Corythalia ursina ( Mello-Leitão, 1940 )

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 : 89

Corythalia ursina ( Mello-Leitão, 1940)

Figs 42 A–B

Capidava ursina Mello-Leitão, 1940: 185 , fig. 18 (description & illustration of ♂), Holotype ♂ from Guyana: Cuyuni-Maza- runi: region of Morabelli river (and Mazaruni river) meeting Essequibo river, ca. 06°22’N, 58°38’W, about 50 m a.s.l., O. W. Richards leg. 1929 on the Oxford University Expedition to British Guiana under leadership of Major R. W. G. Hinston, NHM {type no. 482}, not available, thus not examined.

Corythalia ursina— Galiano 1962: 16, figs 11–12 (transfer from Capidava to Corythalia ; general summarised description & illustration of ♂); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 205 (illustration of ♂).

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite short [shorter than width of tegulum (T)] and in ventral view proximally slightly more than 2.5x broader than centrally ( Fig. 42A ); proximal lobe of tegulum (T) at initial section, where distinguished from remaining T, very broad (2/3 the width of T); RTA with dorsal serration but only at distal 1/4 ( Figs 42 A–B).

Description. Male: detailed description and measurement data not available as Galiano (1962) only provided a general summarised description and Mello-Leitão (1940) did only provide very few valuable descriptive data. Body length [according to Mello-Leitão (1940)]: 5.5. Copulatory organ (after illustrations in Galiano 1962): embolus (E) short [shorter than width of tegulum (T)], and in ventral view proximally slightly more than 2.5x broader than centrally ( Fig. 42A ); T clearly narrower than cymbium ( Fig. 42A ); sperm duct possibly double-stacked S-shaped (even though not entirely recognisable in Galiano 1962, Figs 11–12 ), occupying about 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe distinguished (by a small incision) from remaining section of T and very broad; cymbium (CY) in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section almost ovoid; CY with a flat, rounded “corner” retrolatero-distally (unlike in many other Corythalia species); palpal tibia not distinctly short, about as long as broad ( Figs 42 A–B) and ventral tibial bump not recognisable (overseen by Galiano 1962?); RTA in ventral view mediumsized, with retrolatero-distal direction and with dorsal serration but only at distal 1/4 ( Fig. 42A ), in retrolateral view distinct dorsal serration of RTA recognisable only at tip ( Fig. 42B ). COLOURATION: according to the description in Galiano (1962) in accordance with the general description (transversal light bands dorsally on opisthosoma, etc., see genus description). No statements about concrete and detailed colouration aspects possible.

Female: unknown.

Remarks. The male holotype was requested at NHM, however, it was not found there (J. Beccaloni, pers. comm.). It is possible that it has not yet returned from a former loan or that it was accidently sorted back incorrectly after the return. Hence, it can possibly be found in the future. Consequently, for the present study there was no other way as to reproduce and re-evaluate the illustrations and descriptions in Galiano (1962), which appear to be quite detailed and helpful.

Assumed Galiano (1962) had not forgotten any important details in her illustrations of the male palp of C. ursina and the proportions were exact, C. ursina would be similar to C. hadzji . The males of both species share a quite short embolus (E), continuously converging from proximal to distal section, an embolus base located more or less centrally at distal section of tegulum, a similar RTA with dorsal serration only at distal 1/4 and a similar flat, rounded “corner” retrolatero-distally at cymbium. Hence, C. hadzji might be a close relative of C. ursina . However, assumed, that Galiano (1962) oversaw important details the reliability of this prediction is poor (e.g. a retrolateral light, slender and long process distally at embolus; assumed, Galiano’s optical equipment did not have sufficient resolution or hairs were not removed from the margin of the cymbium or the distal part of palpal tibia and covered important structures, it is well imaginable that she had overseen or misinterpreted one or another structure). Additionally, it cannot be excluded that Galiano (1962) once did not draw in exact ventral view (maybe slightly shifted distally?). Moreover, it is questionable if she used a camera lucida that enabled her to draw in exact proportions. If all this is taken in consideration it is even possible that C. hadzji is conspecific with C. ursina and thus a junior synonym. To finally answer this question the type of C. ursina has to be re-examined. Hopefully it will be tracked in the future.

Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality in Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Guyana.

Figures

FIGURE 11. Corythalia drepane sp. nov., specimens from Amazonas, Brazil. A–B Male holotype, left palp (A ventral view; B retrolateral view). C–E Female paratype SMNK-ARA 02327, epigyne (C ventral view; D vulva, dorsal view; E schematic course of internal duct system). Arrow in A shows prolateral lobe-like protrusion at proximal tegulum lobe.

FIGURE 12. Corythalia drepane sp. nov., paratypes from Amazonas, Brazil, intraspecific variation. A–B Male SMNK-ARA 13424, left palp (A ventral view; B retrolateral view). C–D Female SMNK-ARA 02322, epigyne (C ventral view; D vulva, dorsal view).

FIGURE 42. Corythalia ursina, male holotype from Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Guyana. A–B Left palp (A ventral view; B retrolateral view). Reproduced from Galiano (1962, figs 11–12).