Oedothorax meridionalis, TANASEVITCH, 1987

Lin, Shou-Wang, Lopardo, Lara & Uhl, Gabriele, 2022, Evolution of nuptial-gift-related male prosomal structures: taxonomic revision and cladistic analysis of the genus Oedothorax (Araneae: Linyphiidae: Erigoninae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 195, pp. 417-584 : 444-446

OEDOTHORAX MERIDIONALIS TANASEVITCH, 1987

( FIGS 7U , 8G , 9G , 10 ; SUPPORTING INFORMATION, FIG. S1F )

Oedothorax meridionalis Tanasevitch, 1987: 355 , figs 107–110 (Dmf).

Oedothorax meridionalis Tanasevitch, 1990: 102 , figs 23.6, 24.3, 28.3 (mf).

Oedothorax meridionalis Tanasevitch, 2015: 382 , figs 3–6 (m).

Type material: Holotype: Georgia : Caucasus , Adjaria , Keda District, Magutseti, Platanus forest, litter, ♂ 9.x.1981, leg. S. Golovatch ( ZMMU, not examined) . Paratypes: Georgia : Abkhazia , Sukhumi District, Verkhnyaya Kelasuri Village, deciduous forest, 1♀ 27.x.1981 ( ZMMU, not examined) ; Abkhazia , Sukhumi Dim., near Kclasuri Cave, litter, 1♀ 11.iv.1983, leg. S. Golovatch ( ZMMU, not examined) . Azerbaidjan: Shemakha Dim., Pirkuli State Reserve , bank of river, 1200–1400 m, 1♂ 4♀ ( ZMMU, examined), 1♂ 2♀ ( SMF 33815, not examined), 3♀ (Zoological Institute of the USSR Academy of Science, Leningrad, not examined) 19.ix.1984, leg. D. Logunov.

Additional Examined material: Georgia: Caucasus , Algeti National Park, west of Manglisi, Fagus, Picea, Acer etc. forest, 1400–1450 m, litter and under bark, 2♂ 16.–18.v.1987, leg. S. Golovatch & K. Eskov, Tanasevitch (Tanasevitch personal collection) .

Diagnosis:

Males: Can be identified from all other Oedothorax species by the following combination of features: a post-ocular elevation without lateral suici and pits, and without transverse groove ( Fig. 7U ); two sub-AME setae (one in Oe. gibbosus, Oe. trilobatus, Oe. apicatus, Oe. retusus, Oe. gibbifer and Oe. paludigena ).

Females: Similar to females of other species in the Oedothorax s.s., but can be identified by the posterior location of copulatory openings (more anterior in species except Oe. trilobatus ) and the presence of wide, membranous chambers at the entrance of copulatory ducts (absent in other species).

Description:

Male (Tanasevitch personal collection): Total length: 2.13. Prosoma: 0.90 long, 0.73 wide, postocular region with hump ( Fig. 7U ). Eyes: AME-AME: 0.03, AME width: 0.05, AME-ALE: 0.02, ALE width: 0.08, ALE-PLE: 0.01, PLE width: 0.07, PLE-PME: 0.05, PME width: 0.07, PME-PME: 0.11. Clypeus: not hirsute, two sub-AME setae. Sternum: 0.53 long, 0.56 wide. Chelicerae: mastidia absent; stridulatory striae scaly, rows widely and evenly spaced ( Fig. 8G ). Legs: dorsal proximal macroseta on tibia I, II, III and IV 1.23, 1.36, 1.46 and 1.69 times diameter of tibia, respectively; Tm I: 0.47. Pedipalp: TPA rod-like, distal part scaly; BT absent; several tiny denticles retrolateral and prolateral to TPA ( Fig. 10C ); PC distal setae at median position ( Fig. 10A ); T papillae scale-like, long-palpillae-bearing region extend from protegulum until retrolateral side of TS; TS short ( Fig. 10D ); DSA tip round ( Fig. 10A ); EM median-long, cylindrical, distally oriented, with long papillae; TP with several small protuberances ( Fig. 10B ); E not broadened at basal part. Opisthosoma: brown, evenly coloured ( Fig. 9G ).

Female (ZMMU): Total length: 2.82. Prosoma: 1.09 long, 0.89 wide. Eyes: AME-AME: 0.03, AME width: 0.05, AME-ALE: 0.02, ALE width: 0.09, ALE-PLE: 0, PLE width: 0.08, PLE-PME: 0.03, PME width: 0.08, PME-PME: 0.07. Clypeus: not hirsute, two sub-AME setae. Sternum: 0.58 long, 0.64 wide. Legs: dorsal proximal macroseta on tibia I, II, III and IV 1.72, 1.81, 2.25 and 2.42 times diameter of tibia, respectively; Tm I: 0.74. Epigyne: Clade 13 characteristic morphology, borders between dorsal and ventral plates converging anteriorly; CO posterior to spermathecae, with membranous chamber; copulatory duct short ( Fig. 10F, G ). Opisthosoma: brown, evenly coloured.

Variation: The measurements are based on examined material.

Males (N = 3, means in parentheses): Total length 1.83–2.13 (1.95). Prosoma: 0.89–0.95 (0.91) long, 0.71– 0.74 (0.73) wide. Legs: dorsal proximal macroseta on tibia I, II, III and IV 0.97–1.64 (1.28), 1.21–1.36 (N = 2),

1.46–2.22 (1.82) and 1.69–2.41 (1.97) times diameter of tibia, respectively; Tm I: 0.65–0.71 (0.69).

Females (N = 4, means in parentheses): Total length 2.36–3.06 (2.76). Prosoma: 1.09–1.16 (1.13) long, 0.89–0.92 (0.90) wide. Legs: dorsal proximal macroseta on tibia I, II, III and IV 1.73–1.94 (1.82), 1.81–1.94 (1.88), 1.95–2.29 (2.16) and 2.28–2.6 (2.44) times diameter of tibia, respectively; Tm I: 0.65–0.74 (0.70).

Distribution: Russia (Caucasus, Central Asia), Iran.

Habitat: See type material and examined material.

Remarks: This species, like other true Oedothorax species, does not have a lateral extension of the radix. The lateral extension of convector (termed lateral extension of radix in the current study) illustrated in figs 4–6 in Tanasevitch (2015) might be a misinterpretation of the distal suprategular apophysis.

Figures

Figure 1. The consensus tree of 296 most-parsimonious trees from the analysis of the expanded matrix of Miller & Hormiga (2004) and Frick et al.(2010) (Matrix I), with Bremer/Jackknife support values shown beside nodes. Newly appended taxa in bold.

Figure 7. Male prosomal morphology, lateral.A, Emertongone montifera (Emerton, 1882) (Paquin & Dupérré, 2003, fig. 1187). B, Shaanxinus mingchihensis Lin, 2019 (traced from photograph). C, ‘Oedothorax’ paracymbialis Tanasevitch, 2015 (traced from photograph). D, ‘Oe.’ kodaikanal Tanasevitch, 2015 (traced from photograph). E, ‘Oe.’ cunur Tanasevitch, 2015 (traced from photograph). F, ‘Oe.’ stylus Tanasevitch, 2015 (traced from photograph). G, Atypena cirrifrons (Heimer, 1984) (traced from photograph). H, A. formosana (Oi, 1977) (Oi, 1977, fig. 2). I, ‘Oe.’ nazareti Scharff, 1989 (Scharff, 1989: fig. 7). J, Gongylidium rufipes (Linnaeus, 1758) (traced from photograph). K, Ummeliata insecticeps (Bösenberg & Strand, 1906) (Tu & Li 2004: fig. 8A). L, U. esyunini (Zhang, Zhang & Yu, 2003) (Zhang et al., 2003, fig. 2A). M, Hylyphantes graminicola (Sundevall, 1830) (traced from photograph). N, Tmeticus tolli Kulczyński, 1908 (traced from photograph). O, Oedothorax gibbosus (Blackwall, 1841) [Roberts, 1987: fig. 21 (e)]. P, Oe. trilobatus (Banks, 1896) (Bishop & Crosby, 1935: fig. 79). Q, Oe. gibbifer (Kulczyński, 1882) (Heimer & Nentwig, 1991: fig.604.5).R, Oe.apicatus (Blackwall, 1850) [Roberts, 1987: fig.23 (d)].S, Oe. retusus (Westring, 1851) [Roberts, 1987: fig. 23 (c)]. T, Oe. paludigena Simon, 1926 [Millidge, 1975: fig. (5)]. U, Oe. meridionalis Tanasevitch, 1987 (Tanasevitch, 1987: fig. 107).V, Oe. agrestis (Blackwall, 1853) (Roberts, 1987: fig. 23B).W, Oe. fuscus (Blackwall, 1834) (Roberts, 1987: fig. 23A). X, Oe. tingitanus (Simon, 1884) (Denis, 1968: fig. 11).

Figure 8. Male chelicerae, stridulatory striae on lateral side. A, Oedothorax gibbosus (Blackwall, 1841). B, Oe. trilobatus (Banks, 1896). C, Oe. gibbifer (Kulczyński, 1882). D, Oe. apicatus (Blackwall, 1850). E, Oe. retusus (Westring, 1851). F, Oe. paludigena Simon, 1926. G, Oe. meridionalis Tanasevitch, 1987. H, Oe. agrestis (Blackwall, 1853). I, Oe. fuscus (Blackwall, 1834). J, Oe. tingitanus (Simon, 1884). Scale bars 0.05 mm.

Figure 9. Male opisthosoma, dorsal view. A, Oedothorax gibbosus (Blackwall, 1841). B, Oe. trilobatus (Banks, 1896). C, Oe. gibbifer (Kulczyński, 1882). D, Oe. apicatus (Blackwall, 1850). E, Oe. retusus (Westring, 1851). F, Oe. paludigena Simon, 1926. G, Oe. meridionalis Tanasevitch, 1987. H, Oe. agrestis (Blackwall, 1853). I, Oe. fuscus (Blackwall, 1834). J, Oe. tingitanus (Simon, 1884). Scale bars 0.1 mm.

Figure 10. Oedothorax meridionalis Tanasevitch, 1987. A–E, male right palp, images flipped horizontally. A, retrolateral view. B, prolateral view. C, dorsal view. D, ventral view. E, apical view. F, G, epigyne. F, ventral view. G, external morphology. Scale bar 0.1 mm.