Bisetifer gruzin Tanasevitch, Ponomarev & Chumachenko, 2015

Fig. 6 C, D

Bisetifer cephalotus Tanasevitch, 1987: Kovblyuk 2007: 152; Mikhailov 2013: 45; Tanasevitch et al. 2015: 445–446.

Material examined.

• 1 subad. ♂, 1 ♀ (TNU 10288), Crimea, Simferopol Distr., nr Perevalnoye Vil., western slope of Dolgorukovskaya Yaila, Kizil-Koba (= Krasnaya) Cave, 18. XII. 2019, I. S. Turbanov leg.

Comparative material.

Bisetifer cephalotus • 1 ♀ (TNU), Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Caucasus Nature Reserve, 20 km SSW of Psebay, 1 km SW of the cordon of Tshernoretshie, Urushten River bank, forest, 10. VI. 2017, A. V. Ponomarev leg.

Distribution.

The Crimean-Caucasian disjunctive: Krasnodar Territory and the Republic of Adygea, Russia. The species has been recorded from Crimea for the first time, with the Crimean Mountains being currently the westernmost part of its range (Tanasevitch et al. 2015; present data).

Records from the Crimean caves.

Map (Fig. 17 B – blue circle). Kizil-Koba Cave on western slope of the Dolgorukovskaya Yaila (present data).

Ecology.

In the Caucasus, B. gruzin inhabits humid microbiotopes (Tanasevitch 1987; Tanasevitch et al. 2015). In Crimea, it was found in the upper floors of Kizil-Koba Cave, with no permanent water flow (Kovblyuk 2007; present data). The body of the Crimean specimens is depigmented, but the eyes are well developed (see Fig. 6 D). Despite the well-studied araneofauna of Crimea, B. gruzin has never been reported from epigeic biotopes, whereas all our findings are from caves. On this basis, this species could be preliminary considered an eutroglophile.

Remarks.

In Crimea, two males of another congener, B. cephalotus, were collected earlier from Kizil-Koba Cave (Kovblyuk 2007); this material is currently stored by Valery A. Gnelitsa (Sumy, Ukraine). Since the earlier records of B. cephalotus and the newly collected specimens of B. gruzin come from the same cave, it could be suspected that they belong to the same species – B. gruzin .

In 2007, B. gruzin yet had not been described. This could have been the reason for erroneous identification, as Bisetifer species are better identified by the females (see Fig. 6 B, C), while the males have a rather similar conformation of diagnostically important characters. Possible mistakes in the identification of B. cephalotus for Crimea were discussed by Tanasevitch et al. (2015), and their conclusion has been confirmed by present data.