Genus Panjange Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983

Panjange Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983: 123–124 .

Type species by original designation: Panjange lanthana Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983 .

Panjange – Deeleman-Reinhold 1986a: 47, Fg. 6; 1986b: 220. — Huber 2001: 118–119; 2011: 108–110.

Note on species groups

Previous work on Panjange has identiFed three species groups, the nigrifrons group on Borneo, the widespread cavicola group (Sulawesi to northern Australia) and the previously monotypic lanthana group on the Philippines (Deeleman-Reinhold & Platnick 1986; Huber 2011). The present cladistic analysis largely recovers these three groups, but the cavicola group is considered paraphyletic (Fig. 1).

The present paper focuses on the lanthana group A separate paper on the nigrifrons group is in preparation, as is a molecular phylogeny of the entire genus and of its relationships to other Pholcinae.

IdentiFcation key

This key is primarily designed to identify species groups of Panjange and species of the lanthana group. It mostly works for males and females, but females remain difFcult to identify. An examination of the cleared internal genitalia may be necessary (step 7); geography rather than morphology may help to separate females (step 2); in one species, the female is unknown ( Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov.; step 4).

1. Male chelicerae with distal frontal apophyses (Fg. 472 in Huber 2011); female epigynal scape short or absent (Fgs 473, 492 in Huber 2011); known only from Borneo......................... nigrifrons group

– Male chelicerae without distal frontal apophyses, only with pair of proximal processes (e.g., Figs 17, 40, 66); epigynal scape long and strongly folded (e.g., Figs 22, 36, 67)........................................... 2

2. Embolus parallel to male bulbal process (appendix); known from Sulawesi to Australia .................. ...................................................................................................................................... cavicola group

– Embolus and bulbal appendix pointing in opposite directions (e.g., Figs 18, 64, 69); known from the Philippines only ..................................................................................................... lanthana group...3

3. Eight eyes (AME present; lenses clearly visible in dissecting microscope); without pointed processes arising from male eye triads (Fg. 441 in Huber 2011); procursus with two distal hinged processes (Fgs 436, 437 in Huber 2011)......................... Pa. lanthana Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983

– Six eyes (AME absent; rarely tiny, barely visible in dissecting microscope and apparently nonfunctional: Fig. 45), with pointed processes arising from male eye triads (e.g., Figs 17, 28, 66, 76); procursus with only one distal hinged process .................................................................................. 4

4. Procursus extremely wide and strongly curved (Fig. 91); eye stalks short, with spines contacting each other (Fig. 90); bulbal processes (embolus and appendix) very short (Fig. 91).......................... ............................................................................................................... Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov.

– Procursus, male ocular area, and bulbal processes different ............................................................. 5

5. Male palpal segments (distal of trochanter) extremely long (femur about 15 × as long as wide; Figs 64, 65); female epigynal scape extremely long (Fig. 67) ........... Pa. hamiguitan Huber sp. nov.

– Male palpal segments shorter (femur less than 7 × as long as wide; e.g., Figs 19, 25, 39); female epigynal scape shorter (e.g., Figs 22, 29, 72) .................................................................................... 6

6. Male clypeus without spines; dorsal tarsal elongation very long (Figs 18, 24); male procursus asymmetric; female epigynal scape directed toward posterior.......................................................... 7

– Male clypeus with spines (Figs 71, 76, 81); dorsal tarsal elongation short (Figs 70, 75, 80); male procursus symmetric; female epigynal scape directed toward anterior (Figs 72, 77, 82) ................. 9

7. Male eye stalks short (Fig. 17); spines on male eye stalks short, not contacting each other; pore plates round (Fig. 23)............................................................................... Pa. malagos Huber sp. nov.

– Male eye stalks very long (Figs 28, 35); spines on male eye stalks long, contacting each other (Fig. 49); pore plates oval (Figs 30, 37)................................................................................................................... 8

8. Male palpal trochanter with only one long retrolateral apophysis (Fig. 25); male palpal tarsal elongation widening distally (Fig. 24); female epigynal scape with two lobes (Fig. 29).................... ................................................................................................................ Pa. casaroro Huber sp. nov.

– Male palpal trochanter with two short retrolateral apophyses (Fig. 39); male palpal tarsal elongation not widening distally (Fig. 38); female epigynal scape simple (Fig. 36) ......... Pa. camiguin Huber sp. nov.

9. Appendix of genital bulb with simple curved tip (Fig. 69); male palpal retrolatero-ventral trochanter apophysis with simple rounded tip (Fig. 70); female epigynal scape without widening (Fig. 72) ..... ..................................................................................................................... Pa. isarog Huber sp. nov.

– Appendix of genital bulb with biFd tip (Figs 74, 79); male palpal retrolatero-ventral trochanter apophysis biFd (Figs 75, 80); female epigynal scape with widening (Figs 77, 82) ........................ 10

10. Retrolateral process on procursus massive, with parallel ridges (Fig. 75); female internal genitalia with large lateral structures and elongate pore plates (Fig. 78) ................ Pa. dinagat Huber sp. nov.

– Retrolateral process on procursus smaller, with two pointed tips (Fig. 80); female internal genitalia without large lateral structures and roundish pore plates (Fig. 83) .......... Pa. marilog Huber sp. nov.

Cladistic analysis

Preliminary analyses including all available species of Panjange (all 18 described species plus Fve undescribed species) revealed that the highly aberrant Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov. was also the most difFcult to place in the cladogram. It ended up at three different positions, resulting in many trees and a consensus with large polytomies. For this reason, Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov. was deleted from the Fnal matrix. It may be correctly placed in the lanthana group but its sister taxon remains unknown (see Monophyly and relationships below).

One potentially informative character system was also largely deleted from the Fnal matrix. The apophyses and processes on the male palpal trochanter come in a wide variety of numbers, shapes and positions, and it seemed impossible to code them in a convincing way. Only one detail was left in the matrix (Appendix 3, character 10).

Using NONA with hold/100, mult*200 (or hold/10; mult*10.000), and amb- for the matrix in Appendix 1 and equal character weights resulted in two most parsimonious cladograms with a length of 37 (Ci = 70; Ri = 90). Variation occurred only among outgroup taxa and in the support for the monophyly of Panjange (characters 15 and 20, or only character 20). The cladogram shown in Fig. 1 is the strict consensus of these two cladograms.

Using TNT with the implicit enumeration algorithm resulted in the same two trees, as did successive weighting in NONA (with the consistency index as weighting function). Implied weighting in Pee-Wee (which resolves character conFict in favor of the characters that have less homoplasy) was used with various settings of the constant of concavity K (1–6) to explore the stability of different clades under different weighting regimes. Major differences to the tree shown in Fig. 1 occurred only with K=1 and K=2, which resulted in large polytomies and no support for the monophyly of Panjange . However, even in these trees, the monophyly of the lanthana group was consistently recovered as was its close relationship to the cavicola group. The only difference within the lanthana group concerned the position of Pa. hamiguitan Huber sp. nov., which was not sister to Pa. isarog Huber sp. nov. + ( Pa. dinagat Huber sp. nov. + Pa. marilog Huber sp. nov.) but placed in a basal tetrachotomy.