Clubiona decora Blackwall, 1859
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4353.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7D342E35-8D42-4C3D-9903-49E5F08D7D34 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6020660 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03EF9555-0905-FF9E-1DD1-FB77109FFF2C |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Clubiona decora Blackwall, 1859 |
status |
|
Clubiona decora Blackwall, 1859 View in CoL
( Figs 1–8 View FIGURES 1–8 ; Map 1)
Clubiona decora Blackwall, 1859: 256 View in CoL (♂, type series from Madeira, without further locality, J. Y. Johnson leg.; not examined, deposition unknown); Wunderlich, 1987: 241, 434, fig. 645b (♀).
Microclubiona decora ; Wunderlich, 1992: 35, 482, fig. 758 (♂).
Diagnosis. Clubiona decora differs from all other species of the genevensis group by the male palpal tibia slightly longer than wide ( Fig. 3 View FIGURES 1–8 ), whereas it is nearly twice as long as wide in C. diniensis and as long as wide in the other species, the narrow and sharp RTA, and the origin of the embolus in the median part of bulbus Fig. 4 View FIGURES 1–8 ), which is in the basal or distal part in the other species. Females are recognized by the epigyne with ventral margin interrupted medially, the small spermathecae distantly separated from the longitudinal copulatory duct ( Figs 6–8 View FIGURES 1–8 ) and the thin, convoluted copulatory ducts.
Description. See Wunderlich (1987, 1992).
Material examined. PORTUGAL: Madeira: Lombo do Coelho , 1 ♂ 1 ♀, 13.V.2005, J. Van Keer leg. (CRB).
Distribution. Kulczyński (1899) compared Clubiona specimens from France and Germany with material from Madeira and identified them as the same species, although their fig. 105 clearly shows the elongated tibial apophysis of C. decora and fig 101–104, 106 the much shorter tibial apophysis of C. genevensis . This confusion of Clubiona decora with C. genevensis has led to several misidentifications which sometimes still figure in modern catalogues. Citations of Bertkau (1890, 1893) from Italy and Portugal, of Chyzer & Kulczyński (1897) from Croatia, Hungary and Romania, of Kulczyński (1898) from Austria and of Lessert (1904) from Switzerland are based on Chyzer & Kulczyński’s view (1897) and must be considered incorrect. Denis (1962) emphasizes there are clearly two different species which are readily separated by the shape of their genital organs. Tyschchenko (1971) mentions C. decora from Russia, and this was already corrected by Mikhailov & Fet in 1986, but is still mentioned in the World Spider Catalogue (2017) under C. decora . Until further proof, C. decora is limited to Madeira, Porto Santo and the Azores. Citations from Portugal, Italy and the Balkans mentioned in Nentwig et al. (2017) probably refer to other species of the genevensis group.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Clubiona decora Blackwall, 1859
Bosmans, Robert, Henrard, Arnaud, Benhalima, Souâd & Kherbouche-Abrous, Ourida 2017 |
Microclubiona decora
Wunderlich 1992: 35 |
Clubiona decora
Wunderlich 1987: 241 |
Blackwall 1859: 256 |