Linothele longicauda
Creators: name: Drolshagen, Bastian
name: Bäckstam, Christian M.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Dipluridae
Linothele
Linothele longicauda

description: Linothele longicauda (Ausserer, 1871)
(Fig. 10)
Diplura longicauda Ausserer, 1871: 178.
Diplura aequatorialis Ausserer, 1871: 179, n. syn.
Diplura cousini Simon, 1889a: 400, n. syn.
Linothele longicauda – Raven 1985: 74.
Linothele aequatorialis – Raven 1985: 74.
Linothele cousini – Raven 1985: 74.
TYPE MATERIAL. — Diplura longicauda: Holotype. Ecuador • imm. ♂; Quito; Schmarda leg.; NHMW I.N.: 61, examined.
Diplura aequatorialis: Holotype. Ecuador • indet.; Cordillera; Schmarda leg.; NHMW I.N.: 59, examined.
Diplura cousini: Syntypes. Ecuador • 2 ♀, 1 imm. ♂; Quito, Rumipamba; A. Cousin leg.; MNHN-AR-AR4938 (B338), examined.
TYPE LOCALITY. — Quito, Ecuador.
DISTRIBUTION. — Cordillera to Quito, Ecuador.
DIAGNOSIS. — Females of Linothele longicauda differ from those of all other species of Linothele by the combined presence of divided scopula, rigid apical segments of the PLS, but absence of preeningcombs, maculae and patterns on the opisthosoma. They can further be distinguished from females of other species by their genital morphology and from females of L. pukachumpi by the absence of yellowish setae on the carapace.
DESCRIPTION
Male
Unknown.
Female
Colouration in alcohol: Prosoma, opisthosoma, chelicerae, legs and pedipalps uniformly brown; maculae absent. Clypeus: narrow. Leg formula: 4123. Scopula divided.Preening-combs absent, see Figure 10A, B. Leg tarsi pseudo-segmented. Spinnerets: apical segments of the PLS rigid. Spermathecae: consisting of two apically elongated stalks, bearing several vesicles at 1:2-1:3A, see Figure 10B, C.
Variability
CL = 8.6-9.2. CT = 9-12. MC = 37-61.
REMARKS
Ausserer (1871) wrongly stated that the holotype of D. longicauda was a female. It is in fact an immature male. As it lacks a spermatheca, the holotype of D. longicauda cannot be distinguished from the syntypes of D. cousini, both originating from the same type locality (Quito).
The medial and apical segments of the PLS of the holotype of Diplura aequatorialis are missing. The epigastrium has been dissected by an earlier examiner, but no preparation can be found in the vial of the holotype. Bücherl et al. (1971: 117) considered Diplura nigerrima Mello-Leitão, 1941 and D. bitaeniata Mello-Leitão, 1941 junior synonyms of D. aequatorialis. According to the authors, the type specimens should be deposited at MNRJ, but Silva-Moreira et al. (2010) did not list them for MNRJ collection. Of all material examined by Bücherl et al. (1971), only the material of Harmonicon nigridorsi Mello-Leitão, 1924 could be located in MNRJ collection by Silva-Moreira et al. (2010). The synonymies of D. nigerrima and D. bitaeniata established by Bücherl et al. (1971: 117) are rejected for the following reasons: apparently, the apical segments of the PLS in D. nigerrima and D. bitaeniata were very elongated. Unfortunately, Mello-Leitão (1941a) did not explicitly state on the structure of the apical PLS segment in any of the two species, but in no other species, except for L. sericata, the apical PLS segment is as elongated as mentioned for D. nigerrima; PLS: 23.4 (5.6, 5.6, 12.2). Sizes (22.6 for D. bitaeniata, 37.0 for D. nigerrima; both probably incl. chelicerae) and CT (9 for D. bitaeniata, 8 for D. nigerrima) might well fall within the range observed for Linothele sericata. Additionally, the dorsal pattern on the opisthosoma, which Mello-Leitão (1941a) described for D. bitaeniata and Paz & Raven (1990) described for L. megatheloides, resembles that of younger L. sericata, whereas the holotype of D. aequatorialis bears no distinct pattern. Furthermore, the type localities (both Bogotá) of Diplura bitaeniata and D. nigerrima are consistent with the one of L. sericata and notably disjunct from the rather unspecific type locality of D. aequatorialis. As a result, D. bitaeniata n. syn. and D. nigerrima n. syn. are removed from the synonymy of L. aequatorialis and instead considered junior synonyms of L. sericata. The holotype of D. aequatorialis matches variation and overall appearance observed in the types of D. longicauda and D. cousini. The holotype of D. longicauda is indistinguishable from the types of D. cousini and D. aequatorialis. As a result, L. aequatorialis n. syn. and L. cousini n. syn. are considered junior synonyms of L. longicauda.
NATURAL HISTORY
Unknown.
description: Published as part of Drolshagen, Bastian & Bäckstam, Christian M., 2021, A taxonomic review of the mygalomorph spider genus Linothele Karsch, 1879 (Araneae, Dipluridae), pp. 163-196 in Zoosystema 43 (10) on pages 177-178, DOI: 10.5252/zoosystema2021v43a10, http://zenodo.org/record/4720674