Pseudocleobis profanus Iuri & Iglesias 2022, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Iuri, Hernán A.
name: Iglesias, Mónica S.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Solifugae
Ammotrechidae
Pseudocleobis
Pseudocleobis profanus

description: Pseudocleobis profanus Iuri, sp. nov.
(Figs. 3A, B; 4; 7C, D; 9C; 10C; 11B; 12D–F; 14. Table 1)
Pseudocleobis huinca: Maury 1976 misidentification (in part)
Type material. Holotype: ARGENTINA: Río Negro: ♂, Cinco Saltos, behind the cemetery [38º48’56,14’’S 68º03’23,00’’W], 11–12.I.2014. H.A. Iuri coll., (MACN-Ar 38425); Paratypes: ARGENTINA: Río Negro: 4♂, Same data as holotype (MACN-Ar 38430, 38474, 38480, 38491); 1♂, Same locality and collector as holotype, 7.I.2012 (MACN-Ar 38493).
Other examined material. ARGENTINA: Neuquén: 1♂, Las Lajas [38º31’24,63’’S 70º21’42,76’’W], 16.I.1967, P. San Martín coll., (MACN-Ar 6873; recorded by Maury 1976 as P. huinca); Río Negro: 1♂, General Roca [39º01’41,89’’S 67º35’03,00’’W], I.1962, A. Bachmann coll., (MACN-Ar 6871; paratype of P. huinca, misidentified by Maury (1976)); 25♂, 10♀, same locality and collector as holotype, 6–9.I.2016, (MACN-Ar).
Etymology: The name comes from the Latin adjective ‘ profanus ’, non-sacred, given that the type specimens were found near a cemetery. It’s an adjective in the nominative singular.
Diagnosis: Pseudocleobis profanus sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other Pseudocleobis except P. huinca and P. bardensis by the male movable finger mucron with a narrow dorsal crest and shovel-like apex (Figs. 7D; 11B; 12D), and the flagellum with a prolateral subcircular subapical row of filaments (Fig. 9C). It can be distinguished from P. bardensis by the more prominent dorsal crest and more prominent shovel-like apex of movable finger mucron (Figs. 7C–D) and the apex of fixed finger mucron ending in a smooth curve till the tip (Figs. 7C–D). It can be distinguished from P. huinca by the shape of fixed finger mucron, with a shorter and not bi-convex proventral flange (Figs. 7C, D).
Description: Male: measurements in Table 1. Color in vivo. As in Fig. 3. Color in 96 % ethanol. Prosoma: propeltidium brown with central portion, two areas on each side of the eyes and two areas in the posterior margin paler (as Fig. 6B). Lateral lobes brown. Ocular tubercle black. Insertion of setae yellowish. Para-, meso- and metapeltidium brown, insertion of setae yellowish. Meso- and metapeltidium with two pale oval areas. Chelicerae: brown with three longitudinal pale oval areas. Insertion of setae yellowish. Pedipalps: brown with ventral surface paler. Coxae pale yellowish. Legs: leg I, II and III; Brown, with ventral surface paler. Telotarsus, coxa and trochanter pale yellowish. Leg IV; with a similar color pattern, but the telotarsus is more pigmented. Malleoli: pale yellowish.
Opisthosoma: tergites brown with insertion of setae yellowish. Pleurites and sternites pale yellowish.
Morphology and Chaetotaxy: Prosoma: propeltidium slightly wider than long with bifurcated tip setae of different sizes (most of them pointing backward). Lateral lobes, partially separated by dorsal grooves. Median plagula, and anterior and posterior arci, with a transverse row of different-sized bifurcated tip setae. Meso- and metapeltidium wider than long, with bifurcated tip setae.
Chelicerae: Dentition and processes: fixed finger: median series with FD, FSD, FM, FSM and FP teeth (Fig. 7D), the FSD tooth is very tiny and sometimes absent; the FP is the biggest tooth on fixed finger; the FD is very tiny but present in all specimens examined; retrofondal series with RFM, RFSM, RFP, RFSP teeth and profondal series with PFM, PFSM, PFP, PFSP teeth. The fixed finger mucron is long, robust, and with a wide prolateral flagellar groove (with conspicuous prodorsal and proventral flanges; Figs. 11B; 12D), and it ends in a smooth curve till the tip (Fig. 7C, D). Movable finger: with MM, MSM and MP teeth (Fig. 7D); the MM similar or bigger than FM; the MP is the biggest tooth of the chelicera. The mucron is highly modified with a high, narrow dorsal crest and a shovel-like apex (Figs. 7C, D; 11B). Chaetotaxy: prolateral surface: The pvd series consists of two rows of plumose setae. The distal row is incomplete, usually restricted to the area of the profondal teeth (Fig. 12E). The second row extends from the pic to FM tooth. The pvsd series consists of one row of blunt setae that usually extends from the PFSP to the FSM. The pm series consists of small plumose hairs. The pdp series consists of four blunt setae. The pmpc and the pv consists of small hairs. Retrolateral surface: The rlm series consists of different-sized bifurcated tip setae, with the proximal group pointing backward. The rlf series consists of simple-tip, anteriorly directed, setae.
Flagellum: the flagellum is pear-shaped with a wide apex and concave ventral edge (Fig. 9C). Attachment ring of flagellum large, located at the level between the FSM and RFM teeth. The edge is thin with some irregular prolongations. On the retrolateral surface there is a subcircular subapical row of long fine filaments (Fig. 9A–B). The prolateral surface is smooth, not fringed (Fig. 12D).
Pedipalps (as Figs. 6C): all segments with several bifurcated tip setae and some tapered setae (Fig. 14B). Femur with a prolateral row of four long ventral spiniform setae. Tibia with 2.2.2.2.2 long ventral spiniform setae, the retrolateral row smaller and more similar in size, the prolateral row longer and arranged in increasing size I=V, II=IV, III; there is one pair of apical setae that seems like a weak pair of spiniform setae, but the insertion socket is different being completely circular and not strongly elevated. Basitarsus with 2.2.2.2 long ventral spiniform setae, the retrolateral smaller than the prolateral, but more equally sized in each row than those of the tibia; the proximal pair is weaker but can be distinguished; with some distal clubbed setae. Telotarsus with some clubbed setae (Fig. 14C), some slit sensilla (Fig. 14A), and retrodorsal pores.
Legs: all legs coated with bifurcated tip setae of different size; the trochanters and femora possess some robust bifurcated tip setae. The arolium of walking legs is very small. Leg I: without claws nor spiniform setae. Basitarsus and telotarsus with some clubbed setae (Fig. 14F) and bifurcated tip setae. With dorsal pores on the retrodorsal surface (Fig. 14D) and a short, blunt, apical seta (Fig. 14E). Leg II and III: tibia with 1.2 lateroventral spiniform setae; basitarsus with 1 retrodorsal distal spiniform seta (i.e. RD-d), 1.1 retrolateral spiniform setae (i.e. RL-b, RL-sd) (as Fig. 6D), and 1.2 lateroventral spiniform setae (i.e. RV-d, PV-d, PV-sd); telotarsus divided into two tarsomeres with the following spiniform formula: 1.2.2/2.2 (as Fig. 6E); the distal subdivision is relatively weak but complete, corresponding to the small terminal tarsomere that is placed on a sub-ventral position. Leg IV: tibia with 1.1.2 ventral spiniform setae; basitarsus with 1.1.2 ventral spiniform setae; telotarsus divided in four tarsomeres with the following spiniform setae formula: 2.2-2-2/2.2; the distal subdivision same as leg II and III, the basal subdivisions are weak folds but perceptible due the articulation (as Figs. 6F; 13B; 15G).
Maleolli (Fig.14 G-I): the surface is similar to the surface of the setae (Fig. 14H). With some short filaments, particularly on the lateral margins (Fig. 14I).
Opisthosoma: tergites and sternites with bifurcated tip setae. With some large, thick, tapered tip setae (ctenidia) on sternite III and IV. The number of ctenidia is 2-2 on spiracular sternite I and 3-3 on spiracular sternite II. The microsetae (Fig. 14J–L) are present and placed in the same pattern as described by Iuri et al. (2014), with two pairs on sternites II, III and IV, and a single pair on sternite V.
Female: morphology and chaetotaxy similar to males, except by the wider propeltidium, wider chelicerae, and more robust body in general. Living specimens with body coloration pattern similar to that of female Pseudocleobis huinca as in Fig. 2A. The posterior pair of spiniform setae of basitarsus and tibia is more spiniform than males. Opisthosomal sternite III and IV without ctenidia. Genital plate (Fig. 10C): similar to the plate of P. huinca and P. bardensis, being flat, with a typical posterior opening resembling an omega symbol (Ω) (as Fig. 10A–E) and with a median posterior sclerite (upward arrow in Fig. 10C). There are two anterior small plates on the opening (transversal arrows in Fig. 10C). The lateral margins are slightly convex (never concave).
Note: some studied females have the genital plate shrivelled (see Fig. 10D–E) and, in some of these plates, the median sclerite and the small plaques are missing. It is probable that those were females that had recently copulated. Genital plate damage after copulation was reported in some solifuge species (Peretti & Wilemart 2007, HruškováMartišová et al. 2010).
Distribution: the only three known localities of P. profanus sp. nov. belong to the Austral district of Monte biogeographic province and the Austral Payunia district of Patagonian biogeographic province (Figs. 1A, C; 4). Pseudocleobis profanus is apparently absent southern to the Negro river, and the distribution of this species may be limited southerly by the Negro and Limay rivers. On the other hand, its northern limit is unknown as the area between the Neuquén and Colorado rivers and the Septentrional Payunia district are poorly sampled.
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 441-443, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5094.3.4, http://zenodo.org/record/5974250