Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929

Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo & Valdez-Mondragón, Alejandro, 2016, A remarkable new species of the magnus species-group of Cryptocellus (Arachnida, Ricinulei) from Ecuador, with observations on the taxonomy of the New World genera, Zootaxa 4107 (3), pp. 321-337 : 330

Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929

( Figures 27–46 , 55 )

Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929: 589 –590, fig. 1.

Cryptocellus manni Ewing, 1929: 591 –592, figs 2, 5, 8 (synonymised by Platnick and Shadab, 1976: 5).

Type material. Female holotype from COLOMBIA, Magdalena, Cincinati; in National Museum of Natural History (not examined).

Material examined. COLOMBIA: Magdalena, Villa Leonor, 1311 m elev., 12.iv.1975, J. A. Kochalka, 1 male, 1 female ( AMNH). Magdalena, San Pedro de La Sierra, 960 m elev., 19.v.1975, J. A. Kochalka, 1 larva, 1 protonymph, 1 deutonymph, 2 tritonymphs, 1 female ( AMNH).

Comparative diagnosis. Cryptocellus magnus can be readily recognized from C. chimaera sp. nov. in several aspects of the male morphology. i) Tegument covered with lanceolate, iridescent setae ( Figs. 35, 39 ); ii) cucullus devoid of surface tubercles, surface granules restricted to anterior border ( Fig. 38 ); iii) opisthosoma oblong elongate, with median plate of tergite XII approximately as long as wide ( Fig. 39 ); iv) basal segment of pygidium without notch on either dorsal or ventral posterior borders; v) legs I and II without ventral tubercles; vi) femur of legs III and IV similar in width; vii) tarsal process of the copulatory apparatus deeply bifid, spoon-like without median ledge, with no distinct ventral keels; L1 lobe longer than L2 ( Fig. 33 ); viii) accessory piece of the copulatory apparatus entirely straight, without sub-basal widening ( Fig. 28 ); L ′ lobe strongly curved and markedly robust ( Figs. 31–32 ); apex with spiniform retrodorsal process and pronounced prodorsal tubercle, without spiniform proventral process; retrolateral surface without conspicuous carinae ( Figs. 31–33 ).

Distribution. Known only from Magdalena department, Colombia.

Measurements of male (in mm). Body length, excluding pygidium 8.38; cucullus 1.33 long, greatest width 2.07; carapace 2.73 long, 2.60 wide at level of leg III (where widest); opisthosoma 5.00 long (excluding pygidium), 3.07 wide at level of tergite XII (where widest); median plate of tergite XI 1.60 long, 1.73 wide (where widest); median plate of tergite XII 1.40 long, 1.47 wide; median plate of tergite XIII 1.73 long, 1.73 wide; suture line of coxae II 0.56 long, of coxae III 0.38 long; pedipalp femur 1.33 long, greatest depth 0.57; pedipalp tibia 1.93 long, greatest depth 0.26; femur I 1.53 long, greatest width 0.67; femur II 2.73 long, 0.80 greatest width, 1.00 greatest depth; femur III 0.87 width; femur IV 0.66 width.

Notes. Cryptocellus magnus was studied and described in detail by Platnick & Shadab (1976).

Figures

FIGURE 55. Map of Northwestern South America, plotting known locality records of Cryptocellus chimaera sp. nov., Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929 and Cryptocellus leleupi Cooreman, 1976 (nomen dubium).

FIGURES 19 – 34. Cryptocellus chimaera sp. nov. and Cryptocellus magnus, copulatory structures. 19 – 26, Cryptocellus chimaera sp. nov.. Male Holotype (MEPN 7813), left copulatory apparatus. 19 – 22, Dorsal, prolateral, ventral and retrolateral views, respectively. 23, Detail of distal half, prolateral view. 24, Idem, retrolateral view. 25, Accessory piece, apex, frontal view. 26, Tarsal process, ventro-frontal view. 27 – 33, Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929. Male (AMNH), left copulatory apparatus. 27 – 30, Dorsal, prolateral, ventral and retrolateral views, respectively. 31 – 33, Detail of distal half on prolateral, retrolateral and ventro-frontal views, respectively. 34, Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929. Female from San Pedro de La Sierra (AMNH), spermathecae. Abbreviations: tP, tarsal process; ac, accessory piece (retrolateral carinae indicated by arrowheads); L ′, lobe of ac; L 1 – L 2, lobes of tP; sg, sperm transfer groove; do, distal opening of sg; sp, spiniform process; t, prodorsal tubercle; ml, pro-ventral median ledge; st, spermatheca.

FIGURES 35 – 40. Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929. Male and female from Villa Leonor (AMNH). 35, Male, carapace, dorsal view. 36, Female, carapace, dorsal view. 37, Male, prosoma, ventral view (sternal region). 38, Male, cucullus, frontal view. 39, Male, opisthosoma, dorsal view. 40, Female opisthosoma, dorsal view.

FIGURES 41 – 46. Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929. Male (AMNH). 41 – 42, Right leg III, prolateral and retrolateral views, respectively. 43, Left pedipalp tibia, movable (top) and fixed (bottom) claws. 44, Right leg I, tibia, prolateral view. 45, Left leg II, femur, prolateral view. 46, Right leg II, tibia, prolateral view. Abbreviations: ac, accessory piece; Lc, lamina cyathiformis; mP, metatarsal process; MT, metatarsus; tP, tarsal process.