Cicurina (Cicurella) ezelli Gertsch 1992

Paquin, Pierre & Dupérré, Nadine, 2009, of 60 troglobitic species of the subgenus Cicurella (Araneae: Dictynidae), and a first visual assessment of their distribution, Zootaxa 2002, pp. 1-67 : 23-24

Cicurina (Cicurella) ezelli Gertsch 1992

( Figs 36–37, 133)

Cicurina ezelli Gertsch 1992: 99 , figs 61–62 (description of female). — Jackman 1997: 162; Paquin & Hedin 2004: 3241, 3243–3245, 3253.

HOLOTYPE female: “ Texas; Hays County, Ezell’s Cave, Located at San Marcos, September 7, 1963 J. Reddell, D. McKenzie, R. Ballinger ”. Examined ( AMNH).

Description. Female holotype

Total length: 5.40; carapace length: 2.65; carapace width: 1.80. Eyes absent. Cheliceral promargin right side with 3 teeth (2 large, 1 small), left side likewise; retromargin right side with 6 denticles (2 large, 4 small), left side with 5 denticles (2 large, 3 small). Leg I: total length: 8.85; femur: 2.45; patella: 0.90; tibia: 2.20; metatarsus:2.10; tarsus: 1.20; leg IV: total length: 9.55; femur: 2.55; patella: 0.80; tibia: 2.35; metatarsus: 2.60; tarsus: 1.25. Tarsal claw IV: 0.20. Epigynum: 0.308. Epigynal ventral plate with moderate transverse slit, bearing medial, very deep, inverted U-shaped indentation; atrium square, almost completely intruded by dome-shaped dorsal plate, atrial aperture small; bursa not enlarged nor fused; copulatory ducts hardly separated at midpoint, reaching top of primary lobe apex; copulatory ducts constriction located medially; primary pores visible (1 seen); stalk short, straight, obliquely directed, joining the primary lobe at the aperture of the dictynoid pore; dictynoid pore rounded; primary lobe hat-shaped; secondary lobe absent; fertilization canal long, externally positioned from the dictynoid pore; fertilization duct medially attached to the primary lobe base.

Distribution. Only reported from the type locality: Ezell’s Cave (Hays County, Texas, Fig. 133).

Remarks. Male unknown. The holotype vial contained the female holotype and three immature specimens that are not mentioned in Gertsch (1992). The holotype label was written as “ Cirucina ezzelli ”, and this misspelling was corrected in Gertsch (1992).