Cryptocellus chiruisla, Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo & Flórez, Eduardo, 2017

Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo & Flórez, Eduardo, 2017, Two new ricinuleid species from Ecuador and Colombia belonging to the peckorum species-group of Cryptocellus Westwood (Arachnida, Ricinulei), Zootaxa 4286 (4), pp. 483-498: 485-492

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4286.4.2

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:24BA3710-2416-47D2-8E29-B13AE35F5589

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/864D6701-4D6A-FFF1-FF1A-FF49310F38C8

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Cryptocellus chiruisla
status

sp. nov.

Cryptocellus chiruisla   sp. nov.

Figures 1–24 View FIGURES 1 – 4 View FIGURES 5 – 10 View FIGURES 11 – 17 View FIGURES 18 – 21 View FIGURES 22 – 24 , 41 View FIGURE 41 ; Table 1

Type material. Holotype: male from ECUADOR: Orellana: Chiruisla   km 0.2, primary forest, 218 m elev., 00°36′50″ S 75°52′34″ W, 08–13.xii.2005, Winkler trap, J. Viera ( QCAZI 3440) GoogleMaps   . Paratypes: 1 female and 1 tritonymph with same collection data of holotype (QCAZI 3441).

Etymology. The specific epithet is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality: Chiruisla   .

Diagnosis. Cryptocellus chiruisla   sp. nov. most closely resembles C. guaviarensis   sp. nov., among members of the peckorum   species-group to which both belong, in having the following morphological features of male: a large and distinct, flat, triangle-like region with tubercles on the anterior section of cucullus ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 5 – 10 ), absent in female, on top of which a median elevation is visible on dorsal and ventral aspects ( Figs. 1–2 View FIGURES 1 – 4 ); the anterior and anterolateral margins of carapace smooth ( Fig. 1 View FIGURES 1 – 4 ); the movable finger of the chelicera noticeably widened with respect to the fixed finger ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 5 – 10 ); leg I tibia with a pronounced ventral “notch” formed by well-developed, ventrally protruding pro- (large) and retrolateral (small) distal lobes, a sub-basal tubercle-like protrusion, and a distinct concavity in the middle ( Figs. 13–14 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); leg I metatarsus laterally-compressed, prolaterally sunken on basal two thirds, and with a well-developed, proventral distal “elbow-like” expansion ( Figs. 13–14 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); and leg III metatarsus with disto-ventral tuft of long setae ( Figs. 11–12 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ).

Males of C. chiruisla   sp. nov. can be readily recognized by having the cheliceral movable finger apically truncated ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 5 – 10 ); suture line of coxae II about half the length of that of coxae III ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1 – 4 ); leg I tibia sub-basal, tubercle-like protrusion part of the “notch”, placed pro-ventrally on basal half of segment, such that the “notch” is visible dorsally and prolaterally ( Figs. 13–14 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); median concavity of the “notch” of leg I tibia is short, approximately one third of the segment’s length ( Fig. 14 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); apex of the lamina cyathiformis is distinctly rounded ( Figs. 11–12 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); the tarsal process of the copulatory apparatus is U-shaped, with apex directed dorsally; the retrolateral edge of the tarsal process ventral opening lacks spiniform projections ( Figs. 11, 15–17 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ); and femur of legs, particularly that of leg IV, remarkably bulky ( Fig. 9 View FIGURES 5 – 10 , Table 1).

Remarks. Cryptocellus chiruisla   sp. nov. most closely resembles C. peckorum   among previously described members of the species-group by having the tegument densely covered with conspicuous tubercles, and similar shape of the male copulatory apparatus and male leg III metatarsus. Unlike the male of the new species referred above, in males of C. peckorum   there is no flat region on cucullus, hence it is undifferentiated from that of female; the carapace is uniformly densely granular on its entire surface; the width of the cheliceral movable finger is similar to that of the fixed finger; leg I tibia bears similarly-developed pro- and retroventral distal lobes but lacks a sub-basal protrusion, making the ventral concavity less evident and the notch is absent; leg I metatarsus is not laterally-compressed and lacks the “elbow-like” expansion; and leg III metatarsal tuft is absent. Furthermore, the posterior genital lip of the female of C. chiruisla   sp. nov. is apically trilobated ( Figs. 22–23 View FIGURES 22 – 24 ), whereas it is not in C. peckorum   .

Description. Male (holotype):

Coloration: Figs. 1–14 View FIGURES 1 – 4 View FIGURES 5 – 10 View FIGURES 11 – 17 . Body and appendages immaculately reddish orange, except for, pedipalps, metatarsi and tarsi of legs, and central area of opisthosomal Sternites XI –XII yellowish red. Carapacial translucent areas yellow inside.

Setation: Figs. 1–14 View FIGURES 1 – 4 View FIGURES 5 – 10 View FIGURES 11 – 17 . Body and appendages covered with fine bristle-like, predominantly straight to eyelashlike, translucent setae, which are sparse in sternal region.

Carapace: Figs. 1 View FIGURES 1 – 4 , 6 View FIGURES 5 – 10 . Trapezoidal in shape, with lateral margins curved and not parallel (narrowing anteriorly); anterior margin straight in dorsal aspect, re-curved in frontal aspect; posterior margin gently re-curved; carapace as long as wide; laterally with moderate protrusion at margins at level between coxae II and III, where widest. Longitudinal translucent areas placed at the level between coxae I and II, glabrous with well-defined borders, elevated, clearly visible on either lateral or dorsal aspects. Carapace densely covered with conspicuous, rounded, iridescent tubercles throughout, except on triangle-like area on anterior third of carapace, and on lateral margins anterior to the translucent areas, where predominantly smooth. Carapace devoid of cuticular pits.

Cucullus: Figs. 1–2 View FIGURES 1 – 4 , 7 View FIGURES 5 – 10 . Trapezoidal, with lateral margins notably diverging anteriorly, noticeably wider than long; anterior margin straight on ventral view, with shallow median concavity on frontal view; cucullus with pronounced median elevation (visible on dorsal and ventral aspects), and anterior triangle-like flat section densely covered with tubercles similar to those of carapace; tubercles also in two patches on each side of the midline; front corners smooth. Cucullus devoid of cuticular pits and furrows.

Chelicerae: Fig. 7 View FIGURES 5 – 10 . Movable finger almost twice longer than fixed finger and more robust; movable fingers apically truncated, armed with seven/nine small and sharp teeth which progressively increase in size distally; fixed fingers with row of five/six teeth, the distalmost greatly enlarged as compared to the others which small and sharp.

Sternal region: Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1 – 4 . Coxae I not meeting tritosternum; coxae II meeting along their posterior half, III –IV meeting entirely; II –IV progressively decreasing in length; coxae II with anterior and posterior margins subparallel, not perpendicular to the median axis but inclined anteriorly; suture line of coxae II about half the length of that of coxae III and IV (coxae III are larger). Cuticle with scarce tubercles, similar to those of carapace, along coxal margins and without cuticular pits.

Opisthosoma: Figs. 3–4 View FIGURES 1 – 4 , 5, 8 View FIGURES 5 – 10 . Oblong truncate, longer than wide, widest at level of tergite XII. Median plates of tergites XI –XIII with paired anterolateral depressions; lateral margins converging posteriorly on XI, approximately parallel on XII, converging anteriorly on XIII; median plate of tergites XI and XII wider than long, that of XIII approximately as wide as long, that of X slit-like trapezoidal. Central region of tergite XI median plate with pronounced, elevated rounded bulge; tergite XIII median plate with rear corners in 90° angle (not protruding laterally). Dorsal and ventral surfaces with tubercles similar to those of carapace and without cuticular pits. Sternites XI –XIII with paired anterolateral depressions similar to those of tergites and containing densely packed tubercles. Basal segment of pygidium with deep notch on dorsal posterior border; ventral border without notch.

Pedipalps: Fig. 10 View FIGURES 5 – 10 . Without cuticular pits; with few tubercles restricted to trochanters I, II, and base of femur on retrolateral aspect. Femur dorsally convex, widened in basal half. Tibia longer than femur, with dorsal surface straight, slightly widened ventrally in basal third and without tubercles. Movable claw about twice the length of fixed claw and more robust; both claws armed with minute teeth.

Legs: Figs. 9 View FIGURES 5 – 10 , 11–14 View FIGURES 11 – 17 . Without cuticular pits; leg segments with tubercles similar to those of carapace. Leg II longest; legs progressively increasing in width (i.e., at femur) in the order II <III <I <IV. Tibia of leg I with pronounced ventral “notch” formed by well-developed, ventrally protruding pro- (large) and retrolateral (small) distal lobes, a tubercle-like protrusion pro-ventrally on basal half of segment, and a deep concavity in the middle; leg I metatarsus laterally-compressed, prolaterally sunken on basal two thirds, and with a well-developed, proventral distal “elbow-like” expansion. Legs I and II, femur ventrally with flat, basal apophyses, absent on legs III and IV; apophyses are projected proximally and fully (leg I) or partially (leg II) cover the articular membranes between femur and trochanter. Leg III metatarsus moderately inflated, deeply excavated, with disto-ventral tuft of long setae and metatarsal process as in Figs. 11–12 View FIGURES 11 – 17 ; lamina cyathiformis higher than long, with apex distinctly rounded. Leg length formula: 2341.

Copulatory apparatus: Figs. 11–12, 15–17 View FIGURES 11 – 17 . Tarsal process U-shaped; apex directed dorsally, moderately long and gently curved. Tarsal process with a longitudinal opening on ventral subdistal area; pro- and retrolateral edges of the opening are hyaline, and the internal surface of the opening is apparently striated; retrolateral edge more developed than the prolateral; both edges smooth in lateral aspect, without spiniform projections. Accessory piece short (i.e., compared to the tarsal process), predominantly straight, narrowing apically and single-tipped (nonbifid); accessory piece lying along a shallow longitudinal groove on retrolateral aspect of the tarsal process.

Measurements: See Table 1.

Female. Figs. 18–24 View FIGURES 18 – 21 View FIGURES 22 – 24 . Similar to the male in several aspects, but with sex-related differences. Spermathecae as in Figs. 22–24 View FIGURES 22 – 24 , wider than long, not touching each other; posterior genital lip with apex sub-triangular, apically trilobated. Leg length formula: 2341.

Measurements: See Table 1.

Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Ecuador ( Fig. 41 View FIGURE 41 ).

Notes. Two other ricinuleid species have been described from Ecuador, Cryptocellus chimaera Botero-Trujillo & Valdez-Mondragón, 2016   and Cryptocellus leleupi Cooreman, 1976   . The former species belongs to the magnus   species-groups, whereas the latter is a nomen dubium of uncertain systematic position ( Platnick & Paz 1979). Even though the adult morphology of C. leleupi   is unknown (it was described from a protonymph), the type locality of this species ( Oriente , Rio Negro, approx. 01°24′32″ S 78°11′28″ W) is located in the Eastern slopes of the Andes , some 270 km South East of that of C. chiruisla   sp. nov. The probability that the holotypes of both species could be conspecific is negligible. GoogleMaps  

Cryptocellus chiruisla   sp. nov. Cryptocellus guaviarensis   sp. nov.

Male Female Male Total body L:1 4.50 4.47 4.50

Cucullus: L: 0.87 0.87 0.83

W:2 1.17 1.13 1.13

Carapace: L: 1.83 1.77 1.70

W:2 1.83 * 1.83 * 1.70 *

Opisthosoma: Total L:1 2.67 2.70 2.80

W:2 2.50 ** 2.57 ** 2.30 ** Median plate XI: L: 0.97 0.97 0.93

W:2 1.23 1.57 1.27

Median plate XII: L: 0.70 0.70 0.77

W: 0.93 1.20 1.00

Median plate XIII: L: 0.80 0.87 0.90

W: 0.93 1.00 0.90

Suture line coxae II: L: 0.10 0.12 0.18

Suture line coxae III: L: 0.18 0.15 0.23

Pedipalp: Femur L: 0.95 0.87 0.75

Femur H:3 0.37 0.40 0.37

Tibia L: 1.18 1.33 1.18

Tibia H:3 0.17 0.18 0.17

Leg I: Total L:4 4.57 3.93 4.31

Trochanter L: 0.33 0.23 0.27

Femur L: 0.90 0.80 0.87

Femur W:2 0.53 0.38 0.52

Patella L: 0.77 0.70 0.80

Tibia L: 1.07 0.73 0.87

Metatarsus L: 1.00 1.00 0.97

Tarsus L: 0.50 0.47 0.53

Leg II: Total L:4 6.84 6.53 7.24

Trochanter L: 0.40 0.33 0.37

Femur L: 1.37 1.33 1.50

Femur W:2 0.42 0.45 0.42

Femur H:3 0.48 0.50 0.48

Patella L: 1.00 0.97 1.07

Tibia L: 1.13 1.17 1.23

Metatarsus L: 1.47 1.40 1.57

Tarsus L: 1.47 1.33 1.50

Leg III: Total L:4 6.03 5.23 6.26

1st trochanter L: 0.30 0.30 0.37

......continued on the next page Cryptocellus chiruisla   sp. nov. Cryptocellus guaviarensis   sp. nov. Male Female Male 2nd trochanter L: 0.43 0.33 0.43 Femur L: 1.20 1.33 1.20 Femur W:2 0.50 0.48 0.43 Patella L: 0.87 0.77 0.93 Tibia L: 0.83 0.70 0.90 Metatarsus L: 1.13 0.93 1.13 Tarsus L: 1.27 0.87 1.30

Leg IV: Total L:4 5.39 5.16 5.70 1st trochanter L: 0.33 0.33 0.40 2nd trochanter L: 0.33 0.43 0.33 Femur L: 1.33 1.10 1.30 Femur W:2 0.77 0.42 0.55 Patella L: 0.87 0.77 0.90 Tibia L: 0.60 0.73 0.77 Metatarsus L: 1.03 0.97 1.00 Tarsus L: 0.90 0.83 1.00