Butheolus Simon, 1882, 1889

Kovařík, Baloorthochirus becvari & 1996, 2004, Revision and taxonomic position of genera Afghanorthochirus Lourenço & Vachon, Baloorthochirus Kova ík, Butheolus Simon, Nanobuthus Pocock, Orthochiroides Kova ík, Pakistanorthochirus Lourenço, and Asian Orthochirus Karsch, with descriptions of twelve new species (Scorpiones, Buthidae), Euscorpius 16, pp. 1-33 : 2-3

Butheolus Simon, 1882

Butheolus Simon, 1882: 248 ; Karsch, 1886: 76; Werner, 1934: 270; Vachon, 1980: 253; Sissom, 1990: 101; Kovařík, 1996: 177; Kovařík, 1998: 117; Fet & Lowe, 2000: 88; Lourenço, 2001: 176, 179.

Butheolus (in part): Kraepelin, 1899: 34; Kraepelin, 1903: 564.

= Nanobuthus Pocock, 1895: 314 , TS: Nanobuthus andersoni Pocock, 1895 = Butheolus andersoni (Pocock, 1895) , comb. n.; Kraepelin, 1899: 38; Kraepelin, 1903: 564; Kraepelin, 1905: 337; Werner, 1934: 270; Perez, 1974: 27; Fet & Lowe, 2000: 186; Lourenço, 2001: 179. Syn. n.

Butheolus (Nanobuthus) : Vachon, 1975: 1598.

= Neobuthus Hirst, 1911: 462 ; Werner, 1934: 270; Fet & Lowe, 2000: 186; Lourenço, 2001: 179 (syn. by Kovařík, 2003: 137).

Butheolus (Neobuthus) : Vachon, 1975: 1598.

TYPE SPECIES: Butheolus thalassinus Simon, 1882 .

DIAGNOSIS: Patella of pedipalp without ventral trichobothria. Dorsal trichobothria of femur arranged in beta-configuration. Trichobothrium d 2 of pedipalp femur present on dorsal surface but often smaller than other trichobothria. Tibial spurs present on third and fourth legs. Pectines with fulcra and densely hirsute. Movable fingers of pedipalps with 6–10 rows of granules and 3–5 distal granules. Carapace, in lateral view, distinctly inclined downward from median eyes to anterior margin. Mesosoma with three carinae, of which two may be less conspicuous. Metasomal segments ventrally smooth or granulated. Telson bulbous, aculeus shorter or as long as vesicle. Total length under 60 mm.

COMMENTS. Although the genus Nanobuthus is accepted in recent papers (Lourenço, 2001: 179; Kovařík, 2003: 142) as valid, after examination of most species of Butheolus and related genera I come to the conclusion that Nanobuthus andersoni Pocock, 1895 does not differ enough, namely from the similar Butheolus anthracinus (Pocock, 1895) , to warrant placement in a separate genus. Opinions on what characters should be regarded as generic vary. In the species concerned the primary difference is in the width of the metasoma; however, this character cannot be deemed generic, as is clear from examples of other genera ( Babycurus , Uroplectes , Hottentotta , Parabuthus , and others).