taxonID	type	description	language	source
03F787E27474983952B129717AD5FD59.taxon	description	(Figs 1 – 2)	en	Sherwood, Danniella, Cobo, Stephany Arizala, Dunlop, Jason A., Tsavalas, Alexis Tinker-, Geci, Donard, Lucas, Sylvia M., Brescovit, Antonio D. (2025): Reidentification of historical specimens assigned to Cupiennius oculifer (Karsch, 1879) (Araneae: Trechaleidae). Zootaxa 5723 (1): 138-142, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5723.1.8, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5723.1.8
03F787E27474983952B129717AD5FD59.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Holotype ♀ Phoneutria oculifera (ZMB 2979 a), Mexico, no other data, examined. Other specimens (non-conspecific) found in jar with holotype. 2 ♀ Cupiennius salei (ZMB 2979 b – c), examined; 1 imm. Cupiennius sp. (ZMB 2979 d), examined.	en	Sherwood, Danniella, Cobo, Stephany Arizala, Dunlop, Jason A., Tsavalas, Alexis Tinker-, Geci, Donard, Lucas, Sylvia M., Brescovit, Antonio D. (2025): Reidentification of historical specimens assigned to Cupiennius oculifer (Karsch, 1879) (Araneae: Trechaleidae). Zootaxa 5723 (1): 138-142, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5723.1.8, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5723.1.8
03F787E27474983952B129717AD5FD59.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Consulting the ZMB database, the original catalogue entry for ZMB 2979 — the holotype — reads [sic] “ Phoneutria oculifera Karsch *, ♀. 1 spir; Mexico;?; * ibid, p. 350, 1) fig. ”. This implies that there was originally only a single female preserved in the alcohol collection; i. e., it was never pinned and dry. Unfortunately, there is no data about the collector, or for a specific locality / region within Mexico contained in the accession book nor the formal description by Karsch (1879). Upon examination of the specimen jar, we found that it now contains four large spiders, all similar in size and habitus, and based on size only it is not immediately obvious which of these should be considered as the holotype described by Karsch (1879). As an additional complication, the original catalogue number was overlooked and the material was re-registered, probably ca. 2001, as ZMB 35183 with the data “ Phoneutria oculifera (Karsch, 1879), 3 ♀, 1 juv; Mexico; Type ”, with later pencil annotations of “ ex 2979 ” and the “ Type ” entry emended to “ syn-Type ”. The newer catalogue entry also picks up the fact that there are now four spiders, one of which is immature. The jar contains three labels (Fig. 1 E). These read “ Mexico 2979 ” (the original catalogue number) and “ ZMB Kat Nr. 35183 ”. There is also a larger label which reads “ Cupiennius Sallii; Keys. 1876; (= Phoneutria oculifera Karsch 1879); [Strand rev.] ”. This name obviously refers to C. salei. What is unclear from the available data is when, and why, three additional spiders were placed in the same jar. Embrik Strand, who wrote the aforementioned jar label, worked as an assistant in the Berlin collection from ca. 1907 – 1922. We have to entertain the possibility that when Strand examined Karsch’s material, perhaps picking up the synonymy of P. oculifera with C. salei by Petrunkevitch (1911), he added some specimens of the latter species to the original jar. However, there is no documentary evidence to confirm this and there are no other examples of C. salei recorded in ZMB. However, the illustration in Karsch (1879: fig. 2; also here as Fig. 1 F) matches only one of the specimens, leaving us in no doubt which specimen in the series constitutes the holotype. The resemblance of the original drawing of Karsch (1879) to Ancyclometes is considered merely coincidental and an artefact of the bad quality of the illustration. Illustrations in Karsch’s work and that of many of his contemporaries are heavily schematic and should not be scrutinised with the same level of assumption of accuracy as modern illustrations. Indeed, disparity between nineteenth and early twentieth century original drawings of holotypes and subsequent photographs of the same specimens can be found elsewhere (World Spider Catalog 2025), although it is outside the scope of this work to discuss these unrelated cases in detail. As noted by Sherwood & Caleb (2024), poor drawing-only spider descriptions are problematic as authors may have missed or misinterpreted characters of the genitalia, but this can only be discovered and revealed through examination of the specimens (and / or photographs of the specimens). With the identity of the holotype clarified, we dissected this specimen (Fig. 1 B, H) to assess the morphology of the epigyne and vulva (Figs 2 A – D). The examination of the specimen showed that it presents lateral plates of the epigyne ending before connecting to the anterolateral end of the epigynal plate, a median septum enlarged anteriorly, globose seminal receptacles, and coiled seminal ducts (see Barth & Cordes 2008: figs 8 a, 16). These characteristics undoubtedly indicate that Cupiennius oculifer is a senior synonym of C. foliatus F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901 syn. nov., known from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama. Other excellent illustrations of the genitalia of this species can be found in earlier works under the junior synonym C. foliatus and other species names that were later synonymized with C. foliatus (see Lachmuth et al. 1985; Barth & Cordes 1998, and Barth 2001, for examples). The three other specimens originally found in this jar are two adult females of C. salei (Figs 1 A, D, G, J, 2 E – F) and one subadult female of Cupiennius sp. (Fig. 1 C, I), and all are non-types. This case demonstrates the complexities that arise when examining historical museum material where non-type material has been mixed with type material in a time before modern curatorial standards.	en	Sherwood, Danniella, Cobo, Stephany Arizala, Dunlop, Jason A., Tsavalas, Alexis Tinker-, Geci, Donard, Lucas, Sylvia M., Brescovit, Antonio D. (2025): Reidentification of historical specimens assigned to Cupiennius oculifer (Karsch, 1879) (Araneae: Trechaleidae). Zootaxa 5723 (1): 138-142, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5723.1.8, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5723.1.8
