Forsteropsalis tumida ( Forster 1944 ) Taylor, 2011

Taylor, Christopher K., 2011, Revision of the genus Megalopsalis (Arachnida: Opiliones: Phalangioidea) in Australia and New Zealand and implications for phalangioid classification 2773, Zootaxa 2773 (1), pp. 1-65 : 60-61

Forsteropsalis tumida ( Forster 1944) new combination

( Figs 124–127 )

Megalopsalis tumida Forster 1944: 188–189 , figs 4–6.

Material examined. Male holotype. WN. Khandallah , near Wellington, New Zealand, 1924, R .E. R. Grimmett ( MONZ 2 /14) .

Description. MALE (N = 1). Prosoma length 3.8, width 5.2. Prosoma entirely unarmed; mottled dark brown and yellow-brown, with yellow U-shaped stripe around ocularium; metapeltidium not sclerotised. Ocularium yellow-brown with dark margins around eyes. Dorsum and venter of opisthosoma yellow-brown. Coxae yellowbrown, with black setae.

Chelicerae (figs 125–126). Segment I 9.0, segment II 13.0. Orange; segment II enormously swollen, with long, thin fingers.

Pedipalps (fig. 127). Femur 6.6, patella 3.0, tibia 3.6, tarsus 7.0. Orange; extraordinarily long; femur lightly denticulate; small, pointed patellar apophysis; small hypersetose areas on margin of apophysis and distal end of tibia; no tooth-row on claw.

Legs. Leg I femur 10.0, patella 2.0, tibia 9.0; leg II femur 13.5, patella 2.5, tibia 14.0; leg III not preserved; leg IV femur 9.0, patella 2.0, tibia 10.0. Orange; femora dorsally denticulate. Tibia II with nine pseudosegments; tibia IV with two pseudosegments.

Comments. This species is of doubtful validity. It is very similar to Forsteropsalis fabulosa , essentially being distinguished only by the more globular chelicerae which may represent individual variation. Forster (1944) failed to recognise a connection between his new species and F. fabulosa because he had confused the latter with the male of Forsteropsalis inconstans (see comments for F. fabulosa above).

Forsteropsalis tumida has previously been recorded from the Waitomo cave system ( Meyer-Rochow & Liddle 1988). The location of specimens used in that study (if they were preserved) is unknown (V. B. Meyer-Rochow, personal communication 2002), but a specimen photographed by Meyer-Rochow & Liddle (1988) is clearly distinct from F. tumida and represents an unknown species.

Figures

FIGURES 124–127. Forsteropsalis tumida (Forster 1944), male holotype. 124. Body, dorsal view. 125. Left chelicera, retrolateral view. 126. Left cheliceral fingers, dorsal view. 127. Left pedipalp, retrolateral view. Scale bar for fig. 124 = 1 mm; figs 125–127 = 2 mm.