identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03AC87C5C975FF91FF67FD15FDA5FE54.text	03AC87C5C975FF91FF67FD15FDA5FE54.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Megistobunus Hansen 1921	<div><p>Megistobunus Hansen 1921</p><p>Fig. 1.</p><p>Megistobunus Hansen 1921: 35 –36. Megistobunus ? sp. 1</p><p>Specimen examined. Male, ANGOLA: 2 miles N of Caconda, 1650 m, 7.xii.1966, E. S. Ross &amp; K. Lorenzen (CAS).</p><p>Description. Male (fig. 1): Body ovate, length 5.47. Carapace width 3.48, with scattered denticles including single median denticle on anterior margin with one or two denticles along anterior margin on either side, one of which forms the anteriormost denticle of a longitudinal row of three pairs of denticles anterior and lateral to eyemound; clusters of denticles at anterior and posterior corners and on dorsolateral margins of prosoma between insertions of legs II and III; single denticles at each end of elongate ozopores, and transverse rows of denticles across metapeltidium and marking anterior margin of mesopeltidium. Eyemound with three pairs of large denticles. Opisthosomal surface granulate; tergites with transverse rows of denticles; posteriormost tergites with minute setae only. Venter unarmed, with black setae only. Chelicerae (fig. 1c) short, robust, length of first segment 1.19, second segment 2.43; first segment with dense cluster of denticles dorsodistally, longitudinal row of denticles ventrolaterally; second segment unarmed, with scattered black setae dorsally. Pedipalp (fig. 1d) length of femur 2.04, pedipalp 0.96, tibia 1.08, tarsus 2.11; cluster of prominent bristle-bearing nodules on pedipalpal coxa directly below insertion of trochanter; numerous denticles present from trochanter to proximal half of pedipalp, particularly in irregular longitudinal rows dorsally on femur; well-developed short rounded-triangular apophysis present distomedially on pedipalp; numerous black setae present along entire length of pedipalp, plumose setae absent; microtrichia present along entire length of tarsus only. Legs of moderate length (BLI 1.47), with denticles on anterior and posterior faces of trochanters, longitudinal rows of denticles from femur to tibia, with rows on tibia surrounded by microtrichia becoming more extensive distally; metatarsus of leg I with few small denticles ventrally, metatarsi and tarsi otherwise unarmed except ventral pairs of spine-like setae at distal margins of pseudosegments; femora and tibiae with pseudosegments absent. Length of femur I 5.10, femur II 8.08, femur III 5.01, femur IV 5.53. Penis (figs 1e–g) with banana-shaped glans, distal profile acute, point of reflexion of posterior margin in lateral view close to midpoint, slightly proximal; shaft flattened over most of length, broadening slightly towards distal end with weakly sclerotised margins, with bulbous base.</p><p>Comments. The specimen illustrated in figure 1 demonstrates some of the difficulties currently attending identification of Afrotropical harvestmen. Only one species of Phalangiidae has been recorded from Angola to date, Rhampsinitus quadridens Lawrence 1949, to which this specimen cannot be assigned. It seems likely that it represents a species new to science but one that cannot readily be placed to genus at presence. For this reason, and because of the availability of only a single specimen, no formal description is offered at present.</p><p>The penile morphology of the Caconda specimen places it firmly in the ‘banana-shaped glans’ group, with the glans closely resembling that of Cristina crassipes Loman 1902 (Staręga 1984, figs 9–11). However, it differs from Cristina species in lacking the enlarged and incrassate first pair of legs of that genus. Species of Guruia have a glans that is more sinuous at the base and more rounded in the distal profile (Staręga 1984). Camerobunus okucola Staręga &amp; Snegovaya 2008 has small denticles on the cheliceral lamellae, unarmed pedipalps and the shaft of the penis less broadened apically. Perhaps the closest of the genera of this group named to date is Megistobunus which Staręga (1984) also described as having a genital morphology similar to that of Cristina . Of the species currently included in Megistobunus, M. longipes Hansen 1921 and M. lamottei (Roewer 1959) have much longer legs relative to body size, and pedipalps with a patellar apophysis that is longer than the main body of the patella. Nevertheless, a number of the features distinguishing the Caconda specimen from Cristina and the aforementioned Megistobunus species (such as development of the first legs and pedipalpal apophyses) are related to secondary sexual dimorphism. Determining the significance of these features, and hence their importance for the generic placement of the Caconda specimen, would require a better understanding of relationships between the species concerned than exists at present.</p><p>The Caconda specimen does bear an overall resemblance to Megistobunus funereus Lawrence 1962 from eastern Tanzania, except that M. funereus lacks denticulation on the carapace anterior to the eyemound and has far fewer denticles on the pedipalp. However, Lawrence’s (1962) original reasons for assigning this species to Megistobunus are not clear. It is not identifiable as such using the key to Afrotropical phalangiid genera provided in the same publication, and its inclusion in the genus was regarded as doubtful by Staręga (1984). The genital morphology of M. funereus has not yet been described, and confirmation of its placement awaits further examination of its type material.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C5C975FF91FF67FD15FDA5FE54	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, Christopher K.	Taylor, Christopher K. (2017): Notes on Phalangiidae (Arachnida: Opiliones) of southern Africa with description of new species and comments on within-species variation. Zootaxa 4272 (2): 236-250, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.5
03AC87C5C973FF91FF67FE1BFBF8F8B6.text	03AC87C5C973FF91FF67FE1BFBF8F8B6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhampsinitus Simon 1879	<div><p>Rhampsinitus Simon 1879</p><p>Rhampsinitus Simon 1879: lxxii.</p><p>Notes. Rhampsinitus Simon 1879 may be the most difficult genus of African Phalangiinae, if only because of its high diversity of recognised species. It is widespread in southern Africa with described species as far north as Angola in the western part of the continent and Somalia in the east. However, those species found in the northern part of Rhampsinitus ’ range remain unrevised and their assignment to this genus requires confirmation. Over much of the southern part of its range, Rhampsinitus is the only genus of Phalangiidae known to be present. It has been distinguished from most other African genera of Phalangiidae by its cheliceral morphology, in which the male chelicerae are enlarged and usually denticulate in comparison to the female, but not swollen as in Guruia . However, as described below for R. conjunctidens and R. nubicolus, not all males of Rhampsinitus have enlarged chelicerae and cheliceral development may vary significantly even within a single species. Rhampsinitus can be distinguished from all other Afrotropical phalangiine genera except Dacnopilio by its male genital morphology with a hatchet-shaped glans, and with the distal end of the penile shaft broadened and hollowed to form a distinct ‘spoon’. Dacnopilio was distinguished from Rhampsinitus by the presence of denticles on the supracheliceral lamellae (Roewer 1911). Dacnopilio as currently recognised has a biogeographically unusual distribution, being the only genus of Phalangiidae with representatives in both the Afrotropical and Mediterranean regions (Staręga 1984), and warrants further investigation.</p><p>The Rhampsinitus species of South Africa were revised by Lawrence (1931) and Kauri (1961), with the latter providing the most recent key for the identification of males. Unfortunately, subsequent studies (Schönhofer 2008; Staręga 2009) have exposed issues with earlier revisions by demonstrating the presence of a wider range of withinspecies variation than previously recognised. It is possible that a number of species currently recognised in Rhampsinitus may prove synonymous. Kauri’s (1961) key draws heavily on characters of the chelicerae that may not prove reliable (it should also be noted that a number of species characterised within the key by ‘unarmed chelicerae’ are in fact described from females only). The genital morphology for a number of species described by earlier authors remains undescribed, further complicating comparisons. Particularly problematic on this front is the type species of the genus, R. lalandei Simon 1879, for which the type specimen has been lost (Muñoz-Cuevas in Crawford 1992) and the type locality is uncertain (it was originally reported as ‘Cafrerie’, possibly corresponding to somewhere in what is now the Eastern Cape province) .</p><p>Of particular note is the identification below of minor males for at least two species, R. conjunctidens and R. nubicolus, with the chelicerae not enlarged and mostly unarmed. This represents a more extreme form of the variation within species described by Schönhofer (2008) for R. transvaalicus and Staręga (2009) for R. leighi . As noted by Schönhofer (2008), variation in cheliceral size also corresponds with variation in pedipalpal length, individuals with longer chelicerae also having longer pedipalps relative to body length. It is likely that other species in the genus will prove to exhibit such variation with further investigation. Kauri (1961) described two species from minor males, R. forsteri Kauri 1961 and R. qachasneki Kauri 1961, though no corresponding major males are yet known. As described below, R. minor Loman 1898 is likely to represent a minor form of R. leighi Pocock 1903 . The identification of minor males is likely to prove problematic; those of R. conjunctidens and R. nubicolus cannot be readily distinguished except through examination of the genitalia.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C5C973FF91FF67FE1BFBF8F8B6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, Christopher K.	Taylor, Christopher K. (2017): Notes on Phalangiidae (Arachnida: Opiliones) of southern Africa with description of new species and comments on within-species variation. Zootaxa 4272 (2): 236-250, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.5
03AC87C5C972FF92FF67FF50FC9AFD74.text	03AC87C5C972FF92FF67FF50FC9AFD74.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhampsinitus conjunctidens	<div><p>Rhampsinitus conjunctidens n. sp.</p><p>Fig. 2.</p><p>Etymology. Species name noun in apposition, from the Latin conjunctus, joined together, and dens, tooth, in reference to the conjoined teeth at the base of the first cheliceral segment of larger males.</p><p>Holoype. SOUTH AFRICA: Male, on Magoebaskloof Trail, 8.6 km from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=29.983334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-23.833334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 29.983334/lat -23.833334)">Magoebaskloof Hotel</a>, 28 km SSW Tzaneen, Limpopo, ca. 23°50'S 29°59'E, el. 1800 m, in forest, 22-23.xi.1996, C. E. Griswold (CAS).</p><p>Paratypes (all CAS). 12 major males, 7 minor males, 4 females, 18 juveniles, as for holotype; 5 major males, 1 minor male, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=30.0&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-23.883333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 30.0/lat -23.883333)">Magoebaskloof Hotel</a>, 30 km SSW Tzaneen, Limpopo, ca. 23°53’S 30°00’E, el. 1800 m, in forest, 22–23.xi.1996, C. E. Griswold.</p><p>Description. Major male (figs 2a–g). Body ovate; length 4.58–6.51. Carapace width 3.21–3.82, with scattered denticles including single median denticle on anterior margin; longitudinal row of three denticles on either side anterior and lateral to eyemound; clusters of denticles at anterior corners; and transverse rows of denticles across mesopeltidium and metapeltidium. Eyemound with three or four pairs of large denticles. Opisthosomal surface granulate; tergites with transverse rows of denticles; posteriormost tergites with minute setae only. Venter mostly unarmed, with black setae; setae on coxa I raised on nodules. Chelicerae (fig. 2c) of moderate length, robust, length of first segment 2.57–4.30, second segment 4.15–6.57; first segment with numerous large denticles dorsally and ventrally, largely unarmed laterally, ventrolateral denticles may be fused basally in groups of three, particularly proximally; second segment with few scattered denticles proximodorsally, granulate ventrally and in anterior half dorsally, largely smooth in posterior half except for scattered black setae. Pedipalp (fig. 2d) length of femur 2.84– 3.82, patella 1.01–1.20, tibia 1.40–1.84, tarsus 3.16–3.90; cluster of prominent bristle-bearing nodules on pedipalpal coxa directly below insertion of trochanter; numerous denticles dorsally and ventrally on trochanter and femur; remaining segments largely unarmed (isolated denticles may be present on tibia); patella without distinct apophysis; numerous black setae present along entire length of pedipalp, plumose setae absent; microtrichia present on distal half of tarsus only. Legs long, BLI 2.02–2.50, with denticles on anterior and posterior faces of trochanters, longitudinal rows of denticles on femora; leg I with dense ventral longitudinal rows of denticles from patella to base of tarsus; leg III with sparse ventral longitudinal row of denticles on tibia; remaining leg segments unarmed except ventral pairs of spine-like setae at distal margins of metatarsal and tarsal pseudosegments; femora and tibiae with pseudosegments absent. Length of femur I 7.15–8.23, femur II 11.66–13.26, femur III 6.09–7.67, femur IV 8.69–10.16. Penis (figs 2e–h) with hatchet-shaped glans, distal profile acute, point of reflexion of posterior margin in lateral view close to midpoint, slightly proximal; shaft flattened, broadening slightly towards distal end to form moderate ‘spoon’ with weakly sclerotised margins, base moderately bulbous.</p><p>Minor male (figs 2i –j) as for major, except: Body length 4.30–5.82; carapace width 2.65–2.99. Chelicerae short, length of first segment 1.02–.86, second segment 2.24–3.00; first segment lightly denticulate dorsally and ventrolaterally; second segment unarmed with scattered black setae. Pedipalp length of femur 1.72–2.22, patella 0.75–0.85, tibia 1.05–1.23, tarsus 2.11–2.69; femur with few scattered denticles, particularly ventrally, otherwise unarmed. Legs I with ventral denticle rows extending to end of tibia only, sparse distally. Length of femur I 6.09– 7.29, femur II 10.41–11.91, femur III 5.9 2–6.61, femur IV 7.96–9.24.</p><p>Female (fig. 2k) as for major male, except: Body length 5.38–7.75; carapace width 2.89–3.45. Overall appearance lighter, less sclerotised. Chelicerae short; both segments unarmed. Pedipalp length of femur 1.49–1.75, patella 0.57–.72, tibia 0.88–1.09, tarsus 1.91–2.19; femur with numerous denticles ventrally only; patella with prominent distomedial swelling but no true apophysis; microtrichia present along entire length of tibia and tarsus. Legs with longitudinal rows of denticles on femora; leg I with sparse rows of denticles on patella and sparse ventral row of denticles on tibia; remaining segments unarmed. Length of femur I 5.97–6.45, femur II 11.36–11.78, femur III 5.95–6.20, femur IV 7.98–8.95</p><p>Comments. Rhampsinitus conjunctidens is similar in genital morphology to R. leighi Pocock 1903, but examination of specimens of the latter from the vicinity of the type locality of Durban (Pocock 1903; see Methods section for specimen details), confirm their status as separate species. The penis of R leighi has the distal ‘spoon’ of the shaft broader and more distinct, but narrowing to a more acute terminus (fig. 9 in Staręga 2009). It also has relatively longer spines on the eyemound, with each spine longer than the height of the eyemound alone (vs shorter in R. conjunctidens). The second segment of the chelicerae is more evenly denticulate in major males of R. leighi, and the pedipalpal femur is much less extensively armed with only a few small denticles at the base of the femur.</p><p>One of the two males of R. leighi collected at Jackson’s Fall represents a minor male, with the chelicerae not rising above the level of the carapace, and with the second segment largely unarmed except for a few denticles on the anterior face proximally. This specimen retains elongate spines on the eyemound as in the major male. In external appearance this specimen approaches R. minor Loman 1898, whose type locality is very close to Durban and which may prove to be synonymous with R. leighi (in which case the name R. minor would take priority). Specimens from the Soutpansberg mountain range assigned to R. leighi by Schönhofer (2008) are figured therein as having a penis morphology more similar to that of R. conjunctidens, and their identity warrants reinvestigation. Also similar in genital morphology is R. forsteri Kauri (1961) from the Royal Natal National Park; this species also differs from R. conjunctidens in having the pedipalpal femur unarmed.</p><p>Major males of R. conjunctidens can be distinguished from most other Rhampsinitus species by their denticulate pedipalps, together with their cheliceral armature of well-developed denticles retrolaterally on the first segment and largely unarmed second segment. Among other species with denticulate pedipalps, R. telifrons Pocock 1903 has a very large, forward-pointing median denticle on the anterior margin of the carapace, and five pairs of denticles on the eyemound. Rhampsinitus vittatus Lawrence 1931 is an overall more gracile species with a relatively shorter pedipalp (femur less than half total body length vs more than half in R. conjunctidens), usually no denticles on carapace directly anterior to eyemound other than the median anterior marginal denticle, and a relatively shorter and more inflated second cheliceral segment. Rhampsinitus capensis (Loman 1898), R. tenebrosus Lawrence 1938, R. fissidens Lawrence 1933 and R. hewittius (Roewer 1956) have leg I unarmed beyond the femur. Rhampsinitus tenebrosus Lawrence 1938 and R. nubicolus Lawrence 1963 have the pedipalps much longer, with the pedipalpal femur length close to or exceeding the length of the body, and R. nubicolus differs in genital morphology (the genital morphology of R. tenebrosus is unknown).</p><p>Minor males are identified as this species by their genital morphology and collection in association with major males. The pedipalpal femur remains denticulate as in major males, corroborating this species’ distinction from R. forsteri (which is probably likewise based on a minor male).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C5C972FF92FF67FF50FC9AFD74	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, Christopher K.	Taylor, Christopher K. (2017): Notes on Phalangiidae (Arachnida: Opiliones) of southern Africa with description of new species and comments on within-species variation. Zootaxa 4272 (2): 236-250, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.5
03AC87C5C970FF9DFF67FD3BFCC2FF08.text	03AC87C5C970FF9DFF67FD3BFCC2FF08.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhampsinitus discolor (Karsch 1878) Karsch 1878	<div><p>Rhampsinitus discolor (Karsch 1878b)</p><p>Fig. 3.</p><p>Phalangium discolor Karsch 1878b: 311 .</p><p>Rhampsinitus discolor (Karsch): Staręga 1984: 59 –60 (including synonymy).</p><p>Material examined. KENYA: 2 males, 2 females, Kibwezi, 30.xii.1959, E. S. Ross ; 1 male, 2 females, Kibwezi, 900 m, 5.xii.1967, E. S. Ross &amp; A. R. Stephen (CAS).</p><p>Notes. Staręga (1984) provided a redescription of this species, with which the specimens on hand are in agreement except for the presence of a small finger-like apophysis on the pedipalpal patella of the male; Staręga (1984) indicated that such an apophysis was present in the female only. However, the original description of Rhampsinitus filipes Roewer 1917, which Staręga (1984) placed as a synonym of R. discolor, does describe it as possessing a pedipalpal apophysis. As the current male specimen otherwise resembles Staręga’s (1984) description in cheliceral and pedipalpal armature, It seems likely that the differences between the two lie within the scope of individual variation. A dorsal view of the male is shown for comparative purposes in figure 3; other diagnostic features, including the penis, were illustrated by Staręga (1984).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C5C970FF9DFF67FD3BFCC2FF08	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, Christopher K.	Taylor, Christopher K. (2017): Notes on Phalangiidae (Arachnida: Opiliones) of southern Africa with description of new species and comments on within-species variation. Zootaxa 4272 (2): 236-250, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.5
03AC87C5C97FFF9EFF67FEE0FBD1FD74.text	03AC87C5C97FFF9EFF67FEE0FBD1FD74.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhampsinitus nubicolus Lawrence 1963	<div><p>Rhampsinitus nubicolus Lawrence 1963</p><p>Figs 4, 5 b.</p><p>Rhampsinitus nubicolus Lawrence 1963: 303 –304, fig. 13a.</p><p>Rhampsinitus flavobrunneus Staręga 2009: 45 –47, figs 1–5 syn. n.</p><p>Material examined (all CAS). SOUTH AFRICA: 1 major male, Ceylon Forest, W of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=30.7&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-25.083334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 30.7/lat -25.083334)">Sabie</a>, Mpumalanga, 25°05’S 30°42’E, el. 1100 m, indigenous forest, 4.xiii.1996, C. E. Griswold; 5 major males, 6 females, 1 juvenile, Mariepskop, ca . 15 km W <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=30.883333&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-24.55" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 30.883333/lat -24.55)">Klaserie</a>, Mpumalanga, 24°33’S 30°53’E, el . 1365 m, indigenous forest, 5.xii.1996, C. E. Griswold; 2 major males, 1 female, Mariepskop State Forest, Drakensberg, 5 km N Mariepskop Chalets ( Ranger Station) , Mpumalanga, 1900 m, montane aloe scrub, 14.x.1999, D. Ubick, S. Prinsloo; 5 major males, 5 minor males, Misty Mountain Hotel, ca . 32 km E <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=30.666666&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-25.166666" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 30.666666/lat -25.166666)">Lydenberg</a>, Mpumalanga, 25°10’S 30°40’E, el. 1890 m, in forest, 3– 5.xii.1996, C. E. Griswold.</p><p>Description. Major male as described by Staręga (2009; see comments below). Minor male (figs 4a, c, e–h). Body ovate; length 4.63–5.35. Carapace width 2.51–2.80, with scattered denticles including single median denticle on anterior margin, and transverse rows of denticles across mesopeltidium and metapeltidium. Eyemound with three or four pairs of large denticles. Opisthosomal surface granulate; tergites with transverse rows of denticles; posteriormost tergites with minute setae only. Venter mostly unarmed, with black setae; setae on coxae I and II raised on nodules. Chelicerae (fig. 4c) short, robust, length of first segment 1.03–1.40, second segment 2.05–2.83; first segment with scattered denticles dorsally and ventrally, largely unarmed laterally; second segment unarmed with scattered black setae. Pedipalp length of femur 1.77–2.93, patella 0.78–0.94, tibia 1.04–1.42, tarsus 2.15– 2.87; cluster of prominent bristle-bearing nodules on pedipalpal coxa directly below insertion of trochanter; numerous denticles dorsally and ventrally on trochanter and femur; remaining segments unarmed; patella without distinct apophysis; numerous black setae present along entire length of pedipalp, plumose setae absent; microtrichia present on entire length of tibia and tarsus. Legs long, BLI 1.95–2.16, with denticles on anterior and posterior faces of trochanters, longitudinal rows of denticles on femora; leg I with ventral longitudinal rows of small denticles from patella to metatarsus; remaining legs with ventral longitudinal row of small denticles proximally on tibia; remaining leg segments unarmed except ventral pairs of spine-like setae at distal margins of metatarsal and tarsal pseudosegments; femora and tibiae with pseudosegments absent. Length of femur I 5.42– 5.65, femur II 9.45–10.43, femur III 5.34–5.54, femur IV 7.26–7.79. Penis (figs 4d–f) with hatchet-shaped glans, distal profile acute, point of reflexion of posterior margin in lateral view in proximal half; shaft flattened, broadening towards distal end to form distinct ‘spoon’ with markedly sclerotised margins, base moderately bulbous.</p><p>Female (fig. 4i) as above, except: Chelicerae both segments unarmed with scattered black setae. Pedipalp femur with black setae on raised nodules proximoventrally, pedipalp otherwise unarmed. Legs I with longitudinal rows of denticles from femur to tibia, denticles becoming minute on tibia.</p><p>Notes. Lawrence (1963) described Rhampsinitus nubicolus from Mariepskop in what is now Mpumalanga province. The major males examined herein resemble his description in most particulars, including the arrangement of denticles on the second cheliceral segment and the extraordinarily long pedipalps, the femora of which may be up to 1.4× as long as the main body. They differ in being more noticeably denticulate on the pedipalpal femur which was originally described as ‘smooth except for a few minute spiculiform granules on ventral side’. Nevertheless, there can be little question that these specimens represent Lawrence’s original species. This appears to be a primarily montane species, with all known specimens collected at altitudes above 1000 m.</p><p>The specimens examined herein also correspond closely with Staręga’s (2009) description of Rhampsinitus flavobrunneus, and the two species are synonymised herein. Rhampsinitus flavobrunneus was described from a single specimen with the original collection locality given only as “ Afrique du Sud ”; Staręga speculated that it may have been collected near Johannesburg. Staręga did not explicitly compare R. flavobrunneus to R. nubicolus though he did assign juvenile specimens from Mariepskop to the latter species in the same paper. However, one of the features highlighted in the description of R. flavobrunneus was the ‘light yellow’ coloration of the holotype, whereas R. nubicolus was originally described as black. The specimens examined herein, though mostly dark, show a range of coloration from dark to pale. One male that had recently moulted before collection (as indicated by its lack of sclerotisation) was a pale grey dorsally with the anterior part of the carapace light yellow and the legs cream-coloured. As has been described for other Phalangioidea (Shultz 2008), it seems likely that the cuticle darkens in coloration as it hardens with maturity. The use of colour patterns in distinguishing species of Phalangioidea should be treated with caution.</p><p>The genital morphology of R. nubicolus is very similar to that of R. transvaalicus, as illustrated by Schönhofer (2008), and the known distributions of these species are in close proximity. Major males of R. nubicolus may also resemble R. transvaalicus in the apparent presence of an enlarged ventrolateral denticle row on the first cheliceral segment (Schönhofer 2008), though the degree of development and/or prominence of this feature may vary between individuals of both species. However, having examined specimens of both R. nubicolus and R. transvaalicus (see details of R. transvaalicus specimens in the Methods section above), I am disinclined to regard them as synonyms. Males of R. transvaalicus, even particularly large ones, usually have much shorter pedipalps than major males of R. nubicolus, with the pedipalpal femur much shorter than body length in R. transvaalicus vs close to or much longer than body length in R. nubicolus, and the pedipalps are never denticulate. The anterior margin of the carapace in R. nubicolus bears a distinct median denticle whereas this is absent in R. transvaalicus . The most striking difference between the two species, however, is the presence in R. transvaalicus of an array of enlarged, distally-projecting denticles at the end of the proventral denticle row on femur I. In contrast, the denticles in the corresponding position in R. nubicolus are a similar size to or smaller than those on the remainder of the leg. This enlarged denticle array remains distinct even in minor males of R. transvaalicus .</p><p>A similar arrangement of denticles on femur I was described by Lawrence (1931) for his species Rhampsinitus flavidus and R. unicolor, which were distinguished from each other by coloration and slight differences in biometric proportions. Both had type localities in the near vicinity of Leydsdorp in Limpopo province, and it seems likely that they represent the same species. Two specimens from the neighbourhood of Tzaneen are identified herein as R. unicolor (see Methods section for details) but are also similar to minor males of R. transvaalicus . Apart from being slightly more bulbous at the base of the shaft, the penis of these specimens is identical in size and appearance to that of the minor male of R. transvaalicus . There are some minor differences in external armature: the chelicera of R. unicolor has the second segment largely unarmed laterally and on the anterior face distally (vs more evenly denticulate in R. transvaalicus), and the denticle rows across the opisthosomal tergites are more irregular in R. unicolor (though they are also somewhat irregular in the smallest specimens of R. transvaalicus from the Hanglip Forest). More notably, the R. unicolor specimens have relatively longer appendages: the pedipalpal femur is more than half the body length vs somewhat less than half in R. transvaalicus, and they have proportionally longer legs than similarly sized individuals of R. transvaalicus . The relative status of R. transvaalicus, R. flavidus and R. unicolor remains uncertain pending the examination of further specimens. Also requiring re-examination is R. granarius Roewer 1916, described by Roewer (1916) from a single male from Johannesburg, whose distinctiveness from R. flavidus was questioned by Staręga (2009).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C5C97FFF9EFF67FEE0FBD1FD74	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, Christopher K.	Taylor, Christopher K. (2017): Notes on Phalangiidae (Arachnida: Opiliones) of southern Africa with description of new species and comments on within-species variation. Zootaxa 4272 (2): 236-250, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.5
03AC87C5C97CFF99FF67FAC6FED9FE71.text	03AC87C5C97CFF99FF67FAC6FED9FE71.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Rhampsinitus vittatus Lawrence 1931	<div><p>Rhampsinitus vittatus Lawrence 1931</p><p>Fig. 7</p><p>Rhampsinitus vittatus Lawrence 1931: 482 –483, fig. 70.</p><p>Rhampsinitus silvaticus Lawrence 1931: 491 –493, fig. 76 syn. n.</p><p>Material examined (all CAS). 6 males, 3 juveniles, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=23.233334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-34.05" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 23.233334/lat -34.05)">Harkerville State Forest</a>, 19 km E Knysna, Western Cape Province, 34°03’S 23°14’E, el. 240 m, indigenous forest, 11–13.xii.1996, C. E. Griswold ; 11 males, 3 females, 4 juveniles, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=23.233334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-34.083332" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 23.233334/lat -34.083332)">Kranshoek</a>, 20 km E Knysna, Western Cape Province, 34°05’S 23°14’E, el. 180 m, forest, 13.xii.1996, C. E. Griswold.</p><p>Description. Male (fig. 7). As for Lawrence (1931), with the following additions: Carapace with anterior margin unarmed except for single median denticle. Penis (figs 7c–e) with blunt hatchet-shaped glans, distal profile truncate, point of reflexion of posterior margin in lateral view in distal half; shaft thick, slightly broadening towards distal end to form moderate ‘spoon’ with weakly sclerotised margins, base moderately bulbous.</p><p>Notes. Rhampsinitus vittatus was described by Lawrence (1931) from two males collected at Sir Lowry’s Pass in western South Africa, near Cape Town . The specimens examined herein are similar to Lawrence’s description in cheliceral and pedipalp morphology and overall armature, and are likely to represent the same species. Though the current specimens’ collection locality is some distance from the type locality, Lotz (2009) listed records of this species from this region and further east, and it is possible that Rhampsinitus vittatus occurs along much of the coastal region of South Africa .</p><p>This species has a distinctive male genital morphology compared to other Rhampsinitus, the majority of which have a glans with a narrow, blade-like posterior edge and an acute terminus near the origin of the stylus (as found in R. conjunctidens and R. regulus described herein; Kauri 1961; Staręga 1984, 2009; Schönhofer 2008). The glans of R. vittatus has a rounder posterior edge and a broadly truncate terminus (fig. 5d). Kauri (1961) illustrated the same genital morphology for R. silvaticus Lawrence 1931, a species originally described from Knysna and supposed to differ from R. vittatus in having fewer denticles on the pedipalp and less enlarged male chelicerae. The specimens examined herein, however, exhibit variation in these characters between individuals, with the degree of pedipalpal denticulation and cheliceral inflation correlating with overall body size. As such, R. vittatus and R. silvaticus are synonymised herein.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C5C97CFF99FF67FAC6FED9FE71	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Taylor, Christopher K.	Taylor, Christopher K. (2017): Notes on Phalangiidae (Arachnida: Opiliones) of southern Africa with description of new species and comments on within-species variation. Zootaxa 4272 (2): 236-250, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4272.2.5
