Neriene circifolia, Zhao, Qingyuan & Li, Shuqiang, 2014

Zhao, Qingyuan & Li, Shuqiang, 2014, A survey of linyphiid spiders from Xishuangbanna, Yunnan Province, China (Araneae, Linyphiidae), ZooKeys 460, pp. 1-181: 28-30

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Neriene circifolia

sp. n.

Taxon classification Animalia Araneae Linyphiidae

Neriene circifolia  sp. n. Figs 62, 63, 64, 65


Holotype ♂: CHINA, Yunnan: Mengla County: Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, Xiaolongha biodiversity preservation corridor, 21°24.236'N, 101°36.268'E, elevation ca 711 m, 17.06.2013, tropical seasonal rain forest, hand-collecting. Paratype 1♀, 21°24.159'N, 101°37.178'E, elevation ca 635 m, 27.06.2012, tropical seasonal rain forest, fogging.


This specific name originates from the Latin words ‘circum’ meaning 'in a circle’ and ‘folius’ meaning ‘leaf’, referring to the shape of the median membrane, the apex of which looks like a small, round leaf; term in apposition.


This species is similar to Neriene birmanica  (Thorell, 1887) by having small paracymbium with a curved, filiform tip (Fig. 62B) and the stout, wide terminal apophysis forming about one coil (Fig. 62D). It could be distinguished from Neriene birmanica  by the shape of embolus and lamella. Neriene birmanica  has sword-like embolus ( Xu et al. 2010: fig. 6), a slim, spear-like lateral projection of the lamella ( Xu et al. 2010: fig. 3), while Neriene circifolia  sp. n. has a rostriform embolus, slightly curved at tip (Fig. 62C), and a broader and more sclerotized lateral projection of lamella (Fig. 62A). In female’s epigyne, the spiral grooves forming one more coil than that in Neriene birmanica  (Fig. 64C).


Male (holotype). Total length: 2.19. Carapace 1.00 long, 0.86 wide, greenish brown in coloration. Sternum 0.59 long, 0.56 wide. Clypeus 0.19 high. Chelicerae promargin with 6 teeth, retromargin with 6 teeth. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.08, ALE 0.09, PME 0.10, PLE 0.10, AME-AME/AME 0.38, PME-PME/PME 0.60, AME-ALE/ALE 0.78, PME-PLE/PLE 1.00, coxae IV separated by 0.78 time their width. Length of legs: I 4.45 (1.19, 0.31, 1.06, 1.17, 0.72), II 3.68 (1.00, 0.31, 0.94, 1.05, 0.38), III 2.52 (0.69, 0.23, 0.53, 0.63, 0.44), IV 3.35 (0.83, 0.25, 0.75, 0.97, 0.55). Leg formula: I-II-IV-III. TmI 0.25. Patellar spine formula 2-2-2-2. Abdomen dark green with three irregular white patches at each lateral side. Palp: patella short, with one long dorsal seta; tibia with two retrolateral trichobothria, and long setae (Fig. 62 A–B); paracymbium small, ‘J’ -shaped, with a tapering tip (Figs 62B, 65B); lamella with three projections: anterior projection wide and blunt, the posterior one long, straight with slightly curved tip, the lateral one with sharp tip (Figs 62A, 63B). Terminal apophysis stout, broad, forming about one coil (Fig. 62D); median membrane with leaf-like tip (Fig. 62C); embolus simple, bending forward at half length, with beak-like tip (Fig. 62C).

Female (paratype). Total length: 2.68. Carapace 1.00 long, 0.64 wide, same coloration and pattern as male. Sternum 0.60 long, 0.50 wide. Clypeus 0.13 high. Chelicerae like in male. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.08, ALE 0.10, PME 0.08, PLE 0.08, AME-AME/AME 0.25, PME-PME/PME 0.25, AME-ALE/ALE 0.30, PME-PLE/PLE 0.25, coxae IV separated by 1.36 times their width. Length of legs: I 4.13 (1.10, 0.34, 1.00, 1.04, 0.65), II 3.90 (1.02, 0.31, 0.94, 1.02, 0.61), III 2.52 (0.70, 0.24, 0.52, 0.66, 0.40), IV 3.52 (0.94, 0.28, 0.75, 1.00, 0.55). Leg formula: I-II-IV-III. TmI 0.60. Spination of patella like in male. Epigyne: atrium broad (Fig. 64A), scape of dorsal fig with a slightly pointed end (Fig. 64C). Spiral grooves with about three coils (Fig. 64 B–C). Spermathecae situated mesally (Fig. 64C).


Known only from type localities.


We have closely examined and taken photos of the holotype of Ambengana complexipalpis  Millidge & Russell-Smith, 1992 (Museum of Natural History, Geneva, Dr Peter J. Schwendinger), both the left palp and the habitus (Fig. 66). By comparing it with the pictures from Xu’s paper ( Xu et al. 2010: figs 1-7), a few differences were found in the detailed structure of palp between two species. Whether or not the new synonymy proposed by Xu et al. (2010) is valid is uncertain, and a further study is required.