Pseudocleobis profanus Iuri, 2022

Iuri, Hernán A. & Iglesias, Mónica S., 2022, The genus Pseudocleobis Pocock, 1900 (Solifugae: Ammotrechidae) in transitional Patagonia-Monte deserts, with descriptions of two new species, Zootaxa 5094 (3), pp. 435-460 : 441-443

publication ID

publication LSID


persistent identifier

treatment provided by


scientific name

Pseudocleobis profanus Iuri

sp. nov.

Pseudocleobis profanus Iuri , sp. nov.

( Figs. 3A, B View FIGURE 3 ; 4 View FIGURE 4 ; 7C, D View FIGURE 7 ; 9C View FIGURE 9 ; 10C View FIGURE 10 ; 11B View FIGURE 11 ; 12D–F View FIGURE 12 ; 14 View FIGURE 14 . Table 1 View TABLE 1 )

Pseudocleobis huinca: Maury 1976 misidentification (in part)

Type material. Holotype: ARGENTINA: Río Negro: ♂, Cinco Saltos , behind the cemetery [38º48’56,14’’S 68º03’23,00’’W], 11–12.I.2014. H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar 38425) GoogleMaps ; Paratypes: ARGENTINA: Río Negro: 4♂, Same data as holotype (MACN-Ar 38430, 38474, 38480, 38491) GoogleMaps ; 1♂, Same locality and collector as holotype, 7.I.2012 (MACN-Ar 38493).

Other examined material. ARGENTINA: Neuquén: 1♂, Las Lajas [38º31’24,63’’S 70º21’42,76’’W], 16.I.1967, P. San Martín coll., (MACN-Ar 6873; recorded by Maury 1976 as P. huinca ) GoogleMaps ; Río Negro: 1♂, General Roca [39º01’41,89’’S 67º35’03,00’’W], I.1962, A. Bachmann coll., (MACN-Ar 6871; paratype of P. huinca , misidentified by Maury (1976)) GoogleMaps ; 25♂, 10♀, same locality and collector as holotype, 6–9.I.2016, (MACN-Ar) GoogleMaps .

Etymology: The name comes from the Latin adjective ‘ profanus ’, non-sacred, given that the type specimens were found near a cemetery. It’s an adjective in the nominative singular.

Diagnosis: Pseudocleobis profanus sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other Pseudocleobis except P. huinca and P. bardensis by the male movable finger mucron with a narrow dorsal crest and shovel-like apex ( Figs. 7D View FIGURE 7 ; 11B View FIGURE 11 ; 12D View FIGURE 12 ), and the flagellum with a prolateral subcircular subapical row of filaments ( Fig. 9C View FIGURE 9 ). It can be distinguished from P. bardensis by the more prominent dorsal crest and more prominent shovel-like apex of movable finger mucron ( Figs. 7C–D View FIGURE 7 ) and the apex of fixed finger mucron ending in a smooth curve till the tip ( Figs. 7C–D View FIGURE 7 ). It can be distinguished from P. huinca by the shape of fixed finger mucron, with a shorter and not bi-convex proventral flange ( Figs. 7C, D View FIGURE 7 ).

Description: Male: measurements in Table 1 View TABLE 1 . Color in vivo. As in Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 . Color in 96 % ethanol. Prosoma: propeltidium brown with central portion, two areas on each side of the eyes and two areas in the posterior margin paler (as Fig. 6B View FIGURE 6 ). Lateral lobes brown. Ocular tubercle black. Insertion of setae yellowish. Para-, meso- and metapeltidium brown, insertion of setae yellowish. Meso- and metapeltidium with two pale oval areas. Chelicerae: brown with three longitudinal pale oval areas. Insertion of setae yellowish. Pedipalps: brown with ventral surface paler. Coxae pale yellowish. Legs: leg I, II and III; Brown, with ventral surface paler. Telotarsus, coxa and trochanter pale yellowish. Leg IV; with a similar color pattern, but the telotarsus is more pigmented. Malleoli: pale yellowish.

Opisthosoma: tergites brown with insertion of setae yellowish. Pleurites and sternites pale yellowish.

Morphology and Chaetotaxy: Prosoma: propeltidium slightly wider than long with bifurcated tip setae of different sizes (most of them pointing backward). Lateral lobes, partially separated by dorsal grooves. Median plagula, and anterior and posterior arci, with a transverse row of different-sized bifurcated tip setae. Meso- and metapeltidium wider than long, with bifurcated tip setae.

Chelicerae: Dentition and processes: fixed finger: median series with FD, FSD, FM, FSM and FP teeth ( Fig. 7D View FIGURE 7 ), the FSD tooth is very tiny and sometimes absent; the FP is the biggest tooth on fixed finger; the FD is very tiny but present in all specimens examined; retrofondal series with RFM, RFSM, RFP, RFSP teeth and profondal series with PFM, PFSM, PFP, PFSP teeth. The fixed finger mucron is long, robust, and with a wide prolateral flagellar groove (with conspicuous prodorsal and proventral flanges; Figs. 11B View FIGURE 11 ; 12D View FIGURE 12 ), and it ends in a smooth curve till the tip ( Fig. 7C, D View FIGURE 7 ). Movable finger: with MM, MSM and MP teeth ( Fig. 7D View FIGURE 7 ); the MM similar or bigger than FM; the MP is the biggest tooth of the chelicera. The mucron is highly modified with a high, narrow dorsal crest and a shovel-like apex ( Figs. 7C, D View FIGURE 7 ; 11B View FIGURE 11 ). Chaetotaxy: prolateral surface: The pvd series consists of two rows of plumose setae. The distal row is incomplete, usually restricted to the area of the profondal teeth ( Fig. 12E View FIGURE 12 ). The second row extends from the pic to FM tooth. The pvsd series consists of one row of blunt setae that usually extends from the PFSP to the FSM. The pm series consists of small plumose hairs. The pdp series consists of four blunt setae. The pmpc and the pv consists of small hairs. Retrolateral surface: The rlm series consists of different-sized bifurcated tip setae, with the proximal group pointing backward. The rlf series consists of simple-tip, anteriorly directed, setae.

Flagellum: the flagellum is pear-shaped with a wide apex and concave ventral edge ( Fig. 9C View FIGURE 9 ). Attachment ring of flagellum large, located at the level between the FSM and RFM teeth. The edge is thin with some irregular prolongations. On the retrolateral surface there is a subcircular subapical row of long fine filaments ( Fig. 9A–B View FIGURE 9 ). The prolateral surface is smooth, not fringed ( Fig. 12D View FIGURE 12 ).

Pedipalps (as Figs. 6C View FIGURE 6 ): all segments with several bifurcated tip setae and some tapered setae ( Fig. 14B View FIGURE 14 ). Femur with a prolateral row of four long ventral spiniform setae. Tibia with long ventral spiniform setae, the retrolateral row smaller and more similar in size, the prolateral row longer and arranged in increasing size I=V, II=IV, III; there is one pair of apical setae that seems like a weak pair of spiniform setae, but the insertion socket is different being completely circular and not strongly elevated. Basitarsus with long ventral spiniform setae, the retrolateral smaller than the prolateral, but more equally sized in each row than those of the tibia; the proximal pair is weaker but can be distinguished; with some distal clubbed setae. Telotarsus with some clubbed setae ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ), some slit sensilla ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ), and retrodorsal pores.

Legs: all legs coated with bifurcated tip setae of different size; the trochanters and femora possess some robust bifurcated tip setae. The arolium of walking legs is very small. Leg I: without claws nor spiniform setae. Basitarsus and telotarsus with some clubbed setae ( Fig. 14F View FIGURE 14 ) and bifurcated tip setae. With dorsal pores on the retrodorsal surface ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 ) and a short, blunt, apical seta ( Fig. 14E View FIGURE 14 ). Leg II and III: tibia with 1.2 lateroventral spiniform setae; basitarsus with 1 retrodorsal distal spiniform seta (i.e. RD-d), 1.1 retrolateral spiniform setae (i.e. RL-b, RL-sd) (as Fig. 6D View FIGURE 6 ), and 1.2 lateroventral spiniform setae (i.e. RV-d, PV-d, PV-sd); telotarsus divided into two tarsomeres with the following spiniform formula: 1.2.2/2.2 (as Fig. 6E View FIGURE 6 ); the distal subdivision is relatively weak but complete, corresponding to the small terminal tarsomere that is placed on a sub-ventral position. Leg IV: tibia with 1.1.2 ventral spiniform setae; basitarsus with 1.1.2 ventral spiniform setae; telotarsus divided in four tarsomeres with the following spiniform setae formula: 2.2-2-2/2.2; the distal subdivision same as leg II and III, the basal subdivisions are weak folds but perceptible due the articulation (as Figs. 6F View FIGURE 6 ; 13B View FIGURE 13 ; 15G View FIGURE 15 ).

Maleolli ( Fig.14 View FIGURE 14 G-I): the surface is similar to the surface of the setae ( Fig. 14H View FIGURE 14 ). With some short filaments, particularly on the lateral margins ( Fig. 14I View FIGURE 14 ).

Opisthosoma: tergites and sternites with bifurcated tip setae. With some large, thick, tapered tip setae (ctenidia) on sternite III and IV. The number of ctenidia is 2-2 on spiracular sternite I and 3-3 on spiracular sternite II. The microsetae ( Fig. 14J–L View FIGURE 14 ) are present and placed in the same pattern as described by Iuri et al. (2014), with two pairs on sternites II, III and IV, and a single pair on sternite V.

Female: morphology and chaetotaxy similar to males, except by the wider propeltidium, wider chelicerae, and more robust body in general. Living specimens with body coloration pattern similar to that of female Pseudocleobis huinca as in Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2 . The posterior pair of spiniform setae of basitarsus and tibia is more spiniform than males. Opisthosomal sternite III and IV without ctenidia. Genital plate ( Fig. 10C View FIGURE 10 ): similar to the plate of P. huinca and P. bardensis , being flat, with a typical posterior opening resembling an omega symbol (Ω) (as Fig. 10A–E View FIGURE 10 ) and with a median posterior sclerite (upward arrow in Fig. 10C View FIGURE 10 ). There are two anterior small plates on the opening (transversal arrows in Fig. 10C View FIGURE 10 ). The lateral margins are slightly convex (never concave).

Note: some studied females have the genital plate shrivelled (see Fig. 10D–E View FIGURE 10 ) and, in some of these plates, the median sclerite and the small plaques are missing. It is probable that those were females that had recently copulated. Genital plate damage after copulation was reported in some solifuge species ( Peretti & Wilemart 2007, HruškováMartišová et al. 2010).

Distribution: the only three known localities of P. profanus sp. nov. belong to the Austral district of Monte biogeographic province and the Austral Payunia district of Patagonian biogeographic province ( Figs. 1A, C View FIGURE 1 ; 4 View FIGURE 4 ). Pseudocleobis profanus is apparently absent southern to the Negro river, and the distribution of this species may be limited southerly by the Negro and Limay rivers. On the other hand, its northern limit is unknown as the area between the Neuquén and Colorado rivers and the Septentrional Payunia district are poorly sampled.














Pseudocleobis profanus Iuri

Iuri, Hernán A. & Iglesias, Mónica S. 2022

Pseudocleobis huinca

: Maury 1976