Genus Eremocosta Roewer 1934

Eremopus Roewer, 1934: 561 [junior homonym of Eremopus Brady, 1910 (Crustacea: Copepoda)]; Muma 1989: 3 (key), 4.

Eremocosta Roewer 1934: 569 (synonymized by Muma 1951: 41); Harvey 2002a: 450, 451; Harvey 2003e: 245; Brookhart and Brookhart 2006: 303; Cushing, Channiago and Brookhart 2018: 445, 446.

Eremacantha Roewer 1934: 571 (synonymized by Muma 1970a: 9).


Eremocosta striata (Putnam 1883). Left: adult male. Right: adult female. Both from Santa Cruz County, AZ.
Copyright Warren E. Savary.



Right chelicera of male Eremocosta bajaensis (Muma). Left: ectal view. Right: mesal view.

Tip of fixed cheliceral finger of Eremocosta titania (Muma), mesal view, showing ventrodistal concavity. Illustrations by Warren E. Savary.


Type species:

of Eremopus: Eremopus montezuma Roewer 1934 by original designation.

of Eremocosta: Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934 by original designation.

of Eremacantha: Eremacantha robusta Roewer 1934 by original designation.


Diagnosis:

Eremobatine species in which the fixed cheliceral finger of the male bears a distinct ventrodistal concavity.  The concavity does not contain an enlarged seta and does not extend to the base of the finger.

 

Original description:

Roewer 1934: 556 (figs. 320 f and m), 569:

569 - "7. Gen. Eremocosta novo gen.

Genotypus: E. gigas novo spec.

Eremobatinae, deren 2. und 3. Tarsus ventral mit jeweils 1.2.1.2.2.4.6 Dornen und deren 4. Tarsus ventral mit 4.2.2.4.2.2.4/2/2.2.4 Dornen bewehrt ist (Abb. 320, f, m).

2 Arten, deren eine nur als ♂ deren andere nur als ♀ bekannt ist."

Abb. 320. Ventrale Bedornung des 2.-4. Tarsus der Eremobatinae, und zwar a-g = 2. oder 3. Tarsus und h-p = 4. Tarsus von f = Eremocosta; m = Eremocosta.

 

Subsequent accounts:

Roewer, 1934 (as Eremopus): 556 (figs. 320 b and k), 561:

561 - "3. Gen. Eremopus novo gen.

Genotypus: E. montezuma n. sp.

Eremobatinae, deren 2. und 3. Tarsus ventral mit jeweils 4.6 Dornen und deren 4. Tarsus ventral mit 2.2.2/0/4.6 Dornen bewehrt ist (Abb. 320, b, k).

8 Arten, von denen die eine nur als ♂ bekannt ist und möglicherweise zu einer der 7 anderen Arten gehört, die nur als ♀ bekannt sind."

Abb. 320. Ventrale Bedornung des 2.-4. Tarsus der Eremobatinae, und zwar a-g = 2. oder 3. Tarsus und h-p = 4. Tarsus von b = Eremopus; k = Eremopus.

 

Roewer 1934 (as Eremocantha): 556 (figs. 320 d and p), 571:

571 - "9. Gen. Eremacantha novo gen.

Genotypus: E. robusta novo spec.

Eremobatinae, deren 2. und 3. Tarsus ventral mit jeweils 2.2.2.4.6 Dornen und deren 4. Tarsus ventral mit 4.2.2.2.4.2.4/2/2.4.6 Dornen bewehrt ist (Abb. 320, d, p).

Nur 1 Art"

Abb. 320. Ventrale Bedornung des 2.-4. Tarsus der Eremobatinae, und zwar a-g = 2. oder 3. Tarsus und h-p = 4. Tarsus von d = Eremocantha; p = Eremocantha.


Muma 1989 (as Eremopus): 3 (key), 4:

3 -  "Key to Subfamilies and Genera of Eremobatidae
(Males Only)

1. Leg 1 with 1 claw; chelicerae about twice as long as wide; small to large species ...............
   ........................................................................................................Eremobatinae Roewer-2

1'. Leg 1 with 2 claws; chelicerae 2.5–3 times longer than wide; tiny to moderate sized
   species ......................................................................................................... Therobatinae-6

2. Fixed cheliceral finger long, style-like or needle-like; mesoventral groove a crease, slot or
   cup-like structure; moderate-sized to large species .......................................................... 3

2'. Fixed cheliceral finger short, sculptured and flanged; mesoventral groove a trough-like
    slot; moderate sized species ................................................................. Eremothera Muma

3. Mesoventral groove an indistinct hollow or crease that does not extend to the base of
    the fixed finger; movable finger dentition greatly reduced ................................................
   ....................................................................................... Arenotherus Brookhart and Muma

3'. Mesoventral groove a distinct crease, cup, or slot that may or may not extend to base of
   fixed finger; movable finger dentition normal or increased .............................................. 4

4. Mesoventral groove short, not extending to base of fixed finger; apical striate or
   plumose setae of male flagellum complex not obviously modified or flattened .............. 5

4'. Mesoventral groove long, extending to base of fixed finger; apical plumose seta of male
   flagellum complex obviously enlarged or flattened covering part of the mesoventral
   groove...................................................................................................... Eremobates Banks

5. Palpal metatarsus, tibia, and femur provided with enlarged spine-like seta, but they are not
    in ventral rows, especially robust, nor obviously movable ..................... Eremopus Roewer

5'. Palpal metatarsus, tibia, and femur provided with 2 ventral rows of enlarged, robust, spine-
  like, obviously movable setae ..................................................................... Horribates Muma

6. Fixed cheliceral finger strongly recurved, sigmoid, or S-shaped; mesoventral groove
    absent; both dorsal and ventral flagellum complex setae plumose, moderate sized
    species...........................................................................................................Chanbria Muma

6'. Fixed cheliceral finger style-like or needle-like, straight, curved, or undulate but not
    S-shaped or sigmoid; mesoventral groove present; dorsal flagellum complex setae striate,
    ventral setae striate or plumose ....................................................................................... 7

7. Fixed cheliceral finger with a mesoventral groove that varies from one or more indistinct
    creases to an elongate hollow or cup; small to moderate sized species ............................
   ............................................................................................................... Eremochelis Roewer

7'. Fixed cheliceral finger without a mesoventral groove; tiny to small species .......................
    ............................................................................................................. Hemerotrecha Banks

4 -      "Eremopus, Roewer, 1934

Eremopus Roewer, 1934, p. 501. (in part)

Eremocosta Roewer, 1934, p. 569. (in part)

Predominately large Eremobatinae. Fixed chelicera! finger of males with indistinct to distinct short mesal or mesoventral grooves that do not extend to the base of finger. Dorsal setae of flagellum complex striate but often weakly so, ventral setae plumose but often weakly so; apical setae of complex not obviously modified. Females have opercula alate and widely separated posteriorly."

Key to Species groups of Eremopus Roewer

    1. Male cheliceral groove a short distinct ventral cup or slot; males with or without process
       distad to anterior tooth on movable cheliceral finger; female opercula alate with concave
       posterior notches, but without anterior pits ................................................. striatus group

    2. Male cheliceral groove a short indistinct mesal crease; males without process distad of
       anterior tooth on movable finger; female opercula angulate with anterior pits..................
       ..................................................................................................................montezuma group


Harvey, 2002a: 450, 451:

450,451 - "Family Eremobatidae

Genera Eremorhax Roewer, Arenotherus Brookhart and Muma, and Eremopus Roewer

Remarks

Roewer (1934) described numerous new eremobatid genera from the Americas, including Eremorhax Roewer with the type and only species, Datames magna Hancock, 1888. Although the types of this species from Laredo, Texas, are apparently lost (Muma, 1951, 1970), Roewer (1934) had access to five specimens, two males and three females, from Texas that he identified as E. magnus. The genus Eremorhax was later enlarged by Muma (1951, 1970) with the synonymy of Eremopus Roewer, 1934 (type species Eremopus montezuma Roewer, 1934 by original designation), Eremocosta Roewer, 1934 (type species Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1934 by original designation), and Eremacantha Roewer, 1934 (type species Eremacantha robusta Roewer, 1934 by original designation). Eremorhax was made the type genus of Eremorhaxinae Roewer, 1934, although this subfamily was later synonymized under Eremobatinae Kraepelin by Muma (1951). Brookhart and Muma (1987) discussed the identity of the species described as E. magnus (Hancock, 1888) by Roewer (1934), concluding that it was not conspecific with the species described and illustrated by Hancock (1888) and Muma (1951). Rather, they considered it a representative of the genus Eremobates Banks, but did not speculate any further on its identity. They then placed Eremorhax Roewer as a junior synonym of Eremobates Banks, 1900, and described a new genus, Arenotherus Brookhart and Muma, 1987 for Datames magna Hancock, 1888 and several other species. Although they consistently referred to the new genus as accommodating those species previously placed in the Eremorhax magnus group of Muma (1951), they did not specify a type species, in contravention of Article 13(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 3rd edition. The remaining species previously placed in Eremorhax were transferred to Eremopus by Muma (1989). The lack of a type designation for Arenotherus was clearly a lapsus by Brookhart and Muma (1987), and I hereby designate Datames magna Hancock, 1888 as type species (new designation), as they so obviously intended. In addition, when Brookhart and Muma (1987) discovered that Roewer (1934) had misidentified the type species when describing the genus Eremorhax, they were required by Article 70(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature then in effect (3rd edition) to request the Commission to resolve the case. Article 70.3 of the 4th edition of the Code (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999) gives authors the power to designate as type species that species which best serves stability and universality - either the nominal species previously cited as type species, regardless of misidentification, or the species actually involved which was wrongly named in the type fixation - without application to the Commission. Designation of the nominal species previously cited as the type species would render Arenotherus Brookhart and Muma (1987) as a junior synonym of Eremorhax. Designation of the species actually involved would render the misidentified specimens available to Roewer (1934) as representing the type species. The identity of these specimens is unclear and my attempts to locate the material have proved fruitless - Roewer (1934) did not state from which institution they were borrowed, and they were not part of Roewer's collection now lodged in Naturmuseum Senckenburg, Frankfurt (Zilch, 1946). However, Brookhart and Muma (1987) did state (p. 1) that Roewer's description fitted a species of Eremobates but without access to these specimens it will be difficult to determine their identity. In the interests of stability, I here propose that the first option is the best solution and I here designate Datames magna Hancock, 1888 as the type species of Eremorhax, regardless of the misidentification made by Roewer (1934). This automatically places Arenotherus as a junior objective synonym of Eremorhax Roewer, 1934 (syn. nov.). In addition, Eremopus Roewer, 1934 is here found to be a junior homonym of the copepod genus Eremopus Brady, 1910. However, a replacement name is not needed for Roewer's name because Eremopus currently has two junior synonyms, Eremocosta Roewer, 1934 and Eremacantha Roewer, 1934 (Muma, 1951, 1970), of which Eremocosta is here selected as the valid name. The type species of Eremocosta, E. gigas Roewer, is well defined and the holotype is an adult male lodged in Naturmuseum Senckenburg, Frankfurt, Germany (Muma, 1970), whereas the holotype of the type species of the other synonym, Eremacantha, E. robusta Roewer, is an immature specimen (Muma, 1970) whose specific identity may never be known with certainty."


Harvey, 2003e: 450, 451:

245 -   "Genus Eremocosta Roewer

               Eremopus Roewer, 1934: 561 [junior homonym of Eremopus Brady, 1910 (Crustacea: Copepoda)]; Muma, 1989:4.

               Eremocosta Roewer, 1934: 569 (synonymised by Muma, 1951: 41).

               Eremacantha Roewer, 1934: 571 (synonymised by Muma, 1970a: 9).

Type species: of Eremopus: Eremopus montezuma Roewer, 1934, by original designation.

  of Eremocosta: Eremocosta gigas Roewer, 1934, by original designation.

  of Eremacantha: Eremacantha robusta Roewer, 1934, by original designation.

Distribution: Mexico, southern U.S.A.


Brookhart and Brookhart 2006: 303:

301 -    Key to Subfamilies and Genera of Eremobatidae (males only)

(Taken from Muma 1987)

1. Leg I with 1 claw; chelicerae about twice as long as wide; small to large species .....................
   .............................................................................................................Eremobatinae Roewer-2

   Leg 1 with 2 claws; chelicerae 2.5–3 times longer than wide; tiny to moderate sized species ...
   ........................................................................................................................... Therobatinae-6

2. Fixed cheliceral finger long, style-like or needle-like; mesoventral groove a crease, slot or
   cup-like structure; moderate-sized to large species ................................................................ 3

    Fixed cheliceral finger short, sculptured and flanged; mesoventral groove a trough-like slot;
   moderate sized species .......................................................................................... Eremothera

3. Mesoventral groove an indistinct hollow or crease that does not extend to the base of the
   fixed finger; anterior tooth absent .......................................................................... Eremorhax

    Mesoventral groove a distinct crease, cup, or slot that may or may not extend to base of
   fixed finger; anterior tooth present ......................................................................................... 4

4. Mesoventral groove short, not extending to base of fixed finger; apical striate or plumose
   setae of male flagellum complex not obviously modified or flattened ................................... 5

    Mesoventral groove long, extending to base of fixed finger; apical plumose seta of male
   flagellum complex obviously enlarged or flattened; covering part of the mesoventral groove
   ................................................................................................................................. Eremobates

5. Palpal metatarsus, tibia, and femur provided with enlarged spine-like seta, but not robust,
   not aligned in a ventral row, not movable .............................................................. Eremocosta

    Palpal metatarsus, tibia, and femur provided ventrally with robust, obviously movable
   spinelike setae .......................................................................................................... Horribates

6. Fixed cheliceral finger strongly recurved, sigmoid, or S-shaped; mesoventral groove absent;
    both dorsal and ventral flagellum complex setae plumose, moderate sized species ..............
   .....................................................................................................................................Chanbria

    Fixed cheliceral finger style-like or needle-like, straight, curved, or undulate but not
   S-shaped or sigmoid; mesoventral groove present; dorsal flagellum complex setae striate,
   ventral setae striate or plumose ............................................................................................. 7

7. Fixed cheliceral finger with a mesoventral groove that may vary from a distinct crease to
   an elongate hollow or cup; dorsal flagellum complex simple or tubular; small to moderate
   sized species ........................................................................................................... Eremochelis

   Fixed cheliceral finger without a mesoventral groove; dorsal flagellum complex hooked or
   spatulate; tiny to small species ........................................................................... Hemerotrecha

303 -   Genus Eremocosta Roewer 1934

Eremopus Roewer 1934:561.

Eremocosta Roewer 1934:569 (type species only).

Eremocantha Roewer 1934:571.

Eremorhax Roewer 1934:553, Muma 1951:41; Muma 1970:6 (erroneously synonymized type species
   of Eremocosta with Eremorhax).


Cushing, Channiago and Brookhart 2018: 443-446:

443, 444 - "Abstract

A recent phylogenetic analysis demonstrated that the solifuge genus Eremocosta (Eremobatidae), although not monophyletic, formed a strongly supported group, rendered paraphyletic by the exclusion of E. acuitlapanensis, which we herein determine is misplaced in this genus. We revise the taxonomy of the genus Eremocosta. Nine species of the 13 currently placed in the genus are retained, E. bajaensis (Muma 1986), E. calexicensis (Muma 1951), E. formidabilus (Simon 1879), E. gigas Roewer 1934, E. gigasella (Muma 1970), E. spinipalpis (Kraepelin 1899), E. striata (Putnam 1883), and E. titania (Muma 1951). Eremocosta fusca (Muma 1986) and E. montezuma (Roewer 1934) are returned to the genus Eremorhax along with E. arenarum. Eremocosta hystrix and Eremocosta acuitlapanensis (Vázquez & Gaviño-Rojas 2000) are transferred to Eremobates. We re-evaluated E. nigrimana (Pocock 1895) and determined that, since the type shows the ventrodistal concavity (VDC) diagnostic for the genus Eremocosta, it should be retained in that genus; however, because the type locality is identified as Afghanistan, far outside the range of any Eremobatidae, its status and placement remain uncertain. Eremocosta robusta (Roewer 1934) was designated nomen dubium by Muma and we maintain this designation. We provide a key to the species of Eremocosta and provide a description of the female of E. gigas.

443, 444 - Introduction

The molecular phylogeny of Cushing et al. (2015) demonstrated that the genus Eremocosta was rendered paraphyletic by a single species, E. acuitlapanensis, which we now believe is misplaced in that genus. Based upon the support of Eremocosta as well as diagnostic morphology established by Roewer (1934) and Muma (1951, 1970) for members of this genus, it is clear that Eremocosta needs to be revised. Collection of more specimens has given us a better idea of the distribution and morphological variation of each species in the genus. In this paper we attempt to clarify the status of the genus Eremocosta and add to Muma’s (1951) detailed descriptions of E. calexicensis, E. gigasella, E. striata, and E. titania, which may have been based on specimens that were misidentified at the time. In addition we provide the first description of the female of E. gigas. We also provide a key to species of Eremocosta. We follow the definitions of cheliceral characters found in Bird et al. (2015).

Taxonomic history of the genus. The genus Eremocosta was erected by Roewer (1934) with the male of Eremocosta gigas designated as the type species. At that time he also included the female Datames geniculatus (Simon 1879) in the genus as Eremocosta geniculata (Simon 1879). Roewer (1934) in his description of the male described the genus as having “a flagellum complex consisting of a row of bristles on the medial-dorsal side of the immovable finger...the latter in the apical third with a ventral, deep depression, which is sharply delimited” (translated from Roewer 1934).

Roewer (1934) also described the genus Eremacantha, designating Eremacantha robusta as the type species. Eremorhax was made the type genus of the subfamily Eremorhaxinae. This subfamily was later synonymized under Eremobatinae Kraepelin 1899 by Muma (1951). Muma (1951) synonymized Roewer’s Eremopus and Eremocosta under Eremorhax and moved Roewer’s Eremocosta geniculata to the genus Eremobates. He later (Muma 1970) synonymized this species with Eremobates mormonus (Roewer 1934). Muma (1951) divided Eremorhax into two species groups: the magnus and the striatus groups based upon the shape of the mesoventral groove on the cheliceral fixed finger. Muma (1970) included a third species group, the montezuma group in the genus Eremorhax. He included only the species E. montezuma in the latter group; the magnus group included E. formidabilis (Simon 1879), E. latus Muma 1951, E. magnus (Hancock 1888), E. puebloensis Brookhart 1965, and E. pulcher Muma 1963; the striatus group included E. calexicensis Muma 1951, E. gigas (Roewer 1934), E. gigasellus Muma 1951, E. spinipalpis (Kraepelin 1899), E. striatus (Putnam 1883), and E. titania Muma 1951 (Muma 1970). Muma (1970) recognized that the specimens he referred to as E. gigas in his 1951 publication actually represented the species he named E. gigasellus in the 1970 publication. He designated Eremorhax robusta (described by Roewer as Eremacantha robusta) as nomen dubium because the type was immature and lacked sexual characters that would allow proper placement. Muma (1989) included Eremorhax formidabilis in the key to the striatus species group of the genus Eremorhax rather than in the magnus group, where he had previously placed this species. In an unpublished revision of the Eremobatidae Muma proposed placing all members of the striatus group in the genus Eremocosta (unpublished manuscript in the library of JOB). In 1989 Muma resurrected Roewer’s Eremopus to include both the Eremorhax striatus group as well as the Eremorhax montezuma group.

Harvey (2002) noted that the genus Eremopus Roewer 1934 is a junior homonym of the copepod genus Eremopus Brady 1910 and selected Eremocosta Roewer 1934 as the valid name for Eremopus (Solifugae) since it was one of two junior synonyms (along with Eremacantha) in the original publication (Roewer 1934). The type species of Eremocosta, E. gigas, was well defined by Roewer (1934) and the holotype is in the Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberganlage, Frankfurt, Germany. Harvey (2002) considered Eremocosta the preferred replacement name for Eremopus instead of Eremocantha since the type species of the latter genus, Eremocantha robusta, was an immature specimen (Muma 1970) not displaying useful characters for species identification. Harvey (2002) placed all species previously in the Eremorhax magnus, striatus, and montezuma species groups in the genus Eremocosta Roewer 1934 including: E. acuitlapanensis (Vázquez & Gaviño-Rojas 2000), E. bajaensis (Muma 1986), E. calexicensis (Muma 1951), E. formidabilis (Simon 1879), E. fusca (Muma 1986), E. gigas Roewer 1934, E. gigasella (Muma 1970), E. montezuma (Roewer 1934), E. nigrimana (Pocock 1895), E. robusta (Roewer 1934), E. spinipalpis (Kraepelin 1899), E. striata (Putnam 1883), and E. titania (Muma 1951).

Harvey’s (2002) nomenclatural change from Eremopus to Eremocosta added members of the Eremopus montezuma group to Eremocosta as well as the enigmatic Eremorhax nigrimana whose type locality was listed as “probably Meshed, Afghanistan” and had been formerly included in the magnus group of Eremorhax. Based on morphology, members of the Eremocosta montezuma group (E. montezuma and E. fusca) are misplaced as is E. arenarum (Ballesteros & Francke 2007). Harvey’s decisions led later researchers to include two other species in the genus Eremocosta: E. acuitilapanensis (Vázquez-Rojas & Gaviño-Rojas 2000) and E. hystrix (Mello-Leitão 1942) (Vázquez-Rojas et al. 2014). Examination of these species led us to revise their generic placement. We revise the genus Eremocosta sensu stricto and formally remove species that do not belong in this genus.

445 -    "Taxonomy

Family Eremobatidae Kraepelin 1899

Subfamily Eremobatinae Kraepelin 1899.

Genus Eremocosta Roewer 1934.

Eremopus Roewer 1934: 561 [Junior homonym of Eremopus Brady 1910 (Crustacea, Copepoda)], Muma 1989: 4.

Eremocosta Roewer 1934: 569 (synonymized by Muma 1951: 41).

Eremocantha Roewer 1934: 571 (synonymized by Muma 1970: 9).

Type species. Of Eremopus: Eremopus montezuma Roewer 1934, by original designation. Of Eremocosta: Eremocosta gigas Roewer 1934, by original designation. Of Eremocantha: Eremocantha robusta Roewer 1934, by original designation.
Revised diagnosis. Eremocosta species are relatively large; ranging from 26 to 50 mm in length. Color patterns of the body and pedipalps are variable. The diagnostic synapomorphy of Eremocosta is the male fixed finger with a deep VDC (Figs. 1A–G). Neither Roewer (1934) nor Muma (1951, 1970) described the carina running inside this cavity that is evident in some species (Figs. 1B–F, arrows). The fixed finger of males lacks median dentition (Fig. 2). The movable finger of males has a large MP, one to two MSM, and one MM teeth (Fig. 2). The MP tooth is large and distinct. In E. gigas, E. gigasella, and E. striata the movable finger has what we here call a distal tooth of the movable finger (MD) (Figs. 2K, O & S, arrows). The fondal notch ranges from obscure to distinct (Fig. 2), and ordinarily has two to four RFA in the fondal notch and in some species one to three RFA on the ventral side of the fixed finger (Fig. 3). Pro- and retrolateral fondal teeth vary in gradation among the species (Fig. 3). The retrolateral IV is tiny in some species. Male cheliceral setal formation (sfc) consists of tubular setae dorsally, two rows of tubular setae prolaterally with the inner mesal row being plumose and extending dorsally to and sometimes above fondal tooth I. The prodorsal setae (mpd) consist of a proximal patch in all species except E. gigasella which has a linear row extending to MM. The proventral distal setae (pdp) consist of three robust setae and one proximal thin seta. The female chelicera fixed finger has a large FP, one to two FSM, a large FM, small FSD, and distinct FD (Fig. 2). The female movable finger has a large MP, one or two MSM, and one MM teeth. MPL tooth distinct on males and females (Fig. 2). Eremocosta females demonstrate typical eremobatid female cheliceral setal pattern with pvd and mpd setae forming a continuous plumose row from the FD to the MM teeth. The arms of the genital operculum of Eremocosta are alate and widely separated posteriorly (Fig. 4 and Muma 1989). The genital operculum is largely species-specific with some possessing thin arms with club like wings; others recurved, bent laterally at their posterior ends with no distinct external pits. No palpal papillae or ctenidia are present.

Notes:

The genus Eremocosta currently includes eight species from the southwestern United States and Mexico and one species [Eremocosta nigrimana (Pocock 1895)] of unknown provenance.


Included species


  •  

    Key to species (modified from Cushing, Channiago and Brookhart 2018)


      • 1. Fondal notch (male) deep and distinct.........................................................................................2
      •     Fondal notch shallow and/or indistinct........................................................................................4
      • 2. Ventrodistal concavity of male extends proximally on ventral edge of fixed finger to level of
            fondal teeth.............................................................................................................E. formidabilis
      •    Ventrodistal concavity of male distal on ventral edge of fixed finger..........................................3
      • 3. Fixed finger of male dagger-like, movable finger with distinct medial tooth and distinct tooth-
           like distal tooth. Genital opercula of female a with wings tear-drop shaped....................E. gigas
      •    Fixed finger of male not dagger-like, movable finger with medial tooth lacking or greatly
            reduced and distal tooth present as a ridge. Genital opercula of female with straight, parallel,
            narrow anterior arms broadening into distinct, rounded club-shaped wings, shaped like hockey
            sticks................................................................................................................................E. striata
      • 4. Movable finger of male with quadrate distal tooth, genital opercula of female with recurved
            anterior arms and recurved posterior margins............................................................E. gigasella
      •    Movable finger of male lacking a distal tooth, genital opercula of female not as above............5
      • 5. Fixed finger of male usually as long as or slightly longer than movable finger. Movable finger
            usually with two small submedial teeth (sometimes only one). Lower edge of ventrodistal
            concavity, when viewed from ectal side of chelicera, slightly concave. Genital opercula of
            female with long straight anterior arms; posterior wings quadrate..............................E. titania
      •    Fixed finger usually slightly shorter than movable finger. Movable finger usually with just one
            small submedial tooth. Lower edge of ventrodistal concavity, when viewed from ectal side of
            chelicera, slightly convex. Female genital opercula not as above.............................................6
      • 6. Movable finger of male with small but distinct medial tooth. Genital opercula of female club-
            shaped with long anterior arms and a posterior knob, posterior wing ovate.......E. calexicensis
      •    Movable finger of male with barely visible medial tooth (sometimes a tiny ridge). Female with
            wings of genital opercula thin and curved...............................................................E. bajaensis

    Bibliography:


    • BROOKHART, J. O. and I. P. BROOKHART. 2006. An annotated checklist of continental North American solifuga with type depostories, abundance, and notes on their zoogeography. Journal of Arachnology 34: 299-329. http:///dx.doi.org/10.1636/H04-02.1 

    • CUSHING P.E., F. CHANNIAGO, J.O. BROOKHART. (2018). Revision of the camel spider genus Eremocosta Roewer and a description of the female Roewer (Arachnida, Solifugae). Zootaxa. 2018 Mar 29; 4402(3): 443-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4402.3.2.
    •  
    • HARVEY, M.S. 2002a. Nomenclatural notes on Solifugae, Amblyppygi, Uropygi and Araneae (Arachnidda). Records of the Western Australian Museum 20:449-459.

    • HARVEY, M.S. (2003e). Catalogue of the Smaller Arachnid Orders of the World. Csiro Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia. 385 pp.

    • MUMA, M. H. 1989. New species and records of Solpugida (Arachnida) from the United States. 60 pp. Privately published for the author by Douglas Print Shop, Douglas, Arizona.

    • ROEWER, C. F. 1934a. Solifuga, Palpigrada. in Buch 4, pp. 481-723 in Bronn, H. G. Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. 5: Arthropoda. IV: Arachnoidea und kleinere ihnen nahegestellte Gruppen. (Bronns, H. G. Ed.). Vol 5(IV)(4)(4): 481-723