Simon 1879 : 136 Datames affinis Kraepelin 1899 Eremobates affinis ( Kraepelin 1899a ) Datames cfr formidabilis Simon 1879 Kraepelin 1899b : 378 Eremobates formidabilis ( Simon 1879 ) Banks 1900 : 427 Eremoperna formidabilis ( Simon 1879 ) Roewer 1934 : 561 Eremorhax formidabilis ( Simon 1879 ) Muma 1970 : 4 Eremopus formidabilis ( Simon 1879 ) Muma 1989 : 5 Eremocosta formidabilis ( Simon 1879 ) Harvey 2002 : 451 Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Eremocosta gigas Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae) Cushing, Paula E. Channiago, Felix Brookhart, Jack O. Zootaxa 2018 2018-03-29 4402 3 443 466 6GGLC (Simon 1879) Simon 1879 [151,620,1375,1402] Arachnida Eremobatidae Eremocosta GBIF Animalia Solifugae 12 455 Arthropoda species formidabilis     Datames formidabilis  Simon 1879: 136–138, figs. 17–19, 25–26.    Datames affinisKraepelin 1899(misidentification in part, see  Eremobates affinis( Kraepelin 1899a): 242–243, figs. 20a–b.  Datames cfr.  formidabilis Simon 1879:  Kraepelin 1899b: 378.    Eremobates formidabilis( Simon 1879):  Banks 1900: 427.    Eremoperna formidabilis( Simon 1879):  Roewer 1934: 561, figs. 322b, 323c, 324d.  Eremorhax formidabilis( Simon 1879):  Muma 1970: 4–5, figs. 1–2.    Eremopus formidabilis( Simon 1879):  Muma 1989: 5.    Eremocosta formidabilis( Simon 1879):  Harvey 2002: 451.   Type material.Male type from Guanajuata, México, No. 1805 (Roewer No. 9130), deposited in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. The female and young with the type are not conspecific ( Muma 1970). Muma’s examination of types found a female paratype labeled “Arkansas” in Zoologisches Staatsinstitut und Zoologisches Museum in Hamburg, Germany he thought to be conspecific. The locality is apparently incorrect. If it refers to a locality in the United States then it is unlikely to be the female of  E. formidabilis.The female chelicera is illustrated as fig. 2, p. 13 in Muma (1970)but no description is provided (see Muma 1970, p. 16). It is not a typical  Eremocostafemale dentition. We were not able to examine the type of  E. formidabilisbut were able to examine males of this species from localities near the type locality: male from San Luis Potosi, México (Texas Tech University) and a male from Durango, México and San Luis Potosi, México (IBUNAM).    Specimensexamined.  Males(2). MÉXICO: Durango, Ciudad de Durango, DAO, N 24.051000°, W 104.610200°,  1890 melev.,  15 February 2005, no coll. ( IBUNAM CNANno number);  MÉXICO: San Luis Potosí, Salinas, N 22.627610°, W 101.716498°,  2077 melev.,  20 June 1970, coll. G. Cárlos( IBUNAM+CNAN- Sol00006).   Diagnosis.  E. formidabilisis easily distinguished from all other  Eremocostaby the location of the VDC which lies proximally instead of distally on the ventral edge of the male fixed finger ( Fig. 1C). It is also smaller than others and the dark tips of the pedipalps are also distinctive.   Measurements (n = 2).TL 22.0, 30.0; CL 6.6, 10.0; CH2.8, 4.7; FNL 0.3, 0.5; FNH 0.3, 0.5; FFH 0.8, 1.3; PL 17.0, 23.0; PT 1.4, 2.7; PMT 5.7, 11.5; LI 11.0, 13.0; LIV 16.5, 16.5; PPL 4.0, 4.3; A/CP 4.2; FNL/FNH 1.0, 1.0; FFH/FNH 2.8, 2.8; FFH/ CH0.3, 0.3.  Description. Coloration.Overall coloration pale, palpal tarsus, metatarsus, and inner surface of tibia dark brown; LIII and LIV with similar but lighter coloration on tibia-femur joint area; propeltidium coloration pale ( Fig. 5C).  Chelicera.Chelicera as in Muma (1970, p. 13, fig. 1–2). VDC proximally located ( Fig. 1C). Neither Roewer (1934)nor Muma (1970)mentioned or illustrated this unique position of the VDC. Fixed finger with no median dentition. Movable finger: large MP-three MSM attached to MP; distinct MPL ( Figs. 2I& J). Fondal notch narrow, longer than wide ( Fig. 2I). Two tiny RFA; fondal teeth I, III, II, IV prolaterally and retrolaterally ( Fig. 3C).  Setation.Dorsal setal complex typical tubular; pvdextend to top of fondal tooth I; mpda proximal patch. A few, tiny, scattered bacilli on coxa of LI. Pedipalps with scattered, long, thin setae, and shorter, thicker setae. Palpal tibia with a series of strong setae basally on the mesal surface. No visible paired setae.   Distribution.This is a Chihuahuan Desert inhabitant whose range includes Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, and Durango,  México.   Discussion.Putnam’s (1883), Roewer’s (1934), and Muma’s (1970) descriptions are adequate. Two tiny RFA in fondal notch ( Fig. 3C). Roewer (1934)indicates 4 ctenidia but Muma (1970), in examining the type, found no ctenidia. The two males that we examined had no ctenidia. 1836936203 2005-02-15 DAO, IBUNAM, CNAN Mexico 1890 24.051 Specimens 1 -104.6102 Males 13 456 1 Durango 1836936197 1970-06-20 IBUNAM G. Carlos & Sol Mexico 2077 22.62761 Salinas 1 -101.7165 13 456 1 San Luis Potosi