Cryptodrassus helvolus ( O.P. Cambridge, 1872 ) Russell-Smith, 2017

Russell-Smith, Anthony, 2017, New species and new records of ground spiders (Araneae: Gnaphosidae) from Cyprus, Zootaxa 4329 (3), pp. 237-255 : 238-239

Cryptodrassus helvolus ( O.P. Cambridge, 1872) comb. nov.

Figs 1 ̄6

Zelotes helvolus ( O.P. Cambridge, 1872) : Levy, 1998, p. 148, Figs 120̅122.

Zelotes helvoloides Levy, 1998 , p. 150, Figs 126̅127 (f) misplaced, not Figs 123̅125 (m).

Diagnosis. Males of this species are easily distinguished from its congeners by the wide, ventrally expanded conductor, occupying almost half of the tegulum ( Figs 1 ̄3) and by the retrolateral tibial apophysis, being forwardly directed ( Figs 2, 4 ). Females are distinguished by the rounded median cavity and the absence of an anterior hood ( Fig. 5 ), present in both C. creticus Chatzaki, 2002 (Chatzaki et al., 2002, Figs 61̄62) and C. hungaricus (Balogh, 1935) ( Murphy, 2007, p. 529).

Material examined. 1 ♂, Cyprus, Agridi , near Dali , in the field, spring 2008; 1 ♀, Agridi, near Dali, in building, V.2011, all leg. D. McCowan.

Comparative material examined. Zelotes helvoloides Levy, 1998 ̄ ♀ paratype, Nahal Sekher , Negev, Israel, 6.VI. l991 ( HUJ 14655), pitfall traps, leg. Y. Lubin.

Comments. When Levy (1998) recorded Zelotes helvolus ( O.P. Cambridge, 1872) from Israel, he recognised that “ Z. helvolus shares somatic characters of the genus but deviates to an extent from the general palpal configuration found in Zelotes ” stating that he tentatively kept the species under an ”informal subgroup” of this genus. The specimens here determined as Z. helvolus have all the distinctive and other characters for the genus Cryprodrassus Miller, 1943 ( Murphy, 2007), namely: small size and pale body colouration, characteristic eye configuration (PME largest and oval, all others round, AME smallest and with black surroundings), cheliceral dentition on both retro and prolateral margins (2̄4 on PM and 2̄3 on RM), large number of trichobothria on Ti, Mt and Ta, presence of large scutum on male abdomens, preening brushes on Mt III and IV. Also the general structure of the male palps (long, thick embolus tapering at its end, characteristic sclerotised conductor, small retrolateral tibial apophysis) as well as the female spermathecae with bipartite chambers are shared among all members of the genus. It is for this reason that Z. helvolus is transferred to Cryptodrassus . In his atlas of the Gnaphosidae, Murphy (2007) commented on differences between the type species of the genus, C. hungaricus (Balogh, 1935) , and C. creticus Chatzaki, 2002 , mainly related to a difference in body size ( C. hungaricus less than 3 mm, “ C. creticus ” 3-5 mm) and in the PME (in C. hungaricus they are clearly larger than the rest of eyes and in C. creticus they are only slightly larger). However, in the absence of adequate comparative material, and because “ C. creticus ” still conforms to the generic characters, he did not create a new genus to include this species and two more from Spain, one of which seems closer to C. hungaricus and the other closer to C. creticus . While a full revision of Cryptodrassus is clearly required to define its taxonomic status, more material is required to enable this. All material here treated as Cryptodrassus is closer to the “subgroup” of C. creticus . It is noteworthy that the eye configuration (especially PME relative size, position and PME-PME interdistance) is variable and until more material of both sexes of all species becomes available, the value of this character is questionable. Apart from the male of C. helvolus , a female was collected from the same locality which is identical to that described as C. helvoloides ( Levy, 1998) (compare Figs 5, 6 and 11 of present paper with Levy (1998): p. 150, Figs 126̄127). In the original description of C. helvoloides, Levy expressed doubts about the correct matching of the two sexes because they were not found on the same locality. In fact, the female paratype of this species was collected from Nahal Seker in the Negev desert, where C. helvolus was also recorded. In our case, both sexes were captured in the same house yard and they seem to belong to the same species. We therefore propose the transfer of the female C. helvoloides to C. helvolus .

Distribution. Israel, Cyprus.

Figures

FIGURES 1 – 6. Cryptodrassus helvolus (O. P. Cambridge, 1872). 1. Male left palp, ventral view. 2. Same, retrolateral view. 3. Same, prolateral view. 4. Same, dorsal view. 5. Epigyne. 6. Vulva. Co: conductor. Arrows show the two chambers of spermathecae.

FIGURES 7 – 11. Cryptodrassus helvoloides (Levy, 1998) – Holotype (7 ̅ 10) and female paratype (11). 7. Habitus. 8. Eye region. 9. Maxillae and chelicerae. 10. Left palp, ventral view. 11. Epigyne.