Hygrocrates lycaoniae (Brignoli, 1978)

Kunt, Kadir Bogac, Yagmur, Ersen Aydin, Oezkuetuek, Recep Sulhi & Kaya, Rahsen S., 2011, The genus Hygrocrates Deeleman-Reinhold, 1988 (Araneae, Dysderidae) in Turkey, ZooKeys 85, pp. 1-16: 7-10

publication ID


publication LSID


persistent identifier


treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Hygrocrates lycaoniae (Brignoli, 1978)


Hygrocrates lycaoniae (Brignoli, 1978)  Figs 223436, 38

Harpactocrates lycaoniae  : Brignoli, 1978: 463, f. 2, 8 (D ♂).

Harpactocrates lycaoniae  .: Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1988: 240, f. 13, 22, 320-325 (T ♂ from Harpactocrates, D ♀).

Harpactocrates lycaoniae  .: Dunin, 1992: 41, f. 3 (♂ ♀).

Material Examined:

1 ♂, 1 ♀ (SMF) (abdomen heavily damaged during dissection) Burdur Province, Yeşilova District, side of Salda Lake [37°30'32.78"N, 29°41'56.66"E], 14.VII.2010, leg. E.A. Yağmur & M. Elverici.


Hygrocrates lycaoniae  can be distinguished from Hygrocrates caucasicus  by the pyriform shape of the bulbus (bulbus smooth and cylindrical in Hygrocrates caucasicus  ) (see Dunin 1992); and from Hygrocrates georgicus  by having apically oval-shaped spermathecae (see Mcheidze 1972).


Hygrocrates caucasicus  was originally described on the basis of two males by Dunin (1992). The females of this species have not been collected yet, but the bulbal structures of the male palp were well illustrated by Dunin (1992). However, the information of Hygrocrates georgicus  is still insufficient. The following information was given by Dunin (1992: p. 60) in his review of the Caucasian Dysderidae  (our translation!): "H. georgicus was described on the basis of the female holotype from Georgia: the vicinity of Tbilisi, Kodzhori, Udzho. The holotype was lost. The species was tentatively placed in Hygrocates by Deeleman-Reinhold and Deeleman (1988). To confirm their placement addition material is required. This species is absent from my collection." During the preparation of this paper, as a result of our correspondence with the Tbilisi Janashia Museum (Georgia) which retains the spider collection of Tamara Mcheidze, it is obvious that the holotype of this species is lost (S. Otto pers. comm.). Thus, we could not examine it, but on the basis of the original illustrations of the vulva by Mcheidze (1972), Hygrocrates georgicus  can be distinguished from the Turkish members of the genus by the linear distalmost part of spermathecae.

Measurements (♂ / ♀):

AL 3.36 / ?; CL 2.40 / 3.00; CWmax 2.20 / 2.44; CWmin 1.52 / 1.76; AMEd 0.14 / 0.16; PLEd 0.13 / 0.15; PMEd 0.11 / 0.12; ChF 0.77 / 0.79; ChG 0.45 / 0.50; ChL 1.30 / 1.46. Leg measurements are given in Table 3.


General features of the body of Hygrocrates lycaoniae  closely resemble the new species (Figs 22-29), Hygrocrates deelemanus  sp. n., but the two are easily differentiated by their different body sizes and by structures of the male and female genitalia (Figs 30-33, 35-38). The males of the two species are easily distinguished in ventral view (90° angle) by the terminal part of the bulbus having the following characteristics:

1. Embolic base is pear-shaped in the two species, but the tip of the embolic base located at 12 o’clock in Hygrocrates deelemanus  sp. n. (Fig. 37) and at 10 o’clock in Hygrocrates lycaoniae  (Fig. 38).

2. Apophysisa and Apophysisb are short and blunt in Hygrocrates deelemanus  sp. n. (Fig. 37), but long in Hygrocrates lycaoniae  (Fig. 38).

3. Apophysisb originates near the tip of the embolic base in Hygrocrates deelemanus  sp. n. (Fig. 37), but originates from the central part of the tip of the embolic base in Hygrocrates lycaoniae  (Fig. 38).

4.Embolus is curved between Apophysisa and Apophysisb in Hygrocrates deelemanus  sp. n. (Fig. 37), but is raised from the embolic base and separated from Apophysisa and Apophysisb in Hygrocrates lycaoniae  (Fig. 38).

The females of the two species are easily distinguished by the form of the proximalmost part of the spermathecae which is oval in Hygrocrates deelemanus  sp. n. (Figs 20-21) and circular in Hygrocrates lycaoniae  (Fig. 34). Details of leg spination are given in Table 4.