Pseudopucrolia incerta (Mello-Leitao, 1928) Mendes, 2011

Mendes, Amanda Cruz, 2011, Phylogeny and taxonomic revision of Heteropachylinae (Opiliones: Laniatores: Gonyleptidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 163 (2), pp. 437-483 : 453-455

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00706.x
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A60A87F2-FF8F-FF90-D923-ED8B5CEA43BB
treatment provided by	Valdenar
scientific name	Pseudopucrolia incerta
status

Treatment

PSEUDOPUCROLIA INCERTA View in CoL (MELLO- LEITÃO, 1928)

COMB. NOV. ( FIGS 5 View Figure 5 , 6 View Figure 6 , 12C, D View Figure 12 , 27 View Figure 27 )

Heterogonyleptes incertus Mello-Leitão, 1928: 12 , figures 4 and 5; Maury, 1992: 2.

Melloa incerta: Roewer, 1930: 408 View in CoL , figure 27; Mello- Leitão, 1932: 246, figures 182 and 183; Soares, 1945: 359; Soares & Soares, 1949: 190. Kury, 2003a: 143.

Psudopucrolia incerta [misspelling]: Sigrist & Carvalho, 2008: 39. [This combination was never formally proposed; the authors used data from an unpublished MSc thesis ( Mendes, 2005), not valid for taxonomic purposes.]

Distribution ( Fig. 27 View Figure 27 ): BRAZIL. Pernambuco [Moreno, Bonança (Tapera)]. WWF Ecoregion WWF: NT0151, Pernambuco coastal forests.

Material examined: m lectotype (here designated), 6m, 40f, and 40 juveniles (juv) paralectotypes (here designated) ( MNRJ01507 View Materials ) from BRAZIL, Pernambuco, Moreno , Bonança [Tapera], Pickel B; 2m and f paralectotypes ( SMF RII948 /6) (here designated) same data as lectotype ; 12m and 15f ( MNRJ41399 View Materials ) , 24m and 35f ( MNRJ41934 View Materials ) , 10m and 19f ( MNRJ41935 View Materials ) same data as lectotype .

Other material: m and f paralectotypes (here designated) ( MACN9041 View Materials ). Not examined .

Diagnosis: Dorsal surface of the body not highly covered by dark granules. Free tergite II corners unarmed (nonprotuberant corners) ( Fig. 5A View Figure 5 ); median apophysis of free tergite II robust and spiniform, at least double the tergite length ( Fig. 5A, B, E, F View Figure 5 ); free tergite III with posterior border distinctly convex and unarmed corners ( Fig. 5A, F View Figure 5 ). Calcaneus I less than half the length of metatarsus I. Medial apophysis in the main dorsal row of tubercles of femur IV absent ( Fig. 6 View Figure 6 ).

Measurements: Male lectotype: CL: 2.1; MCW: 2.8; ASL: 3.8; MASW: 6.1. FL: 4.9. Males (N = 4): CL: 2.1 (2.0–2.1); MCW: 2.9 (2.8–3.0); ASL: 3.8 (3.5–4.0); MASW: 6.1 (5.5–6.5). FL 4.9 (4.7–5.2). Females (N = 5): CL: 1.8 (1.8–1.9); MCW: 2.7 (2.6–2.8); ASL: 2.7 (2.5–2.8); MASW: 5.1 (4.9–5.3). FL: 4.9 (4.7– 5.2).

Description

Male lectotype: Dorsum ( Fig. 5A View Figure 5 ). Scutum outline pyriform, widest at area II. Anterior margin of carapace with three small granules at each side. Frontal hump with small granules. Eye mound with pair of small paramedian granules ( Fig. 5A, C View Figure 5 ) and some granules near the eyes. Carapace smooth. Mesoter-

A gum divided into three areas by shallow grooves, areas not well marked; mesotergal area I divided into left and right halves by a median longitudinal groove; mesotergal area III bearing pair of small paramedian tubercles. Posterior margin and free tergites I–II with a transversal row of minute granules each. Free tergites I–II fused to the dorsal scutum without armature on corners ( Fig. 5A, E View Figure 5 ); free tergite II bearing median robust spiniform curved apophysis pointed backwards ( Fig. 5E View Figure 5 ). Free tergite III with posterior border distinctly convex, projected in a transverse keel and without armature on corners ( Fig. 5A, F View Figure 5 ). Lateral areas of mesotergum with a row of tubercles each, which increase progressively in size towards the posterior margin of dorsal scutum, reaching the groove between areas II and III ( Fig. 5A, E View Figure 5 ). Dorsal anal operculum bearing median curved apophysis pointed upwards ( Fig. 5E, F View Figure 5 ). Appendages. Pedipalps ( Fig. 5A, E View Figure 5 ) – trochanter with one ventral setiferous granule. Femur with ventral row of small setiferous granules and with subapical mesal spine. Tibia with four mesal (IiIi) and three ectal (i+[Ii]) spines. Tarsus with four mesal (IiIi) and four ectal (IiIi) spines. Legs – calcaneus I less than half the length of metatarsus I, thicker than astragalus but not differently coloured. Coxa IV armed with apical prolateral blunt apophysis ( Fig. 5A View Figure 5 ). Trochanter IV armed with apical prolateral blunt apophysis and distal retrolateral curved apophysis ( Fig. 5A View Figure 5 ). Femur IV ( Fig. 6 View Figure 6 ) short, slightly curved in dorsal view and straight in lateral view, bearing rows of tubercles; without dorsobasal apophysis, with three dorsal rows of rounded tubercles, larger at the medial row, ending in a rounded tubercle with acuminate apex; retrolateral surface with row of rounded tubercles equal sized in the distal half and a prolateral row of rounded tubercles, which increase progressively in size towards the apex of the femur; apical portion ( Fig. 5D View Figure 5 ) with retrolateral tubercle, curved upwards in apical view and prolateral rounded apophysis with acuminate apex. Tarsal counts: 6/9– 10/6/6. Male genitalia ( Fig. 12C, D View Figure 12 ). Ventral plate with distal border slightly concave. Group of four distal short setae on the dorsal portion, two short distal blunt setae on the ventral portion of ventral plate, one large basal seta after group of distal setae. Glans with dorsal thumb-like process. Stylus with apical setae of subequal size. Colour (in alcohol). Background colour of body, and coxa and trochanter IV orange-brown, uniform. Femur IV orange-brown with reddish tubercles. Chelicerae and pedipalps yellow, light brown, reticulated. Females ( Fig. 5B View Figure 5 ). Apical apophysis of coxa IV reduced in relation to males and spiniform. Trochanter IV narrow without armature. Femur IV without conspicuous armature. Free tergites not fused to the dorsal scutum, free tergite II bearing small median spine and a tubercle on each corner. Posterior margin of free tergite III not convex. Dorsal anal operculum bearing small tubercle.

Variation: Less developed exemplars are less convex, with ratio between maximum width of abdominal scutum and carapace smaller. Armature of free tergite II and coxa, trochanter and femur IV is little developed.

Notes: In Kury’s (2003a) catalogue there are data for a lost holotype of P. incerta, MNRJ 01565. In old index cards, which were used to compose the current database of the MNRJ Opiliones collection (Kury, pers. comm. 2004), there was a ‘cotypos’ (cotypes) lot assigned to the species, and a lot with one exemplar exposed at the Museum public exhibition. The former corresponds to the material MNRJ01507 (that contains a label with writing recognizable as Mello- Leitão’s stating ‘1507 Melloa incerta (Mel. Leit) Tapera’). The latter corresponds to MNRJ01565, lost according to the information on the database, and not found in the collection. In the original description of the species a holotype was not properly designated and the depository indicated was Mello-Leitão’s private collection. Therefore, MNRJ01565 cannot be considered either as the holotype or as a lost holotype. Probably there was a large series of syntypes from which Mello-Leitão selected an exemplar to expose and a small part was sent to other institutions (MACN and SMF). The other exemplars remained under the number MNRJ01507, deposited in Museu Nacional, his former institution. From this lot, a male was selected and here designated as the lectotype.