Liomma laeve Roewer 1959: 72

Kury, Adriano B., Villarreal, Osvaldo & Medrano, Miguel, 2024, On the systematic allocation of Liomma Roewer, 1959 (Arachnida: Opiliones: Nomoclastidae) and discovery of a putative synapomorphy for Nomoclastinae, Journal of Natural History 58 (1 - 4), pp. 1-13 : 5-9

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2023.2287765
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10818435
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/442A87F2-2924-FFC1-7AE6-5CF2FD26BDBD
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Liomma laeve Roewer 1959: 72
status

Treatment

Liomma laeve Roewer 1959: 72 View in CoL , fig. 3

Liomma laeve View in CoL – Kury 2003: 25

Type data

♀ holotype ( SMF RII 12765 , examined), from Ecuador, Tungurahua, ‘ Baños de Tungurahua, 1800 m’ .

Other material examined

7 ♂, 5 ♀ ( MNRJ 19235 View Materials ) Ecuador, Tungurahua, Puntzán near Baños , 2042 m, −1.42469°, −78.40673°, 21 March 2011, A Chagas, A Giupponi, A Kury and M Vega leg . ♂ ♀ ( QCAZ 322 View Materials ) same data .

Etymology

From Latin laevis, e, variation of lēvis (smooth). Reinforcing the meaning of the generic name. The glossy aspect of the animal must have made a big impression on Roewer.

Diagnosis

As for the genus.

Description

Male MNRJ 19235. Measurements in Table 1 View Table 1 .

Dorsum. Dorsal scutum zeta type ( Figures 4a View Figure 4 , 6a View Figure 6 ). Carapace very well developed, convex, larger than abdominal scutum. Frontal protuberance greatly enlarged, bridging the whole space between anterior margin of scutum and ocularium ( Figures 4c View Figure 4 , 6b View Figure 6 ). Ocularium not particularly high but seeming higher because it is situated atop the carapace slope, wide ( Figures 4a View Figure 4 , 6a–b View Figure 6 ). Mesotergum divided into four areas. Area I strongly distorted by enlargement of carapace, which reaches area II, thus reduced to two small triangles. Area II to IV very thin and subparallel. All scutum unarmed, area V and free tergites I–III each with a transverse row of setiferous tubercles ( Figures 4a View Figure 4 , 6a View Figure 6 ).

Venter. ( Figure 6b View Figure 6 ) Coxae I–III parallel, coxa IV only a little larger than I–III. Stigmatic area T shaped inverted, stigmata large, elliptical, parallel, fused to sternite II almost all the way and receding at stigmata, creating a gap, connected to anterior margin of lateral of sternite II by a small rod. All free sternites smooth, without notable features. Coxae I–II each with a transverse row of setiferous tubercles, larger in coxa I.

Chelicera and pedipalps. Basichelicerite very robust, unarmed ( Figures 4 View Figure 4 , 5a–b View Figure 5 ). Cheliceral hand kidney-like swollen, cheliceral fingers stout, with crests on the edges. Pedipalps robust, as long as body ( Figures 4 View Figure 4 , 5a–b View Figure 5 ). Trochanter with one ventral and one dorsal conic protuberance. Femur with very thick unarmed dorsal keel. Femur ventral with three setiferous tubercles. Patella unarmed, not incrassate. Tibia + Tarsus with small, delicate setiferous tubercles. Armature of tibia ectal iIi, mesal iiIi, of tarsus ectal IiIi, mesal IiIi ( Figure 5a–b View Figure 5 ).

Legs. Legs I–IV short and thin ( Figure 4a–c View Figure 4 ; see Table 1 View Table 1 ), metatarsus I swollen ( Figure 4c– d View Figure 4 ), femora III–IV slightly incrassate with a proventral row of setiferous tubercles. Trochanter I–IV small. Coxa IV only a little larger than each of the others, tip apparent behind scutum located at area I ( Figures 4a View Figure 4 , 6a View Figure 6 ). Metatarsus I with a short comb of MtCS positioned on the distal third. Tarsal formula in Table 2 View Table 2 .

Colour. ( Figure 4 View Figure 4 ) Body and appendages colour background Light Yellow (centroid 86), densely mottled in Moderate Olive Brown (centroid 95). On carapace, scutal areas, lateral margin of scutum and free tergites mottling covers all background, by contrast, on ocularium, frontal protuberance, chelicerae and pedipalps it is open honeycombed, resulting in lighter colouration. The legs are intermediate, not as dark as scutal areas, but not as light as ocularium. Ventral side has the same colours as dorsum, mottling denser around stigmata and free sternites.

Male genitalia. Truncus with subapical ventral notch ( Figure 5e View Figure 5 ). Ventral plate elongate trapezoid ( Figures 5c–d View Figure 5 , 6d View Figure 6 ), without microsetae ( Figure 5d,f View Figure 5 ). Macrosetae A and C mostly subequally spaced (there is a gap between groups A and C), ladder-like and inserted on the lateral margin of ventral plate. Macrosetae A1–A2 cylindrical slender, A2 partly doubled/geminated. There is no trace of macrosetae B. Macrosetae C1–C2 cylindrical slender, somewhat shorter than A, aligned on the lateral edge of the VP and separated by subequal gaps. Macroseta D much reduced, inserted proximally on the lateral margin of VP. Macrosetae E1–E2 extremely reduced, shifted to lateral ( Figure 5d View Figure 5 ). Glans sac short columnar, multi-folded with a long ventral sac reaching the stylus. Stylus thick, thumb-shaped, situated atop the glans sac ( Figures 6d,f View Figure 6 ).

Female. ( Figures 3 View Figure 3 , 7 View Figure 7 ) Mostly an attenuate version of male but with same shape: chelicerae small, pedipalpus less robust, carapace less developed invading area I much less extensively, femur III–IV still less incrassate. Ocularium considerably narrower and frontal protuberance smaller. Outline of the dorsal scutum is slightly different from male – trapezoid, with two constrictions subtly marked.