Pseudonemesia parva Caporiacco, 1955

Rafael Prezzi Indicatti & Osvaldo Villarreal M., 2016, Pseudonemesia tabiskey, a new species of Pseudonemesia Caporiacco 1955 and new ultramorphological data for the Microstigmatinae (Araneae: Microstigmatidae), Journal of Natural History 50 (33), pp. 2153-2167 : 3

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2016.1196297
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7A2310C6-6CC0-4391-B2AB-5DA0A2AC3574
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6058678
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039D87D1-3C58-581E-71BD-F050FDCBFA3A
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Pseudonemesia parva Caporiacco, 1955
status

Treatment

Genus Pseudonemesia Caporiacco 1955

Pseudonemesia Caporiacco, 1955: 266 (type species by monotypy, Pseudonemesia parva Caporiacco, 1955 View in CoL ); Raven and Platnick 1981: 17, figs 5, 13, 27, 31, 35, 45, 49 – 52; World Spider Catalog 2015.

Diagnosis

Males of Pseudonemesia differ from those of Micromygale, Microstigmata Strand, 1932, Ministigmata, Xenonemesia and Envia by the oval palpal bulb and short, blunt embolus, curved to ventral side ( Figures 1 View Figure 1 (a – e), 2(a,b), 11(a); Raven and Platnick 1981, figs 45, 47, 48; Goloboff 1993, fig. 3); and elevated pars thoracica ( Raven and Platnick 1981, fig. 51). Females can be distinguished from the Spelocteniza and above-mentioned genera (except from Microstigmata) by the wide spermathecal bases and no twisted ducts ( Figure 1 View Figure 1 (f)). It can be distinguished from Microstigmata by the absence of labial cuspules ( Figure 6 View Figure 6 (d)); presence of corrugated trichobothrial bases ( Figure 5 View Figure 5 (c,d); and no encrusting cuticule with dirt or debris ( Figure 6 View Figure 6 (a – f)). In addition, Pseudonemesia resembles Envia by the elongated cymbium lacking an anterior notch ( Figure 2 View Figure 2 (c – e); Goloboff 1993, fig. 3); palpal bulb resting in a cymbial cavity ( Figure 1 View Figure 1 (a,e); Goloboff 1993, Figure 3 View Figure 3 ); serrula with widely separated teeth and greatly flattened ( Figure 8 View Figure 8 (c)); modified comb-shaped setae on prolateral border of the maxilla ( Figure 8 View Figure 8 (b, d)); presence of flattened scaly cuticle with highest distal ends, without digitiform pustules ( Figure 4 View Figure 4 (c,d); and tarsal organ about two-fifths away from the anterior edge ( Figure 4 View Figure 4 (a,c,d)); all also here considered as diagnostic features for the Pseudonemesiini. It can be distinguished from Envia by lacking apical paraembolic apophysis on the palpal bulb ( Figures 1 View Figure 1 (a – e), 2(a,b), 11(a)); presence of spines on cymbium ( Figures 1 View Figure 1 a,e, 2(c – f); Raven and Platnick 1981, figs 45, 48); tarsal organ rounded in lateral view and twice as elevated ( Figure 5 View Figure 5 (b)); and elevated spermathecal bases ( Figure 1 View Figure 1 (f); Raven and Platnick 1981, fig. 54).