RHOMPHAEA L. KOCH, 1872
View in CoL
View at ENA
Rhomphaea L. Koch, 1872
, type
Rhomphaea cometes L. Koch, 1872
by monotypy, not examined.
Rhomphaea
View in CoL
was removed from synonymy of
Argyrodes
View in CoL
by Yoshida (2001b: 185–187) contra Levi & Levi (1962: 27), see also Arnedo et al. (2004). All species attributed to the ‘
Rhomphaea
View in CoL
’ group of Exline & Levi (1962) and Zhu (1998), or originally described as
Rhomphaea
View in CoL
are explicitly transferred to
Rhomphaea
View in CoL
:
R. aculeata Thorell, 1898
View in CoL
,
Rhomphaea affinis Lessert, 1936
View in CoL
,
R. altissima Mello-Leitão, 1941
View in CoL
,
R. angulipalpis Thorell, 1877
View in CoL
,
R. brasiliensis
View in CoL
Mello- Leitão, 1920,
R. cometes L. Koch, 1872
View in CoL
,
R. ceraosus
View in CoL
(Zhu & Song, 1991) comb. nov.,
R. cona ( González & Carmen, 1996)
View in CoL
comb. nov.,
R. fictilium (Hentz, 1850)
View in CoL
,
R. hyrcana (Logunov & Marusik, 1990)
View in CoL
,
R. irrorata Thorell, 1898
View in CoL
,
R. labiata
View in CoL
(Zhu & Song, 1991),
R. lactifera Simon, 1909
View in CoL
,
R. metaltissima Soares & Camargo, 1948
View in CoL
,
R. nasica (Simon, 1873)
View in CoL
,
R. oris ( González & Carmen, 1996)
View in CoL
comb. nov.,
R. ornatissima Dyal, 1935
View in CoL
,
R. palmarensis ( González & Carmen, 1996)
View in CoL
comb. nov.,
R. paradoxa (Taczanowski, 1873)
View in CoL
comb. nov.,
R. pignalitoensis ( González & Carmen, 1996)
View in CoL
comb. nov.,
R. procera
View in CoL
(O. P.-Cambridge, 1898),
R. projiciens
View in CoL
O. P.-Cambridge, 1896,
R. rostrata (Simon, 1873)
View in CoL
,
R. sagana (Dönitz & Strand, 1906)
View in CoL
,
R. sinica
View in CoL
(Zhu & Song, 1991) comb. nov.,
R. sjostedti Tullgren, 1910
View in CoL
,
R. tanikawai Yoshida, 2001
View in CoL
,
R. urquharti Bryant, 1933
View in CoL
,
R. velhaensis ( González & Carmen, 1996)
View in CoL
comb. nov.
Diagnosis:
Rhomphaea
here differs (based on
R. metaltissima
) from other argyrodines by the following putative synapomorphies: tibia elongate, but not scoop-shaped (15, Fig. 64A
View Figure 64
), epiandrous gland spigots absent (168, Fig. 64F
View Figure 64
), egg sac rhomboidshaped (231), embolus tip elongate and strongly ridged basally ( Fig. 64B, C
View Figure 64
), ocular projection elongate ( Figs 30C
View Figure 30
, 94D
View Figure 94
), abdomen boomerang-shaped ( Fig. 94D
View Figure 94
), posterior tip of abdomen with modified sturdy setae ( Fig. 94D
View Figure 94
), and possibly unique preycapture strategy (see Whitehouse, 1987b). At least elongate ocular projection (but see below) and boomerang-shaped abdomen appear highly consistent in
Rhomphaea
(see e.g. Exline & Levi, 1962; Zhu, 1998; but see below). Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, all
Rhomphaea
egg sacs hitherto described are rhomboid (e.g. Exline & Levi, 1962; Chikuni, 1989). The details of the palpal organ are also characteristic. Elongate tibia, elongate embolus tip, and modified sturdy abdominal setae were confirmed in other
Rhomphaea
examined in detail:
R. fictillum
and
R. projiciens
. Embolic ridges and epiandrous gland spigots cannot be accurately assessed without SEM. Uniquely in
R. fictillum
, and an undescribed species from Madagascar (pers. observ.), the ocular projection is lacking. Given that otherwise these are typical
Rhomphaea
, this presumably represents secondary loss, possibly defining a subsidiary clade within
Rhomphaea
.
Argyrodinae
furthermore contains
Spheropistha Yaginuma, 1957
View in CoL
, type by original designation
Spheropistha melanosoma Yaginuma, 1957
View in CoL
. Other species:
S. miyashitai ( Tanikawa, 1998)
View in CoL
,
S. nigroris (Yoshida, Tso & Severinghaus, 2000)
View in CoL
,
S. orbita ( Zhu, 1998)
View in CoL
.