Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934

Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934

Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1932 (nomen nudum): figs. 127a–b.

Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1934: 569–570, fig. 127; Zilch, 1946: 149; Muma, 1970a: 7–8, figs 5–6; Muma, 1976: 14; Muma, 1987: 19; Harvey, 2002: 451.

Eremopus gigas (Roewer 1934): Muma 1989: 5.

Eremorhax gigas (Roewer): Vázquez Rojas, 1995: 30; Vázquez Rojas, 1996: 76.

Not Eremorhax gigas (Roewer): Muma, 1951: 48, figs 32,33 (misidentification, see Eremocosta gigasellus (Muma)).

Left: -. Right: -.

 

Diagnosis:

-.


Holotype:

Male holotype from Tampico, México (SMF)


Original description:

Roewer, 1934: 569–570, fig. 127:

""


Subsequent accounts:

Zilch, 1946: 149:

""


Muma, 1970a: 7–8, figs 5–6:

""


Muma, 1976: 14:

""


Muma, 1987: 19:

""

 

Muma, 1987: 19:

""

 

Muma 1989: 5:

""


Vázquez Rojas, 1995: 30:

""


Vázquez Rojas, 1996: 76:

""


Harvey 2002: 451:

Recognized Eremopus Roewer 1934 as a junior homonym of the copepod genus Eremopus Brady 1910, resurrected Eremocosta Roewer 1934 and restored Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934 to Eremocosta.


Harvey, 2003: 345, 346:

"Eremocosta gigas Roewer

Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1932: fig. 127a-b (nomen nudum).

Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1934: 569–570, fig. 127; Zilch, 1946: 149; Muma, 1970a: 7–8, figs 5–6; Muma, 1976: 14; Muma, 1987: 19; Harvey, 2002: 451.

Eremopus gigas (Roewer): Muma, 1989: 5.

Eremorhax gigas (Roewer): Vázquez Rojas, 1995: 30; Vázquez Rojas, 1996: 76.

Not Eremorhax gigas (Roewer): Muma, 1951: 48, figs 32–33 (misidentification, see Eremocosta gigasellus (Muma)).

Type locality: Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Distribution: Mexico."


Brookhart and Brookhart 2006: 304:

"Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934

Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934: 569.

Eremopus gigas (Roewer): Muma 1989: 5.

Not Eremorhax gigas (Roewer 1934): Muma, 1951 (misidentification, see Eremocosta gigasellus (Muma 1951).

Type material.— Male holotype from Tampico, Mexico (SMF).

Recorded specimens.— Known from type only.

Distribution.—Mexico: Veracruz. Biome: Chihuahuan Desert."


Bird, Wharton, and Prendini: 97:

"An additional process, situated distal to the MM tooth on the gnathal edge of the movable finger is evident in some males, e.g., in Eremochelis imperalis (Muma, 1951), Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1934, and Eremocosta striata (Putnam, 1883) (Muma, 1951: 46, fig. 26; 46, fig. 32; 95, fig. 174, 175). "


Cushing, Channiago and Brookhart 2018: Figs. 1D, 2K–N, 3D, 4C, 5D & E

"Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934

Figs. 1D, 2K–N, 3D, 4C, 5D & E

Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1932 (nomen nudum): figs. 127a–b.

Eremopus gigas (Roewer 1934): Muma 1989: 5.

Not Eremorhax gigas (Roewer 1934): Muma 1951 (misidentified): 48, figs. 32–33.

Eremocosta gigas (Roewer 1934): Harvey 2002: 451.

Type material. Male holotype from Tampico, México (SMF). Muma’s 1951 designation was in error and was in fact the description of E. gigasella which he corrected in 1970 and added the description of E. gigas at that time. We were able to examine the type.

Other specimen examined. Female (1). (Previously undescribed.) MÉXICO: Durango, Dinamita, N 25.733333°, W 103.666667°, 1328 m elev., 29 July 2005, coll. O. Francke, H. Montaño, J. Ballesteros, C. Durán-Barrón, at night (IBUNAM +CNAN-Sol00114).

Diagnosis. Eremocosta gigas male is distinguished by its unique cheliceral shape with a sharp dagger-like fixed finger, a long thin fondal notch, and the presence of an acute distal tooth (MD) on the movable finger (Fig. 2K, arrow). The female genital operculum is also distinct with tear-drop shaped opercular wings that diverge distally (Fig. 4C).

Measurements. Holotype Male. TL 50.0; CL 10.4; CH 7.7; FNL 1.3; FNH 1.0; FFH 2.2 ; PL 47.0; PMT NA; PT 2.6; PMT 10.3; LI damaged; LIV 50.3; PPL 8.0; A/CP NA; FNL/FNH 1.3,; FFH/FNH 2.2.

Female. TL 47.0; CL 14.0; CH 6.4; PPL 5.7; PL 39.5; PT 2.6; PMT 8.6; LI 28.5; LIV 40.5; A/CP 5.5.

Description. Coloration. Male. Overall pale yellow body and appendages. Propeltidium lightly mottled brownish-violet, darker on the anterior margin (Fig. 5D). Abdomen dusky.

Chelicera. Male. Typical ventrally located VDC with a thin carina inside the cavity (Fig. 1D, arrow) similar to E. striata and E. gigasella (Figs. 1E & F). Fixed finger with no median dentition. Movable finger: prominent MPone tiny MSM-small MM-small MD (the only Eremocosta to possess a distinct tooth-like MD); MPL prominent (Figs. 2K & L; tip of MPL tooth just visible in front of MP in Fig. 2L). Fondal notch distinct, narrow and rounded, greater than height; height of fixed finger larger than height of fondal notch (Fig. 2K). One very tiny RFA in fondal notch and one tiny RFA on ventral side of fixed finger; fondal teeth retrolaterally II, I, III, tiny IV; prolaterally I, III, II, IV (Fig. 3D).

Setation. Male. Cheliceral setal pattern, pvd setae typical; mvd a proximal patch of plumose setae. Typical setation of pedipalps. A few scattered bacilli on the coxae of LII and LIII. No scopula or ctenidia.

Coloration. Female. Basically cream-yellow, legs similar but a bit darker. Palp dusky on tarsus and metatarsus, LIV light violet at tibia-femur joint; propeltidium blotchy violet-brown, darker on anterior edge, creamy oval area behind ocular tubercle and smaller ovals on either side (Fig. 5E). Abdomen with typical dark, violet brown rectangles on each segment that give the appearance of a stripe; ventral grey-cream.

Chelicera. Female. Chelicera worn but apparently fixed finger: FP-2FSM-FM-FSD-FD. Movable finger: MP (very worn)-MSM if present, worn away-MM (Figs. 2M & N). MPL apparently missing but may just be worn away. One large RFA; fondal teeth I, III, II, IV (III almost the same size as I) retrolaterally and prolaterally.

Setation. Female. Typical with inner row of plumose bristle extending from FM on fixed finger to MM on movable finger. A row of thick bacilli on anterior edge of LIII coxa and a row of smaller bacilli on anterior edge LIV coxa.

Genital Operculum. Genital operculum tear-drop shaped with slender anterior arms, posterior wing rounded with inner edge slightly notched posteriorly. No visible pits laterally (Fig. 4C).

Distribution. MÉXICO: Veracruz. Biome: Chihuahuan Desert.

Discussion. We place the female from Dinamita, Durango, México in this species because of the overall similarity in body size and color pattern. However, without females collected from the type locality and without males collected from the new site we may find this placement either refuted or supported as more specimens are examined from México."


Distribution:

MEXICO: Durango, Tamaulipas

 


Notes:

-


Bibliography: