Superstitioniinae Stahnke, 1940

Soleglad, Michael E. & Fet, Victor, 2003, High-level systematics and phylogeny of the extant scorpions (Scorpiones: Orthosterni), Euscorpius 2003 (11), pp. 1-175 : 107-108

Subfamily Superstitioniinae Stahnke, 1940

Type Genus. Superstitionia Stahnke, 1940 . Synonyms.

Troglotayosicinae Lourenço, 1998, new synonymy.

Composition. The subfamily includes two monotypic genera: Superstitionia (North America: USA, Mexico), and Troglotayosicus (South America: Ecuador). The content of Superstitioniinae is changed here as we include the genus Troglotayosicus .

Distribution. North America, South America.

Taxonomic history. This taxon was originally introduced as a subfamily of Chactidae . It corresponds to the tribe Superstitionini of Francke (1982a).

Diagnosis. Synapomorphies. Chelal trichobothrium Eb 1 on ventral surface or on V1 carina; patella trichobothrium v 3 on external surface; patella trichobothria series esb 1 –esb 2 aligned parallel or slants “upward”; chelal finger internal denticle (ID) significantly larger than other denticles; sternum wider than long. Important Symplesiomorphies. Median denticle (MD) row of chelal finger aligned obliquely; chelal trichobothrium it positioned at extreme base of fixed finger; chelal trichobothria Db basal and Dt situated at base of fixed finger; lateral carinae of metasomal segment V absent.

Discussion. The combination of “ Superstitionia + Troglotayosicus ” is not new, in fact, Stockwell (1989: Fig. 255) showed this relationship in ladderized form, and except for his inclusion of genus Belisarius , his topology is quite similar to that derived in this study: Stockwell topology (without Belisarius and Sotanochactas ) = ( Superstitionia , ( Troglotayosicus , ( Alacran , Typhlochactas ))), versus the resulting topology of this study = (( Superstitionia , Troglotayosicus ), ( Alacran , Typhlochactas )). Unfortunately, Stockwell used the presence or absence of eyes, both median (his character 24) and lateral (character 25), as characters in his analysis, both distributed as synapomorphies in his Fig. 255. These two characters, in part, were the cause for Belisarius binding within this clade. It is clear that the loss of eyes is almost entirely due to adaptation to troglobitic conditions. This trend is commonly seen throughout Recent scorpions: at least the median eyes and tubercle are reduced or absent altogether, the loss of lateral eyes is more unusual (e.g., Troglocormus in the euscorpiids, Chaerilus chapmani in the chaerilids, Belisarius and Taurepania trezzii in the brotheines, all the typhlochactines, Diplocentrus mitchelli Francke in the diplocentrines). Since as a result in this current study, as well as in the euscorpiid revision by Soleglad & Sissom (2001), it is clear that Belisarius is a member of Chactidae , its move to Superstitioniidae as proposed by Stockwell (1989) could have easily been caused by this emphasis on the lack of eyes.

Lourenço (1998a) placed genera Troglotayosicus and Belisarius into a new family Troglotayosicidae , based on a set of highly unusual and creative characters for familial diagnoses: 1) total length of scorpion 25 to 32 mm; 2) two pairs of lateral eyes, median eyes absent; 3) sternum pentagonal; 4) stigmata small and round; 5) median plates and distal denticles of pectines are round; 6) legs with two pedal spurs; 7) cheliceral movable finger with significant serrulae; 8) trichobothria orthobothriotaxic, Type C; 9) leg tarsus with a number of “spinule” series, or two rows of “spinules”. Clearly, these diagnostic characters were carefully crafted to eliminate other troglobitic scorpions. None of these diagnostic characters qualify as a serious candidate for family distinction, since they are either much too low-level in nature (e.g., the character referring to the scorpion size), or are characters which apply to large aggregates of scorpion groups (e.g., sternum, orthobothriotaxy Type C, presence of pedal spurs on the legs). Again, as with Stockwell (1989), Lourenço (1998a) emphasized characters that are commonly found in cave adapted species (which includes both Belisarius and Troglotayosicus ), the loss of the median eyes and tubercle, and the loss of pectinal fulcra. The loss of fulcra, in general, is not that unusual in the chactoids. The presence of serrulae is quite common in the chactoids (including Superstitionia , Typhlochactas , many vaejovids) and also is known in the Old World iuroid, Calchas . (Of course this character is qualified as “significant” which presumably distinguished it from “insignificant” serrulae).

The primary synapomorphy for the superstitioniids is the secondary derivation of the oblique median denticle (MD) row of the chelal finger. After repeated attempts to borrow the type of Troglotayosicus vachoni , we were not able to gain access to this specimen. Although the original description by Lourenço (1981) is in general very thorough and well-illustrated, we still had specific questions dealing with the chelal finger dentition and the exact armament of the leg tarsus. We have in our possession two drawings of Troglotayosicus vachoni by Lourenço (supplied indirectly to us by David Sissom) of the chelal movable finger of Troglotayosicus (one of which is published in Lourenço (1998a: Fig. 18)). Both of these drawings are depicted from an outer angle, obscuring the exact alignment of the MD row (this was also discussed by Soleglad & Sissom (2001: 40)). From both of these drawings we see extraordinarily large denticles, which, depending on the drawing, are either internal denticles (ID) or outer denticles (OD). Based on the equally large distal denticles which clearly are internal, we presume the midfinger denticles are internal as well (which may mean this species is lacking outer denticles (OD)?). The MD row, which is obscured by some large denticles, appears to be composed of extremely small denticles. Consequently, in our cladistic analysis we assign Troglotayosicus an “unknown” state for the alignment of the finger MD row. However, we assigned the enlarged ID denticles found in Troglotayosicus to the same state as the genus Superstitionia which also has highly enlarged ID denticles. This is considered a synapomorphy for this small subfamily. The leg tarsus armature is another area in which we needed more resolution. In Lourenço’s (1981: Fig. 43, 1998a: Fig. 15) illustration we see a large number of irregularly positioned elongated setae and/or spinules. The figure clearly shows socketed bristles, but the sockets are so small, that we are not sure whether all of these are setae or an artifact of an artist’s rendering (i.e., some may be spinules). To add to the confusion, Lourenço (1981, 1998a) refers to setae/spinules as “spiniformes”. The distinction between this configuration and that found in Superstitionia is discussed in the Character Analysis section.