Phalangium rudipalpe Gervais, 1849

Kury, Adriano B., Kury, Ian S. & De Oliveira, Ana Beatriz R., 2024, Checklists of extant harvestman (Arachnida: Opiliones) species for all the countries of the world, Zootaxa 5515 (1), pp. 1-162 : 149-153

Phalangium rudipalpe Gervais, 1849 ** Stygnoplus triacanthus (Koch, 1839) **

Phalangium spiniferum Cantor, 1842 ** Stylocellus spinifrons Roewer, 1942 **

Phareicranaus albigranulatus Roewer, 1913 ** Trogulus coreiformis Koch, 1839 **

Platybunus incanus Koch, 1839 ** Trogulus lygaeiformis Koch, 1839 **

Platybunus placidus Simon, 1878 ** Trogulus pulverulentus Koch, 1856 **

Platybunus uncatus (Hermann, 1804) ** Trogulus templetonii Westwood, 1833 **

Prasiana fallax (Sørensen, 1932) ** Zachaeus orchymonti Giltay, 1932 **

Ranking of species and subspecies of Opiliones by country

1) Brazil BR: 1005 (753 **) 38) Madagascar MDG: 61 (61 **)

2) Venezuela VE: 380 (322 **) 39) Montenegro MNE: 60 (11 **)

3) Indonesia ID: 341 (283 **) 40) Guatemala GTM: 58 (32 **)

4) USA US: 302 (196 **) 41) Bulgaria BGR: 58 (10 **)

5) Mexico MEX: 277 (242 **) 42) Cameroon CMR: 55 (34 **)

6) Australia AUS: 246 (244 **) 43) Germany DEU: 54 (0 **)

7) India IND: 233 (190 **) 44) Switzerland CHE: 52 (1 **)

8) New Zealand NZL: 227 (226 **) 45) Georgia GEO: 49 (13 **)

9) Colombia COL: 207 (185 **) 46) Bolivia, Plurinational State of BOL: 48 (43 **) 10) South Africa ZAF: 204 (194 **) 47) Romania ROU: 47 (9 **)

11) Malaysia MYS: 203 (167 **) 48) Serbia SRB: 47 (7 **)

12) Peru PER: 200 (177 **) 49) Suriname SUR: 41 (26 **)

13) Ecuador ECU: 178 (154 **) 50) Côte d'Ivoire CIV: 41 (16 **)

14) Myanmar (ren. Burma 1989) MMR: 176 (148 51) Ukraine (incl. Crimea) UKR: 41 (6 **)

**) 52) Poland POL: 38 (0 **)

15) Italy ITA: 145 (46 **) 53) Czechia (sep. Czechoslovakia 1993) CZE: 38 16) Congo, the Democratic Republic of the (ren. (0 **)

Zaire 1997) COD: 143 (108 **) 54) Canada CAN: 37 (1 **)

17) Nepal NPL: 131 (112 **) 55) Guyana GUY: 36 (29 **)

18) Costa Rica CRI: 126 (104 **) 56) Hungary HUN: 36 (0 **)

19) Philippines PHL: 123 (122 **) 57) Azerbaijan AZE: 35 (8 **)

20) Spain ESP: 120 (58 **) 58) Slovakia (sep. Czechoslovakia 1993) SVK: 35 21) Chile CHL: 116 (100 **) (0 **)

22) France FRA: 114 (18 **) 59) Taiwan TWN: 34 (28 **)

23) China CHN: 112 (89 **) 60) Portugal PRT: 34 (10 **)

24) Japan JPN: 107 (84 **) 61) Vietnam VNM: 33 (29 **)

25) Turkey TUR: 104 (39 **) 62) Netherlands NLD: 33 (0 **)

26) Thailand THA: 103 (89 **) 63) North Macedonia (ren. Macedonia 2019) MKD: 27) Tanzania, United Republic of TZA: 97 (67 **) 32 (10 **)

28) Argentina ARG : 97 (47 **) 64) United Kingdom GBR: 32 (0 **)

29) Russian Federation RUS: 87 (26 **) 65) Equatorial Guinea GNQ: 31 (21 **)

30) Croatia (sep. Yugoslavia 1991) HRV: 85 (18 66) Albania ALB: 31 (1 **)

**) 67) Belgium BEL: 31 (0 **)

31) Greece GRC: 74 (30 **) 68) New Caledonia NCL: 30 (28 **)

32) Papua New Guinea PNG: 73 (64 **) 69) Iran IRN: 30 (9 **)

33) Panama PAN : 70 (56 **) 70) Luxembourg LUX: 30 (0 **)

34) Cuba CUB: 68 (67 **) 71) Denmark DNK: 29 (0 **)

35) Slovenia (sep. Yugoslavia 1991) SVN: 68 (3 72) Ethiopia ETH: 28 (26 **)

**) 73) Belize BLZ: 28 (16 **)

36) Austria AUT: 65 (3 **) 74) Kenya KEN: 28 (12 **)

37) Bosnia and Herzegovina (sep. Yugoslavia 1992) 75) Algeria DZA: 27 (5 **)

BIH: 64 (8 **) 76) Sri Lanka LKA: 26 (22 **)

77) Singapore SGP: 26 (17 **) 129) Syrian Arab Republic SYR: 7 (2 **)

78) Trinidad and Tobago TTO: 25 (19 **) 130) Turkmenistan TKM: 7 (2 **)

79) Paraguay PRY: 23 (4 **) 131) Uzbekistan UZB: 7 (2 **)

80) Morocco MAR: 23 (4 **) 132) Korea, Democratic People's Republic of [North] 81) Norway NOR: 23 (0 **) PRK: 7 (1 **)

82) Uganda UGA: 22 (6 **) 133) Afghanistan AFG: 7 (1 **)

83) Sweden SWE: 22 (0 **) 134) Armenia ARM: 7 (0 **)

84) Uruguay URY: 21 (5 **) 135) Faroe Islands FRO: 7 (0 **)

85) Ireland IRL: 21 (0 **) 136) Martinique MTQ: 6 (6 **)

86) Angola AGO: 20 (18 **) 137) Mauritius MUS: 6 (5 **)

87) Rwanda RWA: 20 (6 **) 138) Bangladesh BGD: 6 (2 **)

88) Seychelles SYC: 19 (18 **) 139) Iraq IRQ: 6 (1 **)

89) El Salvador SLV: 19 (12 **) 140) Andorra AND: 6 (0 **)

90) Kazakhstan KAZ: 19 (7 **) 141) Zimbabwe ZWE: 6 (0 **)

91) Mozambique MOZ: 18 (13 **) 142) Malta MLT: 6 (0 **)

92) Belarus BLR: 18 (0 **) 143) Solomon Islands SLB: 5 (4 **)

93) Finland FIN: 17 (0 **) 144) Réunion REU: 5 (4 **)

94) Latvia LVA: 17 (0 **) 145) Lao People's Democratic Republic LAO: 5 (3 95) Ghana GHA: 16 (6 **) **)

96) Tunisia TUN: 16 (0 **) 146) Samoa (ren. Western Samoa 1997) WSM: 4 (4 97) French Guiana GUF: 15 (7 **) **)

98) Honduras HND: 14 (13 **) 147) Saint Vincent and the Grenadines VCT: 4 (4 99) Haiti HTI: 14 (11 **) **)

100) Israel ISR: 14 (4 **) 148) Virgin Islands, U.S. VIR: 4 (3 **)

101) Guinea GIN: 14 (1 **) 149) Lesotho LSO: 4 (2 **)

102) Puerto Rico PRI: 12 (9 **) 150) Sierra Leone SLE : 4 (2 **)

103) Kyrgyzstan KGZ: 12 (5 **) 151) Chad TCD: 4 (2 **)

104) Tajikistan TJK: 12 (5 **) 152) Cambodia KHM: 4 (2 **)

105) Estonia EST: 12 (0 **) 153) Palestine, State of (sep. Israel 1988, recogn. 106) Dominican Republic DOM: 11 (9 **) 2012) PSE: 4 (1 **)

107) Sao Tome and Principe STP: 11 (8 **) 154) Iceland ISL: 4 (0 **)

108) Jamaica JAM: 11 (8 **) 155) Bahamas BHS: 3 (3 **)

109) Namibia NAM: 11 (7 **) 156) Dominica DMA: 3 (3 **)

110) Brunei Darussalam BRN: 11 (6 **) 157) Grenada GRD: 3 (3 **)

111) Korea, Republic of [South] KOR: 11 (6 **) 158) Senegal SEN: 3 (2 **)

112) Togo TGO: 11 (3 **) 159) Somalia SOM: 3 (2 **)

113) Mongolia MNG: 11 (2 **) 160) Madeira and Savage Islands ( Portugal) PT: 3 (1 114) Congo COG: 10 (4 **) ** )

115) Lithuania LTU: 10 (0 **) 161) Nigeria NGA: 3 (1 **)

116) Canary Islands ( Spain) ES: 9 (6 **) 162) Antigua and Barbuda ATG: 2 (2 **)

117) Pakistan PAK: 9 (5 **) 163) Comoros COM: 2 (2 **)

118) Gabon GAB: 9 (3 **) 164) Curaçao CUW: 2 (2 **)

119) Kosovo (sep. Serbia 2008) KOS: 9 (1 **) 165) Vanuatu VUT: 2 (2 **)

120) Bhutan BTN: 8 (2 **) 166) Yemen YEM: 2 (2 **)

121) Lebanon LBN: 8 (2 **) 167) Guadeloupe GLP: 2 (1 **)

122) Burundi BDI: 8 (0 **) 168) Gibraltar GIB: 2 (0 **)

123) Micronesia, Federated States of FSM: 7 (6 **) 169) Jordan JOR: 2 (0 **)

124) Fiji FJI: 7 (5 **) 170) Nicaragua NIC: 2 (0 **)

125) Guinea-Bissau GNB: 7 (3 **) 171) Central African Republic CAF: 1 (1 **)

126) Cyprus CYP: 7 (2 **) 172) Malawi MWI: 1 (1 **)

127) Egypt EGY: 7 (2 **) 173) Palau PLW: 1 (1 **)

128) Libya LBY: 7 (2 **) 174) Azores PT-20: 1 (0 **)

175) Botswana BWA: 1 (0 **) 181) Montserrat MSR: 1 (0 **)

176) Eritrea (sep. Ethiopia 1991) ERI: 1 (0 **) 182) Saint Kitts and Nevis KNA: 1 (0 **)

177) Eswatini (ren. Swaziland 2018) SWZ: 1 (0 **) 183) Saudi Arabia SAU: 1 (0 **)

178) French Southern Territories ATF: 1 (1 **) 184) Sudan SDN: 1 (0 **)

179) Greenland ( Kalaallit Nunaat) GRL: 1 (0 **) 185) Zambia ZMB: 1 (0 **)

180) Liberia LBR: 1 (0 **) Nomina dubia GHO : 91

Further discussion

Heterogeneous reliability. The composition of the present lists is inherently heterogeneous. While type material provides a definitive identification, identifications of other specimens should be regarded as taxonomic hypotheses with varying levels of robustness. The reliability of these identifications is significantly enhanced when conducted by a taxonomist specialized in the relevant subtaxon. Conversely, identifications made by ecologists or general zoologists with limited familiarity with harvestmen should be viewed with caution.

However, it is crucial to recognize that the reliability of any record—whether from comprehensive taxonomic reviews or more general sources, such as "list of Opiliones from park XYZ"—depends heavily on the identification being attributed to a recognized authority. For example, a park survey by a non-specialist may be highly reliable if the species identifications were made or verified by an expert. Thus, acknowledging the responsible taxonomic authority is key to assessing the accuracy and validity of the records.

Are we close to flattening the species discovery curve? While Roewer's work had an immense impact on the discovery of new species, and the mid-20th century witnessed an unprecedented rate of species descriptions, which decreased later ( Fig 11 ), it does not seem like we are close to flattening the species discovery curve ( Fig. 12 ).

The climax of species/subspecies descriptions occurred during specific periods, with notable peaks in 1947- 1949 when significant contributions were made by Roewer (worldwide), the Goodnights (mostly Central America), and the Soares (mostly Brazil) concurrently. The major peak of all time occurred in 1954 due to important work on New Zealand by Forster (1954). Smaller peaks were observed during 1910-1942 when Roewer published several extensive papers on all families and all continents. Earlier peaks were evident in 1879 when Simon published two significant papers (mostly France and South America) and in 1903, the last breath of the pre-Roewer era, which saw activity by Pocock and With. Even earlier, we can observe smaller peaks in 1833 and 1839, marking the works of Perty and C.L. Koch (mostly with Brazilian opilionofauna), respectively. More recently, notable peaks were associated with the publication of books by González-Sponga on the Venezuelan opilionofauna in 1987 and 1992. These periods represent significant milestones in the history of species discovery and underscore the contributions of various researchers over time.

It should be noted that Roewer single-handedly described 2145 species/subspecies valid today, that is nearly 28% of the total of the world, while the seven most prolific authors are responsible for around 50% of the total.

It took a long while for the documentation of harvestman diversity to pick up pace. At the turn of the 19th century, there were only 25 valid species, and by the dawn of the 20th century, fewer than 700 species had been described. The first one thousand species was only reached at the beginning of the Roewerian Era in 1911, the second thousand followed quickly in 1930, the third in 1943, and the fourth in 1954. After that, the rate of new descriptions slowed slightly, with the fifth thousand species reached in 1975 and the sixth only in 2000.

Despite numerous synonymies resulting from revisionary work, the 21st century continues to see a steady rise in the description of new species. As a stark example of how far we are from saturating the curve, consider the devastating 2018 fire that destroyed the Brazilian National Museum, which held samples representing an estimate of 450 undescribed species at that moment (ABK, unpubl. data). This event alone demonstrates the potential for ongoing discoveries and highlights the vastness of unexplored biodiversity in the order Opiliones .

Perspectives in the context of the WCO Project. To enhance the quality of such checklists, it is essential to assess the robustness and level of confirmation of each record. Multiple independent records from the same geographical area, compiled by different zoologists and supported by vouchers, contribute to the development of a reliable and well-structured checklist. And this represents one of the upcoming steps in our ongoing World Catalogue of Opiliones (WCO) Project.

Two Chinas. The laborious process of defining the geographic areas used in this study has been both challenging and unconventional. Although we relied on formal tools like the recognition of countries by the UN, our main goal was to establish a robust framework of geographic units for describing the distribution of harvestmen. Our recognition of both China and Taiwan simultaneously may appear puzzling to politicians, but it is crucial from our perspective as they represent two non-overlapping regions that perfectly suit our need to describe the distribution of these organisms.

Kosovo versus Serbia. Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, but its status as a nation is not universally recognized. Some countries, including Serbia, do not recognize its independence and consider it a part of their territory. Kosovo has received substantial recognition from some international bodies, including observer status at the United Nations General Assembly in 2015. However, not all UN member states have recognized Kosovo as an independent nation. The recognition of Kosovo in the present project is solely based on the sheer number of UN members that have acknowledged its existence.

Descriptions by non-taxonomists. Amateurs, hobbyists, collectors, and enthusiasts play a significant role in various branches of natural history, including entomology. While their passion and dedication contribute to the discovery of new species and expanding our knowledge of biodiversity, certain taxa, such as butterflies, beetles, tarantulas, and aquarium fish, are particularly vulnerable to potential issues arising from amateur contributions in taxonomy. The involvement of amateurs, particularly speleologists, in describing and naming species has introduced unique challenges to the field of Opiliones taxonomy. While their contributions are valuable in expanding our knowledge of these organisms, the lack of specialized taxonomic expertise can sometimes lead to misidentifications and naming errors. Amateurs often encounter new species during their explorations, but their limited experience and training in taxonomy can result in inaccuracies and inconsistencies. To improve the reliability of such findings, it is highly recommended that amateurs collaborate with a specialist who can provide expertise in proper identification and documentation. In some cases, the use of non-standardized naming practices can lead to confusion and hinder efforts to establish a cohesive and reliable checklist of species. Two examples from the early and late 20th century may illustrate this.

(a) Czech speleologist Karel Absolon used to send samples of cave organisms to specialists for description. In 1914, he sent a sample to Roewer but became impatient due to slow communication during the war period. Consequently, he decided to name the species himself in parallel. As a result, the species received the names Absolonia troglodytes Roewer, 1915 , and Scotolemon anophthalmum Absolon, 1916 (although this is a nomen nudum). Later, Absolon described the family Peltaeonychidae Absolon & Kratochvíl, 1932 (Kratochvíl being then an embryonic taxonomist of only 23), but this description was unavailable because it was not based on any generic name. Instead, it was based on a morphological structure, the peltonychium .

(b) Spanish speleologist Carlos Luque decided to describe a new cave subspecies of Sabacon picosantrum Martens, 1983 , from the Alto Asón limestone region. However, he employed an unorthodox formula for its name, writing it as Sabacon p- asonianum Luque, 1991, instead of the normal Sabacon p. asonianum. Later (Luque 1992), he used the correct formula, naming it Sabacon picosantrum asonianum . However, an incorrect erratum was issued in the same paper, stating that the correct name should be Sabacon p-asonianum. Finally, Luque (1993) changed the name once again, using the subsequent incorrect spelling Sabacon pasonianum .

Figures

FIGURE 11. Rate of description of species/subspecies that are valid as of 2023. Note the high values between 1910–1963, the time when Roewer was active.

FIGURE 12. Cumulative curve of the total of Opiliones species/subspecies valid as of 2023, showing how close we are to attaining 7000.