Stenosfemuraia pilosa ( González-Sponga, 2005 ) Huber & Arias, 2017

Huber, Bernhard A. & Arias, Quintin, 2017, Revision of the Venezuelan spider genus Stenosfemuraia González-Sponga, with new generic and specific synonymies (Araneae, Pholcidae), Zootaxa 4341 (4), pp. 495-508 : 503-507

Stenosfemuraia pilosa ( González-Sponga, 2005) n. comb.

Figs 28–40 , 49–52

Codazziella pilosa González-Sponga, 2005: 100 , pl. 1, figs 1–9 (♂ ♀).

Chichiriviche costanero González-Sponga, 2011: 41 ; pl. 3, figs 1–8 (♂ ♀). New synonymy.

Justification of synonymy. Type specimens (see Notes below) of both species were compared directly and found to be identical in all relevant aspects: procursus tip, bulbal processes, bipartite cheliceral apophyses, and epigynum shape.

Diagnosis. Males are easily distinguished from congeners by shape of procursus ( Figs 51–52 ; wide in dorsal view, with subdistal side branch, with distinctive tip); from S. parva also by armature of male chelicerae ( Fig. 37 ; one pair of bipartite frontal apophyses); from both species also by wider femora (0.29–0.34 versus 0.19–0.21 in S. parva and ~ 0.13 in S. cuadrata ); females differ from congeners by absence of sclerotized lateral elements of epigynal plate ( Figs 32 , 39 ) and by non-contiguous pore plates ( Figs 34 , 40 ). Males and females also differ from congeners by absence of brown lateral bands on carapace ( Figs 28, 30 ); from S. cuadrata also by shorter legs (♂ tibia 1 L/d: <30 versus ~60; ♂ tibia 1: <3.5 versus>5.0; ♀ tibia 1: <3.0 versus>3.0).

Type material. VENEZUELA: Aragua: 12♂ 18♀ 10 juvs types (see Notes below) of Codazziella pilosa , MIZA ( GS 1387 ), Municipio Tovar, Pico Codazzi , 2000 m a.s.l. [~ 10.411°N, 67.309°W; see Notes below], 22.i.1994 (A.R. Delgado de González , M.A. González-Sponga), 3♂ 3♀ examined by BAH .

Vargas: 3♂ 1♀ 1 juv. types (see Notes below) of Chichiriviche costanero , MIZA (GS 853), El Portachuelo, 1200 m a.s.l. [~ 10.450°N, 67.244°W; see Notes below], 24.x.1981 (A.R. Delgado de González, M.A. González- Sponga), all examined by BAH.

Other material examined. VENEZUELA: Aragua: 2♂ 4♀, ZFMK (Ar 18254), forest above Colonia Tovar (10.417°N, 67.300°W), ~ 2100 m a.s.l., under dead leaves on ground, 26.xi.2002 (B.A. Huber) . 3♀ 2 juvs, ZFMK (Ar 18255), Colonia Tovar, forest at El Picacho (=Pico Codazzi) (10.408°N, 67.308°W), ~ 2200 m a.s.l., under dead leaves on ground, 27.xi.2002 (B.A. Huber). 4♂ 2♀, MNHN (Ar 10052 part), with Simon’s label “14653 Psil.— Tovar!”, no further data [leg. E. Simon, 1887–88]. 4♂ 8♀ 12 juvs, MNHN (Ar 1702), with Simon’s label “Psilochorus tovarensis E.S. Tovar!”, no further data [leg. E. Simon, 1887–88].

Redescription. Male (ZFMK Ar 18254). MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 3.3, carapace width 1.35.

Distance PME-PME 100 µm, diameter PME 100 µm, distance PME-ALE 90 µm, distance AME-AME 15 µm, diameter AME 30 µm. Sternum width/length: 0.85/0.55. Leg 1: 13.5 (3.3 + 0.4 + 3.4 + 5.0 + 1.4), tibia 2: 2.2, tibia 3: 1.8, tibia 4: 2.4; tibia 1 L/d: 26. Femora 1–4 width (at half length): 0.34, 0.33, 0.29, 0.30.

COLOR (in ethanol). Carapace pale ochre-yellow with brown median mark including ocular area and clypeus ( Fig. 28 ); sternum ochre-yellow, slightly darker along median line; legs ochre-yellow, femora and tibiae with indistinct subdistal darker rings; abdomen pale gray, dorsally and laterally with large dark bluish internal marks, ventrally with brown plate in front of gonopore, with short bluish mark behind gonopore.

BODY. Habitus as in Figs 28–29 ; ocular area raised; carapace elevated, with deep median furrow; clypeus and sternum unmodified.

CHELICERAE. With one pair of bipartite frontal apophyses ( Fig. 37 ).

PALPS. As in Figs 35–36 ; coxa with retrolatero-ventral apophysis; trochanter barely modified; femur with retrolatero-ventral process proximally and large ventral apophysis distally; procursus wide in dorsal view, with distinct tip and small subdistal pointed process ( Figs 51–52 ); bulb with two dorsal processes, distal apophysis almost straight ( Figs 49–50 ).

LEGS. Without spines; many curved hairs on tibiae and metatarsi 2–3, few weakly curved hairs on tibiae and metatarsi 4; few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 9%; prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1; tarsus 1 with ~17 pseudosegments, distally distinct.

Male (variation). Tibia 1 in 14 other males: 2.8–3.4 (mean 3.1). Internal abdominal marks (including ventral mark behind gonopore) less distinct in types.

Female. In general similar to male but carapace less elevated ( Figs 30–31 ), legs with few curved hairs on tibiae 2 and 3 only, femora much thinner (~0.20–0.22). Tibia 1 in 19 females: 2.0–2.5 (mean 2.3). Epigynum as in Figs 32–33 , 38–39 , with large protruding weakly sclerotized area in front of brown epigynal plate, without dark lateral sclerites, posterior margin evenly curved; posterior plate simple. Internal genitalia as in Figs 34 and 40 , with pair of non-contiguous pore-plates, membranous median sac, and anteriorly diverging sclerites/‘wings’.

Natural history. Specimens were collected from forest leaf litter (BAH) and from under twigs and rocks ( González-Sponga 2005, 2011). At Tovar they were common under palm leaves and other leaves providing shelter. Males and females were often found together.

Distribution. Known from medium to high elevation forests (1200–2200 m a.s.l.) in Aragua (Tovar area) and Vargas states, Venezuela ( Fig. 1 ).

Notes. For Codazziella pilosa, González-Sponga (2005) reported 1♂ holotype (“1387a”), 1♀ paratype (“1387b”), and 9♂ 30♀ adult paratypes without specific collection number. Only one vial was found at MIZA, labeled “1387” and containing 12♂ 18♀ 10 juvs. The label says “Pico Codazzi, Dtto Ricaurte, Ar” (which differs only with respect to administrative units from the locality as published in the original description: “Pico Codazzi, Municipio Tovar, Estado Aragua) and gives “ 22-i-94 ” as collection date (which agrees with the date in the original description). We suspect that this is the entire type series and that a holotype was never physically separated from this series (as in S. cuadrata which was described in the same paper; see above). Since the identity of the species is beyond doubt, and since the holotype might just be misplaced rather than lost, we prefer not to designate a neotype and to treat the type specimens unspecifically as “ types ”.

For Chichiriviche costanero, González-Sponga (2011) reported 1♂ holotype (“853a”), 1♀ paratype (“853b”), and 3♂ (adult) 1 juv. paratypes without specific collection number. Only one vial was found at MIZA, labeled “853” and containing 3♂ 1♀ 1 juv. The label says “ El Portachuelo, via Puerto Cruz, D.F. ” (which differs only with respect to descriptors and administrative units from the locality as published in the original description: “ El Portachuelo, bifurcación de la carretera Puerto Cruz—Chichiriviche de la Costa, Estado Vargas) and gives “ 24-10- 81 ” as collection date (which agrees with the date in the original description). This series obviously includes the female “853b”, but may not include the male holotype . Since the identity of the species is beyond doubt, and since the holotype might just be misplaced rather than lost, we prefer not to designate a neotype.

Exact coordinates of the two type localities are not known to us, but the coordinates in González-Sponga (2005, 2011) are clearly wrong (for Codazziella pilosa about 20 km from Pico Codazzi, in Miranda state; for Chichiriviche costanero about 1800 km [!] N of Chichiriviche ).

In González-Sponga (2011), the distribution of the monotypic genus Chichiriviche is given as “Parque Nacional Henri Pittier, Estado Aragua ”. The type locality (and single locality reported in the original description) of C. costanero is about 18 km E of the eastern limits of Henri Pittier National Park, in another state (as also noted by González-Sponga 2011). We suspect that this is just one of many lapsi in this paper.

Several measurements in the original descriptions are clearly wrong, e.g. for Codazziella pilosa : all male leg 3 measures except for femur and patella; for Chichiriviche costanero : ♀ femur 4 (2.52, i.e. longer than femur 1; should be 1.9, i.e. shorter than femur 1); ♀ tibia 4 (2.45; should be 1.8).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Known distribution of Stenosfemuraia.

FIGURES 28 – 34. Stenosfemuraia pilosa, ZFMK Ar 18254. 28 – 31. Male and female, dorsal and lateral views. 32 – 33. Epigynum, ventral and lateral views. 34. Cleared female genitalia, dorsal view (arrows: lateral sclerites / ‘ wings’).

FIGURES 35 – 40. Stenosfemuraia pilosa, ZFMK Ar 18254. 35 – 36. Left pedipalp, prolateral and retrolateral views. 37. Male chelicerae, frontal view. 38 – 39. Epigynum, lateral and ventral views. 40. Cleared female genitalia, dorsal view. Scale lines: 0. 3.

FIGURES 41 – 52. Stenosfemuraia parva (41 – 44, ZFMK Ar 18251), S. cuadrata (45 – 48, ZFMK Ar 18253) and S. pilosa (49 – 52, ZFMK Ar 18254). Genital bulb processes (all at same scale) in dorsal (41, 45, 49) and ventral (42, 46, 50) views. Palpal tarsus and procursus (all at same scale) in prolateral (43, 47, 51) and dorsal (44, 48, 52) views. Scale lines: 0.3.