Neoscona decolor (L. Koch, 1871) L. Koch, 1871
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/evolsyst.3.33454 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C7DB2091-FB54-40E8-BDC2-7C92F218D53F |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0F809AAD-A05A-FD1C-8F52-6F406CB28D53 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Neoscona decolor (L. Koch, 1871) |
status |
comb. n. |
Neoscona decolor (L. Koch, 1871) View in CoL comb. n. Fig. 5 A–C
Epeira decolor L. Koch, 1871: 71-72, pl. 6, figs 8, 8a; Hasselt 1882: 21.
Araneus decolor (L. Koch). Hogg 1900: 74; Rainbow 1911: 184.
Aranea decolor (L. Koch). Roewer 1942: 826.
Type material.
Holotype of Epeira decolor L. Koch, 1871: 1 female, "Viti Inseln" (= REPUBLIC OF FIJI) [no exact locality], Museum Godeffroy 7554 (ZMH Rack (1961) -catalog no. 234) (examined).
Remarks.
The holotype female of Epeira decolor is bleached but somatic characters (Figs 5A, B) and the spatula-shaped epigyne (Fig. 5C) clearly identify this species as Neoscona . Consequently, I propose the transfer of this species to this genus, Neoscona decolor (L. Koch, 1871), comb. n.
Neoscona decolor comb. n. was originally described from the Republic of Fiji ( Koch 1871). Hasselt (1882) listed this species, with a question mark, from Padang (West Sumatra, Indonesia). Hogg (1900) firstly listed it for Australia (Macedon district, Victoria) and it was therefore recorded by Rainbow (1911) in his catalogue of Australian spiders. However, I could not find Hogg’s specimen in the BMNH, where it is expected to be housed, to confirm this record. It remains doubtful that a spider originally described from a tropical island state in the Pacific also occurs isolated in the temperate climate of south-eastern Australia. No Neoscona species has so far been found in Victoria in any of the collections investigated, including the Museum Victoria in Melbourne (unpublished data). The southern-most record of the genus is from ca. 35°S Latitude, south of Sydney (New South Wales). Therefore, the historic Australian record of this species must be considered very doubtful and is likely based on a misidentification.
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.