Otostigmus spinicaudus : Kraepelin 1903

Otostigmus spinicaudus (Newport, 1844)

Figs 18-25

Otostigma tunetanum Verhoeff, 1901, Nova Acta Leopoldina, 77: 433, Vergl. Taf. III Abb. 16.

Otostigmus spinicaudus: Kraepelin 1903, Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 20: 107, fig. 49.

Otostigmus spinicauda: Brolemann 1921, Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, I (3-6): 104.

Otostigmus spinicaudus: Attems 1930, Das Tierreich, 54: 148, fig. 176.

Otostigmus spinicaudus: Brolemann 1932, Bulletin de la Société d’Histoire Naturelle d’Afrique du Nord, 23 (2): 51.

Otostigmus spinicaudus: Lewis 2000, Journal of Natural History, 34: 434, figs 1-10.

Material examined. 1 ex., Sidi Bouzid Distr., Bou Hedma N.P., N34°30.28 / E09°35.46, alt. 574 m, 20.3.2006; 1 ex., Kasserine Distr., Chambi N.P., surrounding of the park’s guest house, N35°10.139 / E08°40.486, alt. 950-1000 m, Pinus halepensis, Stipa tenacissima, Thuya sp., under stones, logs and leaf litter of Pinus halepensis, 8.3.2008; 1 ex., Gabes Distr., Matmata, N33°32.450 / E09°59.054, alt. 384 m, arid biotope, shrubs and stones, under stones, 13.3.2008.

General distribution. Known from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and the Spanish islands Fuerteventura and Lanzarote (Canary Isl.); O. spinicaudus ghiblanus Manfredi, 1935 and O. spinicaudus latispinus Manfredi, 1939 are known only from their type localities in Libya (Minelli 2006).

Distribution in Tunisia (Map 4). Known from Tunis (Verhoeff 1901), the mountains Bou Hedma and Chambi, and the surroundings of Matmata (new records); the specimen from Matmata may be another (sub)species (see below).

Altitudinal range in Tunisia. Known from 950-1000 m.

Habitats. Arid biotopes with Acacia raddiana or shrubs; sparse P. halepensis and Thuya forest grown with Stipa tenacissima.

Remarks. Lewis (2000) provided a detailed re-description of O. spinicaudus based on material from the Canary Islands. The specimens from Jebel Chambi (Figs 21-23) and Bou Hedma correspond well with the description given by Lewis, differing only in the number of ventromedial prefemoral spines on ultimate leg (4 vs. 3). In the specimen from Chambi two tarsal spurs are present on leg-pairs 1-9 the rest to 19 have one, while in the Bou Hedma specimen only legs 1-6 have two tarsal spurs. In the Canary Islands specimens there were usually two tarsal spurs on the first four pairs of legs but sometimes they occurred as far as leg-pair 8. Both specimens have coxopleural processes bearing 2 apical, one lateral and one dorsal spine. The dorsomedial conical protuberance bears a single apical spine in the specimen from Bou Hedma and two to four in the specimen from Jebel Chambi (Figs 22-23).

The specimen from Matmata is differing from the other two specimens and from the Lewis’ (2000) redescription in that the prefemur of the ultimate leg bears 4-5 ventrolateral and 6-9 ventromedial spines (vs. 3/ 3 in Canary specimens and 4/ 4 in other Tunisian specimens), and the conical protuberance bears 4-5 spines (vs. usually 1-2) (Figs 24-25). In all other respects the specimen resembles O. spinicaudus.

Manfredi (1935, 1939) described two subspecies of spinicaudus from Libya – O. s. ghiblanus Manfredi, 1935 and O. s. latispinus Manfredi, 1939. The former was separated from nominate form by the presence of incomplete sternal sutures and only 2 apical spines on the coxopleural process, as well as by the different position of the dorsomedial spine on the prefemur of ultimate leg-pair (Manfredi 1935). The subspecies latispinus, was distinguished by the size, shape and the position of the dorsomedial prefemoral protuberance of the ultimate pair of legs, which is sited at mid-length of prefemur (big and emerging as a triangular appendix at the median side of the leg, sometimes bent distad, dorsally convex, ventrally concave with an apical spine). The prefemur also has strong longitudinal medial sulcus. Although not specified, the number of ventral prefemoral spines is higher than that in the type (Manfredi 1939). Having a larger number of prefemoral spines and well-developed conical protuberance on the dorsomedial side of the prefemur, the Matmata specimen resembles O. spinicaudus latispinus. However, it has 4-5 apical spines on the dorsomedial prefemoral protuberance instead of 1, and lacks a longitudinal sulcus. It could be a distinct (sub) species, although with only one specimen available it could represent an aberrant individual. The irregular arrangement of the prefemoral spines and their elevated number may indicate the ultimate legs are regenerated. Further Tunisian and other material is required in order to clarify the situation.

Family Cryptopidae