Eulibitia maculata Roewer 1912
Creators: name: Medrano, Miguel
name: Kury, Adriano B.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Opiliones
Cosmetidae
Eulibitia
Eulibitia maculata

description: Eulibitia maculata Roewer, 1912
Figs 3, 19–22, 32; Table 3
Eulibitia maculata Roewer, 1912: 17, pl. 1, fig 1.
Libitia (Messa) castanea Sørensen in Henriksen, 1932: 415. syn. nov.
Eulibitia maculata – Roewer 1923: 298, fig 320. — Sørensen in Henriksen 1932: 389. — B. Soares 1945: 343. — Weidner 1959: 122. — Pinto-da-Rocha & Hara 2011: 2.
Paramessa castanea – Mello-Leitão 1933: 109.
Messatana castanea – Strand 1942: 398.
Diagnosis
This species differs from the other species of Eulibitia by the absence of paramedian tubercles on the posterior margin of the scutum (Fig. 19 D–E). The ladder mask can occupy the groove between areas III and IV (Fig. 20A, C–H). This species is similar to E. helena sp. nov. and E. clytemnestra sp. nov. by the shape of DS, with mid-bulge asymmetrical, but differs from the former by the absence of clavi inguines (Figs 19A, 20A) and by not having larger tubercles on distal femur IV (Fig. 21 B–C), and from the latter by the presence of a row of tubercles on the lateral margins of DS (Fig. 20A).
Etymology
Maculata: Latin adjective, referring to the spots of the scutum. Castanea: Latin adjective, referring to the chestnut brown color.
Type material
Lectotype (here designated)
COLOMBIA: ♂, Tolima (syntype of Eulibitia maculata, SMF RI /471, examined by photograph).
Paralectotypes
COLOMBIA: 3 ♂ ♀, Tequendama (syntypes of Eulibitia maculata, SMF RI /458, not examined); 1 ♂, Boca del Monte (syntype of Eulibitia maculata, SMF RI /469, not examined); 1 ♂, 1 ♀, same collection data as for holotype (syntypes of Eulibitia maculata, ZMH coll. Roewer 458, examined by photograph).
Syntypes
COLOMBIA: 2 ♀♀, Cundinamarca Department, Bogotá (syntypes of Libitia castanea, BMNH, examined).
Other material examined
COLOMBIA: Boyacá Department – 1 ♂, Villa de Leyva, SFF Iguaque [5.720016° N, 73.457901° W], 2800 m a.s.l., 22 Sep. 2013, A. García and S. Galvis leg. (ICN-AO 1428); 1 ♀, Chíquiza, Morro Negro, 5°36′36″ N, 73°29′20″ W, 3245 m a.s.l. (IAvH 15); 1 ♂, same collection data as preceding (IAvH 26). Cundinamarca Department – 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀, Bogotá, Usme, Páramo de Chisacá, 4°17′1.87′′ N, 74°12′55.49′′ W, 3600 m a.s.l., 28 Feb. 1976, I. de Arevalo, R. Restrepo, students leg. (ICN-AO 93); 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Bogotá, Sierras del Chicó, 4°40′16.95′′ N, 74°2′19.96′′ W, 15 May 2007, I. Morales leg. (ICN-AO 478); 1 ♂, 4 ♀♀, Bogotá, Usme, Cerro Juan Rey, Olla del Ramo, 4°31′19.68′′ N, 74°6′17.85′′ W, 25 Mar. 2003, stubble, pitfall, L. Benavides leg. (ICN-AO 491); 1 ♂, Soacha, Vereda San Francisco, Granja Ecológica El Porvenir, 4°34′30.13′′ N, 74°17′49.62′′ W, 2550 m a.s.l., 21 Nov. 2010, bracken, C. Cantor leg. (ICN-AO 784); 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀, Bogotá, Usme, Parque Entrenubes, Cerro Juan Rey, 4°31′17.71′′ N, 74°5′51.29′′ W, 2700 m a.s.l., 23– 25 May 2003, high scrub, pitfall, L. Benavides leg. (ICN-AO 875); 3 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀, same collection data as preceding (MNRJ 9272); 2 ♂♂, San Antonio del Tequendama, Reserva Natural Los Tunos, 4°33′47.48′′ N, 74°18′55.69′′ W, 2300 m a.s.l., 28 May 2012, D. Martínez leg. (ICN-AO 1048); 1 ♂, 2 ♀♀, Guasca, Reserva Biológica El Encenillo, Andean High Forest, 4°47′1,92′′ N, 73°54′8,76′′ W, 3050 m a.s.l., 16 Sep. 2012, C. Suárez, A. Herrera, E. Henao, E. Ariza and C.Villalva leg. (ICN-AO 1103); 1 ♀, La Calera, Club La Aguada, Embalse San Rafael, 4°42′25.71′′ N, 74°0′26.95′′ W, 2700 m a.s.l., Sep. 2000, D. Tovar and P. Chavarriaga leg. (ICN-AO 493); 3 ♀♀, Sibaté, San Miguel, going to Alto del Cuchuco, 4°26′55.98′′ N, 74°17′53.87′′ W, 2630 m a.s.l., 1 Dec. 1980, biology students leg. (ICN-AO 100).
Description
Male (based on ICN-AO 93)
MEASUREMENTS. CL = 2.23, AL = 3.91, CW = 3.08, AW = 5.32, Fe IV = 4.58, Ti IV = 4.07.
DORSUM (Figs 19, 20A). Dorsal scutum beta-shaped, with asymmetrical mid-bulge, areas I–V unarmed. Lateral margins with irregular row of minute granules at mid-bulge. Posterior margin of scutum with row of small tubercles. Tergites with row of small tubercles and anal operculum finely granular.
VENTER (Fig. 19 D–E). Free sternites finely granular; coxae II–IV finely and uniformly granular; coxa I with longitudinal row of tubercles and smooth area corresponding to lace area of pedipalp.
CHELICERAE (Fig. 21F). Basichelicerite with ecto-basal row of six tubercles; movable finger serrulate, with basal tubercle larger than others; fixed finger with four tubercles decreasing in size from basal to distal part of finger.
PEDIPALPS (Fig. 21 D–E). Trochanter with strong ventral process. Femur with pronounced dorsal keel, with ventral row of seven setiferous tubercles and strong mesodistal process. Patella with mesal keel. Shallow slit along tibia mesal surface, separating dorsal and ventral sides.
LEGS (Fig. 21 A–C). Coxa IV granulated, without clavi inguines. Trochanter IV with small retro-distal apophysis. Femur IV slightly arched, with two longitudinal ventral rows of small tubercles along entire length. Patella IV substraight, with small setiferous tubercles. Tarsal counts: 5–5/9–?/6–6/7–7.
COLOR (Fig. 19). Body and appendages color background 41 (Deep Reddish Brown) mottled in 59 (Dark Brown), ladder mask 104 (Pale Greenish Yellow). Trochanters I–III and tarsomeres 99 (Strong Greenish Yellow).
GENITALIA (Figs 3, 22). Ventral plate of penis subrectangular, narrower basally, with lateral borders subparallel and distal border slightly straight; dorsal apophysis of glans subsquare, wattle of stylus long. Shape and organization of macrosetae as follows: MS C1–C2 large, curved and flat; MS D1 large and slightly curved, D2 straight and half size of D1, both more dorsal than other MS; MS A1–A2 large, straight, cylindrical and located almost in basal middle of ventral plate; MS B and MS E1–E2 ventral, very small and immersed in microsetae. MS B most basal MS. Microsetae confined to lateral margins of ventral plate.
Variation
Pattern of yellow spots as in Fig. 20 C–H. MS A of VP of penis may be variable and asymmetrical in number from two to three, as shown in Figs 3 and 22, corresponding to two specimens from same lot. Tarsal counts: 5–6; 9–10; 6; 6–7. Variation of measurements is given in Table 3.
Female
Subtly smaller than males, with coda longer (Fig. 20 C–D). Males with basitarsus thicker but not notably swollen (Fig. 20B).
Distribution
Eulibitia maculata occurs in the WWF ecoregions: (1) Magdalena Valley montane forests (NT0136), tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forest biome, and (2) Northern Andean páramo (NT 1006), montane grassland and shrubland biome; in Tolima, Cundinamarca and Boyacá Departments (Fig. 32). The localities given by Roewer for Eulibitia maculata are rather imprecise: Tolima (Roewer 1912) and “Neu Granada” (Roewer 1923; probably referring to Viceroyalty of New Granada, territory corresponding to modern Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela under the jurisdiction of the Spanish Empire until 1819). Tolima Department has an area of 23.562 km 2 and four WWF ecoregions can be distinguished in it; here, a point in NT0136 of the eastern region of the department was chosen to coincide with the other points of occurrence of the species.
Remarks
Although Roewer (1912) described various characteristics of the specimen ZMH 458, he labeled the lectotype SMF RI/471 as “Type”, which does not entirely match the original description and certainly is a different species. Therefore, the use of ZMH 458 (“ex-typo”, probably belonging to Ambatoiella) has masked the identity of the real Eulibitia (see for example Pinto-Da-Rocha & Hara 2011, who mentioned characteristics of ZMH 458 in their table 1, although they cited SMF RI/471 as the “ holotype ” in their text).
The paralectotype ZMH 458 (used for original description) differs from the lectotype (designated here) by: (1) abdominal scutum reaching its maximum width in scutal area II (vs area III in the lectotype); (2) scutal area IV and the posterior margin with two small tubercles; (3) coda long, of same length as the mid-bulge; (4) ectal border of protoglyphs bifurcated, and (5) presence of clavi inguines. The use of those features by Roewer (1928) and Mello-Leitão (1932, 1933) to diagnose the genus, masked the identity of Eulibitia and made the detection of synonymies problematic.
The species Paramessa castanea was considered a different species from Eulibitia maculata, possibly for two reasons: (1) the blot pattern of DS, which is absent in the holotype of P. castanea, and the full ladder mask in the lectotype of E. maculata (see Figs 20 C–H for variation); or (2) the designation of different species in the type series, since Roewer designated ZMH specimens of a species more similar to Ambatoiella as paratypes, as explained above.
description: Published as part of Medrano, Miguel & Kury, Adriano B., 2017, Taxonomic revision of the Andean genus Eulibitia Roewer, 1912 (Arachnida, Opiliones, Cosmetidae), with the description of five new species, pp. 1-55 in European Journal of Taxonomy 357 on pages 27-34, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2017.357, http://zenodo.org/record/3836357