Cybaeus consocius Chamberlin and Ivie
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4965.3.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:94FB89CF-2083-4FAC-AE60-B8CCF1D5FE8E |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4752602 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038B87C3-1900-BE29-FF3A-6DA2FE069CA2 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Cybaeus consocius Chamberlin and Ivie |
status |
|
Cybaeus consocius Chamberlin and Ivie View in CoL
Figs 2–9 View FIGURES 1–4 View FIGURES 5–9 , 16–17 View FIGURES 13–17 , 20 View FIGURES 20–22 , 84 View FIGURE 84
Cybaeus consocius Chamberlin and Ivie 1932: 25 View in CoL , fig. 61. Roewer 1954: 90. Bonnet 1956: 1301. Roth and Brown 1986: 3. Bennett 2006: 481, figs 23–25. Copley et al. 2009: 372, fig. 7. World Spider Catalog 2021.
Cybaeus marinensis Chamberlin and Ivie 1932: 25 View in CoL , fig. 60. Roewer 1954: 91. Bonnet 1956: 1302.
Cybaeus angelus Chamberlin and Ivie 1942: 16 View in CoL , fig. 50. Roewer 1954: 9. Roth and Brown 1986: 3.
Cybaeus mariensis: Roth and Brown 1986: 4 (incorrect subsequent spelling of C. marinensis View in CoL ).
Type material examined. U.S.A.: California: Holotype female of C. consocius, Marin County , no date, R . V . Chamberlin ( AMNH), subsequently lost . Neotype male of C. consocius , designated by Bennett (2006), Marin County, south end of S.P. Taylor State Park, 1.xi.1953, V . D. Roth & G. Marsh ( AMNH) . Holotype female of C. angelus . Los Angeles County, Los Angeles , no date, no collector ( AMNH) . Holotype female of C. marinensis . Marin County, no date, R . V . Chamberlin ( AMNH) .
See discussion of type material and synonymy in Bennett (2006).
Other material examined. U.S.A.: California: Marin. 1♀, E slope Mt Tamalpais, 14.v.1952, H.S. Dybas ( FMNH); 2♂ 3♀, Muir Woods, 5.ix.1927 ( AMNH); 1♀, Muir Woods , 24.x.1953, V.D. Roth ( CAS); 1♀, Ring Mountain Preserve , S of Corte Madera, 18.xii.1982, V.F. Lee ( CAS); 3♀, Ross Bald Hill , 1.iii.1991, D. Ubick & T. Briggs ( CAS); 1♀ San Anselmo, San Rafael Ridge, 19.ix.1995, L.G. Freihofer ( CAS); Mendocino. 4♀, near Lake Mendocino , P. R. Craig & C. Kirsch ( CAS); Napa. 3♀, 2mi. W Oakville, 31.xii.1953 ( AMNH); 1♀, 3 mi W Oakville , 15.ii.1954, V.D. Roth & R. O. Schuster, ( AMNH); 1♀, 7 mi. W Oakville, 15.ii.1954 ( AMNH); 2♀, 7 mi. W Oakville , 13.xii.1957, L.M. Smith & R.O. Schuster ( CAS); 3♀, Skyline Park, Camp Coombs , 22.i.1999, T. Briggs, W. Rauscher & D. Ubick ( CAS); San Francisco. 1♀, San Francisco, Marx ( MCZ); Santa Clara. 2♀, Alum Rock Park , 22.ii.2013, I.M. Sokolov ( CAS); Solano. 1♀, Cordelia , 14.9 mi N of Benicia, 9.ii.1964, P. R. Craig & D.L. Craig ( CAS) .
Diagnosis. The male of C. consocius is unlikely to be confused with the males of the other species in the consocius group and is diagnosed by the unique forked tip of the proximal arm of the tegular apophysis ( Figs 3–4 View FIGURES 1–4 , 20 View FIGURES 20–22 ). In ventral view the two forks are at right angles to each other with the larger, ventral-most fork directed prolaterally and featuring a sharp-edged longitudinal ridge medially along the ventral surface while the smaller fork is directed proximally and resembles the keel of a sailboat. The female of C. consocius is only likely to be confused with the females of C. hesper or C. hummeli spec. nov.; those three species have similar vulval morphology featuring, in dorsal view, a distinctive U-shaped proximal loop of each copulatory duct ( Figs 7 View FIGURES 5–9 , 15 View FIGURES 13–17 , 25 View FIGURES 23–26 ). In C. consocius and C. hesper the atrium is undivided and of an inverted U-shaped form ( Figs 5–14, 16–17 View FIGURES 5–9 View FIGURES 10–12 View FIGURES 13–17 ); in C. hummeli spec. nov. the atrium is divided into a pair of longitudinal slits or depressions separated by a medial convex septum ( Figs 23–24, 26 View FIGURES 23–26 ). The females of C. consocius and C. hesper can be separated by differences in atrial and copulatory duct morphology. The medial area of the atrium between the lateral arms of the inverted “U” in C. consocius is smoothly concave ( Figs 5, 9 View FIGURES 5–9 , 16 View FIGURES 13–17 ) versus laterally concave and medially convex ( Fig. 13 View FIGURES 13–17 ) in C. hesper . The copulatory ducts in C. consocius are attached to the lateral margins of the atrium and extend at best only slightly anterior of the anterior margin of the atrium ( Figs 6–8 View FIGURES 5–9 , 17 View FIGURES 13–17 ); in C. hesper the copulatory ducts are attached to the anterolateral margins of the atrium and extend well anterior of the anterior margin of the atrium ( Figs 14–15 View FIGURES 13–17 ).
Description. Ventral tibia I macrosetae: 2-1p-2-1p-0.
Male: (n=3). Length of patellar apophysis about 3/4 width of patella, six small peg setae dorsally and around tip ( Fig. 2 View FIGURES 1–4 ). Measurements (n=3). CL 2.20, 2.25, 2.6; CW 1.58, 1.68, 1.85; SL 1.11, 1.13, 1.27; SW 1.05, 1.07, 1.21. Neotype is largest specimen.
Female: (n=31). Copulatory ducts ( Figs 6–8 View FIGURES 5–9 , 17 View FIGURES 13–17 ) somewhat membranous, contiguous or separate at atrium. Spermathecal stalks well separated ( Fig. 7 View FIGURES 5–9 ). Measurements (n=14). CL 1.60–2.43 (2.11±0.23), CW 1.09–1.57 (1.44±0.15), SL 0.88–1.17 (1.08±0.08), SW 0.81–1.10 (1.01±0.08). Holotypes: C. consocius CL 2.20, CW 1.53, SL 1.12, SW 1.04; C. angelus CL 2.30, CW 1.57, SL 1.13, SW 1.04; C. marinensis CL 2.43, CW 1.70, SL 1.17, SW 1.10.
Distribution and natural history. Coastal California from southern Mendocino County to northern Santa Clara County ( Fig. 84 View FIGURE 84 ). Most records are from the San Francisco Bay area. Following Bennett (2006), we believe the record from the Los Angeles area (a single specimen, the holotype of C. angelus ) to be erroneous: no other species of the consocius group is known to range that far south and no further specimens of C. consocius have been recorded from the Los Angeles area subsequent to the original description of C. angelus . This record is not included on the distribution map. Also see distribution discussion under C. hesper . Mature males have been collected in September and November.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Cybaeus consocius Chamberlin and Ivie
Bennett, Robb, Copley, Claudia & Copley, Darren 2021 |
Cybaeus mariensis:
Roth, V. D. & Brown, W. L. 1986: 4 |
Cybaeus angelus
Roth, V. D. & Brown, W. L. 1986: 3 |
Roewer, C. F. 1954: 9 |
Chamberlin, R. V. & Ivie, W. 1942: 16 |
Cybaeus consocius
Copley, C. R. & Bennett, R. & Perlman, S. J. 2009: 372 |
Bennett, R. G. 2006: 481 |
Roth, V. D. & Brown, W. L. 1986: 3 |
Bonnet, P. 1956: 1301 |
Roewer, C. F. 1954: 90 |
Chamberlin, R. V. & Ivie, W. 1932: 25 |
Cybaeus marinensis
Bonnet, P. 1956: 1302 |
Roewer, C. F. 1954: 91 |
Chamberlin, R. V. & Ivie, W. 1932: 25 |