Priscula gularis Simon, 1893

Huber, Bernhard A., Meng, Guanliang, Dupérré, Nadine, Astrin, Jonas & Herrera, Mauricio, 2023, Andean giants: Priscula spiders from Ecuador, with notes on species groups and egg-sac troglomorphism (Araneae: Pholcidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 909, pp. 1-63 : 23-25

Priscula gularis Simon, 1893

Priscula gularis Simon, 1893a: 319 .

Priscula gularis – Simon 1893b: 477 — Huber 1997: 595, figs 17–19; 2000: 129, figs 495–500.

Physocyclus gularis – Brignoli 1981: 96, figs 8–10, 25.

Remarks

Our sample of sequenced material includes several specimens that appear very close to or even conspecific with the type species P. gularis . This species or species complex is badly in need of revision but this will require restudying the type material (a loan request remained unanswered) and more focused collecting. Here, we only point out the problematic identity of the type species, explaining the “ gularis ?” and “ cf. gularis ” in Fig. 1 .

No detailed illustrations are available of the type material of P. gularis . The lectotype and the female paralectotype originate from “Quito” (without further specification), but the drawings in Brignoli (1981) and Huber (1997) are based on Eugène Simon’s specimens from “Nariguel” (or “Narigual”), a locality we were not able to identify. Simon (1893a, b) never mentioned these specimens, meaning that they cannot be considered types (contra Brignoli 1981). The drawings in Huber (2000) are based on specimens from Baños (~ 130 km S of Quito), which were collected in 1937 and which appear identical to a newly collected male from Desierto de Palmira (code of sequenced juvenile from this locality: EB083). We thus speculate that the male from Desierto de Palmira and the sequenced juvenile EB083 might be true P. gularis .

The sequenced juvenile from Desierto de Palmira is genetically closest to a female specimen from between Guano and Ilapo (EB020; distance 5.5%) but we have no male from this locality. Morphologically, the Desierto de Palmira male is also very similar to a newly collected male from near Zhud (EB077), but in this case, the genetic distance is already at 7.2%. Surprisingly, a newly collected male from Baños (EB084) is morphologically quite clearly different from the old (1937) Baños males, but the genetic distances to the previous specimens are almost the same as among those specimens, i.e. ~7–8%. Similar distances were also found between these specimens and a further “ cf. gularis ” specimen (EB127) from near El Ángel (~ 110 km NE of Quito), a further locality from which we have no male. Genetic distances between all these “ gularis ?” and “ cf. gularis ” specimens and the morphologically very distinct P. llaviucu sp. nov. are only slightly higher (8.7–9.2%) suggesting that several species might be represented by our “ cf. gularis ” specimens.

Two further closely related potential species (“ P. Dup55” and “ P. Ecu5”) are included in our molecular dataset and shown in the distribution map ( Fig. 4A ), but not formally described because no males are available. The CO1 K2P–distance between the two sequenced specimens was 7.8%, and distances to other specimens of the gularis group ranged from 7.6–12.3%. The distribution map ( Fig. 4A ) shows a further potential species, “ P. Dup140” that we tentatively assign to the gularis group, but we were not able to extract DNA from the single available female.

New material examined (identity unclear, see above)

“ gularis ?”

ECUADOR – Chimborazo • 1 ♂; Guamote, Desierto de Palmira ; 2.0322° S, 78.7440° W; 3250 m a.s.l.; under rocks, deserted region; 27 Feb. 2017; E. Tapia, A. Tapia, and I. Tapia leg.; ZMH A2590 • 1 juv., in pure ethanol; Desierto de Palmira ; 2.075° S, 78.758° W; 3230 m a.s.l.; under dead wood on the ground; 23 Sep. 2021; B.A. Huber and M. Herrera leg; ZFMK Ecu167 • 2 ♀♀; Guano, Via Guano-Ilapo ; 1.6037° S, 78.5907° W; 2680 m a.s.l.; 7 Mar. 2020; N. Dupérré, A.A. Tapia, and E.E. Tapia leg.; ZMH A14888–9 .

“ cf. gularis ”

ECUADOR – Carchi • 1 ♀; near El Ángel ; 0.6178° N, 77.9261° W; 3240 m a.s.l.; degraded forest in ravine; 2 Oct. 2021; B.A. Huber and M. Herrera leg.; MECN–ARAC–31–T , in ZFMK Ar 24091 • 1 ♀, 1 juv., in pure ethanol; same collection data as for preceding; ZFMK Ecu222 – Cañar • 1 ♂; S Zhud , ravine above road; 2.4790° S, 78.9978° W; 2960 m a.s.l.; 22 Sep. 2021; B.A. Huber and M. Herrera leg.; MECN–ARAC–32–T , in ZFMK Ar 24092 • 2 juvs, in pure ethanol; same collection data as for preceding; ZFMK Ecu162 – Tungurahua • 1 ♂; S Baños ; 1.4134° S, 78.4340° W; 2100 m a.s.l.; degraded forest along river; 24 Sep. 2021; B.A. Huber and M. Herrera leg.; MECN–ARAC–33–T , in ZFMK Ar 24093 and ZFMK Ecu168 (2 legs in pure ethanol) • 1 juv., in pure ethanol; same collection data as for preceding; ZFMK Ecu168 .

“Ecu5”

ECUADOR – Pichincha • 1 ♀; between San Juan and Chiriboga , ‘site 2’; 0.2327° S, 78.7497° W; 1900 m a.s.l.; forest at roadside; 15 Sep. 2021; B.A. Huber and M. Herrera leg.; ZFMK Ar 24113 • 3 juvs, in pure ethanol; same collection data as for preceding; ZFMK Ecu124 .

“Dup55”

ECUADOR – Cotopaxi • 2 ♀♀; San Francisco de Las Pampas, OTONGA Natural Reserve ; 0.4199° S, 79.0062° W; 1995 m a.s.l.; 4–7 Sep. 2014; N. Dupérré, E.E. Tapia, and C.A. Tapia leg.; QCAZ • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding but 12 Nov. 2014; QCAZ • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding but Jan. 2013; QCAZ • 1 ♀, sequenced specimen; same collection data as for preceding but 5–7 Sep. 2014; ZFMK Ar 24189 .

“Dup140”

ECUADOR – Azuay • 1 ♀; Nabon ; 3.3289° S, 79.0508° W; 2700 m a.s.l.; 5 Mar. 2020; N. Dupérré, A.A. Tapia, and E.E. Tapia leg.; ZFMK Ar 24190 .

Figures

Fig. 1; continued in Fig. 2. Relationships of Priscula derived from an unpartitioned analysis of molecular data using IQ-Tree and the ClipKIT kpic-smart-gap trimming strategy. Numbers on the branches are SH-aLRT supports (%). The tree shows only the ingroup. For the complete tree (incl. outgroups), and for clade support using different partitioning and alignment strategies, see Supplementary Figures S1–S3. Photos on the right, from top: Priscula llaviucu Huber sp. nov.; P. espejoi Huber sp. nov.; P. binghamae (Chamberlin, 1916); P. pastaza Huber sp. nov.; P. “Tri18-11”.

Fig. 4. Known distribution of Priscula in Ecuador. A. Representatives of the gularis group. Circles: P. gularis (TL=type locality) and specimens treated herein as “P. gularis?” and “P. cf. gularis”. Squares: other Ecuadorian representatives of the gularis group. B. Representatives of the andinensis group (red) and binghamae group (blue) in Ecuador. The background colors indicate biogeographic regions of Ecuador (as far as relevant for Priscula, i.e., Andean regions from western foothill forests to eastern foothill forests), taken from Torres-Carvajal et al. (2019).