Amphidraus, Simon, 1900
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.37828/em.2017.12.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D95FCAB4-DD25-40CF-90EF-420988CD8A1D |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12725434 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/070387A0-5965-D45A-5B99-FA01FC5FFEAD |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Amphidraus |
status |
|
Amphidraus View in CoL and Nebridia - wholesale merging
Merging of these genera, proposed by Zhang & Maddison (2015: 22-23), is not supported by diagnostic drawings of respective type species by Galiano 1963b (see comparative drawing at Fig. 37Q 1 View Figure 1 ) and Bryant 1943 ( Fig. 37P) and therefore is not acceptable. Attention: Nebridia manni Bryant, 1943 ( Fig. 37P 1 View Figure 1 ) and N. mendica Bryant, 1943 ( Fig. 37P 2 View Figure 2 ) are misplaced, neither Nebridia nor Amphidraus , there is genus not identifiable by existing diagnostic drawings (see also files http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/q10- Neb.html and http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/q10-Amphid.html). Therefore:
Amphidraus semicanus (Simon, 1902) = Nebridia semicana Simon, 1902d: 373 (reinstated original
combination, documented by Fig. 37P, compare with Fig. 37Q 1 View Figure 1 ).
Amphidraus manni (Bryant 1943) = Nebridia manni Bryant 1943 (transfer reversed due to palp
incompatibility, compare Figs 37P 1 View Figure 1 and 37Q 1 View Figure 1 , also files mentioned above, pending further search),
Amphidraus mendica (Bryant 1943) = Nebridia mendica Bryant 1943 (transfer reversed due to palp
incompatibility, compare Figs 37P 2 View Figure 2 and 37Q 1 View Figure 1 , see also files mentioned above, pending further
search).
Palp of this species looks very different from Zenodorus , where was placed by Żabka (1988b: 476-478, f. 151, 156) (compare Figs. 1B View Figure 1 8 and 1C View Figure 1 8, also 38G-H with 38I). It seems to be comparable (but not identical) with some Ascyltus ( Fig. 33Q) by broad anterior part of bulbus, broad, loose coil of embolus in the plane parallel to bulbus and by almost straight, slightly oblique course of spermophor. On the other hand it differs by rather special ducts and spermatheca, short tibial apophysis and lack of transverse enlargement of the face. The proposed placement is tentative and most probably the species should be placed in an own genus.
Therefore:
Omoedus asper (Karsch, 1878) = Ascyltus asper (Karsch, 1878) ,
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.