Eremobates fagei (Roewer, 1934)
Notes: valid
Family: Eremobatidae
not available

Type Material


            Holotype: “Female type and young from California (no further data), Roewer No. 9134, in MNHN” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).


            Measurements: “Male allotype with a CP of 10.0; A/CP of 6.5; fondal notch ratio of 1.2; indistinct mesal tooth; basal, metatarsal, palpal scopula varing in number of papillae from 77-81 (mean 79); 6 ctenidia, the outer 4 of which are longer than ½ width of succeeding abdominal sternite” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).

“Females (2) with CP varying from 7.4-10.0 (mean 8.7); A/CP varying from 5.5-6.2 (mean 5.9); indistinct mesal tooth. Opercula 1.5-1.8 times wider than long with opercular notches occupying 34-38% (mean 36) of opercular area” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 42).


            Palpal Description: “basal metatarsal palpal scopula of 77-81 papillae” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).


            Ctenidia Description: “6 short ctenidia on first post-stigmatic abdominal sternite (fig. 167)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).


            Operculum Description: “Females distinguished by opercula by about 1.5 times as wide as long, with broad elongate anterior lobes, moderate sized opercular notches with strongly convex lateral margins, and wide, bowed, vulvular openings occurring at posterior end of opercula (figs. 168-169)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).


            Chelicerae Description: “Males distinguished by small blade-like dorsal process of fixed cheliceral finger peaked over distal half of fondal notch; fondal notch narrower than width of base of fixed cheliceral finger and longer than wide; flat topped more or less angular anterior process, indistinct mesal tooth, and laterally very distinct ventral notch of movable cheliceral finger (fig. 166)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).


Diagnosis: “Male and female from Fresno are either identical with or so closely allied with fagei that we hesitate placing them elsewhere at the present time. This species is closely related to villosus and papillatus. It is much paler than villosus and the allotype has fewer papillae and ctenidia. It is much larger than papillatus with a larger opercular notch, and to date has been found only in central California” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 42). 


Other Information: “In addition to type, we have examined a male and female from Fresno in central California. It is possible that Muma’s (1951) records of villosus, under E. purpusi, from Pacific Groove and San Benito County are this species. We have also studied a male from Cima, San Bernardino County that we also place here. There are insufficient records to indicate maturity” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 42).