The headword, attested only in lexicography, is probably derived from uncompounding the form e)pitequmme/nos, the perfect middle/passive participle, masculine nominative singular, of the verb e)pitu/fomai (I am burnt up, but metaphorically I am inflamed, e.g. by love, or I am furious); see generally LSJ s.v.
The lemma might at first glance seem to be a rare variant -- or a propagated, mistaken spelling -- of tequme/nos, perfect middle/passive participle, masculine nominative singular, of the verb qu/w, I offer, I sacrifice; see LSJ s.v. This form occurs in e.g. Xenophon, Hellenica 5.1.18 (web address 1). Indeed, as Adler reports, tequme/nos was inserted above the headword in Suda ms M, and tequme/nws was substituted for the headword in ms G. But the gloss (see next note) indicates that the first alternative is more likely.
[1] The headword is identically glossed in Timaeus' Platonic Lexicon s.v. and in Photius' Lexicon (tau111 Theodoridis); aside from the present Suda entry, the lemma appears nowhere else. Adler calls attention to the similarity between the gloss and a scholion to Plato, Phaedrus 230A (web address 2). In the dialogue, Socrates wonders whether he might be a qhri/on e)pitequmme/non, a furious or rabid wild animal, but literally a beast having been completely burned up; cf. Hesychius s.v e)pitequmme/nwn and Etymologicum Magnum 458.40. To follow the arc of Adler's hint to its very end, therefore, it seems that lexicographers in late antiquity uncompounded the participle e)pitequmme/non (from the verb e)pitu/fomai, I am completely inflamed; see generally LSJ s.v.) and altered the gender to masculine, thereby deriving the headword.