![]() We are not able to identify homologies between these MS groups, but we can observe, at least, one proximal and one distal cluster. The nomenclature of the macrosetae of penis ventral plate follows with the following modification: in Phalangodus there is an increase of the number of macrosetae that makes it difficult to distinguish between some MS groups (e.g., MS D from MS C or MS B from MS A). Tarsal formula (numbers of tarsomeres from tarsus I-IV): counts are given from left to right side of each specimen numbers in parentheses denote quantity of tarsomeres in distitarsus I-II. Pedipalpal tibia and tarsus setation formula follows, as explained and used in Pinto-da-Rocha (1997) and. Outline shape of dorsal scutum follows extended in. Ovipositor terminology follows with modifications here proposed. The description standard and morphological terminology follow and integumentary ornamentation follows. ![]() Sexual dimorphism and morphology of the stylar caps in Cranaidae is discussed. A key to identify males of the genus is provided. In the present article, four new species from Colombia are described and diagnosed, based on material of Phalangodus studied from four arachnological collections. More than 80 years later, transferred Phalangodus to Cranaidae, redescribed the type species of the genus, proposed the Iquitosa as a junior synonym of Phalangodus and synonymized Allocranaus giganteus revalidated Iquitosa and synonymized Temucus with Phalangodus. Afther that, transferred the genus to Pachylinae Sørensen, 1884. anacosmetus in Gonyleptidae, without any subfamilial assignment and was posteriorly, included in Mitobatinae. It was described as a monotypic genus (P. Despite being composed of large and common harvestmen (dorsal scutum length = 9-13 mm), its specific richness is still underestimated. The Andean genus Phalangodus Gervais, 1842 is among the few genera well studied taxonomically. The three main issues that lead to this situation are: 1) antique diagnoses of the genera that still follow the Roewerian system of classification, i.e., use of variable characters to establish artificial groups, as shown by several authors (e.g., 2) underestimation of the specific richness of many cranaid groups (the first author is working on an ongoing revision of the family) and 3) lack of revision, only a few genera have been revised according to modern standards (i.e. ![]() The taxonomy and systematics of this group are complicated and the generic boundaries are poorly defined, as partially explained by. Cranaidae is the third most numerous family among Gonyleptoidea with 166 species. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |