Ricinoides feae ( Hansen, 1921 )

Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo, Sain, Colby E. & Prendini, Lorenzo, 2021, Systematics Of The “ Giant ” Ricinulei (Ricinoididae: Ricinoides) Of West Africa, With Descriptions Of Five New Species And Comparative Morphology Of The Male Copulatory Apparatus, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2021 (448), pp. 1-69 : 33-34

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1206/0003-0090.448.1.1
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F287C9-FF8B-BC4D-FCE3-2DF5FBEBF911
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Ricinoides feae ( Hansen, 1921 )
status

Treatment

Ricinoides feae ( Hansen, 1921) View in CoL

Figures 1 View FIGURE 1 , 4C View FIGURE 4 , 5 View FIGURE 5 , 6D View FIGURE 6 , 7C View FIGURE 7 , 9D View FIGURE 9 , 11D View FIGURE 11 , 12C View FIGURE 12 , 14D View FIGURE 14 , 15C View FIGURE 15 , 17D View FIGURE 17 , 18C View FIGURE 18 , 20D View FIGURE 20 , 21D View FIGURE 21 , 23B, D, F, H View FIGURE 23 , 29B, D, F, H, J View FIGURE 29 , 33D View FIGURE 33 , 34C, tables 1, 2, 4

Cryptostemma feae Hansen, 1921: 26–31 , pl. 2, figs. 3a–c, pl. 3, figs. 1a–i; 1930: unpaginated, pl.1, fig. 11, unpaginated, pl. 15, fig. 9b.

Ricinoides feae ( Hansen, 1921) View in CoL : Kästner, 1932: 113, fig. 153; Bolívar y Pieltain, 1942: 201; Millot, 1945a: 72–74, figs. 1–3; 1945b: 1–29, figs. 1–34; 1949a: figs. 54a–c, 62, 79, 83, 90, 92; 1949b: 744–757, figs. 529–551; Zakhvatkin, 1952: 43, fig. 29b; Dubinin, 1962: 443, fig. 1287; Tuxen, 1974: 96–98, figs. 18–23; Dumitresco and Juvara-Balş, 1977a: 260, fig. 1; 1977b: 176, 177, figs. 12a, b, 13a–e; Selden and Dunlop, 1998: 305, fig. 7.1; Harvey, 2003: 183.

TYPE MATERIAL EXAMINED: Cryptostemma feae :

Lectotype ♂ ( MSNG) [here designated], GUINEA-

BISSAU: Rio Cassine [Tombali Region: Rio Cacine, 11°00′N 15°09′W], Guinea Portoghese, i–iv.1900, L. Fea. The vial containing the lectotype includes a microvial with the detached sinistral copulatory apparatus. Paralectotypes: 9 ♂, 13 ♀, 27 tritonymphs, 3 deutonymphs, 3 protonymphs ( MSNG), same data as lectotype GoogleMaps ; 4 ♂, 6 ♀, 12 tritonymphs, 13 deutonymphs, 8 protonymphs ( MSNG), Bolama [Bolama Region: 11°34′37″N 15°28′44″W], Guinea Portoghese, vi–xii.1899, L. Fea GoogleMaps ; 2 larvae ( MSNG), Bolama, Guinea Portoghese, L. Fea ; 2 ♂, 4 tritonymphs, 1 deutonymph, 1 protonymph ( ZMUC), Rio Cacine , Guinea Portoghese, i–iv.1900, L. Fea ; 1 tritonymph ( ZMUC), Rio Cacine , Guinea Portoghese, i–iv.1900, L. Fea ; 1 ♂ ( ZMUC), Rio Cacine , Guinea Portoghese, i– iv.1900, L. Fea ; 1 ♀ ( ZMUC), Rio Cacine , Guinea Portoghese, i–iv.1900, L. Fea ; 1 ♂ ( MSNG), Rio Cacine , Guinea Portoghese, i-iv.1900, L. Fea .

DIAGNOSIS: Ricinoides feae differs from the other eight species in the unique structure of the fixed process of the male copulatory apparatus (figs. 29B, D, F, H, J, 33D), which features several distinctive characters, including the laterally compressed α lobe, the wide separation of β 1 and β 2 of the β lobe, the pd lobe expressed as a moderately broad elevated surface, and the rd lobe comprising a cluster of small spines (table 2), none of which is shared with the other species. Additionally, R. feae is the only species in which the median sclerite of tergite XIII is noticeably longer than wide (figs. 14D, 15C), the sclerite being wider than long or as long as wide in the other species. Ricinoides feae differs further from all other species, except R. westermannii , in the relatively unmodified pedipalp tibia (fig. 20D), which is markedly robust in the other species, and in the width of the opening of the pygidium basal segment, which is approximately two fifths the lateral width of the segment at its base, but narrower laterally in the other species. The male of R. feae differs from the male of R. westermannii in several respects, including the presence of a large ventromedian apophysis on the tibia of leg II in R. feae (fig. 23F), which is absent in R. westermannii .

REDESCRIPTION OF MALE: Based on the lectotype (MSNG).

Measurements: Total length 6.45 mm (table 4).

Coloration: Soma and appendages red (fig. 1). Carapace dorsolateral translucent areas yellowish. Opisthosomal tergal and pleural membranes yellow, hyaline. Cheliceral manus yellow; fingers, finger dentition, and manus toothlike process dark.

Setation: Surfaces densely covered with short, translucent, bristlelike setae, length similar to height of surrounding tuberose granules (figs. 6D, 14D). Polygonal setae absent.

Tegument surface macrosculpture: Tegument moderately irregular, without cuticular pits. Carapace, cucullus, lateral margins of opisthosomal tergites, legs (except for prolateral and retrolateral surfaces of leg II femur), and, to lesser extent, coxal region covered with coarse, rounded tuberose granules, evenly spaced apart, not clustered together (figs. 6D, 9D, 11D, 14D, 21D, 23B, D, F, H). Opisthosoma without distinct tubercles; entire dorsal surface and sternite XIII coarsely granular, some granules grouped together or touching others but not distinctly clustered (figs. 14D, 17D); remainder of opisthosomal ventral surface, leg II femur prolateral and retrolateral surfaces, and pleural membranes finely and densely granular; tergal membranes more sparsely granular. Pedipalp femur dorsal, prolateral, and retrolateral surfaces finely granular; tibia with elevated oval tubercles distally (fig. 20D), not noticeably enlarged or arranged in distinct rows.

Carapace: Carapace longer than wide, broadest between coxae of legs II and III; trapezoidal, lateral margins curved, narrowing anteriorly (fig. 6D); anterior margin linear in dorsal aspect; posterior margin slightly procurved; median longitudinal sulcus, paired posterior marginal transverse sulci, and paired anterolateral longitudinal sulci distinct; paired lateral depressions aligned with coxae of legs II; posteromedian moundlike excrescence absent; dorsolateral translucent areas entirely smooth, medium sized, aligned with intersection between coxae of legs I and II, visible in dorsolateral aspect.