TEGENARIA ARGAEICA NOSEK, 1905 STAT. REV.

(FIGS 15C–F, 18G, H)

Tegenaria argaeica Nosek, 1905: 136–138, pl. IV, fig. 15a, b.

Tegenaria boitanii Brignoli, 1978c: 518, 519, figs 94, 95, only female (misidentification); the male belongs to Tegenaria percuriosa Brignoli, 1972 (see Gasparo, 2007).

Malthonica argaeica: Guseinov et al., 2005: 164 .

Types

Syntypes. Turkey: Kayseri: ‘ Asia Minor: Erdschias Dagh, Nordseite’, 1 ♂, 1 ♀ (NHMW), v.1902, Penther. Sub Tegenaria boitanii: Paratypes. Turkey: Ankara: Kizilcahamam, 2 ♀ (MCSN, 544), 16.vii.1971, Brignoli ; Bolu: Abant, 1 ♀ (MHNG), 17.vii.1971, Brignoli .

Other material examined

Turkey (2 ♂) .

Diagnosis

Tegenaria argaeica is closely related to Tegenaria lyncea Brignoli, 1978, and Tegenaria pseudolyncea Guseinov, Marusik & Koponen, 2005 . Useful figures of both related species were provided by Guseinov et al. [2005: figs 57, 58, 63–68, 122–123 ( Teg. lyncea), 51, 53–56, 59–62, 100, 101, 125 ( Teg. pseudolyncea)]. The most important characters for the separation of Teg. argaeica are the small denticles at the dorsal branch of the RTA (absent in the other species), and the much longer and stronger convoluted duct of the vulva (shorter and less convoluted in the other species).

Description

Nosek (1905) provided a very detailed description of this species, including measurements and leg spination patterns. This description is sufficient except for the drawing of the epigyne. Good pictures of the male palp are, for example, the SEM photographs provided by Seyyar, Demir & Topçu (2008).

Distribution

Reported from central/northern Turkey. Its occurrence in Bulgaria (Drensky, 1942) is doubtful, because

no reference or newly collected specimens are available (Deltshev, 1993).

Discussion

The original description of Teg. argaeica is very detailed and precise. However, the drawing of the epigyne (Nosek, 1905: plate IV, fig. 15b) does not correspond to the female paratype. Drensky (1942) listed the species from Bulgaria and provided a drawing of the epigyne, which he may have copied from Nosek (Brignoli, 1978c). The specimens from Drensky’s work are not available for examination (Deltshev, 1993). Seyyar et al. (2008) redescribed Teg. argaeica without mentioning this problem.

Based on the examination of fresh material, Gasparo (2007) showed that the Teg. boitanii of previous authors is a mixture of species (males not conspecific with females). The male holotype of Teg. boitanii corresponds to Teg. percuriosa, with which he synonymized Teg. boitanii . He further mentioned that females of Teg. boitanii sensu auct. may represent an undescribed species. The examination of the paratype of Teg. argaeica and the two females of Teg. boitanii from Kizilcahamam showed that they are conspecific. Additionally, the descriptions of female Teg. boitanii and Teg. argaeica match each other (Nosek, 1905; Brignoli, 1978c).