Redescription and synonymies of Diplura macrura ( C . L . Koch , 1841 ) and D . lineata ( Lucas , 1857 ) , with notes on the genus ( Araneae , Dipluridae )

Diplura C.L. Koch, 1850 is a mygalomorph genus with putative records from Central and South america. The type-species Diplura macrura (C.L. Koch, 1841), originally described from West indies, is poorly known and represented only by its holotype. Most of the 20 species currently included in the genus lack modern taxonomic descriptions, as D. lineata (Lucas, 1857), from Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Males and females of Diplura macrura and D. lineata are herein redescribed. New junior synonyms of D. macrura are identified (Linothele bicolor (Simon, 1889), Diplura uniformis MelloLeitão, 1923, and the two junior synonyms of the latter species, Thalerothele minensis Mello-Leitão, 1926 and T. aurantiaca Mello-Leitão, 1943). also, two junior synonyms are established for D. lineata: Diplura fasciata (Bertkau, 1880) and Diplura nigridorsi (Mello-Leitão, 1924). The type-locality of D. macrura is corrected to São João del Rei, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. D. macrura is restricted to the state of Minas Gerais and D. lineata to the state of Rio de Janeiro. The type-locality of D. parallela (Mello-Leitão, 1923) is also corrected from argentina to Paraná state, Brazil. The distribution of Diplura is now restricted from south Panama to north argentina, excluding previous erroneous records for Cuba and West indies. The six synonymies herein established help to clarify the genus composition, which includes now 17 valid species.


Introduction
Diplura C.L. Koch, 1850 is a Neotropical mygalomorph genus, including twenty species of variable size and color pattern.Nowadays, its accepted distribution goes from Cuba to Argentina (World Spider Catalog 2015).Most species were described from southeastern and southern Brazil, with species recorded also from the following countries: Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela.Raven (1985) included Diplura in the subfamily Diplurinae, alongside Trechona C.L. Koch, 1850 andLinothele Karsch, 1879.The traditional diagnostic character for Diplura is the simple lyra, at the internal side of the maxilla (coxa) of the palp, formed by a single row of clavate setae (Raven 1985).In contrast, Linothele has no lyra and Trechona has a complex lyra, with multiple rows of numerous setae, arranged in a black shield.However, Harmonicon F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896, included in Diplurinae by Maréchal & Marty (1998), also has a simple lyra.In the revalidation of Harmonicon, Maréchal & Marty (1998) proposed a separation from Diplura based on the shape and number of setae on lyra.In Harmonicon, the lyra is formed by only 5 setae, with a fl attened and curved tip, whereas in Diplura it has more setae and a different tip.However, Pedroso & Baptista (2014) pointed out that the number and shape of the setae are variable in Diplura, where some species may have just a few setae (down to 2) and setae tip curved and sometimes a bit fl attened.The number of setae is not a reliable character for Harmonicon, as already suggested by Drolshagen & Bäckstam (2011).Nevertheless, the strongly curved and fl attened setal tip is found only in Harmonicon (Pedroso & Baptista 2014).Several other characters have previously been used to separate the genera included in Diplurinae, as the tarsal scopulae and segmentation (Raven 1985) and leg formulae and size (Maréchal & Marty 1998).A preliminary discussion on the diagnostic characters used in Diplurinae is found in Pedroso & Baptista (2014), where several traits are dealt with.For example, the short and thickened palp tibia of males in Diplura (see Figs 5 and 17 in the plates below) strongly contrasts with the long and thin tibia in other Diplurinae, as Trechona (Pedroso et al. 2008: fi g. 5), Harmonicon (Pedroso & Baptista 2014: fi g. 7) and Linothele (Duperré & Tapia 2015: fi g. 28).On the other hand, the rigid setae near lyra found in most Harmonicon species (Pedroso & Baptista 2014: fi g. 6) is diagnostic at least to a large subset of the genus.
In this paper, the composition and distribution of Diplura are discussed.The type-species Diplura macrura (C.L. Koch, 1841) is redescribed, based on the holotype and recently collected specimens.Also, the female is newly described and new synonymies are presented.The type-locality of the species is corrected to Minas Gerais state, Brazil, implying in the exclusion of Cuba and West Indies from its geographical range.Additionally, Diplura lineata (Lucas, 1857) is redescribed, two synonymies are given and the species distribution is widened.The type-locality of D. parallela (Mello-Leitão, 1923) is corrected from Argentina to Brazil.

Material and methods
The description of color pattern is based on specimens preserved in 75% ethanol.The female genitalia was cut off and clarifi ed with clove oil.Habitat information and photos of living animals were added, when available.Observations, photographs and measurements were made with a Leica DFC295 camera, attached to a Leica M205C stereo microscope.Samples for scanning electron were coated with goldpalladium and observed under high vacuum on a JEOL JSM-6510 microscope.All photos were edited in the software Photoshop CS5 and plates were mounted in the software CorelDraw X7.Measurements are given in millimeters, unless otherwise noted.Carapace length was measured from anterior margin of the clypeus to the posterior border.Total length was measured from the anterior margin of the clypeus to the posterior border of the anal tubercle, not including the spinnerets.Each article of the pedipalp and legs was measured in retrolateral view, from the basal condylus to the distal one.Geographical coordinates for localities were obtained from Geonames (2015).The distribution map (Fig. 26) was elaborated using ESRI ARCGIS 10 software.Platnick 1998: 120 (transfer).

Diagnosis
Both sexes of this species have a strongly contrasting color pattern, with a reddish brown carapace and a dark brown abdomen, shared only with Diplura paraguayensis (Gerschman & Schiapelli, 1942).In mature D. macrura, the abdomen is uniformly dark brown, without spots or any visible markings.However, according to its original description (Gerschman & Schiapelli 1942), D. paraguayensis has a blackish brown reticulate on abdomen dorsum.Moreover, the lyra of D. paraguayensis has 13 setae (Gerschman & Schiapelli 1942: pl. ix;Schiapelli & Gerschman 1968, fi g. 7), in contrast with the 7-9 setae in D. macrura.The bulb of D. macrura (Figs 6-7) has an embolic base much larger than in D. paraguayensis (Schiapelli & Gerschman 1968: fi gs 14-15).Also, the embolus is about 2× longer than the bulb in D. macrura and 3× longer in D. paraguayensis.The spermathecae of D. macrura has a longer and thinner stalk (Fig. 13) than the females of D. paraguayensis from Argentina (Goloboff 1982: 1).Also, the distal lobes are larger and spread over the distal third of the stalk in D. macrura, while they are smaller and concentrated in the apex in D. paraguayensis.

Description
Male (MNRJ 4496) (Figs 3-9) Carapace: 6.4 long, 5.0 wide.Abdomen: 6.6 long.Spinnerets: PMS 1.3 long; PLS, total length 6.8, basal article 2.0, middle 2.2, distal 2.6, respectively.Legs: see Table 1.Carapace: length/width 1.3; fl at, cephalic area slightly raised, thoracic furrows shallow and wide.Fovea: short, deep, recurved.Carapace covered with short, thin setae, interspersed with some longer and thicker setae; border with abundant long and thick setae pointing outwards, increasing in number towards posterior angles.Clypeus almost totally hidden by the bulging eye tubercle, frontal margin bearing 5 thick, long, erect setae.Eye tubercle: 0.6 long, 1.0 wide, area between posterior eyes covered with thin setae and bearing 4 thicker, longer setae.AME 0.3, almost spherical, but a bit longer than wide, set apart by 0.7× their diameter.ALE elliptical, much longer than wide, its length about 0.6× the AME diameter.PME small, with fl attened lens, longer than wide, its length about 0.5× AME diameter.PLE elliptical, much longer than wide, its length a bit less than 0.7× AME diameter.PME and PLE clearly set apart by around 0.4× the PME length.Anterior eye row slightly recurved, posterior eye row recurved.Eye rows with similar width.Chelicerae: promargin with 11 teeth on left and 9 on right chelicera.Plectrum with 5 thick, long setae.Labium: length/width 0.8, no cuspules.Labio-sternal groove deep with elongated sigilla.Sternum: about 45% longer than wide, very similar to the sternum of D. lineata.Posterior angle in a blunt point, not separating coxae IV.Sigilla: three pairs, spherical, with a subtle increase in size from anterior to posterior, all near margin.Palp (Fig. 5): relatively short, without retrolateral spines, femur: d1-2-0, pl0-0-1, tibia pl 0-1-0, v1-2-0.Tibia: length 2.3, width 0.9, short, incrassated, thinner at the basis and apex.Maxillae: length/width 1.5.Cuspules: 13 spread over ventral inner heel.Lyra at the ventral side of the maxilla, formed by 8 modifi ed thick, long setae, increasing in size from basis to apex of the lyra, European Journal of Taxonomy 210: 1-21 (2016) weakly curved at apical portion.Legs: Leg formula 4123.Legs covered with short, thin, horizontal black setae and with some longer, thicker, erect black setae.All tarsi with thin scopula, throughout the length of the article, divided by two series of thicker setae at the middle line of the ventral face.Metatarsus I with undivided thin scopula, covering the distal half of the retrolateral side.Metatarsus II similar to I, but with scopula on both sides.Metatarsi III-IV without scopula.All tarsi provided with numerous small cracks covering almost all the ventral and lateral faces, except by the basis and tip of the article.Leg I (Figs 3-4): tibia I with a relatively short distal retrolateral spur, curved and blunt, placed at its ventral corner.Megaspine pointed, slightly sinuous, especially on the apex, almost 2x longer than the spur.Metatarsus I with a distinct retrolateral tubercle placed ventrally at the beginning of the median third, conical, pointed and facing towards the tip of article.Ventrally, there is one spine near the apex and another one on the median third, placed much ahead of the tubercle.Fringe formed by many thick and long spiniform setae and spines (clasper) covering almost all prolateral side of the metatarsus (Fig. 4).Spines: leg I: femur d1-2-0, pld0-0-1, rld0-0-1, patella p0-0-1 left, p0 right, r0 left, 0-1-0 right, tibia p0-2-0, v0-1-1ap (apophysis), metatarsus p0-2-0, v0-1-1ap; leg II: femur d1-2-0, pld1-0 . Claws: ITC without teeth.Teeth at STC: all claws with a small spur at the basis in both sides leg I: inner 6-7 and outer rows 5-6; leg II: inner row 9, outer row 8-9; leg III: inner row 6-7, outer row 6; leg IV: inner and outer rows 6-7.Bulb (Figs 6-9): piriform and conical in a retrolateral view, with length about ¾ of its width.Embolus about 2× longer than the bulb itself, with a wide base in relation to the globose part of the bulb and tapering towards the apex.Embolus clearly curved since its base and tapering from the basal third to the apex, clearly seen both on retrolateral and prolateral views.However, in dorsal view, the embolus is just slanted, almost straight.On ventral view, spermatic duct large at the base, tapering regularly towards the tip, but much thinner from the distal third on.

Color pattern
Both sexes with carapace reddish brown, covered by abundant setae of a weakly coppery hue.Thoracic furrows and cephalic area darker.Eye area black.Legs, palps, chelicera and spinnerets dark brown, with a clear contrast to the color of carapace.Labium, sternum and leg coxae orange, with darker sigilla.Dorsum of the abdomen uniformly dark brown without markings or stripes, venter usually lighter colored than dorsum, but with a dark hue in some males.

Variation
Chelicera with 8-11 promarginal teeth.Lyra at the ventral side of the maxilla, formed by 7 to 9 modifi ed setae .The maxillary cuspules may vary from 13 to 17 in males and from 16 to 19 in females.

Synonymy and notes
When describing Mygale macrura, C.L. Koch (1841: 39)  Antilles" (Simon 1903: 963), "West Indies" (Petrunkevitch 1911: 60), or "Saint John, U.S. Virgin Islands" (Muchmore 1993: 32).All those subsequent authors did not mention any additional specimen of D. macrura and were certainly restating the information given by C.L. Koch (1841).Banks (1909: 155) was the fi rst arachnologist to record D. macrura in Cuba, from Pinar Del Rio, as "Ischnothele macrura Koch", but he made no comments on the implicit genus transfer, nor did he include any description of the specimens he examined.Lutz (1915: 77) and Petrunkevitch (1926: 27) also pointed out that D. macrura had previously been recorded from Cuba.While Lutz expressly cited Banks (1909), Petrunkevitch did not mention its source.However, he was probably also citing Banks (1909), as he stated that "Diplura macrura C. Koch, has been also reported from Cuba".In his paper on endemic spiders from Cuba, Alayón (2000: 38) also included D. macrura without any further comment.Currently, the only record for D. macrura included in the World Spider Catalog ( 2015) is Cuba, without any mention of Koch's type-locality.
Diplura bicolor was described from Caraça, Minas Gerais State, Brazil, based on two female syntypes (Simon 1889: 215).It is, currently, placed in the genus Linothele, although it was considered a Diplura by former authors (Mello-Leitão 1937;Bücherl 1957).This species was implicitly transferred to its current genus following Raven (1985: 182): "all alyrate Diplurinae […] are transferred to Linothele".As Simon (1889: 215) had not cited a lyra in his description, Diplura bicolor was regarded as a Linothele in all later spider catalogs (e.g., World Spider Catalog 2015).Notwithstanding the fact that the fi rst description of a lyra in the maxilla of Dipluridae was made by Blackwall (1867), this structure was not mentioned again until the reevaluation of its form and function by Pocock (1896).So it is clear that Simon and other former authors had not dissected the maxilla of their specimens in search for a lyra.The male of D. bicolor was supposedly described by Mello-Leitão (1937: 3, fi g. 3) and Bücherl (1957: 385, fi g. 12-12a).However, both specimens clearly belong to other species.We were able to examine the "allotypus" of D. bicolor described by Mello-Leitão, from Gustavo da Silveira, Minas Gerais state (IBSP 3452).It is a male of an undetermined species of Nemesiidae, with a distinctive copulatory bulb and a very setose pedipalp (Mello-Leitão 1937: fi g. 3).Likewise, judging by the fi gures 12 and 12a by Bücherl 1957, the male he identifi ed as D. bicolor is actually a Theraphosidae, with the typical two lobed tibial spur in leg I (Bücherl 1957: fi g. 12a) and a copulatory bulb also characteristic of that family (Bücherl 1957: fi g. 12).
Diplura uniformis (Mello-Leitão, 1923) was originally described as Thalerothele uniformis by Mello-Leitão (1923: 105).He stated that the male holotype was collected in the state of São Paulo: São Paulo, by E. Garbe, and should be deposited in Museu de Zoologia de São Paulo (MZSP, old number 321).However, Bücherl et al. (1971: 119, 122) examined a male specimen from MNRJ, collected in Ouro Preto, labeled as type of T. uniformis by Mello-Leitão [MNRJ 192, MLPC 1056].Since they were not able to fi nd any type material of the species in MZSP, they considered the MNRJ specimen as the holotype of T. uniformis.They also stated that the type-locality and repository cited in the description were wrong (Silva-Moreira et al. 2010: 32).Since a later examination of the MZSP collection by R. Baptista also did not produced any evidence of the holotype, we follow Bücherl et al. (1971) and Silva-Moreira et al. (2010) in considering the MNRJ specimen as the actual holotype of T. uniformis.The transfer of T. uniformis to Diplura was made by Platnick (1993) in his catalog, following Raven (1985).Bücherl et al. (1971: 123) also considered T. minensis Mello-Leitão, 1926 and T. aurantiaca Mello-Leitão, 1943, both described from Ouro Preto (Mello-Leitão 1926: 105 and 1943: 255, respectively) as synonyms of T. uniformis.Bücherl et al. (1971: 119) examined the female holotype of T. aurantiaca, collected in Itacolomi, Ouro Preto, by Othon Leonardos (MNRJ 53945), but not the male holotype of T minensis.In the description of Thalerothele minensis, it is stated that the holotype received the number MLPC 880.However, this number belongs to a type specimen of Opiliones, as Mello-Leitão wrote down in the catalogue of the part [or whole?] of his private collection purchased by MNRJ in 1929 (Kury & Baptista 2004).Probably the wrong number in the original description was a misprint or a lapse (Silva-Moreira et al. 2010: 32).
Unfortunately, we were not able to fi nd any Diplura material from Ouro Preto in MNRJ collection, despite several attempts.Thus, the MNRJ specimen Bücherl et al. (1971) considered as the holotype of T. uniformis and the female holotype of T. aurantiaca had also been probably lost later on.We follow Bücherl et al. (1971) on the synonymies of T. minensis and T. aurantiaca with D. uniformis, considering that all species were described from Ouro Preto and the original descriptions do not allow the recognition of any diagnostic trait.T. minensis was diagnosed in relation to T. uniformis (= D. macrura) by Mello-Leitão (1926: 11) based on the uniformly dark color of the abdomen, 7 setae on lyra and only 5 teeth on the promargin of chelicera.Nevertheless, the coloration of the venter in D. macrura males vary from a light hue to a dark color similar to dorsum, the number of setae on lyra varies between 7 to 9 and the number of cheliceral teeth varies from 8 to 11.The last character is a not reliable one, as it may be variable even in one specimen, as the 9 and 11 teeth on different sides of the male herein redescribed demonstrate.The illustrations of the holotype of T. minensis by Mello-Leitão (1926: fi gs 1-3) are poorly European Journal of Taxonomy 210: 1-21 (2016) done and not diagnostic.The similarity in color, size and lyra structure indicates that it really is a synonym of D. macrura.
T. aurantiaca is just the female of T. uniformis (= D. macrura), with the same color pattern and similar size as the males.Among the characters mentioned in the original description, only the 6 setae on lyra fall out of the range for D. macrura (7 to 9).However, the fi rst seta in the lyra is smaller and thinner than the others (Fig. 10) and the number of setae increases over age.Therefore, it is probable that the 6 setae may represent a normal variation or indicate that the holotype was a small young female.The holotype vulva poorly illustrated by Bücherl et al. (1971: fi g. 12) does not seem to be fully developed.
Apart from the reasons mentioned above, only one species has been collected in Ouro Preto, in spite of many collecting trips resulting in abundant specimens of D. macrura.Notwithstanding the loss of the types of the three species from Ouro Preto, the synonymies also avoid the proliferation of nomina dubia.
We compared specimens of Ouro Preto with specimens of D. macrura and this examination indicated that they all belong to the same species, as they share the same color pattern, structure of lyra and shape of male and female genitalia.

Habitat notes
D. macrura specimens have been found under fallen logs and rocks in relatively dry areas of Atlantic Forest or Cerrado vs Atlantic Forest ecotones.The spiders do not make funnel-webs, but applies silk to the ground or log cavities, sometimes building small entrance silk tubes.
Distribution (Fig. 26) ).The abdomen of both species have a dark brown dorsum bearing beige broad transversal stripes.In D. lineata, the stripes are short and broad, with irregular outline, covering only the side margins of the dorsum.At the sides, there are several small beige spots among and under the stripes (sometimes fused with them).On the other hand, D. sanguinea have longer and a bit thinner stripes, without connecting beige spots at the sides.The copulatory bulb is very similar in both species, but the spermatic duct is very constricted at the basis of the embolus, becoming almost fi liform afterwards, in D. lineata (Fig. 20), while in D. sanguinea the constriction is small, and the basis of embolus harbors a large duct, which tapers regularly towards the apex.The spermathecae in D. lineata (Fig. 25) have a thick stem and three distal lobules, while D. sanguinea have a thin stem and six to seven distal lobules.

Color pattern
Both sexes with carapace reddish brown, thoracic furrows and cephalic area slightly darker, sometimes all the carapace dark reddish brown.Eye area black.Chelicera reddish brown; labium, sternum and leg coxae reddish orange brown with darker sigillae.Legs orange brown.Abdomen dark brown, bearing short and large light brown transversal stripes with irregular outlines, placed only over the fl anks, many light brown spots between and underneath the stripes.Venter pale brown.

Synonymy and notes
Lucas 1857 described Mygale lineata based on a male specimen from the surroundings of the city of Rio de Janeiro.The collecting locality was probably Tijuca Forest, as many foreigners had houses or farms in the area and collecting trips to other localities were not encouraged by Brazilian government.
Considering the common practice in that time and the illustration of the habitus (Lucas 1857: fi g. 1), the male holotype was probably dried and pinned.The small abdomen seems shrunk and folded at both sides of the dorsum, what gives an impression of a median light longitudinal stripe.The holotype may be lost, as it was not found at the MNHN collection during a visit by the fi rst author and it was not located by the MNHN curator afterward.
On the other hand, the illustration depicts the typical color pattern of D. lineata.The 14.5 mm body European Journal of Taxonomy 210: 1-21 (2016) length of the immature female holotype is just a little less than the 15.3 to 23.5 mm found in D. lineata fully grown females.There are 8 teeth on the promargin of the chelicera, what is similar to the 8 to 11 teeth in D. lineata.Compared to the range of 14-19 cuspules in D. lineata, the smaller number (6-7) of T. fasciata holotype is probably due to its small age, as immature D. lineata have less cuspules on maxilla and there is a well-known increase in number of cuspules with age and size in many Mygalomorphae.Mello-Leitão (1924: 186) established Harmonicon nigridorsi (now Diplura nigridorsi) for one female holotype from the city of Rio de Janeiro.Furthermore, the redundant description of the same species (Mello-Leitão 1926: 10) also mentioned only the female holotype ("typo").Both descriptions of Harmonicon nigridorsi (Mello-Leitão 1924, 1926) are short, without mention to genitalia or any clear diagnostic trait in relation to D. lineata.When examining the type vial (MNRJ 17, MLPC 847), we found a male from the same species, besides the female holotype.Bücherl et al. (1971: 119) considered the male "tipo" (holotype) and the female as a "síntipo" (paratype), in spite of clear indication by Mello-Leitão that the holotype was a female, without mention to any additional specimen.The female holotype is badly preserved and darkened, with chelicerae, legs and most of the pedipalps separated from the body.Only the coxa (maxilla) and trochanter of the right pedipalp are still connected to the holotype body, and the maxilla of the left pedipalp is missing.Dissection of the genital area revealed an small genitalia, with lobes not completely developed, indicating that the female was not old, but show the pattern found in D. lineata (Fig. 25).The color pattern is barely visible, probably due to former events of desiccation.The original description mentioned a large dark median band on the back of abdomen, with sinuous margins, delimited by light stripes at each side.Also, there were light spots scattered over the sides.To date, the shrunk abdomen still displays the light brown transversal stripes with irregular outlines and some light brown spots underneath the stripes also found in typical D. lineata.The male (total length 19.5) was clearly erroneously included in the holotype vial and seems to have been collected later, as it is in a better state than the female, although also shrunk and darkened.The chelicerae, coxae and trochanter II-IV and left femur IV are still attached to the body.The severely shrunk abdomen still shows the light brown stripe as in the female.The copulatory bulb, lyra with 6 setae, tibia I retrolateral spur and metatarsus I tubercle are also similar to D. lineata.The illustration of the copulatory bulb by Bücherl et al. (1971: fi g. 15) is misleading, as it depicts a very elongated and wide embolus, compared to smaller and thinner embolus found in the vial, similar to D. lineata .On the other hand, the tibia and metatarsus I in fi g. 16 are accurate and similar to D. lineata (Fig. 16).
In relation to the original description, there are two numbers for the total length of the holotype of D. nigridorsi: 28 mm (Mello-Leitão 1924) and 23 mm (Mello-Leitão 1926).Probablly both numbers are wrong, but 23 mm falls in the range observed for females of D. lineata (15.3-26) and is closer to the current shrunk size of the holotype (13.5).Mello-Leitão cited only 8 cheliceral teeth, but there are also 3 small teeth he may have overlooked.He also cited 12-14 cuspules on the maxilla of the holotype.The inner corner of the right maxilla has 14 cuspules, but there is a scar on that area, what may indicates that the original number of cuspules was higher.Anyway, the number of teeth and cuspules both fall within the range of D. lineata, but there is a lot of variation in the number of those structures throughout species of Diplura.There are 5 setae in the lyra of the holotype of D. nigridorsi, just one less than the minimal number found in D. lineata.This is obviously just intraspecifi c variation, as the female is a young mature specimen.Finally, only one species of Diplura has been found in the dozens of collection trips to forested areas in Rio de Janeiro city.Following the reasons above, the three described species are considered synonyms, and D. lineata prevails as the senior synonym.

Habitat
Specimens of D. lineata have been found under fallen logs in humid areas of the Atlantic forest.The spiders do not make funnel-webs, but apply silk to the tunnels or log cavities.Sometimes they build small entrance silk tubes or connect some tubes in a small silk network inside log cavities.

Discussion
Currently, the accepted distribution of Diplura includes Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina (World Spider Catalog 2015).As discussed above, the records for D. macrura from Cuba or any other Caribbean or West Indies localities are erroneous.We have been able to examine a male of Diplura sanguinea from Arraiján: Cerro Silvestre, belonging to personal collection of Roberto Miranda.Therefore, the northernmost record known for Diplura is from a locality in central Panamá, near Panamá city.As pointed out above, Colombia should also be included in the distribution range for Diplura.
One additional remark on the distribution of Diplura is the correct type-locality of Diplura parallela (Mello-Leitão, 1923).This species is erroneously cited for Argentina in the World Spider Catalog (2015) and older catalogs.However, the holotype and only known specimen of D. parallela was collected from an unknown locality in the state of Paraná, Brazil, as Mello-Leitão (1923: 100) stated in the original description.This mistake has probably arisen from the homonymy of Paraná, a locality in the Entre-Ríos province, northern Argentina, and the state of Paraná, in southern Brazil.
Taking into account the synonymies we established in this paper, 17 valid described species remain in Diplura.Ten of the described species are recorded from Brazil, two species each from Argentina and Bolivia, and just one for Ecuador, Paraguay and Venezuela.Additionally, there are records of unidentifi ed species from Colombia and Panamá.In summary, the revised distribution range of Diplura goes from south Panamá to north Argentina.
We have only been able to analyze photos of one syntype of Linothele bicolor(Dipluridae Contributors,  2016), as it is currently in loan to another researcher, but the photos clearly show a lyra formed by 8 setae.Simon (1889: 216)  clearly cited the characteristic contrasting color pattern found in D. macrura in the original description of D. bicolor.However, he also cited some light brown spots scattered on the posterior half of the abdomen.It is possible that the syntypes cited by Simon are immature or small mature females (15.3 mm long) since isolated light brown spots on the sides of the abdomen are usually found only in immatures of D. macrura, disappearing in older males and females.Besides the syntype photos, the examination of other specimens of D. bicolor from its type-locality (Caraça, Catas Altas) and nearby areas of Minas Gerais state allow the clear recognition of the species.The examined specimens PEDROSO D.R. et al., Redescription of Diplura macrura and D. lineata agree very well to the original description of D. bicolor in color and size, except by the presence of a lyra.Furthermore, despite several collections on Caraça and other nearby localities, including extensive search for Mygalomorphae, we and other researchers had not been able to fi nd any other Diplura or Linothele species from the same region.The comparison of the above cited specimens with D. macrura from central Minas Gerais state allowed us to establish this synonymy, based on the similar color pattern and lyra.
PEDROSO D.R. et al., Redescription of Diplura macrura and D. lineata Distribution (Fig. 26)Known only from the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, restricted to the municipalities of Casimiro de Abreu, Nova Iguaçu, Rio de Janeiro and Mangaratiba.The records for Venezuela and Colombia(Simon  1889: 188)  and for the state of SantaCatarina, Brazil (Mello-Leitão 1923: 101-102) are probably erroneous.The specimens cited by Simon may belong to D. sanguinea (F.O.Pickard-Cambridge, 1896) or a related species, as we have examined specimens from Colombia belonging to that species-group.

Table 2 .
Females are very similar to males except by its bigger size and the following characteristics: carapace length/
PEDROSO D.R. et al., Redescription of Diplura macrura and D. lineata width 1.3.Clypeus very narrow, with the frontal margin carrying fi ve thick, long setae, facing forward.Eye tubercle with a thick seta on its anterior margin.Area between eyes with two longer and thicker setae.AME separated by around their diameter.PME and PLE less separated.Chelicera with 10-11 promarginal teeth, on the right and left chelicera, respectively.Plectrum with 6 thick, long setae.Maxilla with 16 (left) or 19 (right) cuspules.Lyra (Figs 10-
indicated that the type-locality of the species was "WestIndien, St. Juan".Nine years later, he transferred the species to his new genus Diplura, without mentioning the type-locality (C.L. Koch 1850: 75).The type-locality indicated by Koch 1841 was cited differently by subsequent authors, for example, "Westindien"(Ausserer 1871: 178), "St.Jean, considered Banks' record a misidentifi cation of Ischnothele longicauda Franganillo, 1936.She based her opinion on the relative abundance of the latter species in Cuba.The family Dipluridae is scarcely represented in Cuba, with only I. longicauda and two species of Masteria L. Koch, 1873 recorded for the country(World Spider Catalog 2015), not considering the erroneous D. macrura citation by Banks.Therefore, the only specimen of D. macrura undoubtedly cited for Cuba, West Indies or any other Caribbean locality is the holotype.
Surprisingly, an analysis of the holotype of D. macrura indicates that the type-locality was misinterpreted by Koch.The holotype label clearly indicates "Koch *. typ.S. João d.Rey.Sello" (Fig.1, right).On the other hand, there is an additional label (Fig.1, left) inside the vial that contains the type indicating "Macrura N. Koch.* fg.715.Cametá Sieber", referring to Cametá, a locality in the state of Pará, northern Brazil.This additional label was probably wrongly added later in the vial, as there are no records for D. macrura from Pará.Up to now, all the specimens of D. macrura we examined came only from the state of Minas Gerais.Therefore, it is clear that the type-locality is really São João del Rei, central Minas Gerais state, Brazil.Friedrich Sellow (or Sello, 1789-1831), a famous Prussian naturalist, collected a large number of zoological specimens in Minas Gerais state, such as insects(Papavero 1973)and birds only from localities in central and south Minas Gerais state, Brazil.BRAZIL, Rio de Janeiro: Rio de Janeiro, [no date], near Rio ["environs de Rio", probably Tijuca] (♂ holotype, MNHN, not located).

Table 4 .
Diplura lineata (Lucas, 1857), ♀.Length of left leg articles (dorsal view).PEDROSO D.R. et al., Redescription of Diplura macrura and D. lineataVariationTotal length may vary from 16.2 to 18.5 in males and from 15.3 to 26 in females.Cheliceral teeth on promargin varying from 8 to 11 in both males and females.The maxillary cuspules may vary between 12 and 15 in males and 14 and 19 in females.In females, the lyra is composed by 6 to 8 setae.