Hengconarius longpuensis Z. Zhao & S. Li, 2018

Li, Bing, Zhao, Zhe, Zhang, Chuntian & Li, Shuqiang, 2018, Nuconarius gen. n. and Hengconarius gen. n., two new genera of Coelotinae (Araneae, Agelenidae) spiders from Southwest China, Zootaxa 4457 (2), pp. 237-263 : 258

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4457.2.2
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:14E0CDBB-CB72-4026-979B-E4BAC3CEA62E
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5979259
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B09B56CA-9390-46DF-B38F-8DE8A99C40FC
taxon LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:act:B09B56CA-9390-46DF-B38F-8DE8A99C40FC
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Hengconarius longpuensis Z. Zhao & S. Li
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Hengconarius longpuensis Z. Zhao & S. Li View in CoL sp. n.

FIGS 17–18 View FIGURE 17 View FIGURE 18 , 20 View FIGURE 20

Type material. Holotype: ♂ ( IZCAS-AR33980 ), LONGPU VILLAGe (28.53412°N, 98.451050°E, eLeV. 2873 M), CAWARONG TOWNSHIP, ZAYü, Tibet, China, 14 SePTeMBeR 2014, J. LIU LeG GoogleMaps . Paratypes: 1♀ 1♂ ( IZCAS-AR33981 , 33982 ), SAMe DATA AS HOLOTYPe .

Etymology. THe SPeCIFIC NAMe IS DeRIVeD FROM THe PINYIN "LONGPU" AND ReFeRS TO ITS TYPe LOCALITY, LONGPU VILLAGe; ADjeCTIVe.

Diagnosis. THe MALeS ARe SIMILAR TO H. exilis BUT CAN eASILY Be DISTINGUISHeD FROM H. exilis BY THe PALP SHORTeR THAN THe TARSUS; THe TARSUS AS LONG AS THe TIBIA (TARSUS AS TWICe LONG AS THe TIBIA IN H. exilis ), TWO BRANCHeS OF CONDUCTOR THAT DIFFeR IN LeNGTH BUT IN H. exilis , TWO BRANCHeS BeING OF THe SAMe LeNGTH ( FIGS 9B View FIGURE 9 , 17B View FIGURE 17 ); MeDIAN APOPHYSIS LONGeR THAN IT IN H. exilis ( FIGS 9C View FIGURE 9 , 17C View FIGURE 17 ). THe FeMALeS CAN Be eASILY DISTINGUISHeD FROM H. exilis BY POSTeRIOR ePIGYNAL SCLeRITe BROAD, THe HeIGHT OF IT IS ABOUT ½ THe HeIGHT OF ePIGYNe BUT IS TWICe AS ITS IN H. exilis ( FIGS 10A View FIGURE 10 , 18A View FIGURE 18 ); THe DISTANCe BeTWeeN SPeRMATHeCAe IS TWICe AS LONG AS THe DIAMeTeR OF SPeRMATHeCA WHILe IN H. exilis , THe DISTANCe IS SUBeqUAL TO THe DIAMeTeR ( FIGS 10B View FIGURE 10 , 18B View FIGURE 18 ).

Description. Male (holotype): TOTAL LeNGTH 8.34. CARAPACe 3.85 LONG, 2.81 WIDe. ABDOMeN 4.49 LONG, 2.97 WIDe. EYe SIZeS AND INTeRDISTANCeS: AME 0.12, ALE 0.22, PME 0.14, PLE 0.16; AME–AME 0.08, AME–ALE 0.06, AME–PME 0.12, ALE–PLE 0, PME–PME 0.12, PME–PLE 0.13. LeG MeASUReMeNTS: I 13.54 (3.53, 4.38, 3.21, 2.42); II 12.37 (3.21, 3.91, 3.06, 2.19); III 10.97 (3.02, 3.38, 3.01, 1.56); IV 15.09 (3.85, 4.25, 4.49, 2.50). Palp: patellar apophysis absent, RTA square slice-shaped; LTA short, approximately ⅓ the length of RTA; cymbial FURROW SHORT, LeSS THAN ½ THe LeNGTH OF CYMBIUM; eMBOLIC BASe BeGINNING AT 8 O’CLOCK POSITION; CONDUCTOR SHORT AND BIFURCATe, TWO BRANCHeS SLICe-SHAPeD AND POINTeD; MeDIAN APOPHYSIS THIN AND STRAIGHT, NOT SPOON-SHAPeD ( FIGS 17A–C View FIGURE 17 ).

Female (paratype): TOTAL LeNGTH 9.94. CARAPACe 4.81 LONG, 3.25 WIDe. ABDOMeN 5.13 LONG, 3.25 WIDe. EYe SIZeS AND INTeRDISTANCeS: AME 0.14, ALE 0.19, PME 0.16, PLE 0.17; AME–AME 0.15, AME–ALE 0.10, AME– PME 0.23, ALE–PLE 0, PME–PME 0.20, PME–PLE 0.24. LeG MeASUReMeNTS: I 11.79 (3.21, 4.24, 2.59, 1.75); II 11.47 (3.48, 3.75, 2.75, 1.49); III 10.16 (3.13, 3.39, 2.13, 1.51); IV 14.44 (3.85, 4.81, 3.75, 2.03). EPIGYNe: MIDDLe SePTUM LONG BUT NOT ReACHING THe POSTeRIOR eDGe OF ePIGYNe; ANTeRIOR ePIGYNAL SCLeRITe STRONG, WITH OBVIOUS WRINKLeS; THe HeIGHT OF IT IS LeSS THAN ½ OF THe ePIGYNAL HeIGHT; THe HeIGHT OF POSTeRIOR ePIGYNAL SCLeRITe ABOUT ½ THe ePIGYNAL HeIGHT WHILe IN THe MIDDLe OF POSTeRIOR ePIGYNAL SCLeRITe NARROW, ONLY ABOUT ¼ THe ePIGYNAL HeIGHT; ATRIUM slit-shaped; spermathecae separated, the width about ¾ the length, the distance between spermathecae 2½ the DIAMeTeR OF SPeRMATHeCA AT THe ANTeRIOR PART AND TWICe AS ITS AT THe POSTeRIOR PART; SPeRMATHeCAL HeADS SITUATeD ANTeROLATeRALLY; THe WIDTH ABOUT ¼ THe LeNGTH OF FeRTILIZATION DUCT ( FIGS 18A–B View FIGURE 18 ).

Variation: TOTAL LeNGTH VARIeS FROM 8.34 TO 9.94.

Distribution. TIBeT, CHINA ( FIG. 20 View FIGURE 20 ).