The descriptions of colors use the standard names followed by the centroid code (in parentheses) of the 267 Color Centroids of the NBS/IBCC Color System [4] as described in Kury & Orrico [5]. The formula for the tarsomeres count, in which the distitarsi of legs I and II are indicated between parentheses, was created by Roewer [6]. The formula for megaspines of pedipalpus in which I = large spine and i = small spine is used here following the format established by Kury [7] ; here, the same formula is used to discriminate the sizes of the spines on the different surfaces of Femur IV. The terminology for scutum outline follows Kury & Medrano [8]. The terminology for the chaetotaxy of the penis ventral plate follows Kury & Villarreal [9] for the macrosetae and Kury [10] for the microsetae. The term mesotergum [11] refers to the roughly subrectangular region of the dorsal scutum formed by areas I to IV and circumscribed anteriorly by the carapace, laterally by the lateral margins and posteriorly by the area V (posterior margin of the scutum). The biogeographical units used here are from the WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (names starting with “NT” [12]). They are indicated on the map by colored background areas (Fig. 4).

The diagnosis given here is comparative among P. neglectus and the two other species of this genus, Paradiscocyrtus cerayanus Roewer, 1929 and Paradiscocyrtus trochanteralis Roewer, 1929.

Scanning Electron Microscopy was carried out with a JEOL JSM-6390LV at the Center for Scanning Electron Microscopy of Museu Nacional/UFRJ. All measurements are in mm.

Abbreviation of the repository cited is MNRJ (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro). The abbreviation of the relevant Brazilian states are:

• • MG = Minas Gerais;
• • RJ = Rio de Janeiro.

Other abbreviations used are:

• • AS = abdominal scutum;
• • CL = carapace length;
• • CW = carapace width
• • AL = abdominal scutum length;
• • AW = abdominal scutum width (body);
• • Tr = trochanter;
• • Fe = femur;
• • Pa = patella;
• • Ti = tibia;
• • Mt = metatarsus;
• • Ta = tarsus (appendages);
• • VP = ventral plate;
• • A1–A3 = basal macrosetae of VP;
• • B = ventro-basal macrosetae of VP;
• • C1–C3 = distal macrosetae of VP;
• • D1 = dorso-lateral subdistal small seta of VP * E1–E2 = ventro-distal macrosetae of VP (penis).

Tarsal formula: numbers of tarsomeres in tarsus I to IV (Table 2); when an individual count is given, the order is from the left to right side (the figures in parentheses denote the number of tarsomeres only in the distitarsi I–II).

Paradiscocyrtus neglectus Mello-Leitão, 1927.

(Figs. 1–3).

Paradiscocyrtus neglectus Mello-Leitão, 1927: 3; Roewer, 1929: 247; Mello-Leitão, 1932: 206; Soares & Soares, 1954: 286; 1970: 340; Kury, 2003: 185.

Discocyrtus alticola Mello-Leitão, 1935b: 6, fig. 3; 1935d: 101; B. Soares, 1945: 371; Soares & Soares, 1954: 246; 1970: 340; Kury, 2003: 160. SYN. N.

Discocyrtus perfidus Mello-Leitão, 1932: 181, fig. 103; B. Soares, 1945: 374; Soares & Soares, 1954: 254; Kury, 2003: 165. SYN. N.

Type data. Paradiscocyrtus neglectus: (repository unknown, lost), BRAZIL, “Itatiaia”, without further locality data. Discocyrtus alticola: (MNRJ 18198, lost), BRAZIL, “Itatiaia”, without further locality data. Discocyrtus perfidus: 2 ♂ syntypes (MNRJ 1419, examined) BRAZIL, RJ, “Niterói”. Locality probably mistaken (see below).

Paradiscocyrtus neglectus: 1 ♂ neotype, proposed herein (MNRJ 5578) BRAZIL, MG, Itamonte, Parque Nacional de Itatiaia, Vale dos Lírios, −22.3616°, −44.7066°, 2400 m, 04.ii.1997, Kury, A. B., Pinto-da-Rocha, R. & Mestre, L. leg.

Other material examined. 1 ♂ 2 ♀ (MNRJ 0031) BRAZIL, RJ, Resende, 2140–2240 m, 28.xi.1971, Jim, J. leg.; 1 ♂ (MNRJ 5591) BRAZIL, MG, Itamonte, Parque Nacional de Itatiaia, Vale dos Lírios, −22.3616°, −44.7066°, 2400 m, 04.ii.1997, Kury, A. B., Pinto-da-Rocha, R. & Mestre, L. leg.; 1 ♂ (MNRJ 5601) BRAZIL, MG, Itamonte, Parque Nacional de Itatiaia, Brejo da Lapa, −22.3625°, −44.735°, 2200 m, 05–06.ii.1997, Kury, A. B., Pinto-da-Rocha, R. & Mestre, L. leg.

Etymology. Latin adjective neglectus (ignored, rejected).

Diagnosis. Pair of spines on ocularium independent, without inclination (fused at the base and inclined frontwards in P. cerayanus and P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A–B, E). Paramedian armature of area III with phalanx-shaped spines (tubercles dome-shaped in P. cerayanus and P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A, D–E). Area III posterior central groove invading space of area IV (grooves parallel to each other in P. cerayanus and P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A). Area IV posterior central groove invading the space of area V (area V anterior central groove invading the space of area IV in P. cerayanus, parallel to each other in P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A). Cx IV retrolateral apophysis well developed, with the same length of the prodorsal (stunted branch in P. cerayanus and P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A). Tr IV medial prolateral apophysis conspicuous (absent from P. cerayanus and P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A). Fe IV medial dorsal with two well-developed spines (absent from P. cerayanus and P. trochanteralis) (Fig. 2A, F–G, I).

Distribution. BRAZIL: MG, Itamonte. RJ, Itatiaia.

Redescription. Male neotype (MNRJ 5578). Measurements. CW 3.6, CL 2.9, AW 7.7, AL 3.4. Leg measurements in Table 1, tarsal counts in Table 2.

Dorsum: Dorsal scutum gamma form, wider than long, with lateral margins of the abdominal scutum strongly convex, widest at area II and highest at area III (Fig. 2A, E). AS posterior margin sinuous. Carapace with few tubercles on the posterior region, with two pairs of paramedian higher tubercles (Fig. 2A, E). Cheliceral sockets shallow, with a small apophysis between them (Fig. 2A). Ocularium elliptical, high (ca. 3.5 × the diameter of the eyes), almost perpendicular to the dorsal scutum, placed in the middle of the carapace, armed with a pair of parallel high spines (ca. 2 × the diameter of the eyes) fused at the baseline and inclined frontwards (Fig. 2A–B, E). Mesotergum divided into four clearly defined areas (Fig. 2A). Area I divided into left and right halves by the median groove (Fig. 2A). Area II anterior lateral groove slightly invading the space of the area I and posterior lateral groove strongly invading the space of area III (Fig. 2A). Area III posterior central groove strongly invading the space of area IV (Fig. 2A). AS lateral borders with two rows of ordinary tubercles from area I frontwards (Fig. 2A). All areas with many tubercles. Area I with pair of paramedian tubercles higher than the others (Fig. 2A, C, E). Area III with a pair of paramedian higher armature phalanx-shaped slightly curved backwards (Fig. 2A, D–E). Posterior border of dorsal scutum and free tergites with a horizontal row of ordinary tubercles (Fig. 2 A, E).

Venter: Cx I–III parallel to each other; each with ventral transverse rows of 8–12 setiferous tubercles (Cx I anterior row with higher and sharper tubercles). Cx II retroventral distal with a row of six acuminated tubercles. Cx III retroventral distal with a row of ten acuminated tubercles. Cx IV much larger than the others, directed obliquely. Stigmatic area Y-shaped, clearly sunken relative to distal part of coxa IV. Intercoxal bridges well-marked. Stigmata clearly visible. Free sternites and anal operculum with one transverse row of tubercles each.

Chelicera: Basichelicerite elongate, bulla well-marked, with marginal setiferous tubercles — two ectal, two posterior, one mesal; hand not swollen.

Pedipalpus: Tr with a geminated ventral setiferous tubercle. Fe with a prolateral apical setiferous tubercle and one ventral basal setiferous tubercle. Pa unarmed. Ti with two rows of setiferous tubercles; four (IiIi) ventro-mesal and ventro-ectal. Ta with two rows of setiferous tubercles; three (IIi) ventro-mesal and four (IiIi) ventro-ectal.

Legs: Tr I–III each with several ventral tubercles. Fe I–II straight. Fe and Ti I–II with all faces containing rows of small tubercles. Leg III substraight. Fe III and Ti III with all faces containing rows of small tubercles. Fe III with medial–distal proventral and retroventral row of acuminated tubercles. Ti III medial–distal retroventral row of acuminated tubercles. Cx IV ending distally at areas III–IV of dorsal scutum (Fig. 2A). Cx IV with a long prolateral apophysis (slightly curved to retrolateral) and a long retroventral apophysis (slightly curved to prolateral), both with a small secondary branch (Fig. 2A). Cx IV prodorsal, prolateral, proventral and ventral with rows of acuminated tubercles (Fig. 2A). Tr IV apophysis proximal prolateral forming a small hook curved to dorsal (Fig. 2A). Tr IV medial prolateral with two tubercles geminated (Fig. 2A). Tr IV apophysis medial-distal prodorsal forming a hook curved to anterior (Fig. 2A). Tr IV distal prodorsal conical, curved to posterior (Fig. 2A). Tr IV apophysis proximal retrolateral conical (Fig. 2A); distal retrolateral also conical (Fig. 2A, F, H–I). Tr IV retroventral distal with two acuminated tubercles (Fig. 2H). Fe IV substraight, prolateral convex and medial–distal oriented to dorsal (Fig. 2A, F–I). Fe IV proximal with a conical spine (I) and medial–distal with three conical spines (iIi) (Fig. 2A, F–G, I). Fe IV prolateral with a row of tubercles, growing the size to medial and decreasing to distal portion (Fig. 2A, F–H). Fe IV proventral with a row of small spines (Fig. 2G–H). Fe IV with a row of spines, curved to retroventral on medial–distal portion (Fig. 2H–I) Fe IV retrolateral with a row of tubercles, decreasing the size to medial and growing to distal portion (Fig. 2F, H–I). Pa IV proventral with four spines; retroventral with three spines; retrolateral with two spines. Ti IV prodorsal, prolateral, proventral, retrodorsal, retrolateral and retroventral with row of acuminate tubercles. Mt IV proventral and retroventral distal with spur.

Penis: VP divided into two regions: distal part trapezoidal, proximal part elliptical (Fig. 3A, C). Ventral surface of VP entirely covered with microsetae of the type 1 (Fig. 3B–C). All macrosetae inserted on lateral of VP: A1–A3, cylindrical, thick, acuminate, forming a triangle on basal third of VP, where A2 more dorso-distal than the other two (Fig. 3A–B); B1 inserted ventrally, proximal to A2 (Fig. 3B–C); C1–C3 with the same shape of macrosetae A, forming a tight row on the distal part of VP (Fig. 3A–C); D1 small, closer to C3 than to A1 (Fig. 3A–B); E1–E2 inserted on distal lateral border of VP, E1 between C1 and C2, E2 proximal to C3 (Fig. 3B). Glans sac short, arising from the middle bulge on the podium, not extended as a dorsal process (Fig. 3A–B). Stylus and the axis of its ventral process fused basally (forming long pedestal) at an acute angle (V-shaped) (Fig. 3A–B, D). Stylus substraight, without clearly defined head, armed with a few small subdistal spines (Fig. 3B, D). Ventral process of stylus shorter than it, in situ reaching the distal border of VP (Fig. 3B). Apex of the ventral process of the stylus with a medial-distal curve of 90°, forming a shell-shaped flabellum with edges bordered with many spines (Fig. 3B–D).

Color (in alcohol) (Fig. 1). Dorsal scutum background and its borders Moderate Olive Brown (95). Eye mound and paramedian spines of area III Dark Yellowish Brown (78). Articular membranes White (263). Chelicera, scutal grooves, Tr III–IV and Cx IV Strong Greenish Yellow (99). Pp, Tr I–III and Cx IV retrodorsal apophysis Brilliant Yellow Green (116). Fe–Ta I–IV and Cx IV prodorsal apophysis Grayish Brown (61).

Female (MNRJ 0031): CW 3.0, CL 2.2; AW 5.1, AL 3.3. Side of the abdominal scutum edges less concave than AS of male. Cx IV with acuminate prodorsal apophysis. Fe IV thinner and less curved when compared to male. It lacks armature on Fe IV, Tr IV and Ti IV.

Minor morph of males (MNRJ 1412): CW 3.1, CL 2.1; AW 5.6, AL 3.0. Dorsal scutum with armature smaller in size when compared to major morph. Cx IV with prolateral and retrolateral apophysis less developed when compared to major morph. Fe IV thinner and with armature smaller in size when compared to major morph.

Remarks. Paradiscocyrtus neglectus has a minimalistic description, but some elements allowed its recognition. Both the pattern of armature of dorsal scutum and the curved apophyses of Cx IV indicate the male specimen MNRJ 5578 as a co-specific of this species. The locality of Itamonte/MG corroborates this extrapolation, since the region belongs to the area of the “Parque Nacional de Itatiaia” (instituted ten years after its description) and the type locality was pointed as “Itatiaia”. Discocyrtus alticola is known only by the original description of the male holotype (MNRJ 18198) from “Itatiaia”, which is now lost. No further material has been reported of this species. Roger Arlé’s drawing ([13] Fig. 3) shows the structures typical of P. neglectus, such as the format of the apophyses of Cx IV and Tr IV and the pattern of the spines on the dorsal scutum. The armature of Fe IV has only one medial dorsal spine when compared to the three in the neotype here proposed, but such a configuration falls in the variation recognized in other specimens of this species among the material examined at the present time. Therefore, I consider this species to be a junior synonym of P. neglectus. Discocyrtus perfidus is known only by the male syntypes (MNRJ 1419) from “Niterói”, Rio de Janeiro (Fig. 4). This locality belongs to the Serra do Mar coastal forests terrestrial eco-region, which has a very different faunal composition than that found in the Campos Rupestres montane savannas and their border areas. The examination of this material makes it clear that the armature of Fe IV, the format of the apophyses of Cx IV and Tr IV, the pattern of the spines on the dorsal scutum and ocularium is identical to those in the neotype of P. neglectus, but the armatures themselves are thinner in comparison to it, indicating they are minor morphs of P. neglectus. Therefore, I consider this species to be a synonym of P. neglectus and the record from Niterói as doubtful.

Among the species of Pachylinae, P. neglectus is one of the most in need of clarification of taxonomic status and differentiation from the other species because of:

• • an extremely brief description;
• • a lack of any illustration;
• • the absence of type material.

The specimen(s) on which Mello-Leitão based his description was neither indicated to be in any institution, nor numbered, or referred to in his private collection, and furthermore was never reported as having been seen by any other author. It already does not appear as early as in the list of Opiliones of MNRJ [14].

Mello-Leitão [3] proposed, along with Paradiscocyrtus, more than ten new genera in the same paper. All of them received the same type of treatment in their descriptions, being such work a source of taxonomic misunderstandings (nine of those genera are junior synonyms [1]). In the case presented here, this contributed to the description of two junior synonyms by the same author of P. neglectus, both attributed to Discocyrtus [13] [15]. This reflects the use of Roewer's system, in which the armature of area II was not perceived as such in both synonyms (in the case of D. perfidus, this would be impossible, since it is a minor morph).

This species has its distribution restricted to areas higher than 2000 meters of altitude in the NT 0703 (Campos Rupestres montane savannas) and its border is adjacent to the NT 0150 (Parana/Parnaíba interior forests) (Fig. 4).

In the last two years, species were removed from Discocyrtus by [16] and [17], using the shape of the male genitalia (and other characters of the armature of dorsal scutum and Fe IV) as support. The male genitalia of P. neglectus are very similar to those found in the type species of Discocyrtus, but the pattern of the armature either of the dorsal scutum or of the leg IV indicates that this species deserves to remain outside the heterogeneous assembly where it is today.

The author declares that he has no competing interest.