Panjange casaroro Huber
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2015.169 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BB0E51AB-C0E6-4054-AFED-939D14BD1EFB |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6095773 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D6FF36FF-D69F-4F92-919F-82F423701E71 |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:D6FF36FF-D69F-4F92-919F-82F423701E71 |
treatment provided by |
Jeremy |
scientific name |
Panjange casaroro Huber |
status |
sp. nov. |
Panjange casaroro Huber View in CoL sp. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:D6FF36FF-D69F-4F92-919F-82F423701E71
Figs 6–7 View Figs 2 – 15 , 24–34 View Figs 24 – 25 View Figs 26 – 30 View Figs 31 – 34
Diagnosis
Easily distinguished from closest known relatives ( Pa. malagos Huber sp. nov.; Pa. camiguin Huber sp. nov.) by morphology of male palps ( Figs 24–27 View Figs 24 – 25 View Figs 26 – 30 ; symmetric modiFcations of trochanter and femur; asymmetric shapes of procursi), and by pair of semi-transparent lobes on epigynal scape ( Figs 29 View Figs 26 – 30 , 33 View Figs 31 – 34 ). From most congeners (except Pa. camiguin Huber sp. nov.) also by very long eye stalks and contiguous tips of male ocular processes ( Fig. 28 View Figs 26 – 30 ); from Pa. camiguin Huber sp. nov. also by proximally unmodiFed male chelicerae (densely covered with small scales in Pa. camiguin Huber sp. nov.; cf. Fig. 47 View Figs 45 – 49 ) and by small process between eye stalks ( Fig. 28 View Figs 26 – 30 ).
Etymology
The species name is derived from the type locality; noun in apposition.
Type material
PHILIPPINES: holotype Ƌ, in ZFMK ( Ar 13000 ), Negros Island, Negros Oriental Province, Casaroro Falls (9.281°N, 123.208°E), 550 m a.s.l., forest along river below waterfall , on leaves , 10 Mar. 2014 (B.A. Huber) GoogleMaps .
Other material examined
PHILIPPINES: 1 Ƌ, 3 ♀♀ in ZFMK ( Ar 13001 ) and 1 Ƌ, 1 ♀ in MSU-IIT, same data as holotype GoogleMaps ; 1 ♀, 1 juv. in pure ethanol, in ZFMK ( Phi 187 ), same data GoogleMaps .
Description
Male (holotype)
MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 4.8, carapace width 1.0. Leg 1: 39.2 (9.2 + 0.5 + 9.4 + 18.9 + 1.2), tibia 2: 5.6, tibia 3: 3.2, tibia 4: 4.9; tibia 1 L/d: 106. Distance PME–PME 420 µm, diameter PME 105 µm, distance PME–ALE ~30 µm; AME absent.
COLOR. Carapace and clypeus pale ochre to whitish, only base of eye stalks dark; sternum whitish; legs ochre-yellow with dark brown patellae and tibia-metatarsus joints; abdomen pale gray, with black marks dorsally, monochromous ventrally.
BODY. Habitus as in Figs 6–7 View Figs 2 – 15 ; ocular area raised, triads on long stalks with further distal processes whose contiguous tips seem to form a functional unit ( Fig. 28 View Figs 26 – 30 ); with small process between eye stalks; carapace without median furrow; clypeus unmodiFed; sternum wider than long (0.65/0.55), unmodiFed.
CHELICERAE. As in Fig. 28 View Figs 26 – 30 , with pair of simple, weakly sclerotized lateral processes, without modiFed hairs; without stridulatory ridges.
PALPS. As in Figs 24–27 View Figs 24 – 25 View Figs 26 – 30 ; proximal segments symmetric in shape but slightly larger on left side (e.g., length and diameter of right tibia about 90–95% of left tibia); coxa with strong ventro-distal rim but otherwise unmodiFed; trochanter with long weakly sclerotized retrolateral process directed toward dorsal; femur with weakly sclerotized Fnger-shaped process retrolatero-ventrally and more heavily sclerotized apophysis prolatero-dorsally; tibia with retrolateral trichobothrium in rather proximal position; tarsus with long whitish elongation, distally more strongly widened (club-shaped) in left palp; procursi of left and right palps strongly different, in each case with ventral process arising from proximal part (simple in right palp; biFd in left palp); distal part of procursus clearly hinged in left palp, not hinged in right palp; bulb much smaller in right palp, long processes extending in opposite directions (dorsal embolus; ventral appendix) almost symmetric (slightly longer in left palp).
LEGS. Without spines and curved hairs; few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 3%; prolateral trichobothrium absent on tibia 1, present on other tibiae; tarsus 1 with> 20 pseudosegments, only distally fairly distinct.
Male (variation)
Tibia 1 in other male: 9.5 (missing in third male).
Female
In general similar to male but eye triads on low humps and much closer together (distance PME–PME 265 µm); with dark mark in place of AME. Tibia 1 in 4 females: 6.7, 7.0, 7.1, 7.4. Epigynum mostly weakly sclerotized, with apparently slightly asymmetric internal structures visible through cuticle; distinctive scape with small median process at tip and two long extensible projections curved toward dorsal ( Figs 29 View Figs 26 – 30 , 33, 34 View Figs 31 – 34 ); internal genitalia as in Fig. 30 View Figs 26 – 30 .
Natural history
The spiders were found on the undersides of large leaves about 50–100 cm above the ground.
Distribution
Known from type locality on Negros Island only ( Fig. 16 View Fig. 16 ).
ZFMK |
Germany, Bonn, Zoologische Forschungsinstitut und Museum "Alexander Koenig" |
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.