Eucteniza Ausserer, 1875

Valdez-Mondragón, Alejandro & Jiménez, Maria Luisa, 2024, On the Mexican trapdoor spiders: description of a new species of the spider genus Eucteniza Ausserer (Araneae, Mygalomorphae, Euctenizidae) from the western coast of Mexico, Zootaxa 5453 (4), pp. 538-548 : 540

Genus Eucteniza Ausserer, 1875

Type species. Eucteniza mexicana Ausserer, 1875 .

Diagnosis and General Discription. The genus was thoroughly diagnosed and redescribed by Bond and Godwin (2013): 36.

Composition. Eucteniza cabowabo ; E. caprica Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; E. chichimeca Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; E. coylei Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; Eucteniza cuixmala sp. nov.; E. diablo ; E. golondrina Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; E. hidalgo Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; E. huasteca Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; E. mexicana Ausserer, 1875 E. panchovillai Bond & Godwin, 2013 ; E. relata (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1895) ; E. ronnewtoni Bond & Godwin, 2013 , E. rosalia ; and E. zapatista . Total: 15 species.

Distribution. North America, mainly Mexico along the Sierra Madre Oriental , central parts of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, and the southern region of the Baja California Peninsula ( Bond & Godwin 2013: fig 1). Two species are described from the USA (Texas).

Key to males

This identification key is an amended and exact copy of the key from Bond and Godwin (2013) and reproduced here with their permission, referred here as B&G (2013). As mentioned in Bond (2012) and cited in B&G (2013): “keys to many mygalomorph taxa are sometimes far from optimal and thus one should not rely too heavily on species determinations using this key. Instead, knowledge of where a specimen was collected and comparison to description and illustrations will likely prove more useful.”

1. Tarsus swollen mid-ventrally, width wider than metatarsus (B&G, 2013: fig. 8)........................... E. mexicana

- Tarsus width subequal to metatarsus width................................................................. 2

2. Tibia I swollen dorsally, behind tibia I metatarsus junction (B&G, 2013: fig 53)......................... E. chichimeca

- Tibia I not swollen dorsally behind tibia I metatarsus junction.................................................. 3

3. Ventral tibial megaspines borne on distinct apophysis (B&G, 2013: fig 31)....................................... 4

- Ventral tibial megaspines not borne on a distinct apophysis.................................................... 5

4. Tarsus I with short dorsal spines, tarsus III curved (B&G, 2013: figs 31, 35)................................. E. diablo

- Tarsus I lacks short spines, palpal tibia retrolateral surface with extensive spine patch (B&G, 2013: figs 48, 51, 52)................................................................................................... E. zapatista

5. Metatarsus I with ventral microspines and subdorsal row of spines on prolateral tibia II (B&G, 2013: figs 64, 66).. E. hidalgo

- Metatarsus I lacking ventral microspines, and leg II prolateral spines on tibia...................................... 6

6. Palpal tibia with row of retrolateral spines at distal edge and metatarsus I with patch of distal ventral spines (B&G, 2013: figs 69, 72, 73)................................................................................. E. golondrina

- Palpal tibia without row of retrolateral spines at distal edge; metatarsus lacks distinct ventral spines (numerous).......... 7

7. Very small (Cl <3.5mm); very pale in coloration................................................... E. huasteca

- Typically larger in size (Cl> 4.00mm); darker in color........................................................ 8

8. Leg I metatarsus as long as or subequal in length to tibia; tibia slender with thin ventral megaspines (B&G, 2013: fig 37)............................................................................................. E. cabowabo

- Leg I tibia shorter than metatarsus, ventral megaspines typically thicker and tibia not slender (usually swollen mid-ventrally) 9

9. Leg I prolateral tibial spines are longer in length............................................................ 10

- Leg I prolateral tibial spines are shorter in length or with only one distal long spine ( Figs 13, 15 )..................... 11

10. Leg I prolateral tibial spines fewer (10), longer in length, and thinner; spider paler in color (B&G, 2013: fig 14)... E. caprica

- Leg I with more prolateral tibial spines (14), which are relatively shorter in length and stouter (B&G, 2013: fig 19). E. coylei

11. Tibia I without prolateral spines, only with one distal long spine ( Figs 13, 15 )..................... E. cuixmala sp. nov.

- Tibia I with prolateral spines (B&G, 2013: figs 26, 60)...................................................... 12

12. Tibia I with very few prolateral spines (<4), with few (1) spines situated distally (B&G, 2013: fig 60)....... E. ronnewtoni

- Tibia I with larger number of prolateral spines (>3), with spines more evenly distributed distally to proximally (B&G, 2013: fig 26)........................................................................................... E. relata

Figures

FIGURES 12–15. Eucteniza cuixmala sp. nov. Male: 12–13, Left leg I, retrolateral and prolateral views, respectively, arrows indicate small megaspine on median region of metatarsus (12) and distal megaspine on tibia (13). 14–15, Left tibia I, detail of retrolateral and prolateral views, respectively, arrow indicates distal megaspine. Scale bars: 3 mm (14, 15), 4 mm (12, 13).