WEST INDIAN SOLPUGIDA

(ARTHROPODA: ARACHNIDA)


MARTIN H. MUMA
University of Florida, IFAS
Citrus Experiment Station
Lake Alfred, Florida 33850

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
Doyle Conner, Commissioner
DIVISION OF PLANT INDUSTRY
Halwin L. Jones, Director

Single copies free to Florida residents on request to
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Division of Plant Industry Library
Post Office Box 1269
Gainesville, Florida 32601


Contribution No. 154 Bureau of Entomology


Release Date July 1, 1970











5-75 S� (9 *�









FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

Doyle Conner, Commissioner




DIVISION OF PLANT INDUSTRY




Plant Industry Technical Committee

Vernon Conner, Chairman..... -----............. Mount Dora
Roy Vandegrift, Jr., Vice Chairman--- ------- ......--Canal Point
Colin English, Sr. ..........- ---- .....-- -- - .-.Tallahassee
L aw rence W . Clem ents --. - ..- -... ........- - B artow
N. Curtis Peterson, Jr. ........................ - Lakeland
David Wurst ....-.. -- ....... ...........Ocala
Foster Shi Smith ...........------------------Starke
Felix H. Uzzell --- -----...................Sebring
Halwin L. Jones, Secretary .............------------ Gainesville



Administrative Staff

Halwin L. Jones, Division Director................. - ... Gainesville
P. E. Frierson, Assistant Director. ----...... .......... Gainesville
V. W. Villeneuve, Fiscal Officer -....... -------..... - Gainesville
R. L. Meeker, Information Officer .-....------..-----------Gainesville
G. D. Bridges, Chief, Bureau of
Citrus Budwood Registration .....------Winter Haven
J. K. Condo, Chief, Bureau of Plant Inspection ---- ..-..-Gainesville
H. A. Denmark, Chief, Bureau of Entomology .... ........... Gainesville
G. G. Norman, Chief, Methods Development --........ ......Gainesville
P. M. Packard, Chief, Bureau of Apiary Inspection ..----.........Gainesville
C. Poucher, Chief, Bureau of
Pest Control and Eradication............-----........----.... ----Winter Haven
C. P. Seymour, Chief, Bureau of Plant Pathology ......... --- Gainesville
(Unfilled), Chief, Bureau of Nematology .......---........ ....Gainesville












FOREWORD


Solpugids or wind scorpions are large fe-
rocious and voracious predatory arachnids
that range in size from about one-half inch
to over four inches in length. The largest
North American species is slightly less than
three inches long. Despite their imposing
appearance, these curious arachnids are
harmless to man. They possess no poison
glands, and most species, although they bite
viciously, are incapable of breaking the skin
and drawing blood. A few large forms in
the southwestern United States and Mexico
are reported to inflict open wounds and bleed-
ing but with no secondary effects.
Species found in the western hemisphere
are predominately nocturnal, with only a few
small forms reportedly active during the
daylight hours. They are burrowing animals
that spend the daylight hours and winter
months in specially constructed burrows or
nests in the ground. A few species burrow
into soft, pithy, or rotten wood. Most sol-
pugids feed readily on termites but are cap-
able of eating spiders, flies, cockroaches,
crickets, grasshoppers, beetles, moths, and
even earthworms. Certain large species cap-
ture and eat large hard-bodied beetles and
hawk moths. The life cycle, from egg to
adult, of North American solpugids is about
one year, involving nine immature stages.
This Synoptic Review of North American,
Central American, and West Indian Solpu-
gida is the fifth in the series of publications
known as the ARTHROPODS OF FLORIDA
AND NEIGHBORING LAND AREAS. The
areas include the southeastern United States
and the islands of and land areas encompass-
ing the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
Sea. The present paper not only delineates
and characterizes the solpugid species that
are found in these relevant areas but also
relates these species to the more northerly
and westerly Nearctic forms of the order.
Further, this Synopsis synthesizes the
studies of C. L. Koch (1842), Simon (1879),
Putnam (1883), Banks (1900), Kraepelin
(1901), Roewer (1934), and Muma (1951)


into a comprehensive presentation of pres-
ently known solpugids in the study area.
This survey is the first comprehensive
work on the North and Central American
and West Indian fauna of Solpugida. It was
made possible by intensive study of types
in European museums, supported by a Na-
tional Science Foundation grant, with result-
ant synonymy and emendation of many
names. It represents the basic work after
which monographic studies of the Mexican
and Central American faunas can be at-
tempted. Through the years, Dr. Muma has
become the world authority on our distinctive
fauna and the American Museum the princi-
pal depository of the material. In 1951, the
American Museum published Muma's revi-
sional study of the Solpugida of the United
States, an important paper giving us for the
first time a clear picture of our relatively
large fauna. This basic work resulted from
sound studies on the morphology and laid
the foundation for all succeeding work on
the group.
The author, Martin H. Muma, was born
in Topeka, Kansas, July 24, 1916. His pro-
fessional training was obtained at Western
Maryland College Extension Night School
(1933-34), Frostburg State Teachers College
(1935-36), and the University of Maryland
(1936-43). He received his B.S. degree in
1939, his M.S. in 1940, and his Ph.D. in 1943.
From 1940 to 1945 he served as an Instructor
in Entomology and Assistant Entomologist
at the University of Maryland; from 1945
to 1951 he was Extension Entomologist and
then Associate Entomologist, Associate Pro-
fessor, and Associate Curator of the museum
at the University of Nebraska.
Since 1951 he has been an Associate En-
tomologist, Associate Professor, Entomolo-
gist, and Professor at the University of Flor-
ida Citrus Experiment Station located near
Lake Alfred, Florida. His present projects
involve research on the taxonomy, biology,
and natural control of citrus mites, the natu-
ral and ecological control of injurious citrus










insects and the biological control potential
for the Caribbean Fruit Fly.
Although Dr. Muma's formal education
and official professional experience have been
in the field of entomology, his favorite avoca-
tional fields are arachnology and speleology.
In entomology he has investigated and con-
tributed to the taxonomy, biology, ecology,
and control of deciduous fruit insects, field
crop insects, livestock parasites, and citrus
insects. In arachnology he has studied and
contributed to the taxonomy, biology, and
ecology of mites, spiders, tarantulas, scor-
pions, whip-scorpions, and solpugids. In spe-
leology he has examined and contributed to
cave biology, cave ecology, and cave termi-


nology. He is the author of a book, "Com-
mon Spiders of Maryland," and the author
or coauthor of 143 scientific bulletins or
papers, 47 in entomology, 63 in arachnology,
21 in extension entomology, and 12 in spele-
ology.


HOWARD V. WEEMS, JR.
Editor

Bureau of Entomology
Division of Plant Industry
Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
April 29, 1969









TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction --- ---- .... ............... ................. ------
Key to Families of North American, Central American
and W est Indian Solpugida .- .......- .... ...........- ........ ----
Family Eremobatidae .....-.......-..- ........ .---------- -......
Key to Subfamilies and Genera of Eremobatidae ...................-
Subfamily Eremobatinae --....-- .----------- --


Genus Eremorhax .......-- ....-- . ...................................
Genus Eremobates ......--- . .... ........-... . . -------... ... ........
Genus Eremothera ..... .. .. -...------ ........ ..-..-...... ... .........
Genus Horribates -------- ........... .. -----. .-
Subfamily Therobatinae ....................----------....... .
Genus Eremochelis ...-- --.... . ............-- ............. ........- ---- ....-
Genus Chambria ..-..-... ---------...---.........--......... .....--- ......
Genus Hemerotrecha -- --------.... ......................
Family Ammotrechidae ................--....... ......----- ---------------
Key to North American Subfamilies and Genera of Ammotrechidae .....-..................
Subfamily Ammotrechinae .................... .....------------------
Genus Ammotrechella -...... ---- - .. . ............ .... ....----
Genus Ammotrechona -.. .... -.. ......-........ .--- . ...........
Genus Ammotrecha ...-------------...- ............ ...-- .-----..-


Genus Ammotrechinus ------.....--- ..--......................
Genus Ammotrechesta ...... . ..........
Genus Ammotrechula .............. .............- ...........
Subfamily Saronominae .....-...........-----
Genus Innesa ...... ------ ....... . .......
Genus Branchia ----.... .... ... ---------
Literature Cited .......... -----.......... ..........
Index to Scientific Names .-....... .......... .... ..............---


... ......................... . 1


--- -- - -- -. . 1 4
-~3
-~3
-3
-~4


4
10
29
29
30
30
36
37
44
44
44
45
48
49


. -------- 50
.-...................- ......... 52
--...-.-.-.--.. .------- 52
.......-....-. .......- ..... 55
.......... - - 55
..-............................ 56
............... - 58
- ... .... . . 60


TABLES
Table 1. Type depositories and curators of North American solpugids --......--.----.....- 2
Table 2. Species, the types of which were not seen during this study -..........--..-. 2
Table 3. Some male diagnostic characters of Eremorhax magnus species-group ...... 5
Table 4. Some male diagnostic characters of Eremorhax striatus species-group --.... 7
Table 5. Some male diagnostic characters of the Eremobates scaber species-group .... 11
Table 6. Some male diagnostic characters in the Eremobates palpisetulous
Species-group ..-.......-. ~.~.--..... . 15
Table 7. Some male diagnostic characters for Eremobates pallipes species-group ..-. 24
Table 8. Some male diagnostic characters for the Eremochelis branch species-group 31
Table 9. Some male diagnostic characters of the Eremochelis arcus species-group ..-. 34
Table 10. Some male diagnostic characters of the Hemerotrecha banks species-group 38
Table 11. Some male diagnostic characters of the Hemerotrecha texana species-group 40
Table 12. Some male diagnostic characters for the Hemerotrecha branch species-group 42
Table 13. Some diagnostic characters of species of Ammotrechinae --...-.........- ......... --- 45






























































































vi











A SYNOPTIC REVIEW OF NORTH AMERICAN, CENTRAL

AMERICAN, AND WEST INDIAN SOLPUGIDA

(ARTHROPODA: ARACHNIDA)

Martin H. Muma'
University of Florida, IFAS
Citrus Experiment Station
Lake Alfred, Florida 33850


Solpugids of North America, Central
America, and the West Indies were diag-
nosed in the world-wide reviews of C. L.
Koch (1842), Simon (1879), Kraepelin
(1899 and 1901), and Roewer (1934). A
more detailed account of North American
species was presented by Putnam (1883),
and a key to North American forms was in-
cluded in Banks (1900). More recently,
Muma (1951, 1962, and 1963) has reviewed
the species occurring within the United
States. Unfortunately, none of the above au-
thors had access to the types of species de-
scribed by authors from other continents.
As a result, taxonomic evaluations of spe-
cies identity were, in a number of instances,
based on published, often inadequate, de-
scriptions and illustrations. Such evalua-
tions frequently add synonyms to the litera-
ture or at best doubt as to the identity of
many forms. The identity of pertinent spe-
cies was further clouded by Muma's (1951
and 1962) reevaluation of the diagnostic
characters utilized in distinguishing subfam-
ilies, genera, and species in the Eremobati-
dae and Ammotrechidae, the only families
of solpugids known to occur in the Western
Hemisphere.



1 This study was partially supported by National
Science Foundation Grant GB6168.
2 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Jour-
nal Series No. 3188.
SContribution No. 154, Bureau of Entomology,
Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville.
4Research Associate, Florida State Collection of
Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida De-
partment of Agriculture and Consumer Services.


The purpose of the present paper is to
evaluate and clarify the taxonomic status of
described species on the basis of an exami-
nation of the relevant available type ma-
terial: holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes, or
paratypes.
This is possible because the author is al-
ready familiar with most of the types de-
posited in North American institutions and
was able, with the assistance of a National


'(4?' a - -.- t-... - -


Eremorhax magnus 9 feeding on earthworm

Science Foundation grant', to study types in
European institutions and, through the cour-
tesies of curators, to examine types or type
compared specimens from other institutions.
The assistance of all curators and other au-
thorities in the type depositories that coop-
erated with this study is hereby gratefully
acknowledged (See Table 1).
Despite all efforts and assistance, however,
the identity of 14 species is still uncertain
(Table 2).
Since 156 species of solpugids have been
described from North America, Central
America, and the adjacent islands, and 140
species are recorded here, only primary diag-












Table. 1. Type depositories and curators of North American solpugids. Code letters only are used in text.

Code Letters Institutions and curators

AMNH American Museum of National History, New York, New York, USA, Dr. W. J. Gertsch
(retired).
ANS Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, H. J. Grant (de-
ceased).
BMNH British Museum (Natural History), London, England, Mr. D. J. Clark.
BNHM Boston Society of Natural History Museum, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

CUM Cornell University Museum, Ithaca, New York, USA.
DZUU Department of Zoology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, Wilton Ivie
(deceased).
IZUF Instituto de Zoologia dell'Universita, Firenze, Italy, Dr. Laura Delle Cave.
MCZ Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,
Dr. H. W. Levi.
MNHN Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France, Prof. M. Vachon.
NMWA Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien, Austria, Dr. E. Kritscher.
SMF Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senchenberg, Frankfurt am Main, West
Germany, Dr. O. Kraus (presently director ZSM).
UCBC University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, Dr. P. D. Hurd (not presently
curator).
USNM United States National Museum, Washington, D. C., USA, Dr. R. Crabill.
ZMHU Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt Universitlit, East Berlin, East Germany.
ZSM Zoologisches Staatsinstitut ad Museum, Hamburg, West Germany, Dr. Gisela Rack.

Table 2. Species, the types of which were not seen during this study.

Ammotrecha picta Pocock, S and 9 types from Guatemala. Location of types not known.

Ammotrechella bolivari Mello-Leitao, 9 from La Esperanza, Chiapas, Mexico, by Candido Bolivar. Type
may be in La Plata, Rio de Janeiro, or Sao Paulo.

Ammotrechesta schlueteri Roewer, type from Honduras, supposed to be but not in ZSM.
Ammotrechula boneti Mello-LeitLo, 8 from Mazatlin, Sinaloa, Mexico, by D. Pelaez. Type may be in La
Plata, Rio de Janeiro, or Sio Paulo.
Eremobates audax Hirst, & type from Mexico. Location of type not known.
Eremobates durangonus Roewer, 9's from Dinamita, Durango, Mexico. Supposed to be but not in MNHN.

Eremoperna hystrix Mello-Leitio, 8 from Mexico, D. F., by F. Bonet. Type may be in La Plata, Rio de
Janeiro, or Sao Paulo.
Eremoperna ingens Mello-Leitio, 2 from Villa Obreg6n, Mexico, D. F., by Candido Bolivar y Pieltain.
Type may be in La Plata, Rio de Janeiro, or Sho Paulo.
Galeodes limbatus Lucas, lectotype from Guatemala, supposed to be but not in ZSM.

Gluvia elongatas C. L. Koch, S from Mexico. Location of type not known.

Gluvia geniculata C. L. Koch, lectotype from Bahamas, supposed to be but not in ZSM.

Gluvia praecox C. L. Koch, & type from Mexico. Location of type not known.

Gluvia tolteca Pocock, S from Mexico. Supposed to be but not in BMNH.
Solpuga gryllipes Gervais, lectotype from Jamaica, supposed to be but not in ZSM.











nostic characters are included in the follow- atically pertinent statements are made in
ing keys, diagnoses, illustrations, and tables, the discussions. Brief redescriptions of spe-
Further, only important name changes are cies are based only on the types and follow
included in the synonymies, and only system- the format established by Muma (1951).

KEY TO FAMILIES OF NORTH AMERICAN, CENTRAL AMERICAN
AND WEST INDIAN SOLPUGIDA


1. Propeltidium truncate with anterior mar-
gin straight. Tarsus of leg I with 1
or 2 claws. Tarsi of legs II and III
with dorsal terminal spinelike seta.
Male chelicerae with a complex of mod-
ified and non-modified setae forming a
flagellum-complex on or at the base of
the fixed finger. Female genital oper-
cula exhibit apparent, specific differen-
ces ..-.---... Eremobatidae Roewer (p. 3)
Propeltidium not truncate but with an-


terior margin connate or recurved.
Tarsus of leg I without claw. Tarsi of
legs II and III without dorsal terminal
spinelike seta. Male chelicerae with an
immovable, translucent, elliptical,
membranous flagellum attached to the
mesal surface of the fixed finger. Fe-
male genital opercula generalized and
not exhibiting apparent specific differ-
ences, except perhaps in proportion -..
.....--..-.. Ammotrechidae Roewer (p. 44)


Family Eremobatidae

Roewer, 1934


This family is known only from North
America but may extend into the drier re-
gions of Central America. Recorded here
are 111 species.
Roewer's (1934) eremobatid generic sepa-
rations, based on patterns and counts of ven-
tral, spinelike tarsal setae, were found to be
invalid by Muma (1951). Therefore, generic
separations here are based primarily on sec-
ondary sexual characteristics found on the
male chelicerae which are in most instances
supported by female opercular patterns.


In several instances, generic status of cer-
tain species is still in question. Horribates
Muma was described and is still known only
from females. Several long legged species
of the Eremorhax striatus species-group re-
semble and behave like species of Eremo-
bates Banks as shown by Muma (1966).
Furthermore, several species of the resur-
rected genus Eremochelis Roewer are known
only from females which have Hemero-
trecha-like dentition and opercula.


KEY TO SUBFAMILIES AND GENERA OF EREMOBATIDAE


(MALES AND FEMALES)
1. Leg I with 1 claw; large, robust, short
legged species ----------..................................
- Eremobatinae Roewer-2
Leg I with 2 claws; small, slender, long
legged species ....Therobatinae Muma-5
2. Palpus with 2 ventral rows of long, ro-
bust, spinelike, erectile and deflectile
setae on femur, tibia, metatarsus, and
tarsus ......................Horribates Muma
Palpus with or without spinelike setae;
when present, apparently not movable
and not on metatarsus and tarsus ... --3


(MALES ONLY)
3. Fixed finger short and dorsally lobate or
sculptured ............Eremothera Muma
Fixed finger elongate and needlelike or
stylelike ..--.---..--..--............--------........................--- 4
4. Mesoventral groove of fixed finger ex-
tending to base of finger; apical seta
of flagellum-complex flattened and plu-
mose --...........----------......... Eremobates Banks
Mesoventral groove of fixed finger not ex-
tending to base of finger; apical seta
of flagellum-complex tubular, at most
striate ....------....----. Eremorhax Roewer











5. Dorsal setae of flagellum-complex simple
and tubular ...... Eremochelis Roewer
Dorsal setae of flagellum-complex striate,
plumose, spatulate, or otherwise modi-
fied ...............................--------------.--.----------........ 6

6. Fixed finger distinctly sinuate, bent up-


ward and bent or curved downward;
dorsal setae plumose ................- ......
.................................... Chanbria M uma
Fixed finger straight, weakly curved, un-
dulate or bent downward at tip; dorsal
setae striate, spatulate or hooked ........
........-- ................ Hemerotrecha Banks


SUBFAMILY EREMOBATINAE
ROEWER, 1934
Eremobatinae Roewer, 1934, p. 553.
Eremorhaxinae Roewer, 1934, p. 553.
Eremobatinae Roewer, Muma, 1951, p. 41
(combination of Roewer's subfamilies).


Genus Eremorhax Roewer, 1934
Eremorhax Roewer, 1934, p. 553.
Eremopus Roewer, 1934, p. 561 (in part).
Eremocosta Roewer, 1934, p. 561 (in part).
Eremorhax Roewer, Muma, 1951, p. 41.


MAGNUS GROUP
(See Table 3.)

Eremorhax jormidabilis (Simon)
Figures 1 and 2.


KEY TO SPECIES-GROUPS

(MALES)

1. Abdominal ctenidia present; movable
finger with normal principal, interme-
diate, and anterior teeth -----.................--
------....--...- ....... montezuma group
Abdominal ctenidia absent; movable fin-
ger with abnormally fewer or more
teeth and processes ..-..........-----.- 2

2. Fixed finger weakly creased or hollowed
mesoventrally; movable finger lacking
anterior tooth .......--- magnus group
Fixed finger distinctly grooved or hol-
lowed mesoventrally; movable finger
with extra process in front of anterior
tooth .................... .... striatus group


Datames formidabilis Simon, 1878, p. 136.
Eremobates formidabilis (Simon), Krae-
pelin, 1901, p. 127.
Eremoperna formidabilis (Simon), Roew-
er, 1934, p. 558.
DIAGNOSIS: The 3 denticules on the an-
terior margin of the large principal tooth
of the movable cheliceral finger, the ven-
trally dusky femur and tibia, and the en-
tirely dark metatarsus and tarsus of the
palpus distinguish this species.
MALE TYPE: Total length 32.0 mm (ab-
domen damaged).


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Legs not measured


Length


Width


9.0 mm 4.0 mm
5.0 mm 7.0 mm


Color in alcohol yellow. Eye tubercle
dark. Propeltidium faintly dusky purple on











Table 3. Some male diagnostic characters of Eremorhax magnus species-group.

Species Size Dentition Coloration of palpus
E. puebloensis Brookhart Small No denticules anterior Dark tarsus and
25.0 mm to principal tooth on metatarsus and
movable finger ventrally dusky
on tibia
E. pulcher Muma Small to large 2 denticules and ridge Dark tarsus, meta-
20.0 to 31.0 mm anterior to principal tarsus, tibia, and
tooth on movable finger apical half of femur
E. magnus (Hancock) small to large 2 denticules anterior Dark tarsus and meta-
27.0 to 38.0 mm to principal tooth on tarsus and ventrally
movable finger dusky on tibia
E. latus Muma Small Broad flattened fixed Dark tarsus and
27 mm finger metatarsus
E. formidabilis (Simon) Large 3 denticules on prin- Dark tarsus and
32 mm cipal tooth of movable metatarsus and
finger ventrally dusky on
femur and tibia


anterior third. Abdominal tergites faintly
dusky. Palpi dark purple on tarsi and meta-
tarsi and faintly to distinctly purple later-
ally and ventrally on tibiae and femora.
Dentition as shown in figure 1. Mesal
groove of fixed finger an indistinct shallow
longitudinal groove. Mesal tooth of movable
finger strong and acute. Palpi with usual
spinal, setal, and bristle clothing, but no
scopula; palpal tibia with a series of strong
spines basally on mesal face. First post-
spiracular abdominal s t e r n i t e without
ctenidia.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from
Guanajuato, Mexico, No. 1805 (Roewer No.
9130), in MNHN. The female and young
with the type are not conspecific. A female
paratype from "Arkansas" in ZSM is con-
specific; its chelicerae are shown in figure 2.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico; USA: Arkan-
sas.
DISCUSSION: Roewer (1934) question-
ably recorded this species from Arizona and
California, USA. Muma (1951) did not re-
cord the species.

Eremorhax latus Muma

Eremorhax latus Muma, 1951, p. 44.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distinguished
by the dark propeltidium, the lack of dusky
markings on the palpal tibia, and the broad,


flattened, mesally hollowed tip of the fixed
finger.
The species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype without
locality data from Nathan Banks collection
in MCZ.
DISTRIBUTION: Unknown.
DISCUSSION: Although Muma (1951)
recorded the species from the USA, only
the type is known.

Eremorhax magnus (Hancock)

Datames magna Hancock, 1888, p. 107.
Gluvia nigrimanus Pocock, 1895, p. 94
(new synonymy).
Eremobates magnus (Hancock), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 127.
Eremorhax magnus (Hancock), Roewer,
1934, p. 553.
Eremopus mexicanus Roewer, 1934, p.
563.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distinguished
from closely related species by the presence
of 2 minute, abortive, intermediate teeth
anterior to the principal tooth of the
movable cheliceral finger, and the dark pur-
ple to black color on the tarsus, metatarsus,
and apical ventral surface of tibia of palpus.
The species is adequately described by
Hancock (1888) and Muma (1951).











TYPE LOCALITY: Male type of Datames
magna Hancock from Laredo, Texas, USA,
deposition unknown. Female type of Erem-
opus mexicanus Roewer from Mexico, SMF/
RII/1353. Male type of Gluvia nigrimanus
Pocock, labeled "probably Meshed, Afghani-
stan," No. 1952, in BMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas; Mexico.
DISCUSSION: This species is readily
identified by the excellent description and
illustrations of Hancock (1888). The Af-

36 mm






Eremorhax magnus 9
ghanistan record of Pocock must be con-
sidered spurious since Eremobatidae are not
known to occur outside of North America.
Pocock's type is the same as the E. magnus
variant illustrated by Muma (1962), but is
of the size and coloration recorded by Muma
(1951). This species still exhibits variation
which may or may not be intraspecific.

Eremorhax puebloensis Brookhart

Eremorhax puebloensis Brookhart, 1965,
p. 154.
DIAGNOSIS: The lack of a ridge or abor-
tive teeth in front of the principal tooth of
the movable cheliceral finger and the lack
of dusky purplish markings on the palpal
femur identify this species.
Brookhart's (1965) description and fig-
ures are adequate for identification.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Pueblo, Colorado, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Colorado.
DISCUSSION: This species is most
closely related to E. magnus and E. pulcher
Muma.

Eremorhax pulcher Muma

Eremorhax pulcher Muma, 1963, p. 2.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is closely re-


lated to E. magnus but is much smaller, has
the palpus dusky purple on tarsus, metatar-
sus, tibia, and apical half of the femur with
the metatarsus darker than the other seg-
ments, and has the mesal groove of the fixed
cheliceral finger an indistinct hollow.
Muma's (1963) description and figures
are adequate for identification.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from 11
miles north of Mercury, Nevada, 2/10 mile
east of Mercury highway, south of Well 5B
road, on June 10, 1961, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: E. pulcher, E. magnus and
E. puebloensis form a compact species-group
within the genus.

MONTEZUMA GROUP

Eremorhax montezuma (Roewer)
Figures 3 and 4.

Eremopus montezuma Roewer, 1934, p.
564.
DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
distinguished from all other known Eremor-
hax by the possession of 4 abdominal
ctenidia and normally developed principal,
intermediate, and anterior teeth on the
movable cheliceral finger. Females are not
known.
MALE TYPE: Total length 29.5 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpus
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
7.0 mm
3.6 mm
23.0 mm
fragmented
fragmented


Width
3.5 mm
5.5 mm


Color in alcohol yellow. Eye tubercle
dark. Mesopeltidium, metapeltidium, and
abdominal tergites dusky purple though less
distinct posteriorly. Propeltidium, cheli-
cerae, palpi, and legs pale yellow.
Dentition as shown in figures 3 and 4.
Mesal groove of fixed finger an indistinct,
shallow, longitudinal groove. Mesal tooth
of movable finger present but broken off on










Table 4. Some male diagnostic characters of Eremorhax striatus species-group.

Species Dentition Leg IV and palpal coloration
E. gigas (Roewer) Fixed finger groove mesal; Pale
movable finger with quadrate
distal process
E. gigasellus, new species Fixed finger groove ventral; Pale except partially dusky
movable finger with rounded on femora and tibiae
serrate distal process
E. striatus (Putnam) Fixed finger groove meso- Pale except partially dusky
ventral; movable finger with on femora and tibiae
toothlike distal process
E. calexicensis Muma Fixed finger groove meso- Pale except faintly dusky
ventral; movable finger with- at apical ends of femora
out distal process and basal ends of tibia
E. titania Muma Fixed finger groove ecto- Pale except ventrally dusky
ventral; movable finger with- on femora and tibiae
out distal process


both chelicerae. Palpi with usual setae,
cylinder bristles, spines, and long whiplike
setae, but no scopula. First post-spiracular
abdominal sternite with 4 ctenidia, but their
form is unknown since all are broken off at
the distinct ctenidial sockets.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Ori-
zaba, Mexico, Roewer No. 8076, in NMWA.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico.
DISCUSSION: The type is badly frag-
mented and the chelicerae damaged, but it
is obviously a species of Eremorhax. A
paratype (SMF/RII/3056) is in better con-
dition. The ctenidia on the paratype are
white, short (about 1/3 the length of the
succeeding abdominal sternite), thickened,
and lanceolate. This species seems to have
alliances with the angustus group of Eremo-
bates Banks.

STRIATUS GROUP
(See Table 4.)

Eremorhax calexicensis Muma

Eremorhax calexicensis Muma, 1961, p. 50.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is closely re-
lated to E. titania Muma. It is distinguished
by the mesoventral position of the apically
located groove of the male fixed cheliceral
finger and the anteriorly parallel female
genital opercula.


The species
Muma (1951).


is adequately described by


TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype, female
allotype, and male paratype from Calexico,
California, by M. G. Armstrong, in USNM.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia; Mexico: Baja California.
DISCUSSION: E. titania Muma and this
species are closely related.

Eremorhax gigas (Roewer)
Figures 5 and 6.

Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1934, p. 569.
DIAGNOSIS: The mesal position of the
apical mesal groove of the male cheliceral
fixed finger, the quadrate distal process of
the male cheliceral movable finger, and the
completely pale yellow legs and palpi are
distinctive. Females are unknown. This
species is closely related to E. gigasellus,
new name, and E. striatus Putnam.
MALE TYPE: Total length 50.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpus
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
16.0 mm
8.0 mm
44.0 mm
38.0 mm
Both fragmented


Width
7.4 mm
11.6 mm











Color in alcohol pale yellow with eye tu-
bercle dark, propeltidium dark purple on an-
terior margin, mesopeltidium purplish medi-
ally, abdominal peltidia dusky purplish, legs
and palpi pale yellow, and malleoli white.
Dentition as shown in figures 5 and 6.
Mesal groove of fixed finger a distinct, cup-
like, distal structure. Mesal tooth of
movable finger present and distinct. Distal
process of movable finger quadrate and
toothlike. Palpi with typical station but
few cylinder bristles and no scopula. Ab-
dominal ctenidia absent.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Tam-
pico, Mexico, SMF/RII/3344.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico.
DISCUSSION: This is not the species
listed as E. gigas by Muma (1951) ; it is dis-
tinctive.

The type is well preserved and in good
condition, although legs and parts of legs
have been broken off and are in the vial.


Eremorhax gigasellus, new name

Eremorhax gigas (Roewer), sensu Muma,
1951, p. 48 (not E. gigas Roewer).

DIAGNOSIS: This species is readily dis-
tinguished from E. gigas and E. striatus by
the rounded, serrated distal process of the
male cheliceral movable finger, the ventral
position of the apical groove of the male
cheliceral fixed finger, and the dusky pur-
plish femoral and tibial markings on the
legs and palpi.

This species is adequately described by
Muma (1951) as E. gigas (Roewer).

TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Boquillas, Texas, on June 7, 1948, by C. and
P. Vaurie, in AMNH.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: New Mexico,
Texas.

DISCUSSION: This is not the species de-
scribed as E. gigas by Roewer (1934), but
is closely related.


Eremorhax spinipalpis (Kraepelin)
Figure 7.

Datames spinipalpis Kraepelin, 1899, p.
243.
Eremobates spinipalpis (Kraepelin),
Kraepelin, 1901, p. 126.
DIAGNOSIS: This species, known only
from the type, is related to E. striatus. It
is distinguished by the lack of markings on
the legs and palpi, and the curved lateral
margins of the median caudal opercular
notch.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 35.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpus
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
10.0 mm
5.7 mm
27.0 mm
21.0 mm
38.0 mm


Width
4.8 mm
8.0 mm


Color in alcohol pale yellow. Eye tuber-
cle, propeltidium, mesopeltidium, and ab-
dominal tergites colored and marked as in
E. striatus. Legs and palpi pale yellow and
without markings.
Structure typical of group. Chelicerae as
in E. calexicensis except mesal tooth dis-
tinct. Abdomen with usual setal clothing
but without ctenidia. Palpi without scopula
and with typical cylinder bristles, setae, and
spines of striatus group.
Opercula as shown in figure 7.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Santa Rosalia, Lower California, Mexico, by
S. Diguet, No. 33-97, in MNHN.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico: Baja Califor-
nia.
DISCUSSION: This type is in good con-
dition. This species may well be the female
of E. gigas (Roewer).

Eremorhax striatus (Putnam)

Datames striatus Putnam, 1883, p. 255.
Datames cinerea Putnam, 1883, p. 260.
Eremobates cinereus (Putnam), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 124.
Eremorhax striatus (Putnam), Muma,
1951, p. 45.










DIAGNOSIS: The flat toothlike anterior
process on the movable cheliceral finger of
the male, and the partially dusky femora
and tibiae of the legs and palpi identify this
species. The female opercula are parallel


.r


'a-

'I


Eremorhax striatus 9

anteriorly and triangularly divers
teriorly.
This species is adequately desc
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female ty]
striatus from Camp Grant, Arizor
Palmer, in BNHM. Male types of D
locality unknown, in ANS.


9

DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Texas; Mexico.
DISCUSSION: E. spinipalpis may later
prove to be a synonym of this species.


Eremorhax titania Muma

Eremorhax titania Muma, 1951, p. 48.
DIAGNOSIS: The ecto-ventral or ventral
position of the groove of the male cheliceral
fixed finger and the broad median notch of
( the female opercula distinguish this species
from E. calexicensis.
This species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype and 2
Sale paratypes from Twenty-nine Palms,
California, July to August 1945, by Jefferson
S H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
\ vada.
DISCUSSION: This species and E. calexi-
S censis are closely related.

NOMEN DUBIUM
Eremorhax robusta (Roewer)

Eremocantha robusta Roewer, 1934, p.
571.
. Eremocantha robusta Roewer, Muma,
1951, p. 119.
TYPE LOCALITY: Immature type from
gent pos- Santiago, California, No. 996 (Roewer No.
8338), in ZMHU.
ribed by DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: Although the type is im-
pe of D. mature, this species is obviously a species
la, by E. of Eremorhax near E. striatus and E. form-
1. cinerea, idabilis that cannot be properly placed be-
cause of a lack of sexual characters.











Genus Eremobates Banks

Datames Simon, 1879, p. 113 (preoccupied).
Eremobates Banks, 1900, p.426 (new name for Datames Simon).
Eremoperna Roewer, 1934, p. 557 (in part).
Eremopus Roewer, 1934, p. 561 (in part).
Eremognatha Roewer, 1934, p. 566 (in part).
Eremocosta Roewer, 1934, p. 569 (in part).
Eremostata Roewer, 1934, p. 571 (in part).


KEY TO SPECIES-GROUPS

(MALES)

1. Fixed cheliceral finger in dorsal view
with wide basal notch .... scaber group
Fixed cheliceral finger in dorsal view
without wide basal notch ..--............----- 2
2. Mesal groove of fixed finger mesodorsal
in position ................ aztecus group
Mesal groove of fixed finger mesoventral
in position ........................................ 3
3. Fixed cheliceral finger with ectodorsal
toothlike process near base
......................... palpisetulosus group
Fixed cheliceral finger without such pro-
cess ---------------- ------- 4
4. Mesoventral groove of fixed cheliceral
finger distinctly dilated basally
...................................... pallipes group
Mesoventral groove of fixed cheliceral
finger narrow, not dilated basally ---
.................................... angustus group

SCABER GROUP
(See Table 5.)

Eremobates ascopulatus Muma

Eremobates ascopulatus Muma, 1951. p.
60.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the lack of a palpal scopula, the presence
of 2 abdominal ctenidia, the deeper-than-
wide fondal notch, and the pale coloration.
Females are unknown.
This species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Richfield, Utah, June 20, 1930, by W. J.
Gertsch, in AMNH.


DISTRIBUTION: USA: Idaho, Utah.
DISCUSSION: This species is known only
from 2 males. It seems to be most closely
related to E. septentrionis, new name.


Eremobates ctenidiellus Muma

Eremobates ctenidiellus Muma, 1951, p.
57.
DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
distinguished from the closely related E.
septentrionis, new species, by having 2 hair-
like ctenidia, a wider fondal notch, a more
slender fixed cheliceral finger, and less dis-.
tinct dusky markings. Females have dis-
tinctive opercula.
The species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from 2
miles east of Glenwood, Sevier County, Utah,
June 30, 1940, by Gertsch and Hook, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Colo-
rado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Utah;
Mexico.
DISCUSSION: E. scaber (Kraepelin), E.
septentrionis, new name, E. geniculatus
(Simon), and this species are closely re-
lated and are more readily distinguished in
the males.

Eremobates geniculatus (Simon)
Figure 8.

Datames geniculatus Simon, 1879, p. 138
(not E. geniculatus Simon, sensu Muma
1951).
Eremocosta geniculata (Simon), Roewer,
1934, p. 570.











Table 5. Some male diagnostic characters of the Eremobates scaber species-group.
No. and form No. of
Species of ctenidia papillae Other
E. ascopulatus Muma 2 short, flattened None Deep fondal notch and pale
coloration
E. ctenidiellus Muma 2 hairlike 30+ Deep fondal notch, slender
fixed finger, and indistinct
markings
E. gladiolus Muma 2 scimitarlike 80 Deep fondal notch and pale
legs and palpi
E. septentrionis new name 2 short, flattened 40-160 Deep fondal notch, and legs
and palpi distinctly marked
with dusky purple
E. mormonus (Roewer) 4 elongate, flattened 40-160 Shallow fondal notch and
pale coloration
E. similis Muma 4 short, needlelike None Shallow fondal notch, and
legs and palpi distinctly
marked with dusky purple
E. zinni Muma 4 short, flattened None Deep fondal notch and dark
palpal tarsus and meta-
tarsus


DIAGNOSIS: Females are distinguished
by the presence of 2 trace ctenidia, evanes-
cent inner marginal tubercles on the oper-
cula, and pale yellow palpi and legs except
for the palpal tarsi and distal two-thirds of
the palpal metatarsi, which are dusky pur-
ple but not as dark as on E. zinni Muma.
Males are unknown.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 23.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpus
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
5.4 mm
2.3 mm
13.0 mm
10.5 mm
14.5 mm


Color in alcohol yellow. Peltid
dominal tergites dusky purple as
ber (Kraepelin). Chelicerae pal
distinct dusky stripes. Palpi an
except for dusky purple on the pa
and distal two-thirds of palpal m
Cheliceral dentition as on E. sep
new name. Palpi without scopu
men with 2 hairlike, barely disti
trace ctenidia.
Opercula as in figure 8.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female


Mexico, No.
MNHN.


2129 (Roewer No. 9135), in


DISTRIBUTION: Mexico.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to E. ctenidiellus, E. scaber, and E.
septentrionis, new species.

Eremobates gladiolus Muma


Width Eremobates gladiolus Muma, 1951, p. 57.
2.5 mm DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
4.3 mm a scopula of about 80 rounded papillae in
the scopula, 2 flattened scimitarlike abdomi-
nal ctenidia, and unmarked pale legs and
palpi. Females have distinctive opercula.
The species is adequately described by
ia and ab- Muma (1951).
on E. sca- TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
e with in- Maupin, Oregon, July 19, 1934, by J. M.
I legs pale Pierson, in AMNH.
lpal tarsus DISTRIBUTION: USA: Oregon, Utah,
etatarsi. Washington.
tentrionis, DISCUSSION: Males and females of this
la. Abdo- species never have been collected together,
nguishable but their similar coloration and structure in-
dicate conspecificity. Except for ctenidial
form, the species is closely related to E.
type from septentrionis, new name.











Eremobates mormonus (Roewer)
Figure 9.

Eremoperna mormona Roewer, 1934, p.
561.
Eremobates geniculatus (Simon), sensu
Muma, 1951, p. 55 (not E. geniculatus
Simon).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from E. septentrionis, new name, by 4
elongate flattened abdominal ctenidia and
paler coloration. Females have 4 distinct
hairlike trace ctenidia and opercula as in
figure 9.
This species is adequately described as
E. geniculatus (Simon) in Muma (1951).
The type measures 19.0 mm in length and
lacks a palpal scopula.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Utah, SMF/RII/3446.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Washington,
Wyoming.
DISCUSSION: This species is most closely
related to E. zinni Muma. One of the indi-
cated females in the type vial is immature;
both specimens are in good condition.

Eremobates scaber (Kraepelin)
Figure 10.

Datames scaber Kraepelin, 1899, p. 243.
Eremobates scaber (Kraepelin), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 124.
Eremostata scabra (Kraepelin), Roewer,
1934, p. 573.
DIAGNOSIS: Females of this species are
distinguished from the closely related E. sep-
tentrionis, new name, by unmarked legs and
palpi, and the anteriorly located, undulate




Figs. 1 and 2. Eremorhax formidabilis (Simon).
1. Ectal view of right male chelicera. 2. Ectal
view of right female chelicera.

Figs. 3 and 4. Eremorhax montezuma (Roewer).
3. Ectal view of right male chelicera. 4. Mesal
view, fixed finger, right male chelicera.


inner marginal opercular lobes. Males are
unknown.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 25.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length Width
7.3 mm 3.6 mm
3.0 mm 3.9 mm
19.0 mm
13.5 mm
23.0 mm


Color in alcohol as in E. gladiolus, except
there are no distinct markings on the fourth
legs. Peltidial and abdominal tergites dusky
purple as on most species of the E. scaber
group.
Cheliceral dentition as on E. septentrionis,
new name, except that the mesal tooth of
the movable finger is tiny but distinct. There
is no palpal scopula, and there are 2 trace
ctenidia on the first post-spiracular abdomi-
nal sternite.
Opercula as in figure 10.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Washington Territory, No. 5141, Roewer No.
9137, in MNHN.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Washington Ter-
ritory.
DISCUSSION: This species, E. septentri-
onis, new name, E. ctenidiellus, and E. glad-
iolus are closely related but can be separated
in both sexes.

Eremobates septentrionis, new name

Eremobates scaber (Kraepelin), sensu
Muma, 1951, p. 52 (not E. scaber Kraepelin).
DIAGNOSIS: Females of this species are
distinguished from E. scaber by legs and
palpi distinctly marked with dusky purple,
and less distinct, more posterior inner mar-
ginal opercular lobes. Males have 2 short,




Figs. 5 and 6. Eremorhax gigas (Roewer).
5. Ectal view of right male chelicera. 6. Mesal
view, fixed finger, right male chelicera.
Fig. 7. Eremorhax spinipalpus (Kraepelin), ven-
tral view of female genital opercula.
Fig. 8. Eremobates geniculatus (Simon), ventral
view of female genital opercula.















































8 7


6


I N i \' ,4 '.


Illy.











flattened abdominal ctenidia and 40-160 pa-
pillae in the scopula.
This species is adequately described as E.
scaber by Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
East Bench, Salt Lake City, Utah, August
27, 1931, by W. J. Gertsch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Colo-
rado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wash-
ington; Canada.
DISCUSSION: E. ctenidiellus, E. gladio-
lus, E. scaber, and E. septentrionis are
closely related.

Eremobates similis Muma

Eremobates similis Muma, 1951, p. 60.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is similar to E.
septentrionis in color and markings but has
4 abdominal ctenidia, no scopula, and the
fondal notch is wider than deep. Females
are unknown.
The species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Elk Ridge, Utah, June 13, 1936, by Douglas
Henriques, in DZUU.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Utah, Nevada,
Arizona.
DISCUSSION: Only the type is known.

Eremobates zinni Muma

Eremobates zinni Muma, 1951, p. 58.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distinguished
from the closely related E. mormonus by
the dark tarsus and metatarsus of the pal-
pus, the different cheliceral profile and slight
differences in the opercula.
The species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Las Vegas, Nevada, May-August 1944, by
Donald J. Zinn, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
vada.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to E. mormonus but may be distin-
guished in both sexes.


PALPISETULOSUS GROUP

Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin)
Figures 11 to 13.

Datames affinis Kraepelin, 1899, p. 242.
Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin), Kraepelin,
1901. p. 128 (not E. afinis [Kraepelin],
sensu Muma, 1951).
Eremoperna affinis (Kraepelin), Roewer,
1934, p. 558.
DIAGNOSIS: The species is distinguished
by the cheliceral profile, the lack of a palpal


Eremobates on "cow pie" &

scopula and abdominal ctenidia, a small but
distinct mesal tooth on the movable cheli-
ceral finger, and unmarked legs and palpi.
MALE TYPE: Total length 24.5 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
7.0 mm
4.0 mm
20.0 mm
17.5 mm
26.0 mm


Width
3.5 mm
5.0 mm


Color in alcohol generally yellow. Propel-
tidium, lateral arci, mesopeltidium, metapel-
tidium, and abdominal tergites faintly to dis-
tinctly dusky purple. Chelicerae, palpi, and
legs pale yellow.
Dentition as shown in figure 11; mesal
groove of fixed finger normal for genus and
group; mesal tooth of movable finger small
but distinct. There are no abdominal cteni-
dia on the first post-stigmatic abdominal












Table 6. Some male diagnostic characters in the Eremobates palpisetulosus species-group.

No. and form No. of
Species of ctenidia papillae Other
E. guenini (Roewer) None None No mesal tooth; legs pale; an
intermediate tooth on princi-
pal tooth of movable finger


E. affinis (Kraepelin)




E. tuberculatus (Kraepelin)


E. girardi (Putnam)




E. hessei (Roewer)




E. bantai Brookhart




E. marathon Muma



E. tejonus Chamberlin



E. kraepelini, new name




E. palpisetulosus Fichter



E. nanus Muma




E. gracilidens Muma



E. papillatus, new species




E. purpusi (Roewer)


None


None




None


None


Mesal tooth; unmarked legs and
palpi; dorsal spur indistinct;
anterior tooth of movable
finger obscure
Mesal tooth; legs and palpi
pale; dorsal spur obscure


Many on both Mesal tooth not mentioned;
tibia and dark colored; fondal notch
metatarsus narrow; movable finger
denticulate


2 flattened None




2 broad, flat None


2 hairlike



2 long,
flattened


4 short,
distinct



4 elongate,
hairlike


4 short,
distinct



6 hairlike



6 elongate,
distinct



6 elongate,
distinct


None



100I�



None




None



80�-




None



60-90




10-40


Indistinct mesal tooth; color
pale; an intermediate tooth
on principal tooth of movable
finger
Mesal tooth; color pale except
for palpal tarsus and distal end
of metatarsus; dorsal spur
small and obscure
Mesal tooth; chelicerae dark;
dorsal spur indistinct;
movable finger denticulate
Mesal tooth not distin-
guishable; narrow fondal
notch
Mesal tooth; pale palpi and
legs; fondal notch wide and
shallow; movable finger
notched
Mesal tooth; dark palpal
tarsi and metatarsi; notched
movable cheliceral finger
No mesal tooth; marked palpi
and legs; fixed finger
apically constricted; fondal
notch narrow
Mesal tooth; unmarked legs and
palpi; slender teeth and
movable finger
Indistinct mesal tooth; dark
palpal and leg tibia; fondal
notch narrow; movable finger
notched
Indistinct mesal tooth; dark
palpal and leg tibiae; dorsal
spur distinct; fondal notch
wide and shallow











Table 6. (Continued)
E. titschacki (Roewer) 8 elongate, None Indistinct mesal tooth; pale
distinct except for faint marks on legs
and palpi; indistinct dorsal
spur; movable finger not
denticulate
E. villosus, new species 8 elongate, 150� No mesal tooth; legs and palpi
distinct pale; fondal notch wide and
bearing denticules
E. vicinus Muma 8 elongate, 60� Indistinct mesal tooth; dark
distinct palpal and leg tibia; dorsal
spur distinct; movable finger
notched


sternite, but the type has what
be an abortive setal socket. See
(The paratype at ZSM has no ct
dentition is shown in figure 12.)
has the usual cylinder bristles an
spinelike setae but no scopula.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 2


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
9.0 mm
3.8 mm
16.0 mm
12.0 mm
20.0 mm


Color similar to that of the male.
Structure typical of genus and
pus without scopula; abdomen wit
dia. Opercula as shown in figure 1
TYPE LOCALITY: Male and fe
from Arizona (Arkansas?), No. 7
er No. 9129, in MNHN.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizon
DISCUSSION: The types in MI
with Kraepelin's (1899) descripti
and structure but not with Roewe
statement of 4:4 ctenidia on the
female paratype (ex typis) in Z
conspecific with the male; it is
of Eremorhax formidabilis (Simor

Eremobates bantai Brook


appears to ceral profile and pale coloration except for
figure 1a. palpal tarsus and distal end of metatarsus.
enidia; its The species is adequately described by
The palpus Brookhart (1965) except the toothlike pro-
d elongate cess on the fixed cheliceral finger is small,
obscure, and not figured, and there is no
8.0 mm. scopula on the palpus. Unfortunately,
Width Brookhart did not figure the female oper-
W4dth cula.
4.0 mm TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
6.0 mm Phantom Canyon, Fremont County, Colorado
by Jack Brookhart, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Colorado.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to E. marathon, E. hessei, E. fagei
group. Pal- (Roewer), and E. guenini (Roewer).
hout cteni-
3. Eremobates fagei (Roewer)
male types Figures 14 and 15.
297, Roew-
Eremopus fagei Roewer, 1934, p. 563.
a; Mexico. DIAGNOSIS: The species is distinguished
NHN agree by pale unmarked legs and palpi, the lack of
on in color a scopula, the presence of 5 (1 apparently
r's (1934) spurious) trace ctenidia, an indistinct mesal
male. The tooth, and the presence of only 1 intermedi-
SM is not ate tooth between the anterior and medial
a specimen teeth of the fixed finger. Males are un-
) . known.
hart FEMALE TYPE: Total length 21.0 mm.


Eremobates bantai Brookhart, 1965, p.
153.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is dis-
tinguished from E. marathon Muma by the
cheliceral profile and 2 broad, flat ctenidia,
and from E. hessei (Roewer) by the cheli-


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length Width
4.7 mm 2.5 mm
2.7 mm 4.3 mm
13.5 mm
(one missing, other broken)
21.0 mm












Color in alcohol pale to discolored yellow.
Peltidia and abdominal tergites with dusky
markings typical of group but indistinct
owing to alcohol discoloration of old speci-
men. Legs and palpi pale yellow with no
dusky markings, but faint markings may
have been overlooked owing to alcohol dis-
coloration.
Cheliceral dentition typical of palpisetulo-
sus species-group, except there is only 1 in-
termediate tooth between medial and an-
terior tooth of fixed cheliceral finger, and
mesal tooth of movable cheliceral finger is
an indistinct ridge. Abdomen with 5 trace
ctenidia as shown in figure 14. Palpus with-
out a scopula. Opercula typical of group
as shown in figure 15.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
California, No. 4801, Roewer No. 9134, in
MNHN. The type and a young in the vial
are both in good condition.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is apparently
related to E. hessei (Roewer) and related
species. Since the male is unknown, only
group placement is certain.

Eremobates girardi (Putnam)

Datames girardi Putnam, 1883, p. 257.
Eremobates girardi (Putnam), Roewer,
1934, p. 575.
DIAGNOSIS: This species apparently is
closely related to E. palpisetulosus from
which it is distinguished by its dark colora-
tion and lack of markings, the lack of ab-
dominal ctenidia, and the presence of a sco-
pula on both the palpal tibia and metatarsus.
The species is adequately described by
Putnam (1883).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Ar-
kansas by Capt. Marcy, reportedly deposited
in ANS, cannot be found and apparently is
lost or destroyed.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arkansas.
DISCUSSION: Even though the type is
no longer available, Putnam's (1883) de-
scription and figures indicate a distinctive
species that should be readily recognized.


Eremobates gracilidens Muma


Eremobates gracilidens Muma, 1951, p.
66.
DIAGNOSIS: The lack of a scopula, 6
hairlike ctenidia, unmarked legs and palpi,
and the cheliceral profile distinguish this
species.
This species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Twentynine Palms, California, March-April
1945, by Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia.
DISCUSSION: This species seems to be
closely related to E. titschacki (Roewer).

Eremobates guenini (Roewer)
Figures 16 and 17.

Eremognatha guenini Roewer, 1934, p.
567.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distin-
guished from the closely related E. hessei
(Roewer) by the lack of paired abdominal
ctenidia, a slightly different cheliceral pro-
file, and the absence of a mesal tooth on the
movable finger.
MALE TYPE: Total length 31.5 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
8.2 mm
3.3 mm
20.0 mm
17.0 mm
30.0 mm


Width
4.6 mm
5.9 mm


Color in alcohol pale yellow with mesopel-
tidium, metapeltidium, and abdominal ter-
gites dusky purple; pleurites also dusky on
dorsal surfaces adjacent to tergites. Pro-
peltidium pale and legs pale without mark-
ings.
Structure identical with that of E. hessei
(Roewer) except for the lack of a mesal
tooth on the movable cheliceral finger and
the lack of abdominal ctenidida. Figure 16
portrays the cheliceral profile, and figure 17
shows an enlarged, forked seta on the first
post-stigmatic abdominal sternite.












TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Dina-
mita, Durango, Mexico, Roewer No. 8390, in
MNHN. The type is dismembered but in
good condition. A male from Mexico in SNG
also is labeled typus and is conspecific.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico: Durango.
DISCUSSION: This species is very closely
related to E. hessei (Roewer), and the two
may someday prove to be synonymous.

Eremobates hessei (Roewer)
Figures 18 and 19.

Eremopus hessei Roewer, 1934, p. 563.
Eremobates nodularis Muma, 1951, p. 69;
1962, p. 4 (new synonymy).
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distin-
guished by its pale yellow coloration, the
cheliceral profiles of both males and females,
the indistinct mesal tooth on the movable
cheliceral finger, 2 abdominal ctenidia, and
the opercular structure.
The species is adequately described by
Muma (1951 and 1962) as E. nodularis.
Measurements and notes on Roewer's type
are given below.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 25.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
6.2 mm
2.8 mm
11.0 mm
10.0 mm
16.5 mm


Width
2.8 mm
4.7 mm


Color in alcohol entirely pale yellow ex-
cept eye tubercle dark, anterior margin of
propeltidium narrowly purple, and femora of
fourth legs dusky at apical end.
Chelicerae as shown in figure 18; mesal
tooth lacking or very indistinct; no scopula
and no trace ctenidia.
Opercula as in figure 19.


TYPE LOCALITY: Female type of Ere-
mopus hessei Roewer from Mexico, by
Daume, Roewer No. 7972, in ZMHU. Male
type of Eremobates nodularis Muma from
Carlsbad, New Mexico, July 26, 1938 (Bjork-
man), in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico; USA: Arizona,
New Mexico, Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species is very closely
related to E. guenini which may later prove
to be a synonym.

Eremobates kraepelini, new name

Eremobates mormonus (Roewer), sensu
Muma, 1951, p. 67 (not Eremopera mormona
Roewer, 1934, p. 561).
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distinguished
by the male cheliceral profile, the absence
of a scopula, 4 short distinct ctenidia, pale
palpi and legs, and highly arched opercula.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
dry valley 14 miles SE of Monterey, Monte-
rey County, California, by E. F. Ricketts,
in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah.
DISCUSSION: Roewer's (1934) illustra-
tion of the opercula of his E. mormonus in-
dicated that the species was a member of
the palpisetulosus group; but as figure 8
shows, E. mormonus is a species of the sea-
ber-group, and therefore Muma's (1951)
specimens had to be renamed.

Eremobates marathon Muma

Eremobates marathon Muma, 1951, p. 63.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distinguished
by its cheliceral profile, the lack of a scopula,
the presence of 2 barely distinguishable
hairlike ctenidia, and its cheliceral colora-
tion.


Fig. 9. Eremobates mormonus (Roewer), ventral
view of female genital opercula.
Fig. 10. Eremobates scaber (Kraepelin), ventral
view of female genital opercula.
Figs. 11 to 13. Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin).
11. Ectal view of right male chelicera. 11A. Abor-
tive ctenidial setal socket, holotype. 12. Ectal view


of left male chelicera, paratype. 13. Ventral view
of female genital opercula.
Figs. 14 and 15. Eremobates fagei (Roewer).
14. Female abdominal ctenidia. 15. Ventral view of
female genital opercula.
Figs. 16 and 17. Eremobates guenini (Roewer).
16. Ectal view of right male chelicera. 17. Male
abdominal ctenidia.



































13 II
IIA









1/ - . - -

14 12







15




IT Is












The species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Marathon, Texas, on June 12, 1948, by M.
A. Cazier, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas.
DISCUSSION: The close relationship of
this species and E. palpisetulosus Fichter
was discussed by Muma (1951).

Eremobates nanus Muma

Eremobates nanus Muma, 1962, p. 4.
DIAGNOSIS: Distinguished by a basal
metatarsal scopula of 80 papillae, 4 short
distinct ctenidia, the cheliceral profile, and
distinctly marked femora and tibiae of palpi
and legs.
The species is adequately described and
illustrated by Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Riverton, Eldorado County, California, July
11, 1952, by W. J. Gertsch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to E. palpisetulosus Fichter and E.
villosus, new name.

Eremobates palpisetulosus Fichter

Eremobates palpisetulosus Fichter, 1941,
p. 179.
Eremobates palpisetulosus Fichter, Muma,
1951, p. 61.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distinguished
by dark palpal metatarsi and tarsi, 4 elon-
gate hairlike ctenidia, the cheliceral profile,
and lack of a scopula. Females have typical
but distinguishable opercula.
The species is described adequately by
Fichter (1941) and Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male cotypes (syn-
types) from Sidney, Nebraska, July 19, 1939,
by J. C. Swinbank; one in AMNH, and one
in the collections of the University of Ne-
braska.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Colo-
rado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas;
Mexico.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to E. marathon.


Eremobates papillatus, new name

Eremobates tuberculatus (Kraepelin),
sensu Muma, 1951, p. 72 (not E. tubercula-
tus [Kraepelin]).
DIAGNOSIS: Distinguished from E. tu-
berculatus (Kraepelin) by dark markings on
the tibiae of the legs and palpi, the posses-
sion of 6 elongate ctenidia, and differences
in the cheliceral profile. Females are un-
known.
This species is adequately described by
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Mount Palomar State Park, San Diego
County, California, July 13, 1950, by W. J.
and J. W. Gertsch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: The relationship of this
species to others of the group is obscure.

Eremobates purpusi (Roewer)
Figures 20 and 21.

Eremopus purpusi Roewer, 1934, p. 561
(not E. purpusi [Roewer], sensu Muma,
1951).
Eremobates scopulatus Muma, 1951, p. 67
(new synonymy).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a narrow basal scopula of 10-40 papillae, 6
abdominal ctenidia, a distinctive cheliceral
profile, and dark markings on the tibiae of
the legs and palpi. Females have the same
coloration and distinctive opercula.
The species is adequately described as E.
scopulatus by Muma (1951). The chelicerae
and opercula of the type are as in figures 20
and 21.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type of Ere-
mopus purpusi Roewer from Tlaquiloxepec,
Mexico, by C. I-. Purpus, Roewer No. 8332,
in ZMHU. Male holotype of Eremobates
scopulatus Muma from Las Vegas, New
Mexico, 1931, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico; USA: Califor-
nia, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah.
DISCUSSION: This species is unique
within the group.












Eremobates tejonus Chamberlin

Eremobates tejonus Chamberlin, 1925, p.
236.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have 2 long flattened
ctenidia, a scopula of about 100 papillae, and
a long narrow fondal notch. Females are
unknown.
The species never has been adequately de-
scribed or measured, but it can be identified
by utilizing the descriptions of Chamberlin
(1925) and Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from
stomach of Bufo sp. at Ft. Tejon, California,
in MCZ.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: The species is most closely
related to E. villosus, new name.

Eremobates titschacki (Roewer)
Figures 22 and 23.

Eremoseta titsehacki Roewer, 1934, p.
569.
Eremobates affinis (Kraepelin), sensu
Muma, 1951, p. 65 (not E. affinis Kraepelin).
DIAGNOSIS: Males have no scopula, 8
elongate abdominal ctenidia, and a distinc-
tive cheliceral profile. Females are un-
known.
The species is adequately described as E.
affinis in Muma (1951). The chelicera and
ctenidia of the type are shown in figures 22
and 23.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Cali-
fornia, 1900, by Banks, Roewer No. 8485,
in ZSM.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is most closely
related to E. gracilidens.

Eremobates tuberculatus (Kraepelin)
Figure 24.

Datames tuberculatus Kraepelin, 1899, p.
241.
Eremobates tubereulatus (Kraepelin),
Kraepelin, 1901, p. 122 (not E. tuberculatus
[Kraepelin], sensu Muma, 1951).
Eremognatha tuberculatus (Kraepelin),
Roewer, 1934, p. 567.
DIAGNOSIS: Distinguished from the


closely related E. papillatus by the lack of
abdominal ctenidia and a slightly different
cheliceral profile.
MALE TYPE: Total length 23.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpi
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
6.3 mm
2.4 mm
21.0 mm
18.0 mm
28.0 mm


Width
2.8 mm
4.2 mm


Color in alcohol pale yellow except as fol-
lows: propeltidium lightly dusky purple
except for pale median ovate area; mesopel-
tidium, metapeltidium, and abdominal ter-
gites mottled with purple.
Structure similar to E. papillatus; there
are no abdominal ctenidia, cheliceral movable
finger with mesal tooth, 60 papillae in a basal
scopula, and the dorsal spur of the fixed
cheliceral finger is distinct in dorsal view
but indistinct in lateral view (figure 24).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Cali-
fornia, No. 2839 (Roewer No. 8374), in
ZSM, is in good condition.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to E. purpusi, E. papillatus, and E
vicinus Muma.

Eremobates vicinus Muma
Eremobates vicinus Muma, 1963, p. 3.
DIAGNOSIS: Distinguished from the
closely related E. purpusi and E. papillatus
by 8 elongate abdominal ctenidia, a scopula
of about 60 distinct papillae, and a distinc-
tive cheliceral profile.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1963).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from 11
miles north of Mercury, Nevada, 2/10 mile
east of Mercury highway, south of Well 5B
road on May 19, 1961, (5AA5C), in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: E. papillatus, E. purpusi,
E. villosus, new name, and this species all
seem to be closely related.

Eremobates villosus, new name


Eremobates
Muma, 1951,
[Roewer]).


purpusi (Roewer), sensu
p. 70 (not E. purpusi












DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
8 elongate abdominal ctenidia, a dense sco-
pula of about 150 papillae, and a distinc-
tive cheliceral profile. Females have a
highly arched, semicircular median area of
the opercula.
The species is adequately described as E.
purpusi in Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype and fe-
male allotype from Point McCloud Camp-
ground, Shasta Lake, Shasta County, Cali-
fornia, early June 1959, by R. Graham, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: The relationship of this
species with other species of the group is
obscure.

PALLIPES GROUP
(See Table 7.)

Eremobates dilatatus (Putnam)

Datames dilatatus Putnam, 1883, p. 259.
Eremobates dilatatus (Putnam), Muma,
1951, p. 78.
DIAGNOSIS: The type of this species is
badly discolored and mangled, but it is dis-
tinguishable as a member of this group and
is closely related to E. durangonus Roewer.
The opercula seem to be significantly differ-
ent from other species of the group.
The type is described as well as possible
in Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type with no
data in ANS.
DISTRIBUTION: Unknown.

Eremobates durangonus Roewer

Eremobates durangonus Roewer, 1934, p.
557.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
dusky palpal tarsi and metatarsi, a scopula
of 10-40 widely spaced papillae, no ctenidia,
and the cheliceral profile. Females have the


same coloration and a posterior median
notch in the opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Type females (2) are
recorded by Roewer from Dinamita, Du-
rango, Mexico (Roewer No. 9256), as in
MNHN. The types cannot be located and
27 mm


Eremobates durangonus 9


are presumed to be lost, destroyed, or not
deposited as cited.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico: Durango;
USA: Arizona, California, Texas.
DISCUSSION: Although the types of the
species have not been seen, Roewer's (1934)
description and figures permit placement.
The opercula of this widespread species
are quite variable, and one or more addi-
tional species may be confused here. E.
dilatatus is closely related but seemingly
distinct.

Eremobates pallipes (Say)
Figures 25 to 27.

Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823, p. 3.
Galeodes subulata Say, 1823, p. 3.
Gluvia cinerascens C. L. Koch, 1842, p.
355.
Gluvia formicarius C. L. Koch, 1842, p.
355 (new synonymy).


Figs. 18 and 19. Eremobates hessei (Roewer).
18. Ectal view right female chelicera. 19. Ventral
view of female genital opercula.

Figs. 20 and 21. Eremobates purpusi (Roewer).


20. Ectal view right female chelicera. 21. Ventral
view of female genital opercula.
Figs. 22 and 23. Eremobates titschacki (Roe-
wer). 22. Ectal view left male chelicera. 23. Male
abdominal ctenidia.



















I












Table 7. Some male diagnostic characters for Eremobates pallipes species-group.
No. and form No. of
Species of ctenidia papillae Other
E. pallipes (Say) None None-70 Pale to faintly dusky palpal
tarsi and metatarsi; fixed
finger straight: fondal notch
wide
E. suspects Muma None None Dusky palpal tarsi and meta-
tarsi; fixed finger and lightly
curved; fondal notch wide
E. durangonus Roewer None 10-40 Dusky to dark palpal tarsi and
metatarsi; fixed finger lightly
curved; fondal notch wide
E. simoni, new name 2 flattened 50-100 Dark palpal tarsi and meta-
tarsi; fixed finger curved;
fondal notch narrow
E. putnami (Banks) 4 flattened None Pale eye tubercle and black
malleoli; fixed finger
straight; fondal notch wide


Datames lentiginosus Kraepelin, 1899, p.
244 (new synonymy).
Eremostata arizonica Roewer, 1934, p.
572.
Eremostata californica Roewer, 1934, p.
573 (new synonymy).
Eremostata dinamita Roewer, 1934, p.
573 (new synonymy).
Eremobates pallipes (Say), sensu Fichter,
1940, p. 355 (not E. pallipes [Say] of other
authors).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
pale legs and palpi, a scopula of 0-70 pa-
pillae, no ctenidia, and the cheliceral profile.
Females are similarly colored and have dis-
tinctive though somewhat variable opercula.
The species is adequately described by
Fichter (1940) and Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type of
Galeodes pallipes Say and male type of
Galeodes subulata Say from 20 miles south
of Denver, Colorado, near the mouth of the
Platte Canyon, in the foothills of the Rocky
Mountains, have been lost or destroyed.
Male lectotype of Gluvia cinerascens C. L.
Koch, Roewer No. 9131, from Colorado, in
MNHN. Female type of Eremostata arizo-
nica Roewer from Arizona, Roewer No. 8481,
in ZSM. Female type of Eremostata cali-
fornicus Roewer from California, Roewer


No. 9132, in MNHN. Female type of Erem-
ostata dinamita Roewer (labeled Eremogyna
dinamita Roewer) from Dinamita, Durango,
Mexico, Roewer No. 8389, in MNHN. Fe-
male lectotype of Gluvia formicarius C. L.
Koch, from Pribla, Mexico, Roewer No. 8335,
in ZMHU. Female type of Datames lenti-
ginosis Kraepelin, no data, in Museum of
Turin, Italy.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Mon-
tana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Wyoming; Mexico:
Durango.

DISCUSSION: The determination and fix-
ing of this species have been adequately dis-
cussed by Fichter (1940) and Muma (1951).
The opercula of the types of E. californica,
E. dinamita, and E. arizonica are shown in
figures 25, 26, and 27, respectively, for com-
parison with those of E. pallipes in Muma
(1951). The opercula of the type of G.
formicarius approximate those shown in
figure 114 in Muma (1951). Two specimens
in the museum at Turin, Italy, are labeled
D. lentiginosus, typus, but only one agrees
with Kraepelin's (1899) description; the
other is a female of Eremobates aztecus
Pocock.












Eremobates putnami (Banks)

Datames putnami Banks, 1898, p. 290.
Eremobates putnami (Banks), Muma,
1951, p. 79.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a light eye tubercle, black malleoli, 4 flat-
tened scimitarlike ctenidia, the lack of a
scopula, and the cheliceral profile. Females
are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Cotype (&) and im-
mature from San Jose del Cabo, Mexico (?),
in MCZ.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico.
DISCUSSION: Muma (1951) has dis-
cussed the group placement of this species.


.. . - l^ ' - Sj - .

.-: 1.6mm
Eremobates durangonus egg cluster in soil

Eremobates simoni, new name

Eremobates californicus (Simon), sensu
Muma, 1951, p. 76 (not Datames californicus
Simon).
DIAGNOSIS: Males have a dorsally
curved fixed cheliceral finger, a scopula of
50-100 papillae, and 2 short thickened cteni-
dia. Females are readily distinguished by
medially bowed opercula.
The species is adequately described as E.
californicus by Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Gillespie County, Texas, June 14, 1934, by
J. N. Knull, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, New Mexico, Texas.


DISCUSSION: This species was referred
to as E. californicus on the basis of Roewer's
(1934) description and figures. Examina-
tion of Simon's type has revealed that it is
immature and cannot be properly placed ac-
cording to presently recognized characters
and systematics. The specimens described
by Muma (1951) are, therefore, renamed
here.

Eremobates suspects Muma


Eremobates suspects Muma, 1951, p. 79.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are readily distin-
guished from E. pallipes by the lack of a
scopula and dusky segments on the legs and
palpi. The lack of ctenidia distinguishes it
from E. putnami and E. simoni. Placement
of females is questionable.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
White Mountains, 10 miles northeast of
White River, Arizona, July 8-11, 1940, by
Gertsch and Hook, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Colo-
rado.
DISCUSSION: This species, as discussed
by Muma (1951), may be a synonym of E.
durangonus or Eremobates toltecus (Po-
cock) ; additional study specimens are needed
before a decision can be reached.

ANGUSTUS GROUP

Eremobates angustus Muma

Eremobates angustus Muma, 1951, p. 80.
DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
distinguished from the closely related Ere-
mobates cruzi Muma by the lack of a scopula
and minor differences in the cheliceral pro-
file. Females can be identified by the oper-
cular structure.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Madera Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, Ari-
zona, July 16, 1940, by Gertsch and Hook,
in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Texas.


T

l
t

1











Eremobates cruzi Muma

Eremobates cruzi Muma, 1951, p. 82.
DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
distinguished from those of E. angustus by
a scopula of 30-40 papillae and minor differ-
ences in cheliceral profile. Females are un-
known.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Bear Valley, Santa Cruz County, Arizona,
July 20, 1949, in MCZ.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.
DISCUSSION: This species is known only
from 3 males.

AZTECUS GROUP
Eremobates aztecus Pocock
Figures 28 to 31.

Eremobates aztecus Pocock, 1902, p. 60.
Eremoperna azteca (Pocock), Roewer,
1934, p. 558.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the lack of a scopula, the lack of ctenidia,
and pale palpi and legs. Females are simi-
larly colored with distinctive opercula.
MALE TYPE: Total length 24.0 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpus
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
5.8 mm
3.0 mm
21.0 mm
18.0 mm
28.0 mm


Width
2.8 mm
4.2 mm


Color in alcohol pale yellow except as fol-
lows: propeltidium narrowly dusky on an-
terior margin; abdominal tergites dusky pur-
ple.
Dentition as shown in figures 28 and 29,
movable finger with distinct mesal tooth, an-
terior tooth of movable finger reduced to an
indistinct ridge, and fondal notch with
aborted teeth. Palpi with usual clothing ex-

Fig. 24. Eremobates tuberculatus (Kraepelin),
ectal view of right male chelicera.

Figs. 25 to 27. Eremobates pallipes (Say), varia-
tions of female genital opercula from ventral view.


cept cylinder bristles fewer than usual and
no scopula. Abdominal ctenidia absent.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 33.5 mm.


Chelicerae
Propeltidium
Palpus
Leg I
Leg IV


Length
8.0 mm
4.2 mm
20.0 mm
19.0 mm
27.0 mm


Width
3.7 mm
6.9 mm


Color in alcohol same as that of male ex-
cept abdominal tergites darker.
Structure typical of genus. Dentition as
shown in figure 30; mesal tooth of movable
finger present. Abdomen with trace cteni-
dia. Palpi without scopula but otherwise
with typical bristles, setae, and spines.
Opercula as shown in figure 31.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male and female types
from Guanajuato, Mexico, in BMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico.
DISCUSSION: The mesodorsal position of
the male cheliceral mesal groove, the mul-
tiple intermediate teeth of the female
movable cheliceral finger, and the distinc-
tive opercula have prompted the placement
of this species in a separate species group.

NOMINA DUBIA
Eremobates audax Hirst

Eremobates audax Hirst, 1912, p. 234.
DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-
cated, and the species was inadequately de-
scribed; so no placement can be made at
this time.

Eremobates californicus (Simon)

Datames californicus Simon, 1879, p. 143.
Eremobates californicus (Simon), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 125 (not E. californicus [Si-
mon], sensu Muma, 1951).
Eremopus californicus (Simon), Roewer,
1934, p. 564.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from

Figs. 28 to 31. Eremobates aztecus Pocock. 28.
Ectal view of right male chelicera. 29. Mesal view
of male fixed finger. 30. Ectal view of left female
chelicera. 31. Ventral view of female genital oper-
cula.




















































////










Mariposa, California, No. 1516, Roewer No.
9133, in the MNHN.
DISCUSSION: The type is immature, pos-
sibly an immature male, and cannot be
properly placed in a species group.

Eremobates carolinianus (Kraepelin)

Datames carolinianus Kraepelin, 1899, p.
244.
Eremostata caroliniana (Kraepelin),
Roewer, 1934, p. 573.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
North Carolina, 1900, by Morrison, Roewer
No. 8330, in ZMHU.
DISCUSSION: The type is an immature
female and cannot be properly placed.

Eremobates caspari (Marx)

Datames caspari Marx, 1892, p. 254.
DISCUSSION: Marx described the feed-
ing habits of this species but cited no diag-
nostic characters. This species must then
be considered nomen nudum, without taxo-
nomic or systematic status.

Eremobates constricta (Putnam)

Datames constricta Putnam, 1883, p. 258.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type with no
data in ANS.
DISCUSSION: As stated in Muma (1951),
the specimen in the type vial does not con-
form in size, coloration, or structure with
Putnam's description and figures, and must
be considered invalid. This species cannot
be placed from Putnam's description and
figures.

Eremobates dorsalis (Roewer)

Eremopus dorsalis Roewer, 1934, p. 564.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
California, Roewer No. 3016, in SNG.
DISCUSSION: The type is immature and
cannot be properly placed.

Eremobates elongatus (C. L. Koch)

Gluvia elongatus C. L. Koch, 1842, p. 355.
DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-


cated, and the species was inadequately de-
scribed, so no placement can be made at this
time.

Eremobates hystrix (Mello-Leitao)

Eremoperna hystrix Mello-Leitao, 1942, p.
307.
DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-
cated, and the species was inadequately de-
scribed, so no placement can be made at this
time.

Eremobates ingens Mello-Leitao

Eremobates ingens Mello-Leitao, 1942, p.
305.
DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-
cated, and the species was inadequately de-
scribed, so no placement can be made at this
time.

Eremobates praecox (C. L. Koch)

Gluvia praecox C. L. Koch, 1842, p. 355.
DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-
cated, and the species was inadequately de-
scribed, so no placement can be made at this
time. As stated by Pocock (1902), this spe-
cies probably was erroneously labeled.

Eremobates subulata (Girard)

Galeodes subulata Girard, 1853, p. 270
(not Galeodes subulata Say, 1823).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from north-
west Texas deposited in ANS has been lost
or destroyed.
DISCUSSION: The species cannot be
placed from Girard's description but does
not seem to be the Galeodes subulata of Say.

Eremobates sulfureus (Simon)

Datames sulfureus Simon, 1879, p. 142.
Eremostata sulfurea (Simon), Roewer,
1934, p. 572.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Colorado, No. 1315, Roewer No. 9136, in
MNHN.
DISCUSSION: The type is immature, pos-
sibly a penultimate male, and cannot be
properly placed in a species group.










Eremobates toltecus (Pocock)

Gluvia tolteca Pocock, 1895, p. 95.
Eremobates toltecus (Pocock), Kraepelin,
1901, p. 125.


DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-
cated, and the species was inadequately de-
scribed, so no placement can be made at this
time.


Genus Eremothera Muma

Eremothera Muma, 1951, p. 82.


Eremothera barberi Muma

Eremothera barberi Muma, 1951, p. 83.
DIAGNOSIS: Females are distinguished
by dark palpal tips and the divergent oper-
cula. Males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Brownsville, Texas, by H. S. Barber, in
USNM.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species was placed in
this genus on the basis of fondal dentition.
Females of Eremothera sculpturata Muma
exhibit similar fondal dentition.


Eremothera sculpturata Muma

Eremothera sculpturata Muma, 1951, p.
82.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
6 elongate hairlike ctenidia and no palpal
scopula. Females have pale palpi and par-
allel opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Arizona, 1923, by Mr. Ortembery, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.
DISCUSSION: This unique species has
been collected at several localities in Ari-
zona, but to date the sexes have not been
collected together.


Genus Horribates Muma

Horribates Muma, 1962, p. 7.


Horribates spinigerus Muma

Horribates spinigerus Muma, 1962, p. 7.
DIAGNOSIS: Since this species is the only
known representative of the genus, it is
readily distinguished by the generic char-
acters. Females have flattened, poorly de-
fined opercula bearing a pair of distinct pits.
Males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).


TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
2 miles east of Anza, Borrego State Park,
San Diego County, California, April 22, 1960,
by W. J. Gertsch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
vada.
DISCUSSION: The above Nevada record
is based on 2 immatures from Mercury. The
species or genus may prove to be a widely
distributed but rare form.











SUBFAMILY THEROBATINAE MUMA,
1951

Therobatinae Muma, 1951, p. 85.

Genus Eremochelis Roewer

Eremochelis Roewer, 1934, p. 570.
Therobates Muma, 1951, p. 85 (new synonymy).


KEY TO SPECIES-GROUPS

(MALES)

1. Apical plumose bristle of flagellum com-
plex conspicuously enlarged and flat-
tened --... --.......-..... . ......---- -.......... .. 2
Apical plumose bristle of flagellum com-
plex not enlarged or flattened ........ 4
2. Groove of fixed finger dorsal to dorso-
mesial in position
..............................striodorsalis group
Groove of fixed finger mesoventral in po-
sition ....-........-- .......---..... ..... .....--... 3
3. Mesoventral groove weakly hollowed and
ridged; movable finger modified api-
cally ..-.....---...-..- .... andreasana group
Mesoventral groove a distinct cup or slot;
movable finger not modified apically ....
---... -----.. ------......-.....- branch group
4. Mesoventral groove indistinct; movable
finger modified apically
................................imperialis group
Mesoventral groove distinct; movable
finger not modified apically ..-...-..-- 5
5. Mesoventral groove a wide hollow cup
with distinct carinae .. bilobatus group
Mesoventral groove a narrow slot with-
out distinct carinae ..-..... arcus group

BRANCH GROUP
(See Table 8.)

Eremochelis bidepressus (Muma)

Hemerotrecha bidepressa Muma, 1951, p.
105.
Therobates arcellus Muma, 1962, p. 13
(male, not female).


Therobates bidepressus (Muma), Muma,
1963, p. 6.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
2 elongate bladelike ctenidia, no palpal sco-
pula, characteristic chelicerae, and distinc-
tive coloration. Females similarly colored
with distinctive pits in the opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951 and 1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Reno, Nevada, June 1, 1941, by Ira La
Rivers, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: This species was originally
placed in Hemerotrecha Banks because of
the opercular structure. Correct association
of the sexes by Muma (1963) indicated the
above cited generic placement and the close
relationship of Eremochelis insignitus Roew-
er, E. morrisi (Muma), and this species.

Eremochelis branch (Muma)

Therobates branch Muma, 1951, p. 85.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the cheliceral profile, a palpal scopula of 40-
50 wide spaced papillae, and 4 linear ctenidia
that are longer than the succeeding abdomi-
nal sternite. Females have emarginate lat-
eral margins of the opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Twentynine Palms, California, July-August
1945, by Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Nevada.
DISCUSSION: E. gertschi (Muma), E.
medialis (Muma), and this species seem to
form a compact species-group within the
branch group.











Eremochelis coloradensis (Muma)

Therobates coloradensis Muma, 1962, p. 9.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distin-
guished from the apparently closely related
E. iviei (Muma) and E. malkini (Muma) by
the presence of 6 trace ctenidia, a thin sco-
pula of about 20 widely spaced papillae,
and details of the opercular structure. Males
are unknown.
This species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Grand Canyon, Arizona, July 2, 1956, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.
DISCUSSION: The present generic place-
ment should be considered tentative, as final
placement of a species usually is predicated
on male sexual characteristics.

Eremochelis gertschi (Muma)

Therobates gertschi Muma, 1951, p. 86.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distin-
guished from the apparently closely related
E. branch by dusky palpal femora and an-
gularly emarginate lateral margins of the
opercula. Males are not known.
This species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Zion National Park, July 4-5, 1932, at light,
by W. J. Gertsch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Utah.


DISCUSSION: It is possible that this is
the female of E. medialis, but the difference
in size and widely separated type localities
indicate otherwise.

Eremochelis insignitis Roewer

Eremochelis insignitis Roewer, 1934, p.
570.
Hemerotrecha insignita (Roewer), Muma,
1951, p. 108 (misplaced).
Therobates cameronensis Muma, 1951, p.
90 (new synonymy).
Therobates cameronensis Muma, Muma,
1962, p. 10 morphologicc correction).
Therobates arcellus Muma, 1962, p. 13
(female, not male).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
small size, characteristic cheliceral profile,
a long narrow palpal scopula of 20-25 pa-
pillae, and 4 hairlike ctenidia that are longer
than the succeeding abdominal sternite. Fe-
males have elongate, laterally lobate oper-
cula.
This species is adequately described by
Muma (1951) as T. cameronensis with a
correction in ctenidial number by Muma
(1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type of E. in-
signitis Roewer from California, no cited lo-
cality, Roewer No. 3014, in SNG; male holo-
type of T. cameronensis Muma from Cam-
eron, Arizona, April 30, 1936, at 4,500 feet,
by 0. Bryant, in AMNH; female allotype of


Table 8. Some male diagnostic characters for the Eremochelis branch species-group.
No. of No. of
Species ctenidia papillae Other
E. bidepressus (Muma) 2 bladelike None Dusky striped legs and palpi;
meso-ventral groove long
E. morrisi (Muma) 2 short, heavy 40� Dusky legs and propeltidium;
meso-ventral groove short
E. medialis (Muma) 4 linear None Palpal tarsi and distal ends
of metatarsi faintly dusky;
meso-ventral groove short
E. branch (Muma) 4 linear 40-50 Palpal tarsi and distal ends
of metatarsi faintly dusky;
meso-ventral groove long
E. insignitis Roewer 4 hairlike 20-25 Palpal tarsus and metatarsus
dark; meso-ventral groove long










T. arcellus Muma from Mercury, Nevada,
April 7, 1960, by Elden Beck, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Colorado, Nevada.
DISCUSSION: The ctenidia on the type
have been broken off, which apparently
caused Roewer (1934) to figure them in-
correctly.
This species, E. morrisi (Muma), and E.
bidepressus (Muma) seem to be closely re-
lated.

Eremochelis iviei (Muma)

Therobates iviei Muma, 1951, p. 88.
DIAGNOSIS: Females are distinguished
by 6 barely distinguishable trace ctenidia
and lobate but divergent opercula. Males
are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Colossal Cave Camp, Arizona, September 8,
1941, by Wilton Ivie, in DZUU.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.
DISCUSSION: The present generic place-
ment must be considered tentative until
males have been identified.

Eremochelis malkini (Muma)

Therobates malkini Muma, 1951, p. 88.
DIAGNOSIS: Females differ from the
closely related E. iviei and E. coloradensis
in color pattern and details of the opercula.
Males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
southern rim of Grand Canyon, Arizona,
June 29, 1947, by Borys Malkin, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Utah.
DISCUSSION: This generic placement
must be considered tentative, since males
are required for accurate generic placement.

Eremochelis medialis (Muma)

Therobates medialis Muma, 1951, p. 90.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from E. branch by a shorter mesoventral


groove, details of the cheliceral profile, and
no scopula. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
California; no further data in the DZUU.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is very closely
related to E. branch and may be the male
of E. gertschi.

Eremochelis morrisi (Muma)

Therobates morrisi Muma, 1951, p. 90.
DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
distinguished from E. insignitis by uni-
formly dusky legs and propeltidium, a
shorter mesoventral cheliceral groove, 40 pa-
pillae in the scopula, and 2 short heavy
ctenidia. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
one mile north of San Dimas Park in San
Dimas Canyon, Los Angeles, California, Au-
gust 6, 1947, by G. D. Morris, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species, E. insignitis,
and E. bidepressus all seem to be closely
related.

BILOBATUS GROUP

Eremochelis acrilobatus (Muma)

Therobates acilobatus Muma, 1962, p. 10.
DIAGNOSIS: Females are distinguished
from those of E. bilobatus (Muma) by
lighter coloration and acutely pointed
median lobes of the opercula. Males are
unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Quail Springs, Joshua Tree National Monu-
ment, California, April 12, 1950, by W. F.
Barr, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species seems to be
closely related to E. bilobatus, but the fondal
tooth formula differs. Further, the lobate
inner margins of the opercula may not sig-








































Eremochelis bilobatus 8
nify relationship since Hemerotrecha serrata
Muma also has lobate opercula.

Eremochelis bilobatus (Muma)

Datames pallipes (Say), sensu Simon,
1879, p. 139 (not pallipes Say).

Eremobates pallipes (Say), sensu Banks,
1900, p. 427 (also Kraepelin [1901] and
Roewer [1934] but not pallipes Say).
Therobates bilobatus Muma, 1951, p. 92.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the striking coloration, distinctive cheliceral
profile, lack of a scopula, and 4 linear blunt-
tipped ctenidia. Females have small rounded
medial lobes of the opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951). It can be recognized from
the descriptions as E. pallipes of Kraepelin
(1901) and Roewer (1934).


TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Davis Mountains, Texas, July 2, 1936, by J.
N. Knull, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species was misiden-
tified for many years. It seems to form a
somewhat heterogeneous species group with
E. acrilobatus and E. plicatus.

Eremochelis plicatus (Muma)

Therobates plicatus Muma, 1962, p. 11.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are readily identified
by the folded tip of the fixed cheliceral
finger, the narrow curved fondal notch, the
short mesoventral groove, a narrow linelike
scopula of 10-20 papillae, and the lack of
ctenidia. Females have distinctive ovate
opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Mercury, Nevada, July 15, 1960, by D. Elden
Beck and Associates, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: Since the females of this
species have the ectal fondal tooth formula
different from that of the males, it is pos-
sible that the species will later have to be
moved to a different species group.
There is a possibility that this species is
the Gluvia elongatus of Koch (1842), but
the type of the latter has not been located.

ARCUS GROUP
(See Table 9.)

Eremochelis arcus (Muma)

Therobates arcus Muma, 1962, p. 15.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the evenly arched fixed cheliceral finger, a
palpal scopula of 50-60 widely spaced pa-
pillae, and 4 long flattened ctenidia. Females
have the opercula extended laterally and
truncate.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).











Table 9. Some male diagnostic characters of the Eremochelis arcus species-group.
No. and form No. of
Species of ctenidia papillae Cheliceral characters Size
E. nudus (Muma) None None Dorso-basal constric- 13.5 mm
tion of fixed finger
E. flexacus (Muma) 2 long, Many on Tubular S-shaped 20.0-
slender tibia fixed finger 21.0 mm
and meta-
tarsus
E. cuyamacanus (Muma) 4 long, 40 Nearly straight fixed 21.0 mm
flattened finger
E. arcus (Muma) 4 long, 50-60 Evenly arched fixed 14.0 mm
flattened finger
E. macswaini (Muma) 4 short, 50-60 Narrow fondal notch 16.0 mm
linear


TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Taft, California, February 25, 1921, by E.
0. Essig, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
vada.
DISCUSSION: At the present time, the
species included in the arcus group seem to
be somewhat heterogeneous, but all appear
to be at least loosely related to this species.

Eremochelis cuyamacanus (Muma)

Therobates cuyamacanus Muma, 1962, p.
17.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is very closely
related to E. arcus, but males have the fixed
cheliceral finger nearly straight and a sco-
pula of 40 or fewer papillae. Females are
not known.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Cuyamaca, California, April 20, 1950, by
Linsley and McSwain, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: Since this species varies
from E. arcus in the fondal tooth formula,
additional specimens could well indicate an-
other group placement.

Eremochelis flexacus (Muma)

Therobates flexacus Muma, 1963, p. 3.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is the most di-


vergent of the group. It is distinguished
by the slender, tubular S-shaped fixed finger
of the chelicerae, the narrow slotlike meso-
ventral groove of the fixed finger, a palpal
scopula on both tibia and metatarsus, and
2 elongate, slender, abdominal ctenidia. Fe-
males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1963).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
10 miles north of Mercury, Nevada, 1 mile
east of Mercury Highway, March 2, 1961
(5EL4C), by D. M. Allred and D. Elden
Beck, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: Similar coloration to E.
arcus; the fondal tooth formula I, III, II,
IV prompts placement in the arcus species-
group for the present. Otherwise, this spe-
cies is distinctive for the genus.

Eremochelis macswaini (Muma)

Therobates macswaini Muma, 1962, p. 17.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from the closely related E. arcus by the
narrow, fondal notch and 4 short needlelike
ctenidia. The fondal tooth formula is I, II,
III, IV. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Crystal Lake, Los Angeles County, Califor-
nia, June 29, 1950, by J. W. McSwain, in
AMNH.










DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is similar to
E. cuyamacanus in fondal tooth formula,
but has fewer ctenidia in the scopula and
short ctenidia.

Eremochelis nudus (Muma)

Therobates nudus Muma, 1963, p. 4.
DIAGNOSIS: This species is distin-
guished from other species of the group by
the dorso-basal constriction of the fixed fin-
ger and the lack of a scopula or ctenidia.
Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1963).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
28 miles north of Mercury, Nevada, 3 miles
west of Mercury Highway, April 20, 1961
(1BH20C), by D. M. Allred and D. Elden
Beck, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: The fondal tooth formula
and similar cheliceral profile relate this spe-
cies to E. arcus, but it is much smaller.

ANDREASANA GROUP

Eremochelis andreasana (Muma)

Therobates andreasana Muma, 1962, p. 16.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a shallow mesal groove on the movable fin-
ger, an undulate ventral margin of the fixed
finger, and 2 very long ctenidia that extend
beyond the anterior margin of the succeed-
ing abdominal sternite. Females have boot-
like opercula and reduced cheliceral denti-
tion.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Andreas Canyon, Riverside County, Califor-
nia, April 24, 1954, by J. G. Rosen, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California; Mex-
ico: Baja.
DISCUSSION: Although this species is
described as typical of the group, it probably
represents an extreme of intra-group varia-
tion with E. larreae (Muma) representing
the other extreme.


Eremochelis larreae (Muma)

Therobates larreae Muma, 1962, p. 21.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have a cuplike mesal
groove on the movable cheliceral finger, an
apically hooked fixed finger, and 4 very long
abdominal ctenidia. Females have the boot-
like opercula pitted anteriorly and produced
posteriorly near the mesal margin.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Mule Canyon, Calico Mountains, San Ber-
nardino, California, by beating Larrea,
March 17, 1955, by P. D. Hurd, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: See discussion under E.
andreasana.


IMPERIALIS GROUP

Eremochelis imperialis (Muma)

Therobates imperialis Muma, 1951, p. 94.
Therobates attritus Muma, 1963, p. 4 (new
synonymy).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a cuplike dorso-mesal groove on the movable
cheliceral finger, the lack of a scopula, and
4 long slender ctenidia. Females have later-
ally hooked and truncate opercula.
Males are adequately described in Muma
(1951), females in Muma (1963).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype of T.
imperialis from Palo Verde, Imperial
County, California, August 17, 1946, by P.
D. Hurd, in UCBC. Female holotype of T.
attritus from 28 miles north of Mercury,
Nevada, 3 miles north of Mercury Highway,
April 27, 1961 (1BB1C), in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
vada. Mexico: Sonora.
DISCUSSION: Males and females of this
species were related by simultaneous collec-
tion at Mercury, Nevada, in 1965. Males
generally tend to be smaller than the holo-
type.
See discussion under E. rothi (Muma) for
relationships.











Eremochelis rothi (Muma)

Therobates rothi Muma, 1962, p. 24.


DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from those of E. imperialis by the ridged
meso-apical hollow of the movable finger
and 2 very long abdominal ctenidia that ex-
tend across the succeeding abdominal ster-
nite. Females are unknown.

The species is adequately described by
Muma (1962).

TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Wellton, Yuma County, Arizona, by Gene
Lorance, in AMNH.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.

DISCUSSION: This species and E. imperi-
alis seem to be closely related, but the en-
larged, flattened, apical, dorsal, striate
bristles of the flagellum complex indicate
that this species may later prove to be a
Hemerotrecha Banks.


STRIODORSALIS GROUP

Eremochelis striodorsalis (Muma)

Therobates striodorsalis Muma, 1962, p.
25.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are readily recog-
nized by the dark purplish coloration, the
dorso-basal ridge on the fixed cheliceral fin-
ger, a palpal scopula of 20 small papillae,
and 2 short bladelike ctenidia. Females are
unknown.
The species is adequately described by
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Pine Valley, San Diego County, California,
July 10, 1953, by N. J. and J. W. Gertsch,
in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California
DISCUSSION: The apical plumose bristle
of the flagellum complex is expanded and
flattened basally as in some species of
Hemerotrecha; but otherwise, this species
seems to have more affinity with the branch
and bilobatus species groups of Eremoche-
lis.


Genus Chanbria Muma

Chanbria Muma, 1951, p. 96.


KEY TO SPECIES-GROUPS
(MALES)
1. Fixed finger sinuate and lacking aborted
teeth .................------------serpentinus group
Fixed finger strongly bent dorsally and
bearing aborted teeth -- regalis group

REGALIS GROUP

Chanbria rectus Muma

Chanbria rectus Muma, 1962, p. 30.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from those of C. regalis Muma by the
straight tip of the fixed finger from a dorsal
view and a reduced number of aborted teeth
4*ih the fixed finger. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).


TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Barstow, San Bernardino County, California,
June 16, 1950, J. W. McSwain, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species, C. regalis
Muma, and C. tehachapianus Muma form a
compact species-group within the genus. The
presence of a scopula and the straight fixed
cheliceral finger from a dorsal view distin-
guish this species from C. tehachapianus.

Chanbria regalis Muma

Chanbria regalis Muma, 1951, p. 96.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the mesally bent fixed finger of the cheli-
cerae, 150 papillae in the palpal scopula, and
at least 5 aborted teeth on the fixed cheli-
ceral finger. The female has supernumer-
ary cheliceral denticules and triangular
opercula.










The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951, 1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Twentynine Palms, California, July 1-15, by
Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is widely dis-
tributed in southern California and probably
will be found in Baja California.

Chanbria tehachapianus Muma
Chanbria tehachapianus Muma, 1962, p.
29.
DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
distinguished by an attenuate and mesally
bent fixed cheliceral finger and the lack of
a palpal scopula. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Tehachapi Mountains, California, September
8, 1914, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: See discussion under C.
rectus.


SERPENTINUS GROUP

Chanbria serpentinus Muma

Chanbria serpentinus Muma, 1951, p. 98.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinctively
small with an S-curved fixed cheliceral fin-
ger that bears no distinguishable aborted
teeth. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).

TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Tucson, Arizona, by 0. Bryant (no further
data), in AMNH.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.

DISCUSSION: Although this species was
originally believed to be closely related to
C. regalis, the discovery of C. rectus and C.
tehachapianus indicate that it is sufficiently
distinctive to merit species-group segrega-
tion.


Genus Hemerotrecha Banks

Cleobis Banks, 1899, p. 314 (preoccupied).
Hemerotrecha Banks, 1934, p. 78.
Eremognatha Roewer, 1934, p. 566 (in part).
Hemerotrecha Banks, Muma, 1951, p. 98.


KEY TO SPECIES-GROUPS

(MALES)

1. Eyes separated by 1-1/2-2 diameters .-
...--....------------... ........-. banks group
Eyes separated by 1 or less than 1 di-
ameter ..--..-----....-..-------... - --... ---- --..-........ 2
2. Striate bristles of flagellum complex seti-
form ...-.- ....----------------- texana group
Some striate bristles of flagellum com-
plex flattened or plumose ..--...-----...... 3
3. Apical striate bristle of flagellum com-
plex flattened and spatulate ............
-.......--...-----------..... serrata group
Apical striate bristle of flagellum com-
plex tubular, blunt tipped, and hooked
..-.......-...-------------.-... branch group


BANKSI GROUP
(See Table 10.)

Hemerotrecha banks Muma

Hemerotrecha californica Banks, 1903, p.
314 (not Cleobis californica Banks, 1899).
Hemerotrecha banks Muma, 1951, p. 99
(new name for Hemerotrecha californica
Banks because of homonymy).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a normally tapered fixed cheliceral finger,
dark metatarsus and tarsus of the palpus,
and distinct but short ctenidia. Females
have the opercula smoothly rounded at the
posterior mesal angle.
This species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).











Table 10. Some male diagnostic characters of the Hemerotrecha banksi species-group.
Ctenidial Tip of
Species length fixed finger Palpal coloration
H. banksi Muma Shorter Normally tapered Dark tarsus and meta-
than segment tarsus
H. marginata (Kraepelin) Shorter Bulbous Dark tarsus and meta-
than segment tarsus
H. californica (Banks) As long Bulbous Metatarsus dark medially
as segment
H. truncata Muma Longer Truncate Dark tarsus and meta-
than segment tarsus


TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Pa-
cific Grove, California, by Harold Heath, in
MCZ.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Idaho.
DISCUSSION: This species-group con-
tains 4 morphologically distinguishable
forms. They seem to be closely related, and
may eventually prove to intergrade to a
single species.

Hemerotrecha californica (Banks)

Cleobis californica Banks, 1899, p. 314
(not Hemerotrecha californica Banks, 1903).
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a bulbous tip on the cheliceral fixed finger, a
dark median band on the palpal metatarsus,
and long flattened ctenidia. Females have
the posterior mesal angle of the opercula
produced mesally.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from Los
Angeles, California, by A. Davidson, in MCZ.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ore-
gon, Idaho, Nevada, Washington.
DISCUSSION: This species seems to be
more closely related to H. marginata (Krae-
pelin) than to Hemerotrecha banksi Muma.

Hemerotrecha marginata (Kraepelin)
Figures 32 to 35.

Eremobates marginatus Kraepelin, 1901,
p. 103.


Eremognatha marginata
Roewer, 1934, p. 567.

Hemerotrecha marginata
Muma, 1951, p. 102.


(Kraepelin),


(Kraepelin),


DIAGNOSIS: Males have the same cheli-
ceral profile as H. californica, but the 2
ctenidia are only half as long as the width
of the succeeding abdominal sternite. They
have the palpi colored like those of H.
banksi, but the propeltidium is entirely pale
yellow. Females have the posterior mesal
angles of the opercula with undulate mar-
gins.

Since this species has not been either cor-
rectly or adequately described by previous
workers, figures of the male chelicerae, male
ctenidia, female chelicerae, and female oper-
cula of the types are included here as 32, 33,
34, and 35, respectively.

TYPE LOCALITY: Male and female types
from San Pedro, California, June 5, 1867,
Roewer No. 8376, in ZSM.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.

DISCUSSION: Roewer's (1934) illustra-
tions of the male chelicerae and male cteni-
dia, reproduced by Muma (1951), are in
error. These structures are as shown in
figures 32 and 33.

Since this species seems to be a curious
mixture of, and intermediate between H.
banksi and H. californica, the 3 may later
prove to be conspecific.










Hemerotrecha truncata Muma

Hemerotrecha truncata Muma, 1951, p.
102.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are readily distin-
guished by the bluntly squared tip of the
cheliceral fixed finger, the dark palpal meta-
tarsus and tarsus, and 2 ctenidia that ex-
tend beyond the margin of the succeeding
abdominal sternite. Females are unknown.
This species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Exeter, Tulare County, California, May 16,
1909, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is the most
distinctive of the group.

SERRATA GROUP

Hemerotrecha serrata Muma

Hemerotrecha serrata Muma, 1951, p. 102.






T i


39

DIAGNOSIS: Males of this species are
readily distinguished by the serrate upper
margin of the fixed cheliceral finger, lack
of abdominal ctenidia, and lack of a palpal
scopula. Females have opercula with a pair
of rounded, medial lobes.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951 and 1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Twentynine Palms, California, July-August,
1945, by Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
vada.
DISCUSSION: This species is uniquely
different from all others of the genus.

TEXANA GROUP
(See Table 11.)

Hemerotrecha denticulata Muma

Hemerotrecha denticulata Muma, 1951, p.
105.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the denticulate fixed cheliceral finger, 120
papillae in the palpal scopula, and 4 very
slender, elongate, abdominal ctenidia. Fe-
males have broad anterior and posterior lat-
eral lobes on the opercula.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Reno, Nevada, October 12, 1941, by Ira La
Rivers, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Colorado, Ne-
vada, Utah.
DISCUSSION: Two males recorded from
Utah above have 6 abdominal ctenidia but
otherwise seem to be conspecific. This spe-
cies is closely related to H. proxima Muma.

Hemerotrecha fruitana Muma

Hemerotreeha fruitana Muma, 1951, p.
106.
Hemerotrecha fruitana Muma, Brookhart,
1965, p. 154.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the smooth, stocky, fixed cheliceral finger,
lack of a distinct anterior tooth on the










movable cheliceral finger, 4 short needlelike
abdominal ctenidia and lack of palpal sco-
pula. Females have the posterior lobes of
the opercula convexly swollen.

The males are adequately described in
Muma (1951), the females in Brookhart
(1965).

TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Fruita, Utah, July 17, 1931, by W. J.
Gertsch, in AMNH.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Colo-
rado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.

DISCUSSION: This species seems to be
more closely related to H. simplex Muma
than to other members of the group. Brook-
hart's studies indicate that it is a montane
form.


Hemerotrecha jacintoana Muma
Hemerotrecha jacintoana Muma, 1962, p.
33.
DIAGNOSIS: Females of this species are
distinguished by elongate, ovate, posterior
lateral lobes of the opercula. Males are un-
known.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Idyllwild, San Jacinto Mountains, California,
June 17-18, 1952, by M. Cazier, W. Gertsch,
and R. Schrammel, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: Muma (1951) stated that
this species might be the female of H.
fruitana, but since Brookhart (1965) de-
scribed the female of H. fruitana, the above
females are obviously distinct. The species


may be closely related
Muma.


to H. nevadensis


Table 11. Some male diagnostic characters of the Hemerotrecha texana species-group.

Cheliceral No. of No. of
Species characters ctenidia papillae Color differences
H. werneri Muma Slender, tapered 8 elongate None Body, legs and
fixed finger; palpi rusty
intermediate and yellow with faint
anterior teeth markings
on movable finger
H. simplex Muma Slender, tapered 6 elongate 20-30 Body, legs and
fixed finger; no palpi rusty
intermediate or yellow with faint
anterior teeth markings
on movable finger
H. fruitana Muma Smooth, stocky 4 short, None Body, legs and
fixed finger; no needlelike palpi distinctly
anterior tooth marked with dark
on movable finger purple
H. texana Muma Ventrally uneven 2 long flat None Body, legs and
fixed finger palpi distinctly
marked with dark
purple
H. proxima Muma Denticulate fixed 2 elongate 5-15 Body, legs and
finger palpi distinctly
marked with
dusky purple
H. denticulata Muma Denticulate fixed 4 long, 120� Body, legs and
finger slender palpi distinctly
marked with dark
purple






Hfemerotrecha nevadensis Muma

Hemerotrecha nevadensis Muma, 1951, p.
110.
DIAGNOSIS: Females of this species are
distinguished from H. jacintoana by their
pale coloration, different dentition, and the
elongate, triangular posterior lateral lobes
of the opercula. Males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Las Vegas, Nevada, July 21, 1940, by Ira La
Rivers, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: The opercula of this spe-
cies and H. jacintoana are similar, but the
different dentition belies the relationship. At
present, their status is obscure.

Hemerotrecha proxima Muma

Hemerotrecha proxima Muma, 1963, p. 4.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from H. denticulata Muma by their much
smaller, linelike palpal scopula of 5-15 pa-
pillae, and only 2 elongate abdominal cteni-
dia. Females have the posterior, lateral
opercular lobes straight and knifelike on the
posterior margin.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1963).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
28 miles north of Mercury, Nevada, 3 miles
west of Mercury Highway, October 10, 1961
(IBH30C), by D. Allred and D. Elden Beck,
in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: The close relationship of
this species and H. denticulata are indicated
by the aborted, forward directed teeth on
the male fixed cheliceral finger.

Hemerotrecha simplex Muma

Hemerotrecha simplex Muma, 1951, p.
110.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the slender, tapered, fixed and movable
cheliceral fingers, a narrow palpal scopula
of 20-30 papillae, and 6 elongate abdominal
ctenidia. Females are unknown.


The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Dry Lake Station, San Diego, California on
September 17, 1935 by Bearg, in CUM.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia.
DISCUSSION: This species and Hemero-
trecha werneri Muma are closely related.

Hemerotrecha steckleri Muma

Hemerotrecha steckleri Muma, 1951, p.
111.
DIAGNOSIS: Females have a similar
cheliceral dentition to H. nevadensis, but the
unusual quadrate, posteriorly separated
opercula are distinctive. Males are un-
known.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Canada del Oro, Santa Catalina Mountains,
Arizona, August 1, 1931, by Steckler, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.
DISCUSSION: This species does not seem
to be closely related with any species of the
group.

Hemerotrecha texana Muma

Hemerotrecha texana Muma, 1951, p. 104.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have an uneven lower
margin on the fixed cheliceral finger, no
palpal scopula, and 2 strong, flat, outwardly
curving abdominal ctenidia. Females are
unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
10 miles north of Hot Springs, Texas, on
the Marathon Road, July 21, 1938, by Stan-
ley Mulaik, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: This, the typical species of
the group, does not seem to be closely re-
lated with any of the included species. Muma
(1951) indicated this heterogeneity when
the group was defined.









Hemerotrecha werneri Muma


Hemerotrecha werneri Muma, 1951, p.
111.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from the closely related H. simplex by the
presence of intermediate and anterior teeth
on the movable finger, and 8 elongate ab-
dominal ctenidia, and lack of scopula. Fe-
males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Cutter, Gila County, Arizona, July 30, 1949,
by F. Werner, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona.
DISCUSSION: This species and H. sim-
plex are closely related and allied more
closely with H. texana than many other spe-
cies of the group.

BRANCH GROUP
(See Table 12.)

Hemerotrecha branch Muma

Hemerotrecha branch Muma, 1951, p.
112.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from closely related forms by slight differ-
ences in the cheliceral profile and coloration,
2 long flattened ctenidia that extend beyond
the anterior edge of the succeeding abdomi-


nal sternite, and a linelike scopula of about
30 conical papillae. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Twentynine Palms, California, July 1-15,
1945, by Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Nevada, New Mexico.
DISCUSSION: Four species of this group
are known only from males, three only from
females.

Hemerotrecha elpasoensis Muma

Hemerotrecha elpasoensis Muma, 1962, p.
39.
DIAGNOSIS: Females have posteriorly
bulbous opercula similar to those of H. fruit-
ana reported by Brookhart (1965). They
also have 4 trace ctenidia. Males are un-
known.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962) and Brookhart (1965).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
a dry hillside near El Paso, Texas, March 20,
1960, by W. J. Gertsch, Wilton Ivie, and R.
J. Schrammel, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species is only pro-
visionally placed in this species-group since
the other known species have the female
opercula juvenile in appearance.


Table 12. Some male diagnostic characters for the Hemerotrecha branch species-group.

No. of
Species papillae Cheliceral characters Palpal coloration
H. macra Muma 20� Two aborted teeth and an Dusky on tarsi, metatarsi,
obscure basal ventral spur tibia, and apical ends of
on fixed finger femora; darker on tarsi and
metatarsi
H. xena Muma None Three aborted teeth and an Dusky above on tarsi, meta-
obscure apical ventral spur tarsi, tibiae, and apical
on fixed finger ends of femora
H. branch Muma 30-- Three aborted teeth and a Dusky above on tarsi, meta-
distinct apical ventral tarsi, tibiae, and apical
spur on fixed finge ends of femora
H. minima Muma None Three large and 2 or 3 tiny Dusky on tibiae, dark on
aborted teeth on fixed metatarsi and tarsi
finger










Hemerotrecha macra Muma

Hemerotrecha macra Muma, 1951, p. 114.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have only 2 aborted
teeth on the fixed cheliceral finger, a palpal
scopula of about 20 papillae, and 2 flat cteni-
dia similar in form and length to those of
H. branch. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Lugert, Oklahoma, June 11, 1937, by Stan-
dish-Kaiser, in DZUU.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: Oklahoma.
DISCUSSION: If this species is properly
placed in this species-group, it is the most
divergent form. The fondal teeth are graded
III, II, I, IV in size.

Hemerotrecha marathon Muma

Hemerotrecha marathon Muma, 1962, p.
37.
DIAGNOSIS: Females have 2 intermedi-
ate teeth on the cheliceral fixed finger and
nearly round opercula with a longitudinal
vulvular opening. Males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
60 miles southeast of Marathon, Brewster
County, Texas, by W. W. Milstead, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species is closely re-
lated to H. milsteadi Muma.

Hemerotrecha milsteadi Muma

Hemerotrecha milsteadi Muma, 1962, p.
35.
DIAGNOSIS: Females have only one in-
termediate tooth on the cheliceral fixed fin-
ger and sub-posterior median lobe on the
opercula with a longitudinal vulvular open-
ing. Males are unknown.


The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Sierra Vieja, 11 miles west of Valentine,
Presidio County, Texas, by W. W. Milstead,
in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: The species may be the fe-
male of H. minima Muma, but additional
material must be collected before the sexes
can be associated.

Hemerotrecha minima Muma

Hemerotrecha minima Muma, 1951, p. 114.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from related forms by a more slender fixed
cheliceral finger, the lack of a palpal scopula,
and 2 heavy flattened ctenidia that are about
as long as the width of the succeeding ab-
dominal sternite. Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Laredo, Texas, fall 1941, by Ekhomb, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Colorado, Texas.
DISCUSSION: H. milsteadi may be the
female of this species.

Hemerotrecha xena Muma

Hemerotrecha xena Muma, 1951, p. 112.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are most readily dis-
tinguished from the closely related H.
branch by the lack of a scopula; the cheli-
ceral profile is also slightly different. Fe-
males are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Coyote Wells, Colorado Desert, California,
August 11, 1914, by Bradley, in CUM.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species is most closely
related to the typical species of the group,
H. branch.










Family Ammotrechidae
Roewer, 1934.


This family is known from South America,
Central America, and North America. Only
North and Central America genera and spe-
cies are considered here; twenty-nine spe-
cies are recorded.
Muma (1951, 1962, and 1963) supported
Roewer's (1934) ammotrechid generic sepa-
ration based on the ventral tarsal number
and arrangement. However, examination of
previously unseen types and numerous addi-
tional specimens of described and new spe-


cies has indicated a problem. Either the
ventral spinelike setae are very difficult to
distinguish or variation in number and ar-
rangement exists.

Since solution of this problem involves
study of series of unavailable specimens of a
number of species, the present generic con-
cept is maintained even though inconsisten-
cies, heterogeneities, and synonymies are in-
dicated.


KEY TO NORTH AMERICAN SUBFAMILIES
AND GENERA OF AMMOTRECHIDAE


(MALES AND FEMALES)

1. Tarsi of fourth legs with 3 segments ....
Ammotrechinae Roewer ----.------ 2
Tarsi of fourth legs with 1 segment ....
Saronominae Roewer -------------.------ 7
2. Distal segment of tarsi IV with one pair
of ventral spinelike setae ..--........ 3
Distal segment of tarsi IV with more
than one pair of ventral spinelike setae
........................................................... 4
3. Tarsi II and III with 1,2,2,1 formula of
ventral spinelike setae ........................
-.-----...-.-..---- Ammotrechella Roewer
Tarsi II and III with 1,2,2,2 formula of
ventral spinelike setae -----.----.-..---
---..--.....-....--... Ammotrechona Roewer
4. Tarsi IV with 2,2-2-2,2 formula of ven-
tral spinelike setae ...................... 5
- Ammotrechula Roewer


Tarsi IV with 2,2-2-2,1 formula of ven-
tral spinelike setae .--------------- 5
5. Tarsi II and III without unpaired ventral
spinelike setae
..-----.......... Ammotrechinus Roewer
Tarsi II and III with unpaired ventral
spinelike setae --...........------.--...---.....---..--........ 6
6. Tarsi II and III with ventral spinelike
setae arranged 1,2,2,1
..--...................Ammotrecha Banks
Tarsi II and III with ventral spinelike
setae arranged 1,2,2,2,1
.--..............-. Ammotrechesta Roewer
7. Tarsi II and III with one pair of ventral
spinelike setae; tarsi IV with setae ar-
ranged 1,2,2,1 .....-----.....--- Innesa Roewer
Tarsi II and III with more than one pair
of ventral spinelike setae; tarsi IV
with setae arranged 2,2,2,2,2 ......
.--.---.... ...-- .............. Branchia Muma


SUBFAMILY AMMOTRECHINAE
ROEWER, 1934


Ammotrechinae Roewer, 1934, p. 590.
Ammotrechinae Roewer, Muma 1951, p.
123.


See Table 13 which compares diagnostic
characters of known North and Central
American species of this subfamily.











Genus Ammotrechella Roewer

Ammotrecha Banks, 1900, p. 426 (in part)
Ammotrechella Roewer, 1934, p. 594.
Ammotrechella Roewer, Muma, 1951, p. 125.


Ammotrechella bolivari Mello-Leitio has not been seen. The species is placed
here on the assumption that tarsal and setal
Ammotrechella bolivari Mello-Leitdo, counts on the leg will prove to be valid and
1942, p. 309. usable (see discussion under Ammotrechona
DISCUSSION: The type of this species cubae [Lucas]).



Table 13. Some diagnostic characters of species of Ammotrechinae.

Pairs of
Palpal palpa spine-
Genus and species Coloration like setae Cheliceral characters


Ss and 9 s
Ammotrechella geniculata (Koch)


A. stimpsoni (Putnam)




Ammotrechona cubae (Lucas)


Ammotrecha limbata (Lucas)



A. stolli (Pocock)


Ammotrechinus gryllipes (Gervais)



Ammotrechula lacuna Muma




A. peninsulana (Banks)



A. pilosa Mima


A. saltatrix (Simon)


Tarsus and meta-
tarsus dark
Tarsus and meta-
tarsus dark



All segments pale
distally
Tarsus and basal
half of metatarsus
dark
Tarsus and meta-
tarsus dark



Tarsus and apical
half of metatarsus
dark
Femur, tibia, and
basal margin of
metatarsus dusky


All segments
except distal end
of tarsus dusky
All segments except
coxa and trochanter
dusky


Metatarsus slightly
dusky apically


S-4
9-0


3 keeled fixed finger


& slight indentation
of fixed finger above
flagellar attachment
disc
S fixed finger not
modified
$ fixed finger not
modified


3 slight identation
of fixed finger above
flagellar attachment
disc
& fixed finger not
modified


& fixed finger
slender, evenly
tapered; 2 modified
teeth

S fixed finger with
dorsal constriction
above anterior tooth
S fixed finger
attenuate with teeth
only slightly modi-
fied
& fixed finger
slender above flagel-
lum but teeth not
modified










Table 13. (continued)


S s only
Ammotrecha cobinensis Muma



A. nigrescens Roewer


Ammotrechesta schlueteri Roewer


Ammotrechula dolabra Muma




A. mulaiki Muma



A. venusta Muma


A. wasbaueri Muma


Tarsus and meta-
tarsus faintly
dusky
Tarsus and meta-
tarsus dark


Not stated


All segments except
for coxa, trochanter,
and distal end tarsus
dark
Tarsus, metatarsus,
tibia, and distal
half of femur dark
All segments dark


All segments except
coxa, trochanter,
and basal end of
femur dusky


2 and 1
unpaired


Fixed finger not
modified


Slight indentation of
fixed finger above
flagellar attachment
disc
Fixed finger not
modified
Fixed finger thick,
tapered and undulate
ventrally


Fixed finger with 2
modified teeth


Fixed finger slender
with 2 modified teeth
Fixed finger slender,
attenuate with 2 tiny
modified teeth


9 s only


Ammotrechella setulosa Muma



A. tabogana (Chamberlin)



A. pseustes (Chamberlin)


Ammotrechesta brunnea Roewer




Ammotrechula borregoensis Muma


All segments
annulate medially
with dark
Apical end of femur
and all distal
segments dark
All segments dark


All segments dusky
except for basal
pale band on
metatarsus
All segments of
palpus and leg I
dusky; other legs
pale


2 and 1
unpaired


12-14
unpaired


3


10
unpaired


Fixed finger with
carina


Fixed finger with
carina


Fixed finger with
long low carina
Fixed finger with
carina



Fixed finger with
carina


Ammotrechella geniculata (C. L. Koch)

Gluvia geniculata C. L. Koch, 1842, p. 355.
Ammotrecha geniculata (C. L. Koch),
Kraepelin, 1901, p. 114.
Ammotrechella geniculata (C. L. Koch),
Roewer, 1934, p. 594.
DIAGNOSIS: Roewer (1934) made this


species the type of the genus, citing spine-
like station of tarsus II and III to be 1,2,2,1
and that of tarsus IV to be 2,2-2-2. He also
described the male immovable finger with a
strong chitinized keel and the male metatar-
sus of the palpus with 6 ventral pairs of
strong spinelike setae.
TYPE LOCALITY: A lectotype from









Venezuela, supposedly deposited under
Roewer No. 8349 in ZSM, is not there and
apparently has been lost or destroyed.
DISTRIBUTION: South America: Vene-
zuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Curacao; West In-
dies: St. Vincent, Guadeloupe, the Bahamas.
DISCUSSION: Although Roewer's de-
scription and figures of this species delineate
distinctive characters, the absence of a type
will probably preclude identification. For in-
stance, a Roewer identified female specimen
in ZSM has 5 ventral pairs of spinelike setae
on the metatarsus of the palpus; but the
key in Roewer (1934) cites only 3 pairs of
short spinelike setae on the palpal meta-
tarsus.

Ammorrechella pseustes (Chamberlin)

Ammotrecha psevstes Chamberlin, 1925,
p. 235.
Ammotrechella sexspicata Muma, 1951, p.
129 (new synonymy).
DIAGNOSIS: Females with propeltidium
pale except for a dark seam on the anterior
margin; eye tubercle dark except for a thin
median stripe; dorsal sclerite on mesopelti-
dium, metapeltidium, and abdominal tergites
pale medially and dark laterally form a pale
median and 2 dark longitudinal stripes that
contrast with the otherwise dusky purple
segments; palpi dark on tarsi, metatarsi,
tibiae, and apical three-fourths of femora;
chelicerae pale except for dark dentition;
leg I pale; legs II, III, and IV dark medially
on anterior and posterior faces of femora,
tibia, and metatarsi; venter pale.
The above cited coloration, the 2 small but
distinct pairs of spinelike setae on the palpal
metatarsus, and long low dorsal cheliceral
carina described and illustrated by Muma
(1951) distinguish the females. Males are
not known, however, so the species must be
considered to be inadequately described.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
nest of Kalotermes marginipennis on Remo
Island, Largo, Canal Zone, August 31, 1923,
by J. Zetek, in MCZ. Female holotype of
A. sexspicata Muma from Clermont, Cali-
fornia, in DZUU.
DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Pan-
ama Canal Zone. USA: California.


DISCUSSION: The specimen described by
Muma (1951) is badly discolored, but other-
wise is obviously this species. This species
could be a synonym of A. geniculatea, but
this cannot be determined in the absence
of a type for the latter species.

Ammotrechella setulosa Muma

Amnmotrechella setulose Muma, 1951, p.
125.
DIAGNOSIS: Females distinguished by
the dark, median, dorsal abdominal band,
annulate legs and palpi, and 2 paired and 1
or 2 unpaired, scarcely distinguishable, ven-
tral spinelike setae on the palpal metatarsi.
Males are unknown.
Males must be described before the spe-
cies can be considered to be adequately
known.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Eagle Pass, Texas, 1940, in USNM.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species does not seem
to be closely related to any other member
of the genus.

Ammotrechella stimpsoni (Putnam)

Galeodes (Cleobis) stimpsoni Putnam,
1883, p. 261.
Ammotrecha cubae (Lucas), Banks, 1900,
p. 427 (not Galeodes cubae Lucas).
Ammotrechella stimpsoni (P u t n a m),
Muma, 1951, p. 127.
DIAGNOSIS: Males and females vary in
color from light yellow to brown, but the
abdomen is always strikingly marked with
dark lateral stripes and the palpi distad of

have the metatarsi of the palpi provided
with 5 pairs of short stout spinelike setae.
The fixed cheliceral finger of the male is not
modified or aborted except for a slight dor-
sal indentation above the flagellar attach-
ment disc.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female cotype from
Florida by Mr. Wurdeman, in MCZ. The
Stimpson specimen originally described by









Putnam from MCZ apparently has been lost
or destroyed.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Florida.
REMARKS: The identity of this species
is clear; it is not the same as the species
exemplified by the female type of Ammo-
trechona cubae Lucas. Except for the tarsal
setal formulae, it is, however, identical to
the types of Ammotrecha stolli (Pocock)
and Ammotrecha nigrescens (Roewer).

Ammotrechella tabogana (Chamberlin)
Figures 36 to 38.

Ammotrecha tabogana Chamberlin, 1919,
p. 11.
DIAGNOSIS: The distinctive markings
and 2 rows of 12-14 unpaired strong cylinder
bristles on the metatarsus of the palpus
readily distinguish females of the species.
Males are unknown.
FEMALE SYNTYPE: Total length 18.6
mm. Chelicerae 2.0 mm wide and 5.3 mm
long. Propeltidium 3.8 mm wide and 3.5
mm long.
Coloration in alcohol: chelicerae and pro-
peltidium purplish brown; chelicerae with 1
lateral and 2 dorsal darker stripes; propel-
tidium with a pale ovate area on each side


of the black eye tubercle, and a pale median
diamond-shaped area and a pair of sub-
median, pale, ovate areas on the posterior
margin; mesopeltidium dark; metapeltidium
and abdominal tergites pale medially and
dark laterally, forming 1 pale and 2 dark
longitudinal stripes; abdominal pleurites
dusky; venter pale; palpus dark on apical
end of femur and all of tibia, metatarsus,
and tarsus; leg I faintly dusky; leg II pale;
leg III dusky on femur, tibia, and metatar-
sus, with the femur pale dorsally and all
segments paler at each end; leg IV dark on
femur, tibia, and metatarsus except at ex-
treme proximal and distal ends of each seg-
ment.
Dentition typical of subfamily and genus
as shown in figure 36; mesal tooth present.
Palpal tibia ventrally with 2 rows of un-
paired strong cylinder bristles as in figure
37. Genital plate wider than long by a ratio
of 1:1.6 as shown in figure 38.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female types from
nest of Armitermes medina Banks, Taboga
Island, Republic of Panama, June 23, 1919,
by H. F. Dietz, in MCZ.

DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Pan-
ama.

DISCUSSION: This is a distinctive spe-
cies of this genus.


Genus Ammotrechona Roewer

Ammotrecha Banks, 1900, p. 426 (in part).
Ammotrechona Roewer, 1934, p. 595.


Ammotrechona cubae (Lucas)

Galeades cubae Lucas, 1835: Class VIII,
pl. II.

Ammotrecha cubae (Lucas), Kraepelin,
1901, p. 114.

Ammotrechona eubae (Lucas), Roewer,
1934, p. 596.


eral margins of the tergites; legs and palpi
pale brown but somewhat darker near the
distal end of each segment. Females have
chelicerae with a typical dorsal carina, palpi
with 5 pairs of ventral spinelike setae on
the metatarsi, and the opercula are wider
than long by a ratio of 1:1.4. Males, de-
scribed by Roewer (1934), reportedly have
no dorsal cariesna on the chelicerae, an un-
modified fixed cheliceral finger, and 5 pairs
of ventral spinelike setae on the palpal meta-
tarsi.


DIAGJNOSIS: Females are pale yellowish
brown with the abdomen darker at the lat- The species cannot be considered to be









adequately described, although Roewer's
(1934) keys, diagnosis, and figures permit
placement.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Cuba by M. F. Prevost, Roewer No. 9095,
in MNHN.
DISTRIBUTION: West Indies: Cuba.
DISCUSSION: Roewer (1934) found only
4 pairs of ventral, palpal, metatarsal, spine-
like setae; the more slender basal, fifth pair
is easily overlooked. Roewer cited ventral


setal formulae for legs II and III as 1,2,2,2
and for leg IV as 2,2-2-2; the present author
found 1,2,2,2 and 2,2-2-2,4, respectively on
the type. This difference indicated that dif-
ferent students of Ammotrechidae may vary
in their ability to distinguish between ven-
tral spinelike setae and the normal tarsal
setal clothing. It is also possible that the
setal formulae are subject to intraspecific
variation. In either case, the use of tarsal
setal formulae for distinguishing genera of
Ammotrechidae is suspect.


Genus Ammorrecha Banks

Ammotrecha Ranks, 1900, p. 426 (in part).
Ammotrecha Banks, Roewer, 1934, p. 596.
Ammotrecha Banks, Muma, 1951, p. 123.


Ammotrecha cobinensis Muma

Ammotrecha cobinensis Muma, p. 135.

DIAGNOSIS: Males have the legs and
palpi pale except for a faint duskiness on
the palpal metatarsus and tarsus, unmodified
chelicerae, no dorsal carina, and 8 pairs of
stout cylindrical spinelike setae on the pal-
pal metatarsus and tibia. Females are un-
known.


Ammotrecha limbata (Lucas), Kraepelin,
1901, p. 112.

Ammotrecha limbata (Lucas), Roewer,
1934, p. 597.

DIAGNOSIS: Males and females with
basal half of palpal metatarsus and all of tar-
sus dark brown. Males with 4 pairs of ven-
tral spinelike setae on the palpal metatar-
sus. Females without pairs of setae on the
palpal metatarsus.


Description cannot be considered adequate
until undamaged males and females have The species probably can be placed by
been described. Roewer (1934), but it is not adequately de-
scribed.


TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Cobina, California, December 30, 1927, by
J. C. Chamberlin, in DZUU.

DISTRIBUTION: USA: California; Mex-
ico.

DISCUSSION: This species was doubt-
fully placed and is retained in this genus
owing to the lack of both fourth legs on the
only 2 specimens known.

Ammotrecha limbata (Lucas)

Galeodes limbatus Lucas, 1835, Cl. 8, t.


TYPE LOCALITY: A lectotype sup-
posedly deposited from Guatemala under
Roewer No. 8356 in ZSM has been lost or
destroyed and is unavailable for study.

DISTRIBUTION: Mexico; Central Amer-
ica: Guatemala.

DISCUSSION: This species, on the basis
of published descriptions, seems to be dis-
tinctive. Roewer's (1934) diagnosis of fe-
males as having no pairs of ventral spine-
like setae on the palpal metatarsus may be
in error since the sexes usually have similar
palpal setal characteristics.










Ammotrecha nigrescens Roewer

Figure 39.

Ammotrecha nigrescens (Pocock), in
schedule, Roewer, 1934, p. 598.*
DIAGNOSIS: Except for the tarsal setal
formulae, this species is identical with pale
brown typically marked specimens of Ammo-
trechella stimpsoni (Putnam). The tarsi of
leg III have a spinelike setal formula of 1,2,-
2,1 and those of leg IV of 2,2-2-2,1 or as for
Ammotrecha of Roewer (1934). The meta-
tarsal spinelike setae are, however, some-
what longer than on A. stimpsoni. Females
are unknown. Figure 39 is of the only cheli-
cera remaining with the type.
Roewer's (1934) description permits
placement if the tarsal setal formulae are
correct.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Gua-
temala, by Stoll, in 1894, in BNHM.
DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Gua-
temala, Costa Rica.
DISCUSSION: If tarsal setal formulae are
diagnostic, this is a valid species (though
referrable to Roewer, 1934) ; otherwise the
species is a junior synonym of Ammotre-
chella stimpsoni (Putnam).


Ammotrecha stolli (Pocock)

Cleobis stolli Pocock, 1895, p. 97.
Ammotrecha stolli (Pocock), Kraepelin,
1901, p. 115.
Ammotrecha picta Pocock, 1902, p. 65.
Ammotrecha stolli (Pocock), Roewer,
1934, p. 597.
DIAGNOSIS: Males and females colored
and marked as for Ammotrechella stimp-
soni (Putnam). Cheliceral and palpal char-
acters also the same as for A. stimpsoni.
The tarsal spinelike setal formula agrees
with that of Ammotrecha Banks, sensu
strict, of Roewer (1934).
The combined descriptions of Pocock
(1902) and Roewer (1934) are adequate for
identification except for the enigma of the
tarsal setal formula.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Retalhuleau, Guatemala (Roewer No. 8605),
in BMNH. The types of A. picta have not
been located.
DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Gua-
temala, Costa Rica, Grenada, Nicaragua;
Mexico; USA: Louisiana.
DISCUSSION: If tarsal setal formulae are
valid, this species is a senior synonym of A.
nigrescens; otherwise it is a junior synonym
of A. stimpsoni.


Genus Ammotrechinus Roewer

Ammotrechinus Roewer, 1934, p. 599.


Ammotrechinus gryllipes (Gervais)

Solpuga gryllipes Gervais, 1842, p. 76.
Ammotrecha gryllipes (Gervais), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 115.
Ammotrechinus gryllipes (Gervais),
Roewer, 1934, p. 599.
*Pocock never, to the author's knowledge, published
this name. Roewer is the author to use until this
has been clarified.

Figs. 32 to 35. Hemerotrecha marginata (Krae-
pelin). 32. Ectal view of left male chelicera. 33.
Male abdominal ctenidia. 34. Ectal view of right
female chelicera. 35. Ventral view of female geni-
tal opercula.
Figs. 36 to 38. Ammotrechella tabogana (Cham-
berlin). 36. Ectal view of right female chelicera.


DIAGNOSIS: Roewer (1934 ) character-
ized males of this species by unmodified
chelicerae with 1 mesal and 2 intermediate
teeth on the movable finger, 5 pairs of ven-
tral spinelike setae on the palpal metatarsus,
and with only the apical half of the meta-
tarsus and the tarsus of the palpus dark
brown. Females were reportedly similar to
males in coloration and station.
The species is not adequately described.

37. Mesal view of apical segments of left female
palpus. 38. Ventral view of female genital oper-
cula.

Fig. 39. Ammotrecha nigrescens Roewer, ectal
view of right male chelicera (only chelicera re-
maining with type).











~( W( 1V~

I i1/~
*1


35


38










TYPE LOCALITY: A lectotype (Roewer
No. 8357) of this species supposedly de-
posited in ZSM has been lost or destroyed
and is unavailable for study.
DISTRIBUTION: West Indies: Jamaica,
Haiti.


DISCUSSION: A young female (not a
type) in ZSM is marked as indicated by
Roewer (1934), but it does not have any
ventral spinelike setae on the palpal meta-
tarsus.


Genus Ammotrechesta Roewer

Ammotrechesta Roewer, 1934, p. 599.


Ammotrechesta brunnea Roewer

Figures 40-42.

Ammotrechesta brunnea Roewer, 1934, p.
600.
DIAGNOSIS: Females have the palpi
dusky except for a basal yellow band on the
metatarsi, and 5 pairs of short stout spine-
like setae on the palpal metatarsi. Males
are unknown.
FEMALE TYPE: Total length 23.5 mm.
Chelicerae 1.6 mm wide and 4.9 mm long.
Propeltidium 3.8 mm wide and 3.2 mm long.
Coloration in alcohol: chelicerae and pro-
peltidium brownish yellow (perhaps alcohol
stained) ; mesopeltidia, metapeltidia, and ab-
dominal tergites mottled with purple; legs
dusky purplish and lighter on tarsi; palpi
dusky purplish and darker on distal seg-
ments, except the basal third of the metatar-
sus is pale yellow as shown in figure 40.
Dentition as shown in figure 41; mesal
tooth present. Palpal tibia with 2 uneven
rows of short spinelike setae, 5 setae in
ectal row, and 6 in mesal row. Genital plate
wider than long by a ratio of 1:1.8 as shown
in figure 42.


TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Tristan, Costa Rica, SMF/RII/4757.
DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Costa
Rica.
DISCUSSION: This distinctive species
has the leg spination as described by Roewer
(1934) for Ammotrechesta.

Ammotrechesta schlueteri Roewer

Ammotrechesta schlucteri Roewer, 1934,
p. 599.
DIAGNOSIS: Roewer (1934) diagnosed
males are having unmodified chelicerae with
1 intermediate and 1 mesal tooth on the
movable finger. Females are unknown.
This species is inadequately described.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male type from Hon-
duras, supposedly deposited in the ZSM, has
been lost or destroyed and is unavailable for
study.
DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Hon-
duras.
DISCUSSION: The type, according to
Roewer (1934), lacked palpi, so it is possible
that this species and A. brunnea are syno-
nyms. This cannot be determined until ad-
ditional material has been collected.


Genus Ammotrechula Roewer

Ammotrechula Roewer, 1934, p. 600.
Ammotrechula Roewer, Muma, 1951, p. 129.

Ammotrechula boneti Mello-Leitho cated. The present placement presumes the
validity and usability of leg tarsal and setal
Ammotrechula boneti Mello-Leitho, 1942, counts (see discussion under Ammotrechona
p. 312. cubae [Lucas]).
DISCUSSION: The type has not been lo-












Ammotrechula borregoensis Muma

Ammotrechula borregoensis Muma, 1962,
p. 41.
DIAGNOSIS: Females are distinguished
by having the palpus and leg I dusky, the
other legs pale, and 2 rows of 10 or more
unpaired short, strong, cylindrical spinelike
setae on the palpal metatarsi and tibiae.
Males are unknown.
The female is adequately described in
Muma (1962), but the species cannot be con-
sidered to be so until males are described.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Borrego State Park, San Diego, California,
April 28, 1955, by R. 0. Schuster, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: Males of this distinctive
species should be readily recognized by the
coloration of the legs and palpi.


1.4 m'gin' eaw

Ammotrechula eggs in dead wood


Ammotrechula dolabra Muma

Ammotrechula dolabra Muma, 1963, p. 5.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have palpi and legs
dusky except for coxae, trochanters, and dis-
tal portions of tarsi; fixed finger of cheli-
cerae thick and tapered from base to tip
with only undulate traces of dentition; palpi
without serial spinelike setae. Females are
unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1963).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Cane Springs, 12 miles north-northwest of


Mercury, Nevada, June 8, 1961 (CBA10C),
in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: In this species, dental
abortion is maximal and the affinities of the
species are difficult to determine.

Ammotrechula lacuna Muma

Ammotrechula lacuna Muma, 1963, p. 5.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have the legs dusky
on the lateral surfaces of the femora, tibiae,
and metatarsi; the fixed finger of the cheli-
cerae is slender and tapered to the tip with 1
large and 1 small aborted tooth near the
base. The only male known lacks palpi. Fe-
males are similar to males in color with palpi
dusky on femora, tibiae, and basal margin of
metatarsi, so male palpi are probably simi-
larly marked. Females also lack serial
spinelike setae, so male palpi probably also
lack such setae.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
34.5 miles north of Mercury, Nevada, 1/2
mile east of Groom Lake road, June 26, 1961
(10DL4C), in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Nevada.
DISCUSSION: This species and A. mu-
laiki are closely related.

Ammotrechula mulaiki Muma

Ammotrechula mulaiki Muma, 1951, p.
130.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the dark palpal tarsus, metatarsus, tibia,
and apical half of femur; 4 pairs of strong,
cylindrical, spinelike setae on the palpal
metatarsus; and 2 aborted teeth on the fixed
finger of the chelicerae. Females are un-
known.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Edinburg, Texas, 1934, by S. Mulaik, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Texas.
DISCUSSION: A group of species, includ-
ing A. venusta Muma, A. pilosa Muma, A.
wasbaueri Muma, and A. lacuna Muma all
have aborted teeth on the fixed finger that
differ by size and configuration. These spe-












cies also differ by coloration and palpal ar-
mature.

Ammotrechula peninsulana (Banks)

Cleobis peninsulana Banks, 1898, p. 290.
Ammotrecha peninsulana (Banks), Krae-
pelin, 1901, p. 112.
Cleobis hirsuta Banks, 1898, p. 291.
Cleobis texana Kraepelin, 1899, p. 239.
Ammotrecha texana (Kraepelin), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 112.
Ammotrechula texana (Kraepelin), Roew-
er, 1934, p. 601.
Ammotrechula peninsulana (B a n k s),
Muma, 1951, p. 130.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a dorsal constriction of the cheliceral fixed
16 mm








Ammotrechula peninsulana 9

finger above the anterior tooth, and 8 pairs
of strong, cylindrical spinelike setae on the
venter of both the palpal tibia and meta-
tarsus. Females are distinguished by a sim-
ilar palpal armature, and the genital plate
is wider than long by a ratio of 1:1.5.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from San
Jos6 del Cabo, Baja California, Mexico, in
MCZ. Male type of C. hirsuta from San
Miguel Horcasitas, Baja California, Mexico,
in MCZ. Female type of C. texana from
Texas, (C6-m), Roewer No. 9099, in MNHN.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico: Baja Califor-
nia. USA: Arizona, Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species is quite vari-
able in coloration. The base color is light
to dark yellow with some specimens marked
with light brown, others with dark brown.
Legs and palpi are dusky on the femora,
tibiae, metatarsi, and proximal ends of the
tarsi; however, some specimens have pale
annuli on the apical ends of the metatarsi


and light tarsi. The two color forms are
frequently collected within yards of each
other.

Ammotrechula pilosa Muma

Ammotrechula pilosa Muma, 1951, p. 134.
Ammotrechula pilosa Muma, 1962, p. 43.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have the palpi dusky
except for the coxae and trochanters, the
fixed cheliceral finger attenuate with the
teeth only slightly aborted, no mesal tooth
on the movable finger, and no serial ventral
spinelike setae on the palpal tibia or meta-
tarsus. Females are colored like males, have
a dorsal cheliceral carina, the genital plate
wider than long by a ratio of 1:1.2, and no
serial ventral spinelike setae on the palpi.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951, 1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Female holotype from
Texas, in DZUU.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia, Nevada, Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species seems to be
somewhat variable in color, as is A. penin-
sulana.

Ammotrechula saltatrix (Simon)

Figures 43 and 44.

Cleobis saltatrix Simon, 1879, p. 146.
Ammotrecha saltatrix (Simon), Kraepe-
lin, 1901, p. 113.
Ammotrechula saltatrix (Simon), Roewer,
1934, p. 602.
DIAGNOSIS: Females with slender cheli-
cerae, 2 intermediate teeth and a mesal tooth
on the movable finger, a dorsal carina,
5 pairs of small spinelike setae on the palpal
metatarsus, and the legs and palpi pale ex-
cept for a light duskiness apically on the
palpal metatarsus, apically on the femur,
and basally on the metatarsus of leg IV.
Males are similar to females in coloration
and have the chelicerae long and slender
but without modified teeth.
The palpus and opercula of the type are
shown in figures 43 and 44, respectively.
Simon's (1879) and Roewer's (1934) de-












scriptions and figures are adequate for place-
ment of the species, except that both
workers did not refer to the more slender
basal fifth pair of spinelike setae on the
palpal metatarsus.
TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Mexico, Roewer No. 9098, in MNHN.
DISTRIBUTION: Mexico.
DISCUSSION: Simon (1879), by describ-
ing the male first and in more detail, seems
to have considered it the type; however, the
female is clearly marked typus, and no male
could be found in the MNHN.

Ammotrechula venusta Muma

Ammotrechula venusta Muma, 1951 p.
134.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
a dark purple to nearly black coloration with
slightly paler legs and palpi; the slender
fixed cheliceral finger is provided with 2
aborted teeth and 7 pairs of ventral spine-
like setae on the palpal tibiae and metatarsi.
Females are unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1951).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from


Tucson, Arizona, June 15, 1936, by 0. Bry-
ant, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona; Mexico.
DISCUSSION: One other male of this
beautiful little species is labeled "Eastern
United States" and is in DZUU.

Ammotrechula wasbaueri Muma

Ammotrechula wasbaueri Muma, 1962, p.
43.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have the palpi dusky
except for the coxae, trochanters, and bases
of the femora, 2 pairs and 1 unpaired spine-
like setae on the palpal metatarsi, and the
fixed cheliceral finger attenuate, slender,
and with 2 tiny aborted teeth. Females are
unknown.
The species is adequately described in
Muma (1962).
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Andreas Canyon, Riverside County, Califor-
nia, April 24, 1954, by M. Wasbauer, in
AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California.
DISCUSSION: This species and A. pilosa
seem to be closely related.


SUBFAMILY SARONOMINAE ROEWER

Saronominae Roewer, 1934, p. 580.
Saronominae Roewer, Muma, 1951, p. 135.

Genus Innesa Roewer

Innesa Roewer, 1934, p. 581.


Innesa vittata (Pocock)

Figures 45 to 48.

Hemiblossia vittata Pocock, 1902, p. 67.
Innesa vittata (Pocock), Roewer, 1934, p.
581.
DIAGNOSIS: Females are distinguished
by the wide white abdominal stripe, a long
dorsal cheliceral carina, no serially arranged
spinelike setae on the palpus, and the genital
plate wider than long by a ratio of 1:1.6.
Males are unknown.
The type is described below.


FEMALE TYPE: Total length, 14.5 mm.
Chelicerae, 1.1 mm wide and 2.6 mm long.
Propeltidium, 2.1 mm wide and 1.9 mm long.
Palpus, 3.5 mm long. Leg IV, 5.6 mm long.
Coloration in alcohol: legs, palpi, cheli-
cerae, and peltidia all dark purplish brown;
ventral surfaces of mesopeltidium, metapel-
tidium, palpi, and legs lighter; abdominal
tergites very dark on lateral margins and
almost white medially so that abdomen ap-
pears striped. Malleoli dark along apical
margins.
Dentition as shown in figure 45. Tarsi II
and III with spinelike setae arranged 1,2,2,1












(figure 46) ; tarsi IV not segmented and with
spinelike setae arranged 2,2,2,2 (figure 47).
Palpi without distinguishable series of
spinelike setae but with usual scattered cy-
lindrical bristles, long and short setae, and
long slender tactile setae. Metatarsus of
palpus only twice as long as tarsus. Genital
plate wider than long by a ratio of 1:1.5
(figure 48).


TYPE LOCALITY: Female type from
Guatemala, Central America, in BMNH. The
type is skewered from chelicerae to anus on
an insect pin but is a dark, distinctly marked
specimen.
DISTRIBUTION: Central America: Gua-
temala.
DISCUSSION: This is a unique species.


Genus Branchia Muma

Branchia Muma, 1951, p. 135.


Branchia brevis Y

Branchia angustus Muma

Branchia angustus Muma, 1951, p. 135.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished
from related species by pale leg tarsi and
an attenuate fixed finger of the chelicerae
that is slender between the anterior and pri-
mary teeth. Females are similarly colored
and have both the propeltidium and genital
plate wider than long by a ratio of 1:1.1.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from


Twentynine Palms, California, July 1-15,
1945, by Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Califor-
nia.
DISCUSSION: This and the following 2
species are closely related.

Branchia brevis Muma
Branchia brevis Muma, 1951, p. 137.
DIAGNOSIS: Males have all or part of
the tarsi dusky and an attenuate fixed cheli-
ceral finger that is broad between the an-
terior and primary teeth. Females are un-
known.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Edinburg, Texas, March 15, 1939, by Stan-
ley Mulaik, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: Arizona, Texas.
DISCUSSION: This species seems to be
distinct from but could be graded into B. an-
gustus or B. potens Muma.

Branchia potens Muma
Branchia potens Muma, 1951, p. 138.
DIAGNOSIS: Males are distinguished by
the dusky leg tarsi and non-attenuate
thickened fixed finger of the chelicerae. Fe-
males are similarly colored and also have
thickened chelicerae.
TYPE LOCALITY: Male holotype from
Twentynine Palms, California, July 1-15,
1945, by Jefferson H. Branch, in AMNH.
DISTRIBUTION: USA: California, Ne-
vada, Utah.
DISCUSSION: This species is the most
easily recognized of the 3 known species in
the genus.


































41


46
47


Figs. 40 to 42. Ammotrechesta brunnea Roewer.
40. Mesal view of left female palpus. 41. Ectal
view of right female chelicera. 42. Ventral view
of female genital opercula.

Figs. 43 and 44. Ammotrechula saltatrix (Si-


mon). 43. Mesal view of right female palpus. 44.
Ventral view of female genital opercula.
Figs. 45 to 48. Innesa vittata. 45. Ectal view
of right female chelicera. 46. Leg III tarsus,
ventral view. 47. Leg IV tarsus, ventral view. 48.
Ventral view female genital opercula.












LITERATURE CITED


Banks, Nathan. 1898. Arachnida from
Baja California and other parts of Mexico.
Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., series 3, Zool. 1:
205-308.

Banks, Nathan. 1899. A new solpugid from
California. Proc. Ent. Soc., Washington
4: 314-315.

Banks, Nathan. 1900. Synopses of North-
American invertebrates. IX, The scor-
pions, solpugids, and pedipalpi. Amer.
Natur. 34: 421-427.

Banks, Nathan. 1903. A new genus of Sol-
pugida. Ent. News 14: 78-79.

Brookhart, Jack. 1965. Two new solpugids
from Colorado and notes on other species
(Arachnida: Solpugida). J. New York En-
tomol. Soc. 77(3) : 151-155.

Chamberlin, R. V. 1919. A new solpugid
from Panama. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washing-
ton 32: 211-212.

Chamberlin, R. V. 1925. Diagnoses of new
American Arachnida. Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool. 67: 211-248.


Fichter, Edson. 1940. Studies of North
American Solpugida: I, The true identity
of Eremobates pallipes (Say). Amer. Mid-
land Natur. 24: 351-360.


Fichter, Edson. 1941. Studies of North
American Solpugida: II, A second series
of solpugid from Nebraska. Amer. Mid-
land Natur. 26: 179-181.


Gervais, P. 1842. (Description of Galeodes
brevipes Gervais and G. gryllipes Ger-
vais). Soc. Phil. de Paris: in J. l'Insti-
tute: 72.


Girard, C. 1853. Observations, upon Gale-
odes subulata of Thomas Say: in Marcy,
Randolph B., Exploration of the Red
River of Louisiana, in the year 1852,
(32nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate, Ex-
ecutive, No. 54). Washington: 270-271.

Hancock, J. L. 1888. Description of Da-
tames magna Hancock. Proc. Amer. Phil.
Soc. 25: 107-110.

Hirst, S. 1912. Descriptions of new arach-
nids of the orders Solifugae and Pedipalpi.
Ann. Mag. Natur. Hist. series 8, 9: 229-
237.

Koch, C. L. 1842. Systematische Ueber-
sicht uber die Familie der Galeoden. Arch.
Naturgesch 1: 350-356.

Kraepelin, K. 1899. Zur Systematik der
Solifugen. Mitt. naturhist. Mus. Ham-
burg, 16 Jahrgang: 197-259.

Kraepelin, K. 1901. Palpigradi und Soli-
fugae. in D as Tierreich. Leipzig,
Deutsche Zoologischer Gesellschaft, No.
12, 159 pp.

Lucas, H. 1835. (Description of Galeodes
cubae Lucas), in Magasin de Zoologie,
published by F. E. Guerin. Class 8, pl. 2.

Marx, George. 1892. Contributions to the
knowledge of the life history of Arach-
nida. Proc. Entomol. Soc., Washington
2 (2) : 252-254.

Mello-Leitlo, C. de. 1942. Novos solifugos
do Chile e do Mexico. An Acad. Brasileira
Cien 14: 305-313.


Muma, Martin H. 1951. The arachnid order
Solpugida in the United States. Bull.
Amer. Mus. Natur. Hist. 92, art. 2: 35-141.












Muma, Martin H. 1962. The arachnid order
Solpugida in the United States: Suppl. 1.
Amer. Mus. Novitates, No. 2092: 1-44.

Muma, Martin H. 1963. Solpugida of the
Nevada Test Site. Brigham Young Univ.
Sci. Bull. Bull. Biol. Ser. 3 (2) : 1-14.

Muma, Martin H. 1966. Burrowing habits
of North American Solpugida (Arach-
nida). Psyche. 73(4) : 251-260.

Pocock, R. I. 1895. Notes on some Soli-
fugae contained in the collection of the
British Museum with descriptions of new
species. Ann. Mag. Natur. Hist. Series
6, 16: 74-98.

Pocock, R. I. 1902. Arachnida: Scorpiones,
Pedipalpi, and Solifugae: in Biologia Cen-
trali Americana, London Zoology, Arach-
nida 3: 1-72.


Putnam, J. D. 1883. The Solpugidae of
America: papers of J. Duncan Putnam,
arranged for publication by Herbert Os-
born. Proc. Davenport Acad. Natur. Sci.
3: 249-310.

Roewer, C. F. R. 1934. Solifugae, Palpi-
gradi: in Bronn, H. G., Klassen and und
Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Leipzig 5 (div.
4, book 4) : 1-723.

Say, Thomas. 1823. (Descriptions of Gale-
odes pallipes Say and Galeodes subulata
Say) : in James Edwin, Account of an ex-
pedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky
Mountains under Major Stephen H. Long.
Philadelphia 2: 3.

Simon, Eugene. 1879. Essai d'une classifi-
cation des Galeodes. Ann. Soc. Entomol.,
France, series 5, 9: 93-154.














Index to Scientific Names
(Italicized page numbers indicate major reference)


A page
acrilobatus, Eremochelis .....--...............---------------------.................. 32
acrilobatus, Therobates -..---...........-------..----------......... 32
affinis, Datames ..................................................-------...---.. 14
affinis, Eremobates .........-..................------.--........ 14, 15, 18, 21
affinis, Erem operna .................................................... 14
arizonica, Erem ostata .............................................. 24
Amm otrecha .......................-- ..................... 44, 45, 48, 49
A m m otrechella ................................................... 44, 45
Ammotrechesta . ..------.---.. ---....----..............-----------....... 44, 52
AMMOTRECHIDAE .....-...--.-...........---.--..... 3, 44
AMMOTRECHINAE ........................-------------------.....----...... 44, 45
Am m otrechinus .................................................. 44, 50
Ammotrechona ......--...........------.......----------...-------........ 44, 48
Ammotrechula .........-....--------..-----.........---....----.---.... 44, 52, 53
andreasana, Erem ochelis ............................................ 35
andreasana group ...................--............-- .-----..----.. 30, 35
andreasana, Therobates .................-------..----.--....-..---....-.... 35
angustus, Branchia --------.......................------.......------------- 56
angustus, Eremobates ..................------...-----...-----------.. 25, 26
angustus group ............................................----------. 7, 10, 25
arcellus, Therobates .............................................. 30, 31
arcus, Eremochelis ....................................----.......------..... 33, 34
arcus group .............----................-----.....----------------- 30, 33, 34
arcus, Therobates ................................ ................... .. 33
ascopulatus, Erem obates .................................... 10, 11
attritus, Therobates ---....-------------.---------...............--. 35
audax, Eremobates ..................-----------------......--.........----- 2, 26
azteca, Eremoperna ..........---------------.....--.................-----------..---- 26
aztecus, Eremobates ---------.....--......-............-----------.---.... 24, 26
aztecus group ......... .............................--................. 10, 26
B
banksi group ..--......--------..------------------.. 37, 38
banksi, Hemerotrecha .......--..---.-..-----.-----. 37, 38
bantai, Eremobates ..........................................-----------...... 15, 16
barberi, Eremothera .-...-..-...--..--........-------.--..----.....-----........ 29
bidepressa, Hemerotrecha .....-------------- ..-----.- 30
bidepressus, Eremochelis ...---------.-------.. 30, 31, 32
bidepressus, Therobates ............................................ 30
bilobatus, Erem ochelis .......................................... 32, 33
bilobatus group ............................................---------------- 30, 32, 36
bilobatus, Therobates ................................................ 33
bolivari, Ammotrechella ..........--......----------.......---------.. 2, 45
boneti, Ammotrechula .---..-..------- ...-- ...-------.. 2, 52
borregoensis, Ammotrechula .............................. 46, 53
Branchia ........................-------------------------- --------- 56
branch, Eremochelis ......-.-- ..-- --.-------.. 30, 31, 32, 36
branch group ........................................ 30, 31, 37, 42
branch, Hemerotrecha ................-.......-................ -------------42, 43
branch, Therobates ...............-.....------------.....----------........--.... 30
brevis, Branchia .....................--.. ..........--..................... 56
brunnea, Ammotrechesta .............................. 46, 52, 57
C
calexicensis, Eremorhax .................................----. .. 7, 9
californica, Cleobis --......-------------...-.-----------......... 38
californica, Erem ostata ............................................ 24
californica, Hemerotrecha ............-......................----------. 37, 38


page
californicus, Datames .......................................... 25, 26
californicus, Eremobates .................................. 25, 26
californicus, Eremopus ---..............-----------............................. 26
cameronensis, Therobates ..-------------....-......-...........-......---....---.... 31
caroliniana Eremostata ............................................ 28
carolinianus, Datames ........................................---........ 28
carolinianus, Eremobates .......................................... 28
caspari, D atam es ....................................................... 28
caspari, Erem obates .....................---.............. ............. 28
C ham bria ................... . .......... ...... .................... ... 4, 36
cinerascens, Gluvia ............................................ 22, 24
cinerea, Datames ...................---------------------.----.--....... 8, 9
cinereus, Erem obates .................................................. 8
Cleobis ...............----------------------........-----..............---............ ---37
cobinensis, Ammotrecha ....................-------------------.................. 46, 49
coloradensis, Eremochelis .................................... 31, 32
coloradensis, Therobates .....................----.....................---.. 31
constricta, Datam es ..............................-- ................... 28
constricta, Erem obates .............................................. 28
cruzi, Eremobates ..............------- ..----..-----....--- ....------25, 26
ctenidiellus, Evemobates ...................... 10, 11, 12, 13
cubae, Ammotrecha ............................................ 47, 48
cubae, Ammotrechona ......................................... 45, 48
cubae, Galeodes .--------------............... --.. .--.--.------......-..... 48
cuyamacanus, Eremochelis --.......................---.....------.--........ 34
cuyamacanus, Therobates ........................................ 34
D
D atam es ........................................................................ 10
denticulata, Hemerotrecha ........................ 39, 40, 41
dilatatus, Datames .--...-.............-------......----------.----...........---. 22
dilatatus, Erem obates ................................................ 22
dinamita, Eremogyna ................................................ 24
dinamita, Eremostata ....-----....--..----.....--------------.................. 24
dolabra, Ammotrechula .---------------.---- 46, 53
dorsalis, Erem obates ................................................... 28
dorsalis, Erem opus .................... .................................. 28
durangonus, Eremobates ........................ 2, 22, 24, 25
E
elongata, Gluvia -...------.................----------------- 2, 28, 33
elongatus, Erem obates ............................................ 28
elpasoensis, Hemerotrecha ..................--------..-.....------.....---... 42
E rem obates ....................................................... 3, 7, 10
EREMOBATIDAE ......................................................---- 3
EREMOBATINAE .....-.........-.......---------------.................-------- 3, 4
Eremochelis .....................................................---... 3, 4, 30
E rem ocosta ................................................................ 4, 10
Eremognatha .....-......----- ......------------------- 10, 37
Eremoperna ...........................................................-----....... 10
E rem opus ............................................................... 4, 10
Eremorhax ..................................---------------------------- 3, 4, 7, 9
EREMORHAXINAE .................................................... 4
Eremostata ............................................................-----........ 10
Eremothera -..-....-----------.............................-----------------.. 3, 29
F
fagei, Eremobates ...................-----------------------................ 16, 18
fagei, Erem opus .......................................................... 16













page
flexacus, Erem ochelis .................................................. 34
flexacus, Therobates .................................................... 34
form icarius, Gluvia .............................................. 22, 24
form idabilis, Datam es .................................................. 4
formidabilis, Eremobates ............................................ 4
formidabilis, Eremoperna ............................................ 4
formidabilis, Eremorhax ...................... 4, 5, 9, 12, 16
fruitana, Hemerotrecha .............................. 39, 40, 42
G
geniculata, Ammotrecha ............................................ 46
geniculata, Ammotrechella .........................------------. 45, 46, 47
geniculata, Eremocosta .........-.......---.......................... 10
geniculata, Gluvia ..................----------------............................... 2, 46
geniculatus, D atam es .................................................. 10
geniculatus, Eremobates .................................... 10, 12
gertschi, Eremochelis ......................-----------------...........--.. 30, 31, 32
gertschi, Therobates .................................................. 31
gigas, E rem ocosta ......................... ............................. 7
gigas, Eremorhax ............................................--.. 7, 8, 12
gigasellus, Eremorhax .......................................... 7, 8
girardi, Datames ........--.-- ----------------.................. ----17
girardi, Eremobates------------------ ................----.................-----...... 15, 17
gladiolus, Eremobates .................................. 11, 12, 14
gracilidens, Eremobates .............................. 15, 17, 21
gryllipes, Am m otrecha .............................................. 50
gryllipes, Ammotrechinus .................................... 45, 50
gryllipes, Solpuga .....--------........------...---.---.............. 2, 50
guenini, Eremobates .................-------..........------------......... 15, 16, 17
guenini, Eremognatha ....-----------...........---------............-........ 17, 18
H
Hemerotrecha .................................... 3, 4, 30, 36, 37
hessei, Eremobates ............................ 15, 16, 17, 18, 22
hessei, E rem opus .......................................................... 18
hirsuta, C leobis ............................................................ 54
Horribates --------.....................-----------------..................--........---------.. 29
hystrix, Eremobates ...............................-------------------------.................. 28
hystrix, Eremoperna ....--.--......--...................... 2, 28
I
imperialis, Eremochelis ...........................----------------------................... 35
imperialis group ..........................-----------.......................... 30, 35
im perialis, Therobates .............................................. 35
ingens, Eremobates .....-........-----------------....-------.................. 28
ingens, Eremoperna .............................---------------.........--------..... 2, 28
Innesa .....-...--------..--------------------...........-------..-------........... 55
insignita, Hemerotrecha ............................................ 31
insignitis, Eremochelis .............................. 30, 31, 32
iviei, E rem ochelis ............................................-- ... 31, 32
iviei, Therobates ...............---.......---.................................... 32
J
jacintoana, Hemerotrecha .........................-...----------......-. 40
K
kraepelini, Eremobates ........--. --------.......... 15, 18
L
lacuna, Ammotrechula ......................................... 45, 53
larreae, Erem ochelis ................................................. 35
larreae, Therobates .............................. ........................ 35
latus, E rem orhax .......................................................... 5
lentiginosus, Datam es ................................................ 24
limbata, Ammotrecha ............................................ 45, 49
limbatus, Galeodes .........-----------......-----------...----............... 2, 49


M page
macra, Hemerotrecha ........................................ 42, 43
macswaini, Eremochelis ..........................----------------.................. 34
macswaini, Therobates ---..-...-.....-------------....................-..-........---- 34
m agna, Datam es ............................. ......................... 5, 6
m agnus, Erem obates .................................................... 5
magnus, Eremorhax .....................-------------.............-------.......... 5, 6
magnus group .....................----------------------------................ 4, 5
malkini, Eremochelis ----........-........----------......-...-......... 31, 32
malkini, Therobates --..--------------............................-............ 32
marathon, Eremobates ........................ 15, 16, 18, 20
marathon, Hemerotrecha .-...-....---------........--------......... .......... 43
marginata, Eremognatha ............................................ 38
marginata, Hemerotrecha ................................ 38, 50
marginatus, Eremobates ------------------...............--....-..---.......... 38
medialis, Eremochelis ..................-----------------................. 30, 31, 32
medialis, Therobates ------.-----.. ------................... 32
mexicanus, Eremopus ............................................. 5, 6
milsteadi, Hemerotrecha ........................................... 43
minima, Hemerotrecha ...---------..................................... 42, 43
montezuma, Eremopus ................................................ 6
montezuma, Eremorhax ........................................ 6, 12
montezuma group ..-...-....----...-..-- -----...---.----------........ 4, 6
mormona, Eremoperna ..........----------......------......-....... 12, 18
mormonus, Eremobates --..------....-----........ 11, 12, 14, 18
morrisi, Eremochelis ................................... 30, 31, 32
morrisi, Therobates .................................------------------------................... 32
mulaiki, Ammotrechula ...................................... 46, 53
N
nanus, Erem obates .............................................. 15, 20
nevadensis, Hemerotrecha .................................. 40, 41
nigrescens, Ammotrecha ......................--........ 46, 48, 50
nigrimanus, Gluvia ..............-..................-------------------------................. 5, 6
nodularis, Eremobates .-----------....-----....................-----.......-..-..-... 18
nudus, Erem ochelis ...................................................... 34
nudus, Therobates ........................................................ 34
P
pallipes, Datames .........-----...----....-----------------.................... --33
pallipes, Eremobates .............................. 22, 24, 26, 33
pallipes, Galeodes .................................................. 22, 24
pallipes group ........................... .................... 10, 22, 24
palpisetulosus, Eremobates ................ 14, 15, 17, 20
palpisetulosus group ....-..-...................---------.........-----. 10, 14, 15
papillatus, Eremobates .......-.....-.........--------------......... 15, 20, 21
peninsulana, Ammotrecha ...............----------..-----------............. 54
peninsulana, Ammotrechula ................................ 45, 54
peninsulana, Cleobis .........--........------------------------.................... 54
picta, A m m otrecha ........................................................ 2
pilosa, Ammotrechula ............................ 45, 53, 54, 55
plicatus, Eremochelis ...................------------------------....................... 33
plicatus, Therobates .................................................... 33
potens, Branchia ............................. .. ............. ........... -- 56
praecox, Erem obates .................................... ............. 28
praecox, Gluvia ......................................------.---..................... 28
proxima, Hemerotrecha .................................. 39, 40, 41
pseustes, Amm otrecha ................................................ 47
pseustes, Ammotrechella .......................................... 47
puebloensis, Eremorhax .......................................... 5, 6
pulcher, Erem orhax .................................................. 5, 6
purpusi, Eremobates .............................. 15, 20, 21, 22
purpusi, Erem opus ...................................................... 20














page
putnam i, Datam es ...................................................... 25
putnami, Eremobates ......................--------..................... 24, 25
R
rectus, Chanbria ................................-----.......--............ 36
regalis, Chanbria --.-----..-.........---..----- ..... ....------------. 36
regalis group --....-.............--...---------------------------36
robusta, Eremocantha ....-........- ...... .. ..----------------------- 9
robusta, Erem orhax .................................................... 9
rothi, Eremochelis .......................---......................--------.... 35, 36
rothi, Therobates ..............................----------...................... 36
S
saltatrix, Am m otrecha ................................................ 54
saltatrix, Ammotrechula .............................. 45, 54, 57
saltatrix, Cleobis--- .--..---....--------------------------.. 54
SARONOMINAE -------.......-............--------------- -- 55
scaber, Datames .................................---......................... 12
scaber, Eremobates ................................ 10, 12, 14, 18
scaber group ............-....-- ------ ------------- ------ 10, 11
scabra, E rem ostata ..................................................... 12
schlueteri, Ammotrechesta ....-..---............------.......... 2, 46, 52
scopulatus, Eremobates ............---------... ---......................... 20
sculpturata, Erem other ............................................ 29
septentrionis, Eremobates ....--..--.---..-.-- 10, 11, 12, 14
serpentinus, Chanbria ..............................------------------.....-------.. 37
serpentinus group ...---..-.....-......------- ---------------.. 36, 37
serrata group ....-----........--..--- .. -------------------- 37, 39
serrata, Hemerotrecha ........................................ 33, 39
setulosa, Ammotrechella .................................... 46, 47
sexspicata, Ammotrechella ........................................ 47
similis, Eremobates .--..-------......--------------................... 11, 14
simoni, Eremobates .....-----...--..----..................------------... 24, 25
simplex, Hemerotrecha ............................---. 40, 41, 42
spinigerus, H orribates .......................... ...................... 29
spinipalpus, Datames ................................................----.. 8
spinipalpus, Eremobates .........-..-....-----------..--........------....... 8
spinipalpus, Eremorhax .......................................... 8, 9
steckleri, H em erotrecha .......................................... 41
stimpsoni, Ammotrechella ........................ 45, 47, 50
stimpsoni, Galeodes (Cleobis) .................................. 47
stolli, Ammotrecha ..............--.....................-------------... 45, 48, 50
stolli, Cleobis --..... ----------.......................--------------...--....-- 50
striatus, D atam es ........................................................ 8
striatus, Eremorhax ...................................... 3, 7, 8, 9


page
striatus group -.....---...............--------...........-----..........-------------. 4, 7
striodorsalis, Eremochelis .......................................... 36
striodorsalis group .--...-..............--------..........---------.----......... 30, 36
striodorsalis, Therobates .......................................... 36
subulata, Erem obates .............................................. 28
subulata, Galeodes --...-..-..............................--...----.. -----22, 24, 28
sulfurea, Erem ostata ................................................ 28
sulfureus, Datames .-------.............--................-----------------... 28
sulfureus, Eremobates ........---........... ....... ..----------- 28
suspects, Eremobates ....................................... 24, 25
T
tabogana, Ammotrecha ............................................. 48
tabogana, Ammotrechella ............................ 46, 48, 50
tehachapianus, Chanbria ...................................... 36, 37
tejonus, Eremobates ..........................-----------------------.................... 15, 21
texana, Ammotrecha ----- ...................------ -. 54
texana, Ammotrechula .............------.................------------------.. 54
texana group -...-.................--------------------------.... 37, 39, 40
texana, Hemerotrecha .................................. 40, 41, 42
Therobates ..-----...........................-----------.............................. 30
THEROBATINAE ......................--.......................... 3, 30
titania, Eremorhax ..........................------......................... 7, 9
titschacki, Eremobates .......................... 16, 17, 21, 22
titschacki, Eremoseta ..-----.....................----........................ 21
tolteca, Gluvia ..................-.-- ...... ------------ 2, 29
toltecus, Eremobates ...................................-----....... 25, 29
truncata, Hemerotrecha .................................... 38, 39
tuberculatus, Detames -....-..-...--.--.........---------.................-------. 21
tuberculatus, Eremobates ....-.........-...------.....-----. 15, 20, 21, 26
tuberculatus, Eremognatha ............................---........... 21
V
venusta, Ammotrechula .............................. 46, 53, 55
vicinus, Eremobates ..--..-- .----.--......----- -------16, 21
villosus, Eremobates ................---------...........------...... 16, 20, 21
vittata, H em iblossia .................................................... 55
vittata, Innesa ...................................................... 55, 57
W
wasbaueri, Ammotrechula ............................ 46, 53, 55
werneri, Hemerotrecha .............................. 40, 41, 42
X
xena, Hemerotrecha ........................................ 42, 43
Z
zinni, Erem obates .................. . ............... ..... 11, 14

















































































































































































































I







tx 4 b




























c







University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs