Myrmecium urcuchillay, Silva-Junior & Bonaldo, 2019

Silva-Junior, Claudio J. & Bonaldo, Alexandre B., 2019, Four new species of Myrmecium Latreille, 1824 and complementary description of M. machetero Candiani & Bonaldo, 2017 (Araneae: Corinnidae: Castianeirinae), Zootaxa 4706 (2), pp. 391-400 : 393-394

Myrmecium urcuchillay sp. nov.

Fig. 2A E

Type material. ♂ holotype, from Reserva Comunal Matsigenga, (12°10’39.24’’S 73°02’01.62’’W), Cusco, La Convención, Peru , 16.VIII.2007, leg. A. Ansejo ( MUSM 0501852 ). Paratypes: PERU : 1♂, Reserva Comunal Mat- sigenga, 12°10’39.24’’S 73°02’01.62’’W, Cusco, La Convención, 16.VIII.2007, leg. A. Ansejo (MUSM-0501851) ; 1♂, Rio Camisea , 11°47’09.8’’S, 72°42’05.3’’W, Cusco, III–IV.1997, leg. S. Córdova (MUSM-0504345) ; 1♂, Rio Camisea, Chacari , 11°51’51.3’’S, 72°46’45.6’’W, Cusco, 5. VI.1997 (MUSM-0504352) ; 1♂, Reserva Comunal Mat- sigenga, 12°10’39.24’’S, 73°02’01.62’’W, Cusco, La Convención, 22. VI.2007, leg. A. Ansejo (MUSM-0504523) ; 1 ♂, Rio Camisea , San Martin, 11°47’09.8’’S, 72°42’05.3’’W, Cusco, III–IV.1997, leg. S. Córdova ( MPEG. ARA 036015 ) .

Note. Some morphological similarities between M. urcuchillay sp. nov., here described based only on males, and M. coutoi sp. nov., known only from the female, could support a hypothesis of conspecificity. However, we prefer to treat these forms as different species, mainly because of the striking differences in the carapace and abdomen coloration. Candiani & Bonaldo (2017) recorded instances of differences in coloration across specimens of the same species, including the extreme case of polymorphism in M. rufum Latreille, 1824 , but those differences are apparently not related to sex. Despite being collected in the same province, the specimens of these two species are not from the same locality. Furthermore, sympatry is extremely common in Myrmecium , complicating attempts of association between sexes based on material collected in different events.

Etymology. The specific name is a noun in apposition referring to the Inca god Urcuchillay, protector of the animals.

Diagnosis. Males of M. urcuchillay sp. nov. resemble those of M. machetero Candiani & Bonaldo, 2017 ( Figs 1A E ) by the combined presence of the carapace and sternum not fused between legs II and III, coxae II and III separated by more than twice coxae II width, carapace smooth, and carapace over leg IV insertion with a conspicuous hump ( Figs 2 A–C), but it can be distinguished from the latter by the presence of a third fold of the reservoir ( Fig. 2D ). Female unknown.

Description. Male (holotype): carapace reddish-brown, smooth on cephalic region, with few granules near coxa III and IV ( Figs 2A, B ); sternum reddish-brown, smooth; endites yellowish-brown, labium light brown; chelicerae reddish-brown ( Fig. 2C ). Abdomen yellowish-brown, with a dark line medially located and distally darker. Legs I and II with Fe yellowish-brown, legs III and IV reddish-brown. Chelicerae: promarginal teeth 3; retromarginal teeth 4. Sternal posterior plate pentagonal. Total length 7.63, carapace 4.60 long, 1.61 wide. Eye diameters: AME 0.14, ALE 0.11, PME 0.12, PLE 0.14. Leg measurements: I—femur 2.49 / tibia 2.60 / metatarsus 2.06; II—femur 1.98 / tibia 1.81 / metatarsus 1.69; III— femur 1.77 / tibia 1.66 / metatarsus 2.54; IV—femur 2.56 / tibia 2.35 / metatarsus 2.68. Leg spination: I—tibia vp0-1-0-1-1, vr0-0-0-1-1; metatarsus vp1-0-1-0-0, vr1-0- 1-0-0. II—tibia vp0-1-1-1- 0, vr0-1-1-1-0; metatarsus vp1-0-1-0-0, vr1-0-1-0-0. III—tibia vp0-1-0-1-0, vr0-1-0-1- 0; metatarsus vp1-0-1-0-0, vr1-0-1-0-0. IV—tibia p0-1-0-0-0, r0-1-0-0-0, vp0-1-0-1-0, vr0-1-0-1-0; metatarsus vp0-1-0-1-0, vr0-1-0-1-0. Palp. Tibia longer than wide, with ventral excavation; RTA medium-sized in relation to tibia; first fold of reservoir reaching prolateral side of tegulum, not touching distal section of reservoir, second fold basal, third fold attenuated, basal; distal sector straight, tegular neck before embolus insertion present, embolus tapering distally, with broadly spaced keels ( Figs 2D, E ).

Material examined. Only the types.

Distribution. Known from Cusco, Peru ( Map 1 ).

Figures

FIGURES 1A E. Myrmecium machetero Candiani & Bonaldo, 2017:A male, dorsal view; B same, lateral view; C same, ventral view; D male palp, ventral view; E same, lateral view. Abbreviations: e, embolus; RTA, retrolateral tibial apophysis. Scale = 1mm.

MAP 1. Distribution records of species of Myrmecium from Perú (white symbols, species recorded by Candiani & Bonaldo, 2017; red symbols, new species and new record of Myrmecium machetero Candiani & Bonaldo, 2017).

FIGURES 2A E. Myrmecium urcuchillay sp. nov.: A male, dorsal view; B same, lateral view; C same, ventral view; D male palp, ventral view (arrow indicating the reservoir’s third fold); E same, lateral view.Abbreviations: e, embolus; RTA, retrolateral tibial apophysis. Scale = 1mm.