Actinopus longipalpis C. L. Koch, 1842

(Figs. 4, 5, 10)

Actinopus longipalpis C.L. Koch 1842: 102, fig. 754l; Ríos-Tamayo & Goloboff, 2018: 49, figs 23A–I, 24A–D, 44.

Type material: Uruguay: Montevideo [34°52′S 56°10′W]: Holotype ♂ (ZMB Kat. Nr. 2107), examined.

Other material examined: Uruguay: Artigas: Arroyo Tres Cruces [30°16′S 57°11′W], 15 February 1965, D. Robayna, 1♂ (MNHN 621) ; Arroyo Tamanduá [30°28’S 56°33’W], 20 May 1872, L.C. de Zolessi & Gonzalez-Olazar, 1♀ (MNHN 308) . Argentina: Entre Ríos: Rosario del Tala [32°18’S 59°08’W], no date, Buero, 1♂ (MACN- Ar. 27099); San José [32°12’S 58°13’W], January 1989, A. Oliva, 1♂ (MACN-Ar 27096) .

Diagnosis. The female of A. longipalpis differs from those of all other species in Uruguay by the shape of their spermathecae (Fig. 5D) being wide basally, with a well truncated fundus, concave dorsally with external lobes projected perpendicular to the duct (similar to A. argenteus; A. casuhati and A. gerschiapelliarum from Argentina). Females differ from those of A. argenteus and A. casuhati by the smaller number of retrolateral spines on tibia II (Fig. 5C) and from A. gerschiapelliarum by the form and shape of their spermathecae. Males can be differentiated from all other species by the thick copulatory bulb thick, with the embolus arising apically (Fig. 4 G–I); and a low number of retrolateral spines on tibia II (Fig. 4F), and from those of A. pampa and A. argenteus by the abdomen with a brown dorsum.

Description. See Ríos-Tamayo & Goloboff 2018, figs 23A–I, 24A–D.

Distribution: Northern Uruguay and northern of Argentina (Entre Ríos province), (Fig.10). The type locality “Montevideo” seems be just the default shipping port (see Ríos-Tamayo & Goloboff 2018, p. 52).