Neoscotolemon spinifer ( Packard, 1888 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5563.1.11 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6503A62D-DA9D-447F-A89F-50436E2D522A |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14605652 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/3F08821F-FFF3-FFE1-FF61-BE08FF418A6A |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Neoscotolemon spinifer ( Packard, 1888 ) |
status |
|
Neoscotolemon spinifer ( Packard, 1888) View in CoL comb. rest.
( Figs 21–28 View FIGURE 21 View FIGURE 22 View FIGURE 23 View FIGURE 24 View FIGURE 25 View FIGURE 26 View FIGURE 27 View FIGURE 28 , Table 4 View TABLE 4 )
Phalangodes spinifera Packard 1888: 52 , pl. 13, figs 2, 2a–c; Banks 1893: 151
Scotolemon spinifera : Banks 1901: 672.
Scotolemon spinigera : Banks 1904: 140 (misspelling).
Neoscotolemon spinifera : Roewer 1912a: 150.
Neoscotolemon spinifer View in CoL : Roewer 1923: 113.
Rula spinifera View in CoL : Goodnight & Goodnight 1942b: 13, figs 43–45; 1945: 64.
Stygnomma spinifera spinifera : Goodnight & Goodnight 1951: 9, figs 15–18; 1953: 177, fig. 4; Edgar 1966: 355 (misidentification).
Stygnomma spinifera : Rambla 1969: 391; Duffield et al., 1981: 446, fig. 5; Edgar 1990: 546, fig. 19.44; Peck 1975: 308, 1992: 45 (misidentification?); Acosta et al., 1993: 27; Hounsome 1994: 311, 320 (misidentification?); Peck 1999: 375 (misidentification?).
Stygnomma spiniferum spiniferum View in CoL : Kury 2003: 236.
Citranus marquesas Goodnight & Goodnight 1942b: 4 View in CoL , figs 7–9 (synonymy established by Goodnight & Goodnight 1951).
Type material. Phalangodes spinifera Packard, 1888 : Holotype: major ♂ ( MCZ 39047 , examined), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Florida, Key West or Tortugas [ Packard 1888: 53 stated: “The present species [referred to P. spinifera ] was collected by us either in Key West or Tortugas, Florida, probably the former locality.”]. Citranus marquesas Goodnight & Goodnight, 1942 : Holotype: ♀ ( AMNH, examined), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Florida, Marquesas Key, under trash palm tree , 23-Jun-1938, George Van Hyning leg. Paratype: ♀ ( AMNH, not examined) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Florida, Barracuda Key , June 13-Jun-1938, George Van Hyning leg.
Remark. The holotype of Phalangodes spinifera Packard, 1888 , was originally designated, incorrectly, as a female specimen (Packard 1988: 52), and the holotype of Citranus marquesas Goodnight & Goodnight, 1942 , was originally designated, incorrectly, as a male specimen ( Goodnight & Goodnight 1942b: 4).
Other material examined. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Key Largo , 1-Apr-1957, W.J. Gertsch & R. Forster leg. • 2 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade, 7 miles west of Florida City , 31-Mar-1957, R. Forster & W.J. Gertsch leg. • 1 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Florida Keys, Little Duck Key [24.4°; -81.15°], Jean and Wilton Ivie leg. • 1 juvenile ( AMNH), Florida, Key Largo [25°; -80°], 30-Jan-1959, H.A. Denmark leg. • 1 ♂ ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade . • 1 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade, Homestead , 11-JUN-1930, N.W. Davis leg. • 2 major ♂ (one photo voucher) 1 ♀ (photo voucher) ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade, Homestead , fall 1930, J.B. Tower leg. • 1 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade, Homestead, Rattlesnake Hannsand [?], 2-Jun-1941. • 1 major ♂ ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade, Everglades National Park, Royal Palm Hammock , hardwood hammock, malaiseFIT, 28- Jul / 15-Nov-1985, S. & J. Peck leg. • 1 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Monroe, Key Largo, Pennekamp State Park , hammock forest leaf litter Ber. , 31-Aug-1985, S. & J. Peck leg. • 1 major ♂ ( AMNH), Florida, Monroe, Big Pine Key, Watson’s Hammock , hardwood hammock, malaise-FIT, 3- May / 31-Aug-1985, S. & J. Peck leg. • 1 minor ♂ (photo voucher) ( AMNH), Florida, Monroe, Big Pine Key, Watson’s Hammock , hammock for malaise-FIT, 3- Jun / 27-Aug-1986, S. & J. Peck, leg. • 1 ♀ ( AMNH), Florida, Tamiami Trail , 1-Mar-1936. • 1 major ♂ ( AMNH), Florida, Miami-Dade, Everglades National Park, Royal Palm State Park , 28-Dec-1940, A. F. Archer leg. • 1 ♂ ( SEM voucher) , 2 ♀ ( USNM), Florida, Everglades, Rowdy Bend [25.1747°, -80.90428°], 6-Jun-2013, CarBio Team leg.
Comparative diagnosis. Major males of Neoscotolemon spinifer differs from males of all other species of Neoscotolemon (except from major males of N. tancahensis ) by the presence of enlarged pointed setiferous tubercles on the lateral regions of free tergite III ( Figs 22A View FIGURE 22 ; 23A View FIGURE 23 ; 24A View FIGURE 24 ). Males of Neoscotolemon spinifer are easily distinguished from N. armasi by the absence of a pseudochela in the enlarged tarsus of the pedipalp ( Figs 22B, C View FIGURE 22 ; 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 25A, B View FIGURE 25 vs. Fig. 8E View FIGURE 8 ). Additionally, N. spinifer can be separated from N. pictipes by the presence of a medial long pointed setiferous tubercle on free tergites I–III ( Figs 22A, C View FIGURE 22 ; 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E View FIGURE 24 vs. Figs 1A View FIGURE 1 ; 2A, D View FIGURE 2 ). Another distinguished feature is that Neoscotolemon spinifer has scattered granules on the dorsal surface of the pedipalp tibia ( Figs 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 25B View FIGURE 25 ), whereas N. pictipes has a smooth pedipalp tibia ( Fig. 3A, B View FIGURE 3 ); this characteristic is also useful for differentiating N. spinifer from its most morphologically similar species, N. tancahensis , which lacks the long, pointed medial setiferous tubercles on each free tergite exhibited by N. spinifer ( Figs 22A, C View FIGURE 22 ; 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E View FIGURE 24 vs. Figs 29A, C View FIGURE 29 ; 30A, B View FIGURE 30 ; 31A, D View FIGURE 31 ).
Redescription. Major male (holotype, AMNH; 1 male AMNH; 1 male USNM). Body measurements: Total body length 3.14, carapace length 1.00, scutum magnum length 2.46, carapace maximum width 1.51, abdominal scutum maximum width 2.20. Appendage measurements in Table 4 View TABLE 4 .
Dorsum: Outline slightly hourglass-shaped with an Eta (η) shape, with a constriction posterior to eyes level ( Figs 22A View FIGURE 22 ; 23A View FIGURE 23 ; 24A View FIGURE 24 ). Carapace granulated, wider than long; frontal hump not well marked; anterior border slightly convex, each lateral corner with three small conical tubercles ( Figs 23A View FIGURE 23 ; 24A View FIGURE 24 ). Cheliceral sockets not marked ( Fig. 24A View FIGURE 24 ). Eyes separated, slightly posterior to the medial region of the carapace and located at the base of a poorly defined ocularium; ocularium with a wide base and apically armed with a long spiniform apophysis slanted forward, with small setiferous granules on the base ( Fig. 24E, F View FIGURE 24 ) and a row of small setiferous granules on the posterior region ( Fig. 23B View FIGURE 23 ); ocularium extends from the posterior to just before the frontal hump ( Figs 22C View FIGURE 22 ; 23B View FIGURE 23 ; 24E, F View FIGURE 24 ). Abdominal scutum in lateral view convex ( Figs 22C View FIGURE 22 , 23B View FIGURE 23 , 24E View FIGURE 24 ). Sulcus I deep and well-marked, in dorsal view curved to the posterior body region ( Figs 22A, C View FIGURE 22 ; 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E, F View FIGURE 24 ). Mesotergal areas coarsely granulated and not well defined ( Figs 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E View FIGURE 24 ). Mesotergal areas I–II with small medial conical setiferous granules; mesotergal areas III–IV with a row of small conical setiferous granules, with medial granules slightly longer than lateral ones ( Figs 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E View FIGURE 24 ). Mesotergal area V with a posterior row of conical setiferous granules, the medial granule slightly longer ( Figs 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E View FIGURE 24 ). Lateral borders with two rows of granules, the inner row consisting of setiferous granules ( Fig. 24A, E View FIGURE 24 ). Ozopore with an oval, narrow, and elongated orifice with a descending channel extending toward the posterior region ( Fig. 24E View FIGURE 24 ). Free tergites granulated; free tergites I–II with a posterior row of conical setiferous granules, a medial long spiniferous tubercle, and smaller lateral tubercles; medial tubercle of free tergite II longer than tubercle of free tergite I; free tergite III with a medial row of short setiferous tubercles, the medial setiferous tubercle slightly longer, and the lateral region with long setiferous tubercles ( Figs 23A, B View FIGURE 23 ; 24A, E View FIGURE 24 ).
Venter: Coxae I–IV with setae and small granules ( Fig. 24B View FIGURE 24 ); coxa I with setiferous granules; anteroposterior borders of coxa III with a row of strong granules connecting with coxae II and IV, respectively ( Fig. 24B View FIGURE 24 ); posterior border of the spiracular area and free sternites I–V with a row of setiferous granules ( Figs 23C View FIGURE 23 ; 24B View FIGURE 24 ); anal operculum with several conspicuous setiferous granules and setiferous tubercles ( Figs 23B, C View FIGURE 23 ; 24D, E View FIGURE 24 ). Spiracles not concealed ( Figs 23C View FIGURE 23 ; 24B, C View FIGURE 24 ).
Chelicerae: Basichelicerite unarmed, with an elongated and slightly marked bulla ( Figs 23F, G View FIGURE 23 ; 25C, D View FIGURE 25 ). Cheliceral hand with sparse setae and small frontal setiferous granules ( Figs 23F–H View FIGURE 23 ; 25C–E View FIGURE 25 ). Movable finger with a proximal lamina with sub-square teeth, followed by a medial conical tooth and a distal lamina with sub-square teeth ( Figs 23I View FIGURE 23 ; 25E View FIGURE 25 ); fixed finger with a large medial conical tooth ( Figs 23I View FIGURE 23 ; 25E View FIGURE 25 ).
Pedipalps: Coxa elongated (i.e., remarkably longer than trochanter), with one small dorsomesal protuberance and one small medial setiferous granule on the ventral surface ( Figs 24 A, B View FIGURE 24 ). Trochanter rounded, with three dorsal, one mesal setiferous pointed tubercles, and two ventral setiferous conical tubercles ( Figs 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 24B View FIGURE 24 ; 25A, B View FIGURE 25 ). Femur dorsally convex, ventrally armed with a row of six small ectal setiferous pointed tubercles, the fifth distal tubercle longest ( Figs 23E View FIGURE 23 ; 25B View FIGURE 25 ); ventroproximally with two large spines, fused at the base ( Figs 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 25A, B View FIGURE 25 ); ventromesal surface with a medial spine followed by one setiferous pointed tubercle ( Figs 23D View FIGURE 23 ; 25A View FIGURE 25 ). Patella short, with scattered dorsal granules, and ventrodistally with one mesal spine and one small ectal setiferous pointed tubercle ( Figs 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 25A, B View FIGURE 25 ). Tibia with dorsal granules; ventromesally with three spines, increasing in size from proximal to distal ( Figs 23D View FIGURE 23 ; 25A View FIGURE 25 ); ventroectally with one small proximal setiferous pointed tubercle, followed by one spine, one setiferous pointed tubercle, and two spines fused at the base, the longest spine featuring a socket with an apical square-shaped projection ( Figs 23E View FIGURE 23 ; 25B View FIGURE 25 ); ventral surface with scattered small granules ( Fig. 25A View FIGURE 25 ). Tarsus remarkably elongated, incrassate, and ventrally flattened ( Figs 22C View FIGURE 22 ; 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 25A, B View FIGURE 25 ); ventromesally with one proximal setiferous pointed tubercle, followed by a row of five spines ( Figs 23D View FIGURE 23 , 25A View FIGURE 25 ); ventroectally with three spines interspersed with two setiferous pointed tubercles ( Figs 23E View FIGURE 23 ). Claw remarkably short, robust, and triangular ( Figs 22C View FIGURE 22 ; 23D, E View FIGURE 23 ; 25A, B View FIGURE 25 ).
Legs: Coxae II and IV with setiferous granules on dorsolateral surface ( Fig 24A, E View FIGURE 24 ). Trochanters I–IV covered by setiferous granules ( Fig. 24A, B View FIGURE 24 ). Femurs I–IV with longitudinal rows of ventral conical setiferous tubercles ( Fig. 22B, C View FIGURE 22 ). Metatarsus III swollen at calcaneus region, in lateral view with a rectangular shape ( Figs 26A, C View FIGURE 26 ; 28F View FIGURE 28 ); calcaneus extends from the medial region of the metatarsus ( Figs 26A, C View FIGURE 26 ; 28F View FIGURE 28 ), ventrally with trichomes and some lateral sensilla chaetica ( Fig. 26A, C, E View FIGURE 26 ); apical region of calcaneus with a high concentration of acuminate trichomes densely covering numerous aggregated pores (glandular openings) ( Fig. 26A–D View FIGURE 26 ). Tarsi III–IV without scopula and modified spatulate setae ( Fig. 26F View FIGURE 26 ). Tarsal formula: 4(2):8(3):5:5.
Color (specimen preserved in 80% ethanol): General body appearance yellowish-brown; appendages light yellowish-brown ( Fig. 22A–C View FIGURE 22 ); coloration clearer at the level of cheliceral insertion, creating a false appearance of a marked cheliceral socket ( Fig. 22A View FIGURE 22 ). Coxae I–IV, free sternites V and anal operculum light yellowish-brown; free sternites I–IV dark yellowish-brown ( Fig. 22B View FIGURE 22 ).
Genitalia: General shape of penis tubular, with a strong distal constriction and widening apically to a blunt, rectangular tip; boundary not well defined between pars basalis and pars distalis ( Fig. 27A, C, E, G View FIGURE 27 ). Pars distalis with a ventral plate ending in a calyx ( Fig. 27B, F View FIGURE 27 ); calyx dorsally open with two thin laminar projections (wings) ( Fig. 27B, F View FIGURE 27 ); dorsally, pars distalis with a medial deep neckline ( Fig. 27B, F View FIGURE 27 ). Pars distalis armed with two groups of macrosetae arranged bilaterally: a basal row of four pairs (B1–B4) extending along the edge, from the dorsal neckline to the ventrolateral region ( Fig. 27B, D, F, H View FIGURE 27 ), and an apical row (A1–A3) located on the ventrolateral region of the calyx ( Fig. 27D, H, I View FIGURE 27 ). Capsula externa with follis invaginated and not visible in resting position ( Fig. 27B, F View FIGURE 27 ). Capsula interna with two laminar conductors that are arrow-shaped apically (i.e., medially pointed and with two lateral projections) ( Fig. 27 B, D, F, H View FIGURE 27 ); conductors flank a shorter, pointed, laminar stylus ( Fig. 27 B, D, F, H–I View FIGURE 27 ). When the penis is expanded and the capsula interna is everted it is possible to see that the conductors are basally fused between them and with the stylus, forming an integrated structure ( Fig. 27B, D View FIGURE 27 ).
Minor male (AMNH). Body measurements: Total body length 2.40, carapace length 0.90, scutum magnum length 2.21, carapace maximum width 1.34, abdominal scutum maximum width 2.05. Appendage measurements in Table 4 View TABLE 4 . Minor male differentiated from major male by the absence of lateral setiferous tubercles on free tergite III and shorter medial setiferous tubercle; medial setiferous tubercles on free tergites I–II shorter, contrasting with the long setiferous tubercles present in major male ( Fig. 28D, E View FIGURE 28 vs. Fig. 28G, H View FIGURE 28 ). Additionally, minor male has a shorter pedipalp with smaller spines; trochanter of pedipalp with small setiferous tubercles, resembling female; femur of pedipalp with the mesal spine closer to the distal setiferous tubercle; tarsus not elongated and enlarged, with a proximal setiferous tubercle but with four spines, instead of the five observed in major males; claw is remarkably long, thin, and pointed, similar to that of female ( Fig. 28E View FIGURE 28 vs. Fig. 28B, H View FIGURE 28 ). Metatarsus III similar to major male ( Fig. 28F View FIGURE 28 vs. 28I). Tarsal formula 4(2):8–9(3):5:5.
Female (AMNH). Body measurements: Total body length 2.61, carapace length 0.85, scutum magnum length 1.28, maximum carapace width 1.32, abdominal scutum maximum width 2.06. Appendage measurements in Table 4 View TABLE 4 . Resembles minor and major males in the armature of scutum magnum, but differs from major male by the absence of long lateral setiferous tubercle tubercle on free tergite III ( Figs 21A View FIGURE 21 ; 28A, B View FIGURE 28 vs. Figs 21B View FIGURE 21 ; 28G, H View FIGURE 28 ); medial setiferous tubercle of free tergite I–III shorter than in major male ( Fig. 28A, B View FIGURE 28 ); pedipalp remarkably shorter than in major male and with smaller spines; trochanter without dorsal setiferous tubercles and only one small setiferous granule; femur of pedipalp with the mesal spine and distal tubercle closer than in major male; tarsus not elongated, with four spines and without proximal setiferous tubercle; claw elongated, thin and pointed as in minor male ( Fig. 28B View FIGURE 28 vs. Fig. 28E, H View FIGURE 28 ). Female differs from minor and major males by having metatarsus III not swollen, lacking aggregated pores and associated setae, and without the deep intrusion of the astragalum by the calcaneus ( Fig. 28C View FIGURE 28 vs. 28F, I). Tarsal formula 4(2):7(3)–8(3):5:5.
Geographical distribution. United States of America: Florida: Key West or Tortugas ( Packard 1888); Biscayne Bay ( Banks 1904); Everglades National Park—Royal Palm State Park, Homestead, Marquesas Key, Barracuda Key ( Goodnight & Goodnight 1942b); Everglades National Park ( Duffield et al., 1981). New records: Key Largo, 7 miles west of Florida City, Little Duck Key, Key Largo—Pennekamp State Park, Big Pine Key—Watson’s Hammock, Tamiami Trail ( Fig. 39 View FIGURE 39 ).
Unconfirmed records. Cayman Islands: Little Cayman ( Hounsome 1994); probably another species of Neoscotolemon , potentially a new species ( Fig. 39 View FIGURE 39 ).
Doubtful records. Jamaica: Clarendon, Jackson Bay Cave; Saint Ann, Dairy Bull Cave and Ken Connell Hole ( Peck 1992), probably a misidentification of a Jamaican Samoidae species ( Akdalima jamaicana Šilhavý, 1979 , Reventula amabilis Šilhavý, 1979 , or another related species) ( Fig. 39 View FIGURE 39 ).
Spurious records. United States of America, Ohio, Clear Creek; Hocking County; Rockbridge; Sugar Creek ( Walker, 1928: 157, fig. 11). There are no reliable records of Neoscotolemon spinifer outside peninsular Florida and adjacent Keys. The record by Walker is surely a misidentification, probably of Erebomaster acanthinus ( Crosby & Bishop 1924) ( Cladonychiidae ) that commonly occurs in southern Ohio (W. Shear 2010 pers. comm.).
Natural history. Duffield et al. (1981) stated that: “The opilionids [ N. spinifer ] were collected in Everglades National Park, Florida, in November 1977 and March 1978, from solitary retreats on the undersides of coral rocks. Also, specimens have been collected (in August 1985) in Hammock forest leaf litter.” See “Other material examined” above.
Tr | Fe | Pa | Ti | Mt | Ta | T | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
major ♂ AMNH | Pedipalp | 0.45 | 1.87 | 0.97 | 1.35 | - | 1.56 | 6.20 |
Leg I | 0.38 | 1.26 | 0.56 | 0.87 | 1.35 | 0.87 | 5.31 | |
Leg II | 0.45 | 1.86 | 0.84 | 1.62 | 1.87 | 2.12 | 8.76 | |
Leg III | 0.40 | 1.44 | 0.53 | 1.11 | 1.61 | 1.00 | 6.08 | |
Leg IV | 0.44 | 1.68 | 0.76 | 1.49 | 2.21 | 1.24 | 7.82 | |
minor ♂ AMNH | Pedipalp | 0.31 | 1.10 | 0.54 | 0.77 | - | 0.91 | 3.63 |
Leg I | 0.26 | 1.00 | 0.43 | 0.70 | 1.15 | 0.80 | 4.34 | |
Leg II | 0.36 | 1.69 | 0.69 | 1.35 | 1.49 | 1.96 | 7.54 | |
Leg III | 0.32 | 1.18 | 0.49 | 0.94 | 1.37 | 0.96 | 5.26 | |
Leg IV | 0.38 | 1.59 | 0.67 | 1.27 | 2.00 | 1.12 | 7.03 | |
♀ AMNH | Pedipalp | 0.35 | 1.02 | 0.48 | 0.75 | - | 0.78 | 3.38 |
Leg I | 0.30 | 1.06 | 0.48 | 0.71 | 1.13 | 0.78 | 4.47 | |
Leg II | 0.37 | 1.66 | 0.71 | 1.31 | 1.54 | 1.86 | 7.45 | |
Leg III | 0.38 | 1.22 | 0.42 | 0.95 | 1.35 | 0.99 | 5.31 | |
Leg IV | 0.43 | 1.59 | 0.69 | 1.32 | 2.01 | 1.11 | 7.15 |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
SubOrder |
Laniatores |
SuperFamily |
Samooidea |
Genus |
Neoscotolemon spinifer ( Packard, 1888 )
Pérez-González, Abel, Mamani, Vanesa & Proud, Daniel N. 2025 |
Stygnomma spiniferum spiniferum
Kury, A. B. 2003: 236 |
Stygnomma spinifera
Peck, S. B. 1999: 375 |
Hounsome, M. V. 1994: 311 |
Acosta, L. E. & Poretti, T. I. & Mascarelli, P. E. 1993: 27 |
Peck, S. B. 1992: 45 |
Edgar, A. L. 1990: 546 |
Duffield, R. M. & Olubajo, O. & Wheeler, J. W. & Shear, W. A. 1981: 446 |
Peck, S. B. 1975: 308 |
Rambla, M. 1969: 391 |
Stygnomma spinifera spinifera
Edgar, A. L. 1966: 355 |
Goodnight, C. J. & Goodnight, M. L. 1951: 9 |
Rula spinifera
Goodnight, C. J. & Goodnight, M. L. 1942: 13 |
Citranus marquesas
Goodnight, C. J. & Goodnight, M. L. 1942: 4 |
Neoscotolemon spinifer
Roewer, C. F. 1923: 113 |
Neoscotolemon spinifera
Roewer, C. F. 1912: 150 |
Scotolemon spinigera
Banks, N. 1904: 140 |
Scotolemon spinifera
Banks, N. 1901: 672 |
Phalangodes spinifera
Banks, N. 1893: 151 |
Packard, A. S. 1888: 52 |