Stenosfemuraia pilosa ( González-Sponga, 2005 )

Huber, Bernhard A. & Arias, Quintin, 2017, Revision of the Venezuelan spider genus Stenosfemuraia González-Sponga, with new generic and specific synonymies (Araneae, Pholcidae), Zootaxa 4341 (4), pp. 495-508: 503-507

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4341.4.3

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C476AF75-EF79-4C6E-9E16-9CC14540B25F

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/7B0FFC7F-FFD5-FFE3-56E5-FC71FC028C27

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Stenosfemuraia pilosa ( González-Sponga, 2005 )
status

n. comb.

Stenosfemuraia pilosa ( González-Sponga, 2005)  n. comb.

Figs 28–40View FIGURES 28 – 34View FIGURES 35 – 40, 49–52View FIGURES 41 – 52

Codazziella pilosa González-Sponga, 2005: 100  , pl. 1, figs 1–9 (♂ ♀).

Chichiriviche costanero González-Sponga, 2011: 41  ; pl. 3, figs 1–8 (♂ ♀). New synonymy.

Justification of synonymy. Type specimens (see Notes below) of both species were compared directly and found to be identical in all relevant aspects: procursus tip, bulbal processes, bipartite cheliceral apophyses, and epigynum shape.

Diagnosis. Males are easily distinguished from congeners by shape of procursus ( Figs 51–52View FIGURES 41 – 52; wide in dorsal view, with subdistal side branch, with distinctive tip); from S. parva  also by armature of male chelicerae ( Fig. 37View FIGURES 35 – 40; one pair of bipartite frontal apophyses); from both species also by wider femora (0.29–0.34 versus 0.19–0.21 in S. parva  and ~ 0.13 in S. cuadrata  ); females differ from congeners by absence of sclerotized lateral elements of epigynal plate ( Figs 32View FIGURES 28 – 34, 39View FIGURES 35 – 40) and by non-contiguous pore plates ( Figs 34View FIGURES 28 – 34, 40View FIGURES 35 – 40). Males and females also differ from congeners by absence of brown lateral bands on carapace ( Figs 28, 30View FIGURES 28 – 34); from S. cuadrata  also by shorter legs (♂ tibia 1 L/d: <30 versus ~60; ♂ tibia 1: <3.5 versus>5.0; ♀ tibia 1: <3.0 versus>3.0).

Type material. VENEZUELA: Aragua: 12♂ 18♀ 10 juvs types (see Notes below) of Codazziella pilosa  , MIZA ( GS 1387View Materials), Municipio Tovar, Pico Codazzi , 2000 m a.s.l. [~ 10.411°N, 67.309°W; see Notes below], 22.i.1994 (A.R. Delgado de González , M.A. González-Sponga), 3♂ 3♀ examined by BAHGoogleMaps  .

Vargas: 3♂ 1♀ 1 juv. types (see Notes below) of Chichiriviche costanero  , MIZA (GS 853), El Portachuelo, 1200 m a.s.l. [~ 10.450°N, 67.244°W; see Notes below], 24.x.1981 (A.R. Delgado de González, M.A. González- Sponga), all examined by BAH.

Other material examined. VENEZUELA: Aragua: 2♂ 4♀, ZFMK (Ar 18254), forest above Colonia Tovar (10.417°N, 67.300°W), ~ 2100 m a.s.l., under dead leaves on ground, 26.xi.2002 (B.A. Huber)GoogleMaps  . 3♀ 2 juvs, ZFMK (Ar 18255), Colonia Tovar, forest at El Picacho (=Pico Codazzi) (10.408°N, 67.308°W), ~ 2200 m a.s.l., under dead leaves on ground, 27.xi.2002 (B.A. Huber). 4♂ 2♀, MNHN (Ar 10052 part), with Simon’s label “14653 Psil.— Tovar!”, no further data [leg. E. Simon, 1887–88]. 4♂ 8♀ 12 juvs, MNHN (Ar 1702), with Simon’s label “Psilochorus tovarensis E.S. Tovar!”, no further data [leg. E. Simon, 1887–88].

Redescription. Male ( ZFMK Ar 18254). MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 3.3, carapace width 1.35.

Distance PME-PME 100 µm, diameter PME 100 µm, distance PME-ALE 90 µm, distance AME-AME 15 µm, diameter AME 30 µm. Sternum width/length: 0.85/0.55. Leg 1: 13.5 (3.3 + 0.4 + 3.4 + 5.0 + 1.4), tibia 2: 2.2, tibia 3: 1.8, tibia 4: 2.4; tibia 1 L/d: 26. Femora 1–4 width (at half length): 0.34, 0.33, 0.29, 0.30.

COLOR (in ethanol). Carapace pale ochre-yellow with brown median mark including ocular area and clypeus ( Fig. 28View FIGURES 28 – 34); sternum ochre-yellow, slightly darker along median line; legs ochre-yellow, femora and tibiae with indistinct subdistal darker rings; abdomen pale gray, dorsally and laterally with large dark bluish internal marks, ventrally with brown plate in front of gonopore, with short bluish mark behind gonopore.

BODY. Habitus as in Figs 28–29View FIGURES 28 – 34; ocular area raised; carapace elevated, with deep median furrow; clypeus and sternum unmodified.

CHELICERAE. With one pair of bipartite frontal apophyses ( Fig. 37View FIGURES 35 – 40).

PALPS. As in Figs 35–36View FIGURES 35 – 40; coxa with retrolatero-ventral apophysis; trochanter barely modified; femur with retrolatero-ventral process proximally and large ventral apophysis distally; procursus wide in dorsal view, with distinct tip and small subdistal pointed process ( Figs 51–52View FIGURES 41 – 52); bulb with two dorsal processes, distal apophysis almost straight ( Figs 49–50View FIGURES 41 – 52).

LEGS. Without spines; many curved hairs on tibiae and metatarsi 2–3, few weakly curved hairs on tibiae and metatarsi 4; few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 9%; prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1; tarsus 1 with ~17 pseudosegments, distally distinct.

Male (variation). Tibia 1 in 14 other males: 2.8–3.4 (mean 3.1). Internal abdominal marks (including ventral mark behind gonopore) less distinct in types.

Female. In general similar to male but carapace less elevated ( Figs 30–31View FIGURES 28 – 34), legs with few curved hairs on tibiae 2 and 3 only, femora much thinner (~0.20–0.22). Tibia 1 in 19 females: 2.0–2.5 (mean 2.3). Epigynum as in Figs 32–33View FIGURES 28 – 34, 38–39View FIGURES 35 – 40, with large protruding weakly sclerotized area in front of brown epigynal plate, without dark lateral sclerites, posterior margin evenly curved; posterior plate simple. Internal genitalia as in Figs 34View FIGURES 28 – 34 and 40View FIGURES 35 – 40, with pair of non-contiguous pore-plates, membranous median sac, and anteriorly diverging sclerites/‘wings’.

Natural history. Specimens were collected from forest leaf litter ( BAH) and from under twigs and rocks ( González-Sponga 2005, 2011). At Tovar they were common under palm leaves and other leaves providing shelter. Males and females were often found together.

Distribution. Known from medium to high elevation forests (1200–2200 m a.s.l.) in Aragua (Tovar area) and Vargas states, Venezuela ( Fig. 1View FIGURE 1).

Notes. For Codazziella pilosa, González-Sponga (2005)  reported 1♂ holotype (“1387a”), 1♀ paratype (“1387b”), and 9♂ 30♀ adult paratypes without specific collection number. Only one vial was found at MIZA, labeled “1387” and containing 12♂ 18♀ 10 juvs. The label says “Pico Codazzi, Dtto Ricaurte, Ar” (which differs only with respect to administrative units from the locality as published in the original description: “Pico Codazzi, Municipio Tovar, Estado Aragua) and gives “ 22-i-94 ” as collection date (which agrees with the date in the original description). We suspect that this is the entire type series and that a holotype was never physically separated from this series (as in S. cuadrata  which was described in the same paper; see above). Since the identity of the species is beyond doubt, and since the holotype might just be misplaced rather than lost, we prefer not to designate a neotype and to treat the type specimens unspecifically as “ types ”.

For Chichiriviche costanero, González-Sponga (2011)  reported 1♂ holotype (“853a”), 1♀ paratype (“853b”), and 3♂ (adult) 1 juv. paratypes without specific collection number. Only one vial was found at MIZA, labeled “853” and containing 3♂ 1♀ 1 juv. The label says “ El Portachuelo, via Puerto Cruz, D.F. ” (which differs only with respect to descriptors and administrative units from the locality as published in the original description: “ El Portachuelo, bifurcación de la carretera Puerto Cruz—Chichiriviche de la Costa, Estado Vargas) and gives “ 24-10- 81 ” as collection date (which agrees with the date in the original description). This series obviously includes the female “853b”, but may not include the male holotype  . Since the identity of the species is beyond doubt, and since the holotype might just be misplaced rather than lost, we prefer not to designate a neotype.

Exact coordinates of the two type localities are not known to us, but the coordinates in González-Sponga (2005, 2011) are clearly wrong (for Codazziella pilosa  about 20 km from Pico Codazzi, in Miranda state; for Chichiriviche costanero  about 1800 km [!] N of Chichiriviche  ).

In González-Sponga (2011), the distribution of the monotypic genus Chichiriviche  is given as “Parque Nacional Henri Pittier, Estado Aragua ”. The type locality (and single locality reported in the original description) of C. costanero  is about 18 km E of the eastern limits of Henri Pittier National Park, in another state (as also noted by González-Sponga 2011). We suspect that this is just one of many lapsi in this paper.

Several measurements in the original descriptions are clearly wrong, e.g. for Codazziella pilosa  : all male leg 3 measures except for femur and patella; for Chichiriviche costanero  : ♀ femur 4 (2.52, i.e. longer than femur 1; should be 1.9, i.e. shorter than femur 1); ♀ tibia 4 (2.45; should be 1.8).

MIZA

Museo del Instituto de Zoologia Agricola Francisco Fernandez Yepez

BAH

Biologische Anstalt Helgoland Marine Station

ZFMK

Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Pholcidae

Genus

Stenosfemuraia

Loc

Stenosfemuraia pilosa ( González-Sponga, 2005 )

Huber, Bernhard A. & Arias, Quintin 2017
2017
Loc

Codazziella pilosa González-Sponga, 2005 : 100

Gonzalez-Sponga 2005: 100
Loc

Chichiriviche costanero González-Sponga, 2011 : 41

Gonzalez-Sponga 2011: 41