Corythalia cincta ( Badcock, 1932 )

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko, 2020, Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini), Zootaxa 4806 (1), pp. 1-144: 49-52

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:722DB6C9-2C18-48EB-B202-7F2AFF47F49F

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781-FFA5-C167-66AB-F8C065AC4BA8

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Corythalia cincta ( Badcock, 1932 )
status

 

Corythalia cincta ( Badcock, 1932)  

Figs 25 View FIGURE 25 A–D, 58D, 65E–F, 69A

Makthalia cincta Badcock 1932: 45   , fig. 37 (description & illustration of ♂). Holotype ♂ from PARAGUAY: Departamento Presidente Hayes: Paraguayan Chaco, Makthlawaiya (former Anglican Mission Station   GoogleMaps ), ca. 23°30’S, 58°23’W, about 100 m a.s.l., in woods, G.S. Carter leg. 08 Apr. 1927, NHM 1932 ·9·2·45, examined.

Corythalia   cincta— Mello-Leitão 1939: 84 (transfer from Makthalia   ).

Taeoma barbipes Mello-Leitão 1939: 90   , figs 82–83 (description & illustration of ♂). [Holotype ♂ from PARAGUAY: Depar- tamento Presidente Hayes: “ Monte Sociedad ”, today known as Benjamin Aceval, near Villa Hayes   GoogleMaps , ca. 25°01’S, 57°36’W, about 80 m a.s.l. Dr Carl Ternetz leg. 1895, NHMB 1217 View Materials a, examined]. Syn. nov.

Corythalia   barbipes— Galiano 1962: 16, figs 1–2 (transfer from Taeoma   ; description & illustration of ♂); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 203 (description and illustration of ♂).

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia   species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) retrolaterally at central section with short, pointed apophysis, subdistally at least slightly broadened and tip truncated or with small incision ( Figs 25A, 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65 View FIGURE 65 E–F); embolus base (EB) prolaterally not regularly rounded but with several small tooth-like extensions; tegulum very bulbous and broader than cymbium (CY); RTA with relatively large angle to longitundinal axis of cymbium (about 55°, Figs 25A, 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65 View FIGURE 65 E–F).

Description. Male (measurements of holotype first, those of holotype of Taeoma barbipes   in parentheses): total length 6.3 (7.7), carapace length 2.9 (3.6), maximal carapace width 2.2 (2.7), width of eye rectangle 1.7 (2.2), opisthosoma length 2.6 (3.2), opisthosoma width 2.1 (2.4), fovea length 0.23 (-). EYES: AME 0.54 (-), ALE 0.35 (0.36), PME 0.10 (0.11), PLE 0.28 (0.31), AME–AME 0.04 (-), AME–ALE 0.07 (-), PME–PME 1.44 (-), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.34), ALE–PLE 0.72 (0.82), PLE–PLE 1.25 (-), clypeus height at AME 0.32 (-), clypeus height at ALE 0.68 (0.74). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II 1500 (1600), III–IV 1600 (1600); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2015 (2015), II 3025 (3015), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I–II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 4144 (4044). MEA- SUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8 (3.0) [0.9 (1.1), 0.4 (0.4), 0.4 (0.4), 1.1 (1.1)], I 4.9 (6.3) [1.6 (2.2), 0.9 (1.1), 1.0 (1.3), 0.9 (1.1), 0.5 (0.6)], II 4.9 (6.3) [1.6 (2.2), 0.9 (1.1), 1.0 (1.3), 0.9 (1.1), 0.5 (0.6)], III 5.7 (7.4) [1.8 (2.4), 0.9 (1.2), 1.2 (1.5), 1.2 (1.6), 0.6 (0.7)], IV 5.8 (7.3) [1.9 (2.4), 0.9 (1.0), 1.1 (1.5), 1.3 (1.7), 0.6 (0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 432&1 (342&1) (leg numbers connected by “&” with exactly the same length). COPULA- TORY ORGAN: embolus base (EB) large, EB circle more than half as broad as tegulum (T) (even though T already very broad and bulbous), located disto-centrally on T with slight shift prolaterally ( Figs 25A, 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65 View FIGURE 65 E–F); embolus (E) quite broad and long (slightly longer than width of T) and more or less hose-shaped with some longitudinal ridges ( Figs 25A, 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65 View FIGURE 65 E–F). T slightly broader than cymbium; sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying almost retrolateral 3/4 of T; proximal tegulum lobe not very long (covering distal 1/2 of palpal tibia); Cymbium in ventral view in distal section conically converging and at tip broadly rounded ( Figs 25A, 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65 View FIGURE 65 E–F). Palpal tibia very short (about 1.4x broader than long, Figs 25 View FIGURE 25 A–D, 65E–F, 69A), ventral tibial bump medium sized and conical. RTA medium-sized (clearly longer than half the width of tegulum, Figs 25A, 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65 View FIGURE 65 E–F), dorsally clearly serrated and with broad angle (about 55°) to longitudinal axis of cymbium. In retrolateral view RTA moderately broad and dorso-distal serration distinct ( Figs 25B, 25D View FIGURE 25 , 69A View FIGURE 69 ). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 58D View FIGURE 58 ). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 58D View FIGURE 58 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central present ( Fig. 58D View FIGURE 58 ).

Female: unknown.

Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Embolus (E) in holotype of Taeoma barbipes   (HT-b) ( Figs 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65F View FIGURE 65 ) in distal section slightly narrower and broadened section subdistally not as distinct as in holotype of C. cincta   (HT-c) ( Figs 25A View FIGURE 25 , 65E View FIGURE 65 ). Moreover, in HT-b ( Figs 25C View FIGURE 25 , 65F View FIGURE 65 ) tegulum (T) slightly longer, prolateral section of embolus base (EB) with tooth-like extensions more distinct and ventral tibial bump (VTB) with distal direction, in HT-c ( Figs 25A View FIGURE 25 , 65E View FIGURE 65 ) T slightly shorter, tooth-like extensions on EB less distinct and VTB with prolatero-distal direction. RTA in retrolateral view in HT-b with distinct and long dorso-distal teeth and ventro-distal tip ( Fig. 25D View FIGURE 25 ), in HT-c teeth and ventro-distal tip shorter and less distinct ( Figs 25B View FIGURE 25 , 69A View FIGURE 69 ).

Remarks. At arrival of the type material of Taeoma barbipes   at SMNK (Apr. 2017) an additional specimen, a female, labeled as “Paratypoid” (also with coll. no. 1217a) was found. In the original publication Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 90) only described and illustrated a male. Consequently, this female does not belong to the type series, even though it is possible that it once (before Mello-Leitão’s examinations) was held in the same vial as the male. It is here identified as Corythalia cf. conferta   sp. nov.. Hence, the male, that was erroneously labeled “ Lectotype ” (by Lothar H.E.W. Forcart) is the only valid type specimen and has to be regarded as the holotype.

There is strong inconsistency in the composition of the two type series of the species Taeoma circumflexa ( Mello-Leitão, 1939)   with the collection number 1216a and Taeoma barbipes ( Mello-Leitão, 1939)   [coll.-no. 1217a]. For detailed information on that and for preferred resolution to solve this see remarks under the species description of C. circumflexa   .

The male holotype of Taeoma barbipes   was examined and recognised being conspecific with the male holotype of Makthalia cincta   . Both nominal species were later transferred to Corythalia   . The synonymy is justified as the male palps, the structures with highest diagnostic significance, correspond exactly in both types of these two nominal species ( Figs 25 View FIGURE 25 A–D, 65E–F) (apart from the few slight differences recognised as intraspecific variation, see above). The main somatic characters, of course, also correspond in both type specimens.

Corythalia cincta   is unique in having a very bulbous tegulum (T), a quite long and strong embolus (E) with several special structures and a RTA strongly diverging from longitudinal axis of cymbium (angle about 55°). In C. scutellaris Bayer   , sp. nov. the E is also very long (even longer) and strong, the RTA also quite strongly diverging but the T is clearly narrower, base of E is broader and different and special structures at E are missing. Thus it remains unclear if these two species are closely related but it is possible.

Distribution. Currently known only from Departamento Presidente Hayes, Paraguay.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Salticidae

Genus

Corythalia

Loc

Corythalia cincta ( Badcock, 1932 )

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko 2020
2020
Loc

Corythalia

Proszynski, J. 1976: 153
Galiano, M. E. 1962: 16
1962
Loc

Corythalia

Mello-Leitao, C. F. 1939: 84
1939
Loc

Taeoma barbipes Mello-Leitão 1939: 90

Mello-Leitao, C. F. 1939: 90
1939
Loc

Makthalia cincta

Badcock, H. D. 1932: 45
1932