Xantharia Deeleman-Reinhold, 2001
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1181.108822 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1DF5630C-7459-4525-892B-647A84C2098F |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D7A2B085-B6BB-53DC-8EE1-725B329B6E79 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Xantharia Deeleman-Reinhold, 2001 |
| status |
|
Genus Xantharia Deeleman-Reinhold, 2001
Type species.
Xantharia floreni Deeleman-Reinhold, 2001 from Malaysia.
Composition.
Xantharia is endemic to Southeast Asia, and three species are currently included: X. floreni Deeleman-Reinhold, 2001 (♂♀) from Malaysia, X. galea Zhang, Zhang & Fu, 2010 (♂♀) from China, and X. murphyi Deeleman-Reinhold, 2001 (♂) from Indonesia.
Diagnosis.
The genus resembles Arabelia Bosselaers, 2009 as the males (cf. Figs 6 View Figure 6 , 9 View Figure 9 and Bosmans 2011: 20, figs 15, 16) have a similar wide and nearly elliptical embolic base (Figs 6B View Figure 6 , 9B View Figure 9 ), a membranous conductor (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ), a long looping sperm duct (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ), a retrolateral tibial apophysis (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ) and females have similar globular secondary spermathecae (Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ), but can be distinguished by the endites with a diagonal depression in the middle (Figs 8B, D View Figure 8 , 10C View Figure 10 ; absent in Arabelia ), by the legs I distinctly stouter than legs II-IV (Figs 8A-D View Figure 8 , 10A-C View Figure 10 ; vs. legs strength uniform in Arabelia ), by the anterior tibiae and metatarsi spineless (Figs 8A-D View Figure 8 , 10A-C View Figure 10 ; present in Arabelia ), by the copulatory openings small (Fig. 7A View Figure 7 ; vs. copulatory openings large in Arabelia ), and by the fertilization ducts originating medially (Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ; vs. fertilization ducts originating posteriorly in Arabelia ). The genus also resembles Drassinella Banks, 1904 as the males have similar shape and position of embolus and sperm duct (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ), membranous conductor (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ) and retrolateral tibial apophysis (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ), but can be distinguished by the legs I distinctly stouter than legs II-IV (Figs 8A-D View Figure 8 , 10A-C View Figure 10 ; vs. legs strength uniform in Drassinella ), by the anterior tibiae and metatarsi spineless (Figs 8A-D View Figure 8 , 10A-C View Figure 10 ; present in Drassinella ), by the palpal femur without apophysis (Figs 8A, B View Figure 8 , 10A-C View Figure 10 ; vs. palpal femur with retroventral apophysis, surface with tiny denticles in Drassinella ), by the epigynal field with or without anterior hood (Fig. 7A View Figure 7 ; vs. epigynal field with indistinct anterior ridge in Drassinella ), and by the fertilization ducts originating medially (Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ; vs. fertilization ducts originating posteriorly in Drassinella ).
Description.
See Deeleman-Reinhold (2001).
Discussion.
Xantharia is placed in Liocranidae based on the following combination of characters: posterior median eye tapeta forming 90° angle ( Ramírez 2014), endites with a diagonal depression in the middle like Drassinella Banks, 1904 and Jacaena Thorell, 1897 (e.g., Platnick and Ubick 1989; fig. 778 in Deeleman-Reinhold 2001; fig. 1C in Liu et al. 2020), anterior tibiae and metatarsi spineless, like in Sphingius Thorell, 1890 (e.g., Zhang et al. 2009), shape and position of embolus and sperm duct like Arabelia Bosselaers, 2009 and Drassinella (e.g., figs 1, 5 in Platnick and Ubick 1989; fig. 3D in Mu and Zhang 2022), most of the epigynal field anteriorly hood like Arabelia , Mesiotelus Simon, 1897 and Sphingius (e.g., figs 18, 27 in Zhang et al. 2009; fig. 4A in Mu and Zhang 2022; figs 4-7, 15-18 in Coşar et al. 2023). At the same time, Xantharia of Liocranidae can be distinguished from Miturgidae by the posterior median eye tapeta forming 90° angle (Fig. 11A-C View Figure 11 ), but grate-shaped in Miturgidae (e.g., fig. 14a in Raven 2009), eight eyes in two rows, AER slightly recurved, PER almost straight in dorsal view (Fig. 11A-C View Figure 11 ), but PER slightly procurved to recurved in Miturgidae (e.g., fig. 1c in Raven 2009), cymbium without retrolateral groove (Figs 6C View Figure 6 , 9C View Figure 9 ), but present in Miturgidae (e.g., figs 140B, 145C-F in Ramírez 2014; figs 2D, 3D-E in Sankaran and Sebastian 2019; figs 1C, 2C in Sánchez-Ruiz et al. 2020), RTA without canal and membranous area (Figs 6A-C View Figure 6 , 9A-C View Figure 9 ), but present in Miturgidae (e.g., figs 6c, 14e in Raven 2009; fig. 146B in Ramírez 2014). The genus can also be distinguished from Clubionidae in Asia by the posterior median eye tapeta forming 90° angle (Fig. 11A-C View Figure 11 ), but absent in Clubionidae ( Ramírez 2014), endites with diagonal depression in the middle (Figs 8B, D View Figure 8 , 10C View Figure 10 ), but absent in Clubionidae (e.g., figs 1G, 2G in Zhang et al. 2021a; figs 2H, 4H in Zhang et al. 2021b; figs 2H, 12H in Zhang et al. 2021c), ocular area covering three-fifths of the anterior width of the carapace (Figs 8A, C View Figure 8 , 10A View Figure 10 ), but four-fifths in Clubionidae (e.g., figs 1F, 2F in Zhang et al. 2021a; figs 2E, 4E in Zhang et al. 2021b; figs 2E, 8E in Zhang et al. 2021c), wall of the primary spermathecae and secondary spermathecae almost uniform (Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ), but bursae thin-walled and spermathecae thick-walled in Clubionidae (e.g., figs 6D, 8D in Zhang et al. 2021a; figs 2D, 4D in Zhang et al. 2021b; figs 14D, 16D in Zhang et al. 2021c).
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.