Cryptocellus magnus Ewing 1929
Creators: name: Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo
name: Valdez-Mondragón, Alejandro
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Ricinulei
Ricinoididae
Cryptocellus
Cryptocellus magnus

description: Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929
(Figures 27–46, 55)
Cryptocellus magnus Ewing, 1929: 589 –590, fig. 1.
Cryptocellus manni Ewing, 1929: 591 –592, figs 2, 5, 8 (synonymised by Platnick and Shadab, 1976: 5).
Type material. Female holotype from COLOMBIA, Magdalena, Cincinati; in National Museum of Natural History (not examined).
Material examined. COLOMBIA: Magdalena, Villa Leonor, 1311 m elev., 12.iv.1975, J. A. Kochalka, 1 male, 1 female (AMNH). Magdalena, San Pedro de La Sierra, 960 m elev., 19.v.1975, J. A. Kochalka, 1 larva, 1 protonymph, 1 deutonymph, 2 tritonymphs, 1 female (AMNH).
Comparative diagnosis. Cryptocellus magnus can be readily recognized from C. chimaera sp. nov. in several aspects of the male morphology. i) Tegument covered with lanceolate, iridescent setae (Figs. 35, 39); ii) cucullus devoid of surface tubercles, surface granules restricted to anterior border (Fig. 38); iii) opisthosoma oblong elongate, with median plate of tergite XII approximately as long as wide (Fig. 39); iv) basal segment of pygidium without notch on either dorsal or ventral posterior borders; v) legs I and II without ventral tubercles; vi) femur of legs III and IV similar in width; vii) tarsal process of the copulatory apparatus deeply bifid, spoon-like without median ledge, with no distinct ventral keels; L1 lobe longer than L2 (Fig. 33); viii) accessory piece of the copulatory apparatus entirely straight, without sub-basal widening (Fig. 28); L ′ lobe strongly curved and markedly robust (Figs. 31–32); apex with spiniform retrodorsal process and pronounced prodorsal tubercle, without spiniform proventral process; retrolateral surface without conspicuous carinae (Figs. 31–33).
Distribution. Known only from Magdalena department, Colombia.
Measurements of male (in mm). Body length, excluding pygidium 8.38; cucullus 1.33 long, greatest width 2.07; carapace 2.73 long, 2.60 wide at level of leg III (where widest); opisthosoma 5.00 long (excluding pygidium), 3.07 wide at level of tergite XII (where widest); median plate of tergite XI 1.60 long, 1.73 wide (where widest); median plate of tergite XII 1.40 long, 1.47 wide; median plate of tergite XIII 1.73 long, 1.73 wide; suture line of coxae II 0.56 long, of coxae III 0.38 long; pedipalp femur 1.33 long, greatest depth 0.57; pedipalp tibia 1.93 long, greatest depth 0.26; femur I 1.53 long, greatest width 0.67; femur II 2.73 long, 0.80 greatest width, 1.00 greatest depth; femur III 0.87 width; femur IV 0.66 width.
Notes. Cryptocellus magnus was studied and described in detail by Platnick & Shadab (1976).
description: Published as part of Botero-Trujillo, Ricardo & Valdez-Mondragón, Alejandro, 2016, A remarkable new species of the magnus species-group of Cryptocellus (Arachnida, Ricinulei) from Ecuador, with observations on the taxonomy of the New World genera, pp. 321-337 in Zootaxa 4107 (3) on page 330, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4107.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/255267