Eremobates scopulatellus Muma and Brookhart, 1988
Notes: valid
Family: Eremobatidae
not available

Type Material


            Holotype: “Male holotype collected in pit trap, Winchester, Riverside County, CA on April 26, 1968 and female allotype collected in pit trap, Winchester, Riverside, CA on May 30, 1968, by W. Icenogle, both in FSCA” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).


            Measurements: Males (10) quite variable in size; CP varies from 6.0-10.2 (mean 8.6). Legs moderately long; A/CP varies from 6.1-7.1 (mean 6.7). Fondal notches vary in length to width ratio from 0.6-1.3 (mean 0.9). Mesal tooth absent” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).

“Females (10) less variable in size than males; CP varies from 8.3-10.5 (mean 9.4) Legs short; A/CP varies from 5.2-5.8 (mean 5.4). Mesal tooth indistinct to none” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).


            Palpal Description: “Papillae in basal metatarsal palpal scopula vary from 3-124 (mean 42.1)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).


            Ctenidia Description: “Long abdominal ctenidia range from 5-9 (mean 6.8)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).


            Operculum Description: “Females distinguished by opercula that vary from 1.3 to twice as wide as long with broad elongate anterior lobes, and moderate sized posterior opercular notches [occupying 30-36% of opercular area (mean 32)] that have messily convex to nearly straight lateral margins, and wide, bowed vulvular openings that occur nearly at posterior end of opercula (figs. 164-165)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40-41).


            Chelicerae Description: “Males distinguished by moderate-sized subtriangular to blade-like dorsal process peaked in ectal fourth of fondal notch; fondal notches slightly narrower than width of base of fixed cheliceral finger and almost as long as wide; a low rounded to bilobed anterior process of movable cheliceral finger; laterally distinct ventral notch on movable chelicerral finger (figs. 158-159)” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 40).


Diagnosis: “This species seems to be closely related to scopulatus and vicinus but actually has more affinities with kastoni” (Muma & Brookhart, 1988, p. 41).


Other Information: