Pseudocleobis huinca : Maury 1976
Creators: name: Iuri, Hernán A.
name: Iglesias, Mónica S.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Solifugae
Ammotrechidae
Pseudocleobis
Pseudocleobis huinca

description: Pseudocleobis huinca Maury, 1976
(Figs. 2A–C; 4; 6A–C, F; 7A, B; 9A, B; 10A, D, E; 11A; 12A–C; 13A–E. Table 1, table 2)
Pseudocleobis huinca: Maury 1976: 94, 96–99; Figs. 18–20. Galiano & Maury 1979: 329. Maury 1984: 75; Figs. 2–3.
Not Pseudocleobis huinca: Maury 1976: 98–99 (misidentification in part, see notes below).
Type material (examined). Holotype: ARGENTINA: Río Negro: ♂, Valcheta [40º40’47,00’’S 66º09’45,00’’W], 23.I.1975, E.A. Maury, A. Toth, P. Domínguez and C. Césari coll., (MACN-Ar 6865). Paratypes: ARGENTINA: Río Negro: 1♀, same data as Holotype (MACN-Ar 6866, Allotype); 1♂, 2♀, same data as Holotype (MACN-Ar 6867); 1♂, Ramos Mexía [40º30’25,28’’S 67º15’37,87’’W], Río Negro, 22.I.1975, E.A. Maury, A. Toth, P. Domínguez and C. Césari coll., (MACN-Ar 6868); 1♂, Arroyo de la Ventana [41º40’04,91’’S 66º05’55,85’’W], Río Negro, same date and collectors of Holotype, (MACN-Ar 6869); 1♂, 1♀, Paso Córdoba [39º06’47,46’’S 67º37’34,08’’W], Río Negro, 28.I.1974, E.A. Maury coll., (MACN-Ar 6870); 2♂, General Roca [39º01’41,89’’S 67º35’03,00’’W], Río Negro, I.1962, A. Bachmann coll., (MACN-Ar 6871).
Other examined material. ARGENINA: Chubut: 1♂, Península Valdéz [42º27’52,38’’S 64º29’58,29’’W], XII.1967, P. Williner coll., (MACN-Ar 6874); Río Negro: 2♂, Valcheta, near the railroad station [40º41’19,07’’S 66º08’40,88’’W], 29–31.I.2013, H.A. Iuri and D.L. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar); 10♂, 2♀, Valcheta, near the abandoned fluorite factory [40°39’58,87”S 66°10’13,84”W], 10–12.I.2015, H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar); 2♂, 5♀, same locality and collector, 17.I.2016 (MACN-Ar); 19♂, and some ♀ and juv, Paso Córdoba, near the Nautical Club “ Julio A. Trulls ” [39º06’46,16’’S 67º37’12,45’’W], 13–15.I.2014, H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar); 71♂, 21♀, 3 immature, same locality and collector, 16–21.I.2015, (MACN-Ar); 40♂, 34♀, 8 immature, same locality and collector, 11–12.I.2016, (MACN-Ar); 1♂, Cinco Saltos, behind the cemetery [38º48’56,14’’S 68º03’23,00’’W], 11–12.I.2014, H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar); 1♂, 3♀, Playas Doradas, “sendero del cuis” [41°38’46.55”S 65° 1’27.64”W], 8–10.I.2015, H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar); 5♂, Sierra Grande, near the cemetery [41º36’16.62’’S 65º23’12.77’’W], 19–20.I.2016, H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar); 1♂, 5♀, Los Menucos, near the cemetery [40º49’28.04’’S 68º5’7.70’’W], 13–16.I.2016, H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar).
Notes: One male from Bajada “El Marucho”, Neuquén (MACN-Ar 6872) recorded by Maury (1976) as P. huinca actually corresponds to P. mauryi sp. nov., while one of the males paratypes from General Roca, Río Negro (MACN-Ar 6871), and the male from Las Lajas, Neuquén (MACN-Ar 6873), also recorded by Maury (1976) as P. huinca, correspond to P. profanus sp. nov. The specimens from Sierra Grande (MACN-Ar 6875) and from Cerro Áspero (MACN-Ar 6876), recorded by Maury (1976) as P. huinca, are juveniles Pseudocleobis but could not be assigned to this species.
Diagnosis: Pseudocleobis huinca can be distinguished from all other Pseudocleobis except P. bardensis and P. profanus sp. nov. by the male movable finger mucron with a narrow dorsal crest and shovel-like apex (Fig. 7B; 12A), and the flagellum with a prolateral subcircular subapical row of filaments (Fig. 7A, B). It can be distinguished from P. bardensis by the movable finger mucron with a more prominent median crest and more prominent shovellike apex (Figs. 7A–B; 11A; 12A), and from both, P. bardensis and P. profanus sp. nov., by the shape of the fixed finger mucron, with a more long and bi-convex proventral flange (Figs. 7A–B; 11A; 12A) ending in a small hooklike tip.
Note: Maury (1976) proposed the difference in the width of the lateral lobe to distinguish between the female genital plate of P. huinca and P. bardensis. However, studying many female specimens of P. huinca we have observed that the width of the posterior lobes is not useful to separate these species.Also, the females captured with the males of P. profanus sp. nov. are morphologically similar to the females of P. huinca. Thus, the genital plate allows distinguishing P. huinca females from females of other species such as P. andinus, P. alticola, P. solitarius, but not from P. bardensis and P. profanus sp. nov.
Description: see Maury (1976); male and female similar to P. profanus sp. nov. and P. bardensis except for the diagnostic characters. Measurements in Table 1.
Variability: males have a highly reduced FSD tooth, usually vestigial or absent. Variations on females usually consist of additional, very small, denticles on the secondary teeth series. For the variability of the dentition on both sexes see Table 2.
Distribution: the records of P. huinca correspond to the Austral district of the Monte biogeographic province (Figs. 1A,B,D; 4), and seem to be restricted to this biogeographic area. This species is found southern to the Negro river, with only two records northern to this river, and no records northern to the Colorado river (the Colorado river approximately matches the northern limit of the Monte Austral district). Pseudocleobis huinca seems to be absent at the west, between the Limay and Neuquén rivers.
description: Published as part of 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, pp. 435-460 in Zootaxa 5094 (3) on pages 444-445, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5094.3.4, http://zenodo.org/record/5974250