The Goblin Spider Genera Stenoonops and Australoonops (Araneae, Oonopidae), with Notes on Related Taxa

Norman I. Platnick; Nadine Dupérré

doi:10.1206/714.1

How to translate text using browser tools

21 July 2010 The Goblin Spider Genera Stenoonops and Australoonops (Araneae, Oonopidae), with Notes on Related Taxa

Norman I. Platnick, Nadine Dupérré

Author Affiliations +

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 2010(340):1-111 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1206/714.1

Abstract

The goblin spider genus Stenoonops Simon is relimited to include those spineless oonopids with a soft abdomen but a well-sclerotized cephalothorax, elevated and pointed sternal extensions separated by distinct grooves, and a dorsal, distal clump of short setae on the male and female palpal tarsi. Most of the 19 species currently assigned to Stenoonops belong elsewhere; the 14 misplaced species include members of six other genera. As relimited, Stenoonops comprises 23 species and is circum-Caribbean in distribution. The Mediterranean type species of Oonopinus Simon, O. angustatus (Simon), is poorly known, but none of the New World taxa that have been placed in Oonopinus are actually congeneric with O. angustatus. Oonopinus pretiosus Bryant is transferred to Stenoonops; O. centralis Gertsch and O. modestus Chickering are transferred to Theotima (Ochyroceratidae). The genus Scaphioides Bryant is removed from the synonymy of Stenoonops; S. minutus Chamberlin and Ivie from Florida, S. reductus (Bryant) and S. nitens Bryant from the Virgin Islands, S. cletus Chickering and S. hoffi Chickering from Jamaica, S. phonetus Chickering and S. econotus Chickering from Puerto Rico, and S. halatus Chickering from Antigua are transferred from Stenoonops to Scaphioides. Members of two other genera resemble those of Stenoonops but lack distinct grooves between the sternal projections. In the new genus Longoonops, also circum-Caribbean, the posterior median eyes are elongated and color patterns often occur on the abdomen or legs; Stenoonops padiscus Chickering, from Jamaica, is transferred to Longoonops. In Australoonops Hewitt, the seam between the male palpal bulb and cymbium has been lost; females of the type species, A. granulatus Hewitt from South Africa, are described for the first time. New species are described in all three genera, including 17 species of Stenoonops (S. peckorum from Florida, S. alazan and S. cabo from Mexico, S. belmopan from Belize, S. murphyorum from Costa Rica, S. canita from Panama, S. tayrona and S. kochalkai from Colombia and Venezuela, S. bimini from the Bahama Islands, S. mandeville from Jamaica, S. jara from Hispaniola, S. luquillo from Puerto Rico, S.saintjohn, S. tortola, and S. exgord from the Virgin Islands, S. saba from Saba Island, and S.

INTRODUCTION

The goblin spider genus Stenoonops was established by Simon (1891); its type species, Stenoonops scabriculus Simon, was based on two males from St. Vincent in the Lesser Antilles, and Simon also assigned a male from his Venezuelan collections to the species. The genus currently includes 18 additional species (see Platnick, 2010, for a full listing); all are from the Caribbean region, except for the wildly misplaced species Stenoonops opisthornatus Benoit (1979) from the Seychelle Islands.

Chickering's (1969) study of specimens from Panama and the West Indies is the only substantial paper ever published on the group. Although it covered all but one of the previously known taxa, his survey drew some critical comments from Brignoli (1978b). Chickering provided a brief generic description, but seemingly identified no diagnostic characters for the genus. Even without examining any specimens, Brignoli (1978b: 146, translated) concluded that Chickering's delimitation of the group was unsupported: “Stenoonops has been revised by Chickering (1969); in my opinion the recently deceased American author defined the genus too widely: if Stenoonops would only consist of the forms that are close to the type species, then besides S. scabriculus it would only contain S. hoffi Chickering, 1969, S. lucradus Chickering, 1969 and maybe S. cletus Chickering, 1969.”

Our survey of the available material indicates that Brignoli's assessment is correct; the set of oonopids currently placed in Stenoonops is a polyphyletic assemblage, including species belonging to six other genera. Moreover, Chickering's treatment of the type species was sufficiently superficial that Brignoli was misled in his conjectures about which species are actually congeneric with S. scabriculus; none of the three species he considered as likely members actually belong to Stenoonops (nor are they all congeneric with each other).

One of the most distinctive features of S. scabriculus and its close relatives is the shape of the sternum, which has elevated and pointed projections extending between the leg coxae; these projections are separated by distinct and conspicuous grooves (figs. 7, 18, 46, 55, 370, 415). Surprisingly, Chickering (1969) illustrated the sternal area for only one species, Stenoonops noctucus Chickering, which does not resemble S. scabriculus in this regard. The only previously published illustration of this distinctive character was provided by Bryant (1942: fig. 2) for the species she described as Oonopinus pretiosus from the Virgin Islands.

Figure 1–7

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, male. 1. Habitus, dorsal view. 2. Same, ventral view. 3. Same, anterior view. 4. Same, lateral view. 5. Carapace, lateral view. 6. Same, dorsal view. 7. Sternum, ventral view.

In assigning that Virgin Island species to Oonopinus Simon (1893b), Bryant was following a tradition established by Simon himself. Although the type species, Oonopinus angustatus (Simon, 1882), is from the western Mediterranean, Simon also included in the genus his new species Oonopinus aurantiacus from Venezuela. Simon (1893a: 295) noted that these two species have very different male palps, and regarded the two species as belonging to two different subgroups.

Oonopinus has remained among the most poorly defined of oonopid genera; like Oonops Templeton (1835), it has been largely a wastebasket group for soft-bodied oonopids. The type species has been treated in the modern literature only by Saaristo and Marusik (2009), who provided two illustrations of the male palp. Unfortunately, Saaristo and Marusik seem to have misconstrued the genus. Simon (1893a) separated Oonopinus from Oonops primarily because its members (like those of Stenoonops) lack leg spines, and subsequent authors have therefore tended to assign any spineless, soft-bodied oonopid to Oonopinus (just as they have tended to assign any spiny, soft-bodied species to Oonops). The statement by Saaristo and Marusik (2009: 65) that Oonopinus species have four or five pairs of tibial spines on the anterior legs is thus completely incongruent with Simon's original concept of the genus.

As is frequently the case with Mediterranean taxa, multiple species seem to have been identified as O. angustatus, even within the Simon collection, and resolving the identity of that species will require modern material that can be studied in detail and then compared with the poorly preserved, older specimens. In at least some other groups of soft-bodied oonopids, congeneric species can either have or lack leg spines (Grismado, in press), so Oonopinus may turn out to be just a junior synonym of Oonops despite the differences in leg spination. Hence the establishment of new, monotypic groups on the basis of minor differences in leg spination, as in the new genus described by Saaristo and Marusik (2009), is ill advised, and unlikely to be phylogenetically accurate.

Brignoli (1978a) discussed at some length the New World species that have been assigned to Oonopinus, and concluded that some of these taxa are probably not oonopids at all, but misplaced ochyroceratids. Our examination of the type specimens of Oonopinus centralis Gertsch (1941) and Oonopinus modestus Chickering (1951), both from Panama, has confirmed Brignoli's conjecture, and those names are here transferred to Theotima (Ochyroceratidae), resulting in the new combinations Theotima centralis (Gertsch) and T. modesta (Chickering). Both names may turn out to be junior synonyms of the widespread, synanthropic, and probably parthenogenetic species Theotima minutissima (Petrunkevitch, 1929), which was also initially misidentified as an oonopid and described in Oonopinus.

True Stenoonops are not abundant in collections; we have been able to examine only about 150 New World specimens. As a result, we have been able to do scanning electron microscopy for only two Stenoonops species, and we therefore remain uncertain about the distribution of some of the other distinctive features of these oonopids. Although the legs and palps lack spines, they are provided with thickened setae, which are often conspicuous, especially on the palps of females (figs. 59, 60, 411, 412). The palpal tarsus, in both sexes, is provided with a patch of shortened setae situated distally on the dorsal surface (figs. 9, 28, 61, 387, 414). The leg femora have a slight subdistal constriction, where there is a transverse row of setae (figs. 63, 375). The chelicerae have a median row of smooth setae with thickened tips (figs. 19, 407), and the endites bear flattened setae with forklike tines at their tips (figs. 21, 22, 56, 57, 371, 372).

Figure 8–14

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, left male palp. 8. Prolateral view (stereoscope). 9. Dorsal view (same). 10. Retrolateral view (same). 11. Prolateral view (compound microscope). 12. Retrolateral view (same). 13. Embolus, prolateral view (same). 14. Embolus, retrolateral view (same).

Figure 15–22

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, male, scanning electron micrographs. 15. Habitus, dorsal view. 16. Carapace, dorsal view. 17. Same, anterior view. 18. Sternum, ventral view. 19. Chelicerae, anterior view. 20. Labium and endites, ventral view. 21. Right endite, same. 22. Left endite, same.

There are two other genera whose members resemble those of Stenoonops in such features, but lack the conspicuous (and presumably synapomorphic) grooves separating the sternal projections that extend between the leg coxae. In one group of species from Central America and the West Indies, the posterior median eyes are elongated (figs. 630, 644) and the abdomen and/or legs often have a distinct color pattern; in Stenoonops species, the abdomen is uniformly white, save for the dark, subcutaneous patches often seen near the spinnerets of soft-bodied oonopids (fig. 40), and the legs are uniform in coloration. These species are assigned below to the new genus Longoonops.

There are also at least three species from southern Africa that closely resemble Stenoonops in having a soft abdomen but a well-sclerotized cephalothorax (fig. 727), a sternum with prolonged extensions between the coxae (but without grooves separating those extensions, fig. 746), a distal setal patch on the dorsum of the palpal tarsi in both sexes (figs. 754, 781), a median row of smooth setae on the chelicerae (fig. 777), and a subdistal femoral constriction with a transverse row of setae (fig. 784). A male of one of these species was apparently first described by Hewitt (1915) as Australoonops granulatus. The male palps show a complete fusion of the palpal bulb and cymbium (figs. 752, 753); in American species, there is still a distinct seam between the bulb and cymbium (figs. 8, 10–12, 29, 30, 385, 386). The African species also differ greatly in the microsculpture on the carapace (figs. 741, 742), which has tuberculate sides, and the sternum (fig. 746), which has pits everywhere except the central portion. In American species, in contrast, the sides of the carapace are finely reticulate (figs. 37, 368), the top of the carapace is smooth or finely reticulate (figs. 16, 367), and the sternum is finely reticulate (figs. 18, 55, 370, 415). The flattened setae at the tip of the male endites of Australoonops seem to have entire rather than subdivided tips (fig. 743).

Figure 23–30

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, male, scanning electron micrographs. 23. Spinnerets, posterior view. 24. Anterior lateral spinneret, same. 25. Posterior median spinneret, same. 26. Posterior lateral spinneret, same. 27. Epigastric area, ventral view. 28. Left palp, dorsal view. 29. Same, prolateral view. 30. Same, retrolateral view.

Figure 31–38

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, scanning electron micrographs. 31. Male, left embolus, prolateral view. 32. Male, left palpal tibia, dorsal view. 33. Male, leg III, tarsal organ, same. 34. Male, palpal tarsus, same. 35. Male, leg III, claws, distal view. 36. Female, carapace, dorsal view. 37. Same, lateral view. 38. Same, anterior view.

We suspect that Stenoonops, Longoonops, and Australoonops together form a monophyletic group, united at least by the distal patch of shortened setae on the palpal tarsus. Because a shortage of specimens has prevented us from examining most of the species by scanning electron microscopy, this hypothesis remains poorly tested and attempting to resolve the relationships among these three genera would be premature. Work in progress on at least four other genera that seem closely related to these taxa may substantially alter the known distribution of some of the relevant features. Although the hypothesized close relationship between the southern African Australoonops and the circum-Caribbean genera may seem unusual, our preliminary sorting of specimens belonging to those related taxa indicates that such trans-Atlantic distributions may occur even within a genus, in at least two other cases. These taxa will be detailed in future papers.

Females of many species in the Stenoonops complex are sometimes found with seemingly shrunken abdomens, where most of the abdominal contents are separated from the cuticle, sometimes for a considerable distance (figs. 94–97). We suspect that the eggs of these spiders are relatively large, compared to the total body size of the adults, and that the “shrunken” specimens are females that have recently laid eggs and thereby lost a significant portion of their abdominal biomass. This feature was illustrated, for example, in the Old World genus Khamisia by Saaristo and van Harten (2006: fig. 18; that figure was unfortunately drawn in a manner that misleadingly suggests that the shrunken parts of the abdomen are a dorsal scutum). The phenomenon may be more widespread within the family; Knoflach et al. (2009: 760) noted that females of Cortestina thaleri Knoflach produce egg sacs containing a single egg with a diameter that is larger than the width of the epigastric furrow. As they concluded, “for egg laying the epigastric furrow must be extremely widened in order to release such a large egg and the egg itself must be ductile.”

The morphology of Stenoonops also raises some issues relevant to the higher-level classification of the family. The traditional version of this classification dates back to Simon (1893a), who recognized two informal groupings of oonopids, the “molles” and the “loricatae.” Simon's “Oonopidae molles” contained those species in which the abdomen either lacks scuta entirely, or has them only in the epigastric area, whereas his “Oonopidae loricatae” contained those species with additional (and more heavily sclerotized) abdominal scuta. Petrunkevitch (1923) and later workers recognized these groups as the subfamilies Oonopinae and Gamasomorphinae, respectively. Although these groups have been used by most workers, their phylogenetic significance has never been established.

Modern work suggests that this dichotomy is not phylogenetically accurate. Among the classical Oonopinae, the genus Orchestina Simon (1882) appears to be more basal than Oonops, as it retains a well-sclerotized sperm duct within the palp and an H-shaped eye arrangement resembling that of orsolobids. The loss of the sperm duct and the acquisition of a clumped eye arrangement seem synapomorphic, uniting all those oonopids other than Orchestina and its possible relatives: Xiombarg Brignoli (1979), Unicorn Platnick and Brescovit (1995), Ferchestina Saaristo and Marusik (2004, which is probably just a baseless name for a highly autapomorphic species of Orchestina), and Cortestina Knoflach (Knoflach et al., 2009). Chamberlin and Ivie (1942: 6) established a monotypic subfamily Orchestininae, but their total argumentation for that action was: “The genus Orchestina is sufficiently distinct from the other genera of the Oonopidae to warrant its separation into a separate subfamily.” We do not yet know whether Orchestina and the other genera that still retain the plesiomorphic, H-shaped eye pattern actually form a monophyletic group, or whether some of them branch off independently. Nevertheless, there is clearly evidence that Oonopinae, in the sense of including all nongamasomorphines, is paraphyletic at best, because the sperm duct loss and clumped eye arrangement place Oonops as more closely related to gamasomorphines than to Orchestina.

The question remains, though: what exactly is a gamasomorphine? Specimens of Gamasomorpha Karsch (1881) have a heavily sclerotized cephalothorax and multiple, heavily sclerotized abdominal scuta, including an epigastric scutum, a postepigastric scutum, a dorsal scutum, and a spinneret scutum. One could thus argue that to be a gamasomorphine, an oonopid should have all of these characters. However, that is clearly not the sense in which Simon used the term “loricati,” as he included in that group Scaphiella Simon (1891), females of which lack a dorsal abdominal scutum (and juveniles of which probably have no abdominal scuta at all; Platnick and Dupérré, 2009b). So perhaps gamasomorphines could be diagnosed as containing just those oonopids with a dorsal abdominal scutum in adult males.

There is a problem with this option, however, that goes beyond the resulting inability to sort juveniles and females to subfamily, as there seems to be at least one undescribed South American gamasomorphine group in which the dorsal abdominal scutum of males can be greatly reduced, or even absent, in some species. An alternative view would treat “gamasomorphy” as a syndrome of increasing sclerotization that starts, phylogenetically, with the cephalothorax. Under this view, Stenoonops and the other genera treated here would be among the most basal gamasomorphines, rather than oonopines, because of their well-sclerotized cephalothorax. Successive, smaller subgroups of gamasomorphines would then presumably be delimited by the acquisition of a more sclerotized epigastric scutum as well (as in Scaphioides, for example), then of a sclerotized dorsal scutum in males (as in Scaphiella), and finally of a sclerotized dorsal scutum in females as well (as in Gamasomorpha). Sclerotization of the postepigastric, spinneret, and supraanal scuta might also be characters at different levels of the gamasomorphine hierarchy. Of course, the increasing sclerotization is clearly not a single, entirely sequential phenomenon (for example, dorsal scuta in females is a feature that has either evolved at least twice, or been lost in some lineages). But increased sclerotization of each of these body parts, in each sex, offers potential information for grouping various gamasomorphine genera at various levels, so each of these characters should be treated separately in any analysis of oonopid interrelationships.

Our methods follow those of Platnick and Dupérré (2009a, 2009b); the species are treated geographically, by country, proceeding from north to south first on the mainland (United States to Venezuela) and then in the Caribbean (Bahama Islands to Trinidad). Only differences from the males are mentioned in the descriptions of females. All measurements are in mm. Full color and high-resolution versions of the images, and a distribution map for each species, will be available on the goblin spider Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (PBI) project's website ( http://research.amnh.org/oonopidae).

COLLECTIONS EXAMINED

AMG

Albany Museum, Grahamstown, South Africa

AMNH

American Museum of Natural History, New York

CDU

Darrell Ubick collection, San Francisco

FMNH

Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago

FSCA

Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainesville

INBIO

Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo Domingo, Costa Rica

MCZ

Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University

MHNG

Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland

MNHN

Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France

MIUP

Museo de Invertebrados, Universidad de Panamá

MRAC

Musée Royal de l'Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium

PPRI

Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Africa

SAM

South African Museum, Cape Town, South Africa

UAM

University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks

USNM

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

Stenoonops Simon

Stenoonops Simon, 1891: 564 (type species by monotypy Stenoonops scabriculus Simon).

Diagnosis

Members of this genus can be recognized by their distinctively shaped sternum, with lateral projections (extending between the leg coxae) that are separated by distinct grooves (figs. 18, 55, 370, 415).

Description

Total length of males 1.0–2.2, of females 1.1–2.6; cephalothorax pale orange, legs and palps yellow, abdomen white. CEPHALOTHORAX: Carapace without any pattern, elongate oval in dorsal view, pars cephalica flat in lateral view, anteriorly narrowed to 0.49 times its maximum width or less, with rounded posterolateral corners; posterolateral edge without pits, posterior margin not bulging below posterior rim, anterolateral corners without extension or projections, posterolateral surface without spikes, sides finely reticulate (figs. 16, 37, 367, 368); thorax without depressions, fovea absent, without radiating rows of pits; lateral margin straight, smooth, without denticles; plumose setae near posterior margin of pars thoracica absent; nonmarginal pars cephalica setae dark, needlelike, scattered; nonmarginal pars thoracica setae dark, needlelike; marginal setae absent. Clypeus margin unmodified, straight in front view (figs. 17, 38, 369), sloping forward in lateral view, low, ALE separated from edge of carapace by less than their radius, median projection absent; setae dark, needlelike. Chilum absent. Eyes six, well developed, ALE largest, oval, PME squared, PLE circular; ALE separated by less than their radius, ALE-PLE separated by less than ALE radius, PME touching throughout most of their length, PLE-PME separated by less than PME radius; posterior eye row usually straight (figs. 15, 16, 36) but sometimes distinctly recurved. Sternum longer than wide, coloration uniform, fused to carapace, median concavity absent, without hair tufts, with radial furrowlike grooves between coxae I–II, II–III, III–IV (figs. 18, 55, 370, 415), furrow smooth, radial furrow opposite coxae III absent; surface finely reticulate, without pits, microsculpture everywhere but middle, sickle-shaped structures absent; anterior margin unmodified, posterior margin extending posteriorly beyond anterior edges of coxae IV as single extension, anterior corners unmodified, lateral margin without infracoxal grooves, distance between coxae II and III greater than distance between coxae I and II, and coxae III and IV, extensions of precoxal triangles absent, lateral margins with three pairs of lateral projections, with posterior hump; setae sparse, dark, spatulate, in group at base of coxae, originating from surface. Chelicerae straight, anterior face unmodified; without teeth on promargin or retromargin; fang without toothlike projections, directed posteriorly; shape normal, without prominent basal process, tip unmodified; setae dark, spatulate, densest medially; paturon inner margin with pairs of smooth, distally enlarged setae (figs. 19, 407), distal region abruptly narrowed, posterior surface unmodified, promargin with row of flattened setae, laminate groove absent. Labium rectangular, not fused to sternum, anterior margin indented at middle, same as sternum in sclerotization, with six or more setae on anterior margin, subdistal portion with unmodified setae. Endites distally not excavated, same as sternum in sclerotization, usually with anterior modifications in males (including loss of serrula, figs. 20–22, 371–373); females with endites unmodified, with serrula in single row (fig. 408); at least two scanned species with anteromedian margin bearing row of flattened setae with tined tips (figs. 56, 57, 409, 410). Female palp without claw or spines; femur at least sometimes with retrolateral platelike smooth areas (fig. 422), patella without prolateral row of ridges; tibia with three trichobothria (figs. 62, 413); tarsus with thickened setae (figs. 59, 60, 411, 412), dorsal surface of tarsus with distal patch of shortened setae (figs. 61, 414). ABDOMEN: Cylindrical, without long posterior extension, rounded posteriorly, interscutal membrane without rows of small sclerotized platelets; dorsum soft portions without color pattern. Supposed book lung covers large, ovoid, without setae, anterolateral edge unmodified. Posterior spiracles connected by groove. Pedicel tube short, unmodified, scuto-pedicel region unmodified, scutum not extending far dorsal of pedicel, plumose hairs absent, matted setae on anterior ventral abdomen in pedicel area absent, cuticular outgrowths near pedicel absent. Dorsal scutum absent. Epigastric scutum weakly sclerotized, not surrounding pedicel, not protruding (figs. 27, 58), small lateral sclerites absent, without anterolateral joints in females. Postepigastric scutum weakly sclerotized, short, only around epigastric furrow, not fused to epigastric scutum, anterior margin unmodified, without posteriorly directed lateral apodemes. Spinneret scutum absent; supraanal scutum absent. Dorsum setae dark, needlelike; epigastric area frontal setae thickened, dark, needlelike; postepigastric area setae dark, needlelike; dense patch of setae anterior to spinnerets absent. Colulus absent. Spinnerets scanned only in S. peckorum (both sexes, figs. 23–26, 51–54) and S. pretiosus (female only, fig. 421); ALS with one major ampullate gland spigots and at least one aciniform gland spigot; PMS with one or two spigots; PLS with two to five spigots. LEGS: Femur IV not thickened, same size as femora I–III, femora of scanned species with subdistal constriction bearing transverse dorsal row of setae (figs. 63, 375); patella plus tibia I shorter than carapace, dorsal surface of patellae at least sometimes with row of platelike areas (fig. 64); tibia I unmodified, tibia IV specialized hairs on ventral apex absent, tibia IV ventral scopula absent; metatarsi I and II mesoapical comb absent, metatarsi III and IV weak ventral scopula absent. Leg spines absent. Superior claws with few large, proximally situated teeth on lateral surfaces, numerous tiny, closely packed, distally situated teeth on median surfaces (figs. 35, 376–378, 423–425), inferior claw absent. Trichobothrial bases rounded, hood with few ridges, aperture internal texture not gratelike, hood smooth (fig. 65). Tarsal organ of legs I, II, palp with three sensillae, of legs III, IV with two sensillae, distal margin sometimes internally gratelike (figs. 33, 34, 66–70, 379–383, 426–430). GENITALIA: Male epigastric region with sperm pore not visible; furrow without Ω-shaped insertions, without setae. Male palp of normal size, not strongly sclerotized, right and left palps symmetrical, embolus light, without prolateral excavation; trochanter of normal size, unmodified; femur two or more times as long as trochanter, without posteriorly rounded lateral dilation, attaching to patella basally; patella shorter than femur, not enlarged, without prolateral row of ridges, setae unmodified; tibia short, with three dorsal trichobothria (figs. 32, 384), cymbium ovoid in dorsal view, fused with bulb but retaining seam, seam often most conspicuous proximally or distally (figs. 29, 30, 385, 386), not extending beyond distal tip of bulb, plumose setae absent, thickened setae present, with distal patch of shortened setae (figs. 28, 387); bulb 1–1.5 times as long as cymbium, stout, tapering apically; embolus elaborate (fig. 31). Internal female genitalia with anterior and posterior receptacula, anterior receptaculum often with variously shaped, sclerotized anterior projection (figs. 417–420).

Misplaced Species

Chickering (1969) placed Scaphioides Bryant (1942) as a junior synonym of Stenoonops, but the type species of Scaphioides has neither the distinctive sternal modifications nor the palpal tarsal setae characteristic of true Stenoonops. Eight of the 17 species placed in Stenoonops by Chickering, including the type species of Scaphioides, are united by a distinctive male palpal morphology with a short, wide embolus, and by having the female epigastric and postepigastric scuta more strongly sclerotized than in true Stenoonops. Scaphioides is therefore here removed from the synonymy of Stenoonops and regarded as a valid genus, containing the following species, all transferred from Stenoonops: Scaphioides minuta (Chamberlin and Ivie, 1935), new combination, from Florida; Scaphioides reducta Bryant (1942) and Scaphioides nitens (Bryant, 1942), new combination, from the Virgin Islands; Scaphioides cletus (Chickering, 1969), new combination, and Scaphioides hoffi (Chickering, 1969), new combination, from Jamaica; Scaphioides phonetus (Chickering, 1969), new combination, and Scaphioides econotus (Chickering, 1969), new combination, from Puerto Rico, and Scaphioides halatus (Chickering, 1969), new combination, from Antigua.

Stenoonops portoricensis Petrunkevitch (1929) from Puerto Rico and two other species described by Chickering (1969), Stenoonops lucradus and Stenoonops noctucus, both from the Virgin Islands, do not fit the diagnoses given above, and belong neither to Stenoonops nor Scaphioides. There are also two other species currently assigned to Stenoonops that were not considered by Chickering (1969). Stenoonops egenulus Simon (1893b) was based on a female from Venezuela that is now badly faded and worn, but appears to lack the sternal conformation and palpal tarsal setae characteristic of Stenoonops; it definitely has leg spines on tibiae and metatarsi IV, has very differently constructed genitalia, and thus clearly belongs elsewhere, closer to the other New World taxa currently misplaced in Oonops. More recently, Benoit (1979) described Stenoonops opisthornatus for a female from the Seychelle Islands that appears to have almost nothing in common with true Stenoonops. All these species misplaced in Stenoonops will be covered in future papers by various PBI participants.

Distribution

Circum-Caribbean; the new species S. cabo, from Baja California, is the outlier, farthest removed from the Caribbean.

Key to Species of Stenoonops

1. Posterior eye row recurved (as in figs. 264, 274, 307)2

– Posterior eye row straight or slightly procurved4

2. Males (embolus longer than palpal bulb, fig. 313; females unknown)S. macabus

– Females3

3. Female genitalia with winglike anterolateral extensions (figs. 277, 278), males unknownS. mandeville

– Female genitalia with armchair-shaped anterolateral extensions (figs. 267, 268), males unknownS. dimotus

4. Carapace posterior declivity acute, pars cephalica slightly elevated (as in figs. 121, 156)5

– Carapace posterior declivity obtuse, pars cephalica flat (as in figs. 43, 75)17

5. Males6

– Females12

6. Endites with two long, posteriorly directed macrosetae (fig. 286, Jamaica)S. insolitus

– Endites without such macrosetae7

7. Palpal bulb enlarged, embolus very short (figs. 541, 542, Trinidad)S. simla

– Palpal bulb not enlarged, embolus long8

8. Embolus sinuous, accompanied by large transparent conductor (figs. 116, 139)9

– Embolus not accompanied by large transparent conductor10

9. Embolus apex bifid (figs. 138, 139, Costa Rica and Panama)S. petrunkevitchi

– Embolus apex undivided (figs. 115, 116, Costa Rica)S. murphyorum

10. Embolus apex deeply forked (figs. 206, 207, Colombia and Venezuela)S. tayrona

– Embolus otherwise11

11. Embolus with large dorsal process (figs. 183, 184, Panama)S. canita

– Embolus with short, triangular dorsal process (figs. 234, 235, Colombia)S. kochalkai

12. Anterior genitalic projection elongated, widening apically (figs. 125, 301)13

– Anterior genitalic projection bulbous (as in figs. 193, 194)14

13. Anterior genitalic projection with W-shaped base (figs. 301, 302, Jamaica)S. insolitus

– Anterior genitalic projection with straight base (figs. 125, 126, Costa Rica)S. murphyorum

14. Anterior genitalic projection bipartite (figs. 193, 194, Panama)S. canita

– Anterior genitalic projection undivided15

15. Anterior genitalic projection widest at midpoint (figs. 553, 554, Trinidad)S. simla

– Anterior genitalic projection not widest at midpoint16

16. Anterior genitalic projection very short, basally widened (figs. 220, 221, Colombia and Venezuela)S. tayrona

– Anterior genitalic projection bulbous, basally narrowed (figs. 170, 171, Costa Rica and Panama)S. petrunkevitchi

17. Males18

– Females27

18. Palpal bulb small, embolus sinuous, widening apically (figs. 325, 326, females unknown, Hispaniola)S. jara

– Palpal bulb large, embolus otherwise19

19. Embolus narrow, bent basally (figs. 92, 93, Mexico)S. cabo

– Embolus otherwise20

20. Embolus with dorsal lobe21

– Embolus without dorsal lobe.22

21. Embolus tip rounded (figs. 247, 248, Bahama Islands)S. bimini

– Embolus tip pointed (figs. 13, 14, Florida)S. peckorum

22. Distal half of embolus curved dorsally (figs. 516, 517, Guadeloupe, St. Vincent, and Venezuela)S. scabriculus

– Embolus otherwise23

23. Embolus short, tubular, with retrolateral opening (figs. 363, 364, St. Croix)S. pretiosus

– Embolus otherwise.24

24. Embolus with pointed tip accompanied by prolateral process with indented tip (figs. 340, 341, Puerto Rico)S. luquillo

– Embolus otherwise25

25. Embolus constricted medially (retrolateral view, fig. 472, Tortola and Little Thatch Island)S. tortola

– Embolus not constricted medially26

26. Embolus accompanied by basal, prolateral pointed process (figs. 493, 494, Virgin Gorda)S. exgord

– Embolus without prolateral pointed process (figs. 442, 443, St. Thomas and St. John)S. saintjohn

27. Female genitalia with narrow anterolateral extensions (figs. 257, 258, Bahama Islands)S. bimini

– Female genitalia without anterolateral extensions28

28. Anterior genitalic projection Y-shaped (figs. 102, 103, Belize)S. belmopan

– Anterior genitalic projection otherwise29

29. Genitalia with anterior poreplate (figs. 350, 405)30

– Genitalia without anterior poreplate31

30. Genitalia narrowed immediately behind poreplate (figs. 405, 406, St. Croix)S. pretiosus

– Genitalia not narrowed immediately behind poreplate (figs. 350, 351, Puerto Rico)S. luquillo

31. Genitalia with two anterior projections (figs. 47, 48, Florida)S. peckorum

– Genitalia with one anterior projection32

32. Anterior genitalic projection bulbous (figs. 79, 80, Mexico)S. alazan

– Anterior genitalic projection long, narrow33

33. Anterior genitalic projection originating from a rectangular base (figs. 452, 453, St. Thomas and St. John)S. saintjohn

– Anterior genitalic projection not originating from a rectangular base34

34. Genitalia with triangular posterior receptaculum (figs. 503, 504, Saba Island)S. saba

– Genitalia otherwise35

35. Anterior genitalic projection basally broadened (figs. 530, 531, Guadeloupe, St. Vincent, and Venezuela)S. scabriculus

– Anterior genitalic projection apically broadened36

36. Anterior genitalic projection relatively long, narrow (figs. 395, 396, Virgin Gorda)S. exgord

– Anterior genitalic projection shorter, wider (fig. 481, Tortola and Little Thatch islands)S. tortola

Figure 39–46

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, female. 39. Habitus, dorsal view. 40. Same, ventral view. 41. Same, anterior view. 42. Same, lateral view. 43. Carapace, lateral view. 44. Same, dorsal view. 45. Epigastric area, ventral view. 46. Sternum, ventral view.

Figure 47–54

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, female. 47. Genitalia, PBI_OON 38035, ventral view. 48. Same, dorsal view. 49. Genitalia, PBI_OON 21134, ventral view. 50. Same, dorsal view. 51. Spinnerets, posterior view. 52. Anterior lateral spinneret, same. 53. Posterior median spinneret, same. 54. Posterior lateral spinneret, same.

Stenoonops peckorum, new species

Figures 1–Figure 8–14 Figure 15–22 Figure 23–30 Figure 31–38 Figure 39–46 Figure 47–54 Figure 55–62 70

Figure 55–62

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, female. 55. Sternum, ventral view. 56. Labium and endites, same. 57. Right endite tip, same. 58. Epigastric area, same. 59. Left palp, prolateral view. 60. Same, retrolateral view. 61. Left palpal tarsus, dorsal view. 62. Left palpal tibia, same.

Figure 63–70

Stenoonops peckorum, new species, female, dorsal view. 63. Femur IV. 64. Patella II. 65. Tibia II, trichobothrium. 66. Tarsal organ, leg I. 67. Same, leg II. 68. Same, leg III. 69. Same, leg IV. 70. Same, palp.

Types

Male holotype and female allotype taken in Berlese sample from Upper Matecumbe Key, Islamorada, Monroe Co., Florida (Aug. 8, 1971; S. Peck), deposited in AMNH (PBI_OON 21134).