Euophrys flordellago Richardson, 2010, n. sp
| Main Author: | Barry J. Richardson |
|---|---|
| Format: | info publication-taxonomictreatment Journal |
| Terbitan: |
, 2010
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
https://zenodo.org/record/6205395 |
Daftar Isi:
- Euophrys flordellago n. sp. Figs 2 E, 3 H, 56–62 E. saitiformis: Braul et al. 1997: 146 –147, figs 7–9. (male misidentified). Etymology. A combination of letters, to be treated as a noun in apposition. Remarks. The illustration of the male of E. saitiformis by Braul et al. (1997) based on material from Brazil, matches the abdominal colour pattern of this species but not that of E. saitiformis (Fig. 96). The fact that the external female genitalia of the two species are indistinguishable and different from that of other species may have misled these workers. Type material: Holotype: ♀, Villarrica, Flor del Lago Ranch, Chile, 72.13 °W, 39.20 °S, 11 December 2003, I. Avila et al, hand (BJR 974, MNNC 6805) . Paratype: 1 ♀, Villarrica, Flor del Lago Ranch, Chile, 72.13 °W, 39.20 °S, 12 December 2001, E. Arias et al. (BJR 1001, CAS 9029849). Diagnosis. Females of the species are distinguishable from the other species of Euophrys in Chile, except E. saitiformis, by the external morphology of the epigynum. The spermatheca is larger than the fossa and lies immediately posterior to it. It is distinguishable from E. saitiformis by the internal anatomy of the insemination duct which is uncoiled (Fig. 58), unlike that of E. saitiformis (Fig. 98). The animals also have black rather than yellow chelicerae and patterned rather than the plain yellow legs seen in E. saitiformis (Figs 3 H vs. 3 E). The males of the species, though not seen, should be distinguishable from the other species of Euophrys in Chile, except E. tehuelche, by the presence of black chelae and by the pattern of black markings on the legs (Fig. 3 H) not seen on E. tehuelche (Fig. 3 G). Description. Male: If it follows the pattern of the other species in this genus in Chile, the male will be similar in colouring to the female and therefore the Braul et al. (1997) description is of this species, then: Cephalothorax dark brown, a little lighter in the thoracic region with a lighter area around the fovea, white hairs on the posterior region. Yellowish bristles around the eyes. Chelicera with two promarginal teeth arising from a single base and a single retromarginal tooth. Clypeus narrow. Endites and labium dark brown. Sternum orange. Dorsal abdomen beige with darker patterning as in Fig. 57, ventral abdomen with scattered spots. Legs beige with brown areas. Palp (Figs 60–61): tibia with a thin and very long apophysis. Tegulum large and tapering, embolus sinuous, arising from the margin of the tegulum. Dimensions (after Braul et al. 1997): CL 2.26, EFL 1.58, CW 1.64, AL 2.17, SL 0.86, L 1 5.0 0 (1.42 + 0.86 + 1.14 + 1.0 2 + 0.56), L 2 3.88 (1.20 + 0.64 + 0.80 + 0.76 + 0.48), L 3 4.50 (1.30 + 0.64 + 0.80 + 1.26 + 0.50), L 4 4.70 (1.40 + 0.64 + 0.90 + 1.18 + 0.58). Female (holotype): Cephalothorax; pars cephalica orange, PLE surroundings black, pars thoracica pale yellow, with pale orange markings, not darker around lower margin. Clypeus narrow, pale-yellow. Chelicerae vertical, yellow, with two promarginal teeth and one retromarginal tooth. Endites, labium, sternum and ventral abdomen yellow. Abdomen pale yellow, elliptical with pair of parallel light brown bands leading to black patterning posteriorly (Fig. 56). Spinnerets yellow. All legs yellow. L 1, femur with three dorsal and two distal dorsolateral spines. Patella with one pair of dorsolateral spines. Tibia and metatarsus with three and two pairs of ventrolateral spines, respectively. Similar spination on other legs to L 1, except all have three distal spines rather than two on the femur and L 3 tibia has four pairs of ventrolateral spines. Epigynum (Figs 58–59): poorly sclerotised, with two anterior fossae directed posteriorly and with distinctive, well separated copulatory openings. Insemination ducts relatively short and direct, spermathecae placed directly posterior to the fossae and much larger than the fossae, pear-shaped, with pointed fertilization ducts on anterior dorsal edge. Dimensions (holotype): CL 2.29, EFL 0.93, CW 1.55, AEW 1.49, AMEW 0.93, PEW 1.42, SL 0.93, L 1 3. 5 4 (1. 1 8 + 0. 6 8 + 0. 6 8 + 0. 5 0+ 0. 5 0), L 2 3. 6 6 (1. 1 8 + 0. 6 8 + 0. 6 8 + 0. 6 2 + 0. 5 0), L 3 4. 7 7 (1.49 + 0.68 + 0.93 + 0.80 + 0.87), L 4 4.83 (1.49 + 0.68 + 0.93 + 1.11 + 0.62). Distribution. Known only from type locality, and southeastern Brazil (Braul et al. l 997).
- Published as part of Barry J. Richardson, 2010, A Review of the Jumping Spider Fauna (Araneae: Salticidae) of Chile, pp. 1-49 in Zootaxa 2418 on pages 24-26, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.194411