Hippasa Simon, 1885

SANKARAN, PRADEEP M. & CALEB, JOHN T. D., 2023, Notes on Indian wolf spiders: II. Genus Hippasa Simon, 1885 (Araneae: Lycosidae Hippasinae), Zootaxa 5230 (2), pp. 101-152 : 102-104

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5230.2.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D4803049-9F65-4885-943E-0B0A3A084677

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7554945

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B487A7-F44C-CE3A-5DDB-F9B2BCCAF897

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Hippasa Simon, 1885
status

 

Hippasa Simon, 1885 View in CoL View at ENA

Diagnosis

[Modified after Alderweireldt & Jocqué (2005) and Wang et al. (2015)]. The genus Hippasa can be distinguished from other lycosid genera by the following combination of features: slender body with chevron-like markings on the dorsum of the opisthosoma ( Figs 2A, C View FIGURE 2 , 3B View FIGURE 3 , 4A View FIGURE 4 , 5A View FIGURE 5 , 6A View FIGURE 6 , 10A–B View FIGURE 10 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 14A View FIGURE 14 , 17A View FIGURE 17 , 19A View FIGURE 19 , 22A View FIGURE 22 , 24A, G View FIGURE 24 , 27A, E View FIGURE 27 , 33A View FIGURE 33 , 34A View FIGURE 34 ), sternum usually with a mid-longitudinal black band ( Figs 2D View FIGURE 2 , 3D–E View FIGURE 3 , 5E View FIGURE 5 , 6E View FIGURE 6 , 17B View FIGURE 17 , 19B View FIGURE 19 , 20B View FIGURE 20 , 27B, F View FIGURE 27 , 30C View FIGURE 30 ), bi-segmented posterior spinnerets with elongated basal segments ( Figs 2B View FIGURE 2 , 3B View FIGURE 3 , 4A View FIGURE 4 , 5F View FIGURE 5 , 6F View FIGURE 6 , 19D View FIGURE 19 , 20D View FIGURE 20 , 24D, J View FIGURE 24 , 27D, H View FIGURE 27 , 30E View FIGURE 30 ), male pedipalp with hooked synembolus ( Figs 7D View FIGURE 7 , 8C View FIGURE 8 , 19H View FIGURE 19 , 21C View FIGURE 21 , 25D View FIGURE 25 , 26C View FIGURE 26 , 28D View FIGURE 28 , 29C View FIGURE 29 ), bifid tegular apophysis ( Figs 8A View FIGURE 8 , 21A–B View FIGURE 21 , 26A View FIGURE 26 , 29A View FIGURE 29 ), and slender embolus ( Figs 7D View FIGURE 7 , 8C View FIGURE 8 , 19H View FIGURE 19 , 21C View FIGURE 21 , 25D View FIGURE 25 , 26C View FIGURE 26 , 28D View FIGURE 28 , 29C View FIGURE 29 ), epigyne thickly covered with bushy setae ( Figs 7E View FIGURE 7 , 14C View FIGURE 14 , 17D View FIGURE 17 , 20E View FIGURE 20 , 25E View FIGURE 25 , 28E View FIGURE 28 , 30F View FIGURE 30 ), epigyne composed of a median and paired lateral plates, with or without posterior scape or median atrium leading to internal hood ( Figs 7F–G View FIGURE 7 , 8D–E View FIGURE 8 , 11D–E View FIGURE 11 , 13C–D View FIGURE 13 , 14C View FIGURE 14 , 15A–B View FIGURE 15 , 17E View FIGURE 17 , 18A–B View FIGURE 18 , 20F–G View FIGURE 20 , 21D–F View FIGURE 21 , 25F View FIGURE 25 , 26D–E View FIGURE 26 , 28F View FIGURE 28 , 29D–E View FIGURE 29 ), and vulva with or without accessory glands, and slender and slightly to strongly curved spermathecal stalks bearing small spermathecal heads ( Figs 8E View FIGURE 8 , 14D View FIGURE 14 , 18B View FIGURE 18 , 21F View FIGURE 21 , 26E View FIGURE 26 , 29E View FIGURE 29 , 31B View FIGURE 31 ). Moreover, Hippasa species can be identified in the field by their behaviour of spinning funnel-like webs ( Fig. 1E–H View FIGURE 1 ).

Type species. Hippasa agelenoides ( Simon, 1884) , by subsequent designation ( Simon 1885).

Remarks. The type species of Hippasa , H. agelenoides ( Simon 1898; Alderweireldt & Jocqué 2005; World Spider Catalog 2022) was originally described under Pirata Sundevall, 1833 based on five immature female syntypes collected in Minhla, southern-central Myanmar ( Simon 1884). The details of the type material of H. agelenoides provided by Alderweireldt & Jocqué (2005) seem to be wrong. According to them, the types of H. agelenoides in the MNHN collection consist of one female and two subadult males that were collected from the North Guzerath in Myanmar / Burma. The locality ‘North Guzerath’ is not in Myanmar, but it indicates the northern part of the Indian State of Gujarat (see also Simon 1897). It is worth mentioning that even though Alderweireldt & Jocqué (2005) examined an adult female of H. agelenoides from Simon’s collection, they never illustrate its genitalia, and the epigyne of the type of this species is known only from textual description. Of the five immature syntypes, three are currently deposited in MSNG, Genova (M. Tavano, pers. comm., Fig. 3A–G View FIGURE 3 ), while the remaining two are deposited in MNHN, Paris (E. Leguin, pers. comm., Fig. 2A–E View FIGURE 2 ) (see also Tikader & Malhotra 1980). While erecting Hippasa, Simon (1885) transferred Lycosa greenalliae Blackwall, 1867 to Hippasa , which was also described based on two immature specimens ( Blackwall 1867), and put it as its generotype. In his paper, Simon (1885) mentioned the name H. greenalliae in block letters, which indicates that this name is valid and has priority over P. agelenoides , which was presented in small letters under the former one. Similar way of presentation of synonymies can also be seen in the case of other species mentioned in the same paper (for example, see Palpimanus gibbulus Dufour, 1820 ). However, in a later publication ( Simon 1898), he mentioned that H. agelenoides was the type species of Hippasa , indicating that Simon recognised H. agelenoides to be valid and thus separated it from the synonymy of H. greenalliae . He also mentioned that H. agelenoides is widespread in India, Indochina and Malaysia.

Though Simon (1885) redescribed H. greenalliae , it is apparent that his redescription was based not on topotype material, but instead on specimens collected in Kollegal (=Collegall, formerly part of Coimbatore District of Tamil Nadu State; presently part of Chamarajanagara District of Karnataka State, southern India) and Ramanathapuram/ Ramnad in the southern Indian State of Tamil Nadu. These collecting localities are more than 2,200 Km away from the type locality of H. greenalliae , which is located somewhere in northern India (either in Agra, Meerut, or New Delhi / Delhi — Blackwall 1867; Thorell 1887). Tikader & Malhotra (1980) erroneously located the type locality of H. greenalliae in Tamil Nadu, which was the collecting locality of specimens described by Simon (1885). Since the types of H. greenalliae are immatures ( Blackwall 1867), Simon’s identification of H. greenalliae and the Tikader & Malhotra’s (1980) redescription based on Simon’s material may be wrong. The illustrations done by the latter authors seem similar to that of H. pantherina (compare Tikader & Malhotra 1980: figs 73–74 to Figs 30F View FIGURE 30 , 31D–E View FIGURE 31 ), which was synonymised with H. greenalliae by the same authors. This is also applicable to the subsequent redescriptions of H. greenalliae , which were probably based on the description and illustrations of Simon (1885) and Tikader & Malhotra (1980) ( Karsch 1892; Barrion & Litsinger 1994; Biswas & Raychaudhuri 2007; Sen et al. 2015; Dhali et al. 2017; Caleb 2020). Thus, the species redescribed under the name ‘ H. greenalliae ’ is in fact H. pantherina and the identity of H. greenalliae is questionable due to the immature stage of the syntypes. It may be considered as nomen dubium until adult specimens from the type locality can be examined. As a result, the synonymy of H. pantherina with H. greenalliae as proposed by Tikader & Malhotra (1980) is no longer acceptable and the former is herein revalidated. This in turn challenges the validity of the ‘ H. greenalliae ’ species-group proposed by Wang et al. (2015), which should be reconsidered as the H. pantherina species-group.

Thorell (1887) provided textual description of a male specimen from the type locality of P. agelenoides and based on this, he transferred P. agelenoides to Diapontia Keyserling, 1877 . This decision reversed a few years later, when Simon (1898: 326) transferred the species back to Hippasa . Even though Thorell (1887) was not sure about the conspecificity between H. agelenoides and H. greenalliae , he considered that both H. agelenoides and ‘ H. greenalliae ’ described by Simon (1885) from Tamil Nadu were identical with D. agelenoides . Even though the label found inside the type vial of P. agelenoides deposited in MSNG, and which was probably written by Thorell (1887), mentioned that ‘ P. agelenoides is equal to H. greenalliae ’, Thorell’s interpretation regarding the conspecificity of both ‘ H. greenalliae ’ described by Simon (1885) from Tamil Nadu and H. agelenoides is wrong due to the uncertain identity of the former species.

Of the 10 valid Hippasa species found in India (see below), H. agelenoides , H. madraspatana and H. valiveruensis are smaller in body size (TL <9), whereas other species are larger (TL> 10). The smaller species have less developed tarsal scopulae that is well-developed in larger species.

Distribution. Africa, Asia ( World Spider Catalog 2022).

Key to Indian species of Hippasa

Species considered as nomina dubia and nomen nudum are excluded from the key. Males of H. himalayensis , H. loundesi and H. valiveruensis are also excluded as they are unknown. Details of the males of H. deserticola and H. holmerae were taken from Wang et al. (2015) and Marusik & Nadolny (2021), and that of the female of H. olivacea from Tikader & Malhotra (1980).

1a Males...............................................................................................2

1b Females............................................................................................. 7

2a Body less than 9 mm long.............................................................................. 3

2b Body more than 10 mm long.............................................................................4

3a Retrolateral lamellate process of tegulum well-developed, anterior arm of tegular apophysis short and broad towards distally, embolus lacks ventral membranous sheath-like extension ( Fig. 8A, C View FIGURE 8 )................................ H. agelenoides View in CoL

3b Retrolateral lamellate process of tegulum less developed, anterior arm of tegular apophysis long and in same width along entire length, embolus with ventral membranous sheath-like extension ( Fig. 26A, C View FIGURE 26 )........................ H. madraspatana View in CoL

4a Anterior and mesal arms of tegular apohysis closely spaced.................................................... 5

4b Anterior and mesal arms of tegular apohysis widely spaced.................................................... 6

5a Tegular apophysis with strongly curved anterior and broad mesal arms, synembolus less curved, embolus less curved with widened tip ( Marusik & Nadolny 2021: fig. 2A, E–H).............................................. H. deserticola View in CoL

5b Tegular apophysis with straight anterior and narrow mesal arms, synembolus strongly curved, strongly curved embolus without widened tip ( Wang et al. 2015: fig. 3A)........................................................... H. holmerae View in CoL

6a Anterior arm of tegular apophysis short, conductor small, synembolus strongly curved, embolus with smooth distal curvature ( Fig. 21A, C View FIGURE 21 )................................................................................. H. lycosina View in CoL

6b Anterior arm of tegular apophysis long, conductor large, synembolus less strongly curved, embolus with strong distal curvature ( Fig. 29A, C View FIGURE 29 )............................................................................... H. pantherina View in CoL

7a Body less than 9 mm long...............................................................................8

7b Body more than 10 mm long........................................................................... 10

8a Median plate of epigyne with atrium leading to internal hood ( Fig. 8D–E View FIGURE 8 )............................. H. agelenoides View in CoL

8b Median plate of epigyne without atrium................................................................... 9

9a Epigyne with broadly triangular median plate, accessory glands with stalks, spermathecae oval ( Fig. 26D–E View FIGURE 26 ).................................................................................................. .. H. madraspatana View in CoL

9b Epigyne with narrow, M-shaped median plate, accessory glands without stalks, spermathecae globular ( Fig. 31A–B View FIGURE 31 )............................................................................................. .. H. valiveruensis View in CoL

10a Median plate of epigyne with atrium leading to internal hood................................................. 11

10b Median plate of epigyne without atrium.................................................................. 13

11a Median plate of epigyne posteriorly with a median scape ( Fig. 15A View FIGURE 15 )................................... .. H. holmerae View in CoL

11b Median plate of epigyne without scape................................................................... 12

12a Median plate of epigyne well-developed, accessory glands present, spermathecae globular ( Fig. 18A–B View FIGURE 18 )........ H. loundesi View in CoL

12b Median plate of epigyne poorly developed, accessory glands absent, spermathecae elongate-ovoid ( Fig. 29D–E View FIGURE 29 ).................................................................................................... H. pantherina View in CoL

13a Median plate of epigyne with small atrium and a posteromedian scape ( Figs 11D–E View FIGURE 11 , 13C–D View FIGURE 13 )............... H. deserticola View in CoL

13b Median plate of epigyne with large atrium and without posteromedian scape......................................14

14a Atrium of epigynal median plate transversely elliptical ( Tikader & Malhotra 1980: fig. 84)................... H. olivacea View in CoL

14b Atrium of epigynal median plate triangular.................................................................15

15a Accessory glands with stalks, spermathecae peanut-shaped ( Fig. 14D View FIGURE 14 )............................... H. himalayensis View in CoL

15b Accessory glands without stalks, spermathecae globular ( Fig. 21F View FIGURE 21 )...................................... H. lycosina View in CoL

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Lycosidae

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF