Epeus albus Proszynski , 1992

Sudhin, Puthoor Pattammal, Jwala, Ramankutty, Sen, Souvik & Hegde, Vishwanath D., 2024, Taxonomic notes on the genus Epeus Peckham & Peckham, 1886 (Araneae, Salticidae) from India, Zoosystematics and Evolution 100 (2), pp. 447-455 : 447

publication ID	https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zse.100.118686
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EFDF9751-EB8B-4A03-8AC6-B3F3E0DE30B2
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C9413D38-57B8-548B-9E83-97919C414332
treatment provided by	Zoosystematics and Evolution by Pensoft
scientific name	Epeus albus Proszynski , 1992
status

Treatment

Epeus albus Proszynski, 1992 View in CoL

Figs 1A-H View Figure 1 , 2A-E View Figure 2 , 3A-F View Figure 3 , 4A-F View Figure 4 , 5A-F View Figure 5 , 7 View Figure 7

Epeus albus Prószyński, 1992: 171, figs 20-21, 25.

Lyssomanes chilapataensis Biswas & Biswas, 1992: 386, figs 14-16. New synonymy.

Epeus chilapataensis : Logunov, 2004 (transfer from Lyssomanes ).

Epeus daiqini Sibi, Gigi & Sudhikumar, 2023: 80, figs 1A-F, 2A-E. Misidentification.

Type material.

Holotype female of Epeus chilapataensis from India, West Bengal: Koch Bihar District (now cooch Behar), Chilapata Forest, 09.i.1985, NZC-ZSI-5407/18-B. Biswas-coll. Examined.

Other material examined.

India: Karnataka: 1♀ & 1♂ (NZC-ZSI-8372/18), Shimoga, Hulikal , 13°72'01.12"N, 75°02'54.13"E, 613 m alt., 05.xii.2022, P.P. Sudhin coll. ; 13♀♀ & 1♂ (NZC-ZSI-8373/18), Shimoga, Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary , 13°42'18.9"N, 75°03'47.7"E, 605 m alt., 07.xii.2022, P.P. Sudhin coll. GoogleMaps ; Kerala: 1♂ (NZC-ZSI-8533/18), Wayanad, Kalpetta, Elstone Tea Estate , 11°36'11.49"N, 76°5'11.96"E, 778 m alt., 20.ix.2021, R. Jwala coll. GoogleMaps ; Meghalaya: 5♀♀ (NZC-ZSI-8849/18), Ri Bhoi, Umsning , 25°45'18.2"N, 91°51'47.2"E, 777 m alt., 16.iii.2023, S. Sen & P.P. Sudhin coll. GoogleMaps

Diagnosis.

The male copulatory organ of Epeus albus Prószyński, 1992 is most similar to that of Epeus glorius Żabka, 1985 in having the similar shaped RTA and serrated cymbial apophysis, but it can be distinguished by the following combination of characters: RTA slender and anterodorsally directed (RTA relatively robust and apically directed in E. glorius ); cymbial apophysis relatively short and posteroventrally directed (long and posteriorly directed in E. glorius ) (cf. Figs 2A, B View Figure 2 , 3A, B View Figure 3 with figs 15-16 in Meng et al. (2015)). The female of E. albus is most similar to that of Epeus indicus Prószyński, 1992 and Epeus szirakii Patoleta, Gardzińska & Żabka, 2020 in having the similar epigynal morphology, but it can be distinguished by the following combination of characters: epigyne with large and wide atrium (narrower in E. indicus ); copulatory openings more widely separated from each other, orientated more anteriorly with well-defined posterior margins (closely arranged, orientated face to face without well-defined posterior margins in E. indicus ). (cf. Figs 2D, E View Figure 2 , 3C-F View Figure 3 , 4A-F View Figure 4 , 5C, D View Figure 5 , with fig. 22 in Prószyński (1992) and figs 6E-F in Patoleta et al. (2020)).

Justification of the synonymy of E. chilapataensis .

Re-examination of the holotype of E. chilapataensis shows that the body colour pattern and epigyne structure are similar to those of Epeus albus : pale yellow to white-coloured body without any prominent markings and crescent shaped copulatory openings and the similar course of proximal spermathecal loop (cf. Figs 3E View Figure 3 , 5A-C, E View Figure 5 with figs 20-21, 25 in Prószyński (1992)). Based on these observations, we consider E. chilapataensis a junior synonym of E. albus . Prószyński (1992) described E. albus from Jajpur-Keonjahr District, Orissa and Biswas and Biswas (1992) described E. chilapataensis from Koch Bihar District (now Cooch Behar), West Bengal. Both the species were described from the eastern part of the country from neighbouring states in the same year, but in different months. Prószyński described E. albus in October 1992 and Biswas & Biswas described E. chilapataensis in November 1992. Here, we are giving preference to the name which was first described. Therefore, the second described species must be a junior synonym of the first.

Description.

Male (Figs 1A-C, G View Figure 1 , 2A-C View Figure 2 , 3A-B View Figure 3 ): Measurements: Body length 4.87. Carapace length 1.96, width 1.76. Abdomen length 2.85, width 1.33. Ocular area length 1.30, width at AEs 1.55. Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.57, ALE 0.26, PME 0.07, PLE 0.26; AME-AME 0.03, ALE-ALE 1.21, AME-PME 0.59, PLE-PLE 1.13, PME-PME 1.21, PME-PLE 0.32. Clypeus height 0.08. Length of chelicera 0.80. Measurement of palp and legs: palp 2.19 [0.76, 0.31, 0.25, 0.87], leg I 7.90 [2.31, 0.86, 2.29, 1.51, 0.93], II 6.58 [2.12, 0.78, 1.71, 1.28, 0.69], III 7.18 [2.28, 0.59, 1.70, 1.82, 0.79], IV 6.42 [1.86, 0.58, 1.58, 1.78, 0.62]. Leg formula 1324. Leg spination: femur I pl 3 rl 3 do 3, II-III pl 2 rl 2 do 3, IV pl 1 do 3; patella I-IV pl 1 rl 1; tibia I pl 2 plv 4 rlv 4, II pl 1 rl 2 plv 3 rlv 3, III pl 1 rl 2 plv 2 rlv 2, IV pl 2 rl 3; metatarsus I-II pl 2 rl 2 plv 2 rlv 2, III pl 2 rl 2 plv 1 rlv 1 v 1, IV pl 2 rl 3 plv 2 rlv 2; tarsi I-IV spineless. Carapace high and elevated with posterior slope, pale yellow, covered with colourless setae (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ); margin of carapace with light brown lines; eye field bright yellow, covered with bright yellow setae (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ); AMEs rims light brown, encircled by bright yellow setae (Fig. 1A, G View Figure 1 ). Clypeus low, light yellow-brown (Fig. 1G View Figure 1 ). Chelicerae small, vertical, pale yellow, frontal side with long white setae (Fig. 1G View Figure 1 ); promargin with two teeth and retromargin with one tooth. Endites pale yellow, scopulate, with light brown margins and small anterolateral protuberance (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ). Labium yellow, distally pale yellow, covered with setae (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ). Sternum sub-pentagonal, whitish-yellow, with pale yellow margins (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ). Abdomen nearly cylindrical, posteriorly narrowing, pale white, covered with golden yellow and colourless setae (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ). Venter pale white, covered with colourless setae, medially and laterally with a pair of yellowish dotted lines (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ). Spinnerets pale yellow, covered with light brown setae (Fig. 1A-C View Figure 1 ). Legs long and slender, covered with colourless and black setae (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ). Legs I-III with pale yellow femora, patellae and tarsi; femora covered with light brown longitudinal bands on their prolateral and retrolateral sides; tibiae and metatarsi light yellowish-brown; tibia III and metatarsus III lighter in colour. Legs IV light yellowish-brown, with pale yellow femur and tarsus. Palp pale yellow to light yellowish-brown (Fig. 2A-C View Figure 2 ); RTA short, stout, anterodorsally directed with truncated tip (Figs 2B View Figure 2 , 3B View Figure 3 ); cymbium nearly triangular, covered with white and black setae (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ); cymbial apophysis long and slender, its outer margin serrated (Figs 2B View Figure 2 , 3B View Figure 3 ); tegulum with much developed tongue-like flap (Figs 2A View Figure 2 , 3A View Figure 3 ); embolus very thin and long, originating almost at eight o’clock position and extending to the distal end of cymbium (Figs 2A View Figure 2 and 3A View Figure 3 ).

Female (Figs 1D-F, H View Figure 1 , 2D, E View Figure 2 , 3C-F View Figure 3 , 4A-F View Figure 4 , 5A-F View Figure 5 ) (Description based on newly-collected material): Measurements: Body length 7.57. Carapace length 3.06, width 2.22. Abdomen length 4.30, width 1.97. Ocular area length 1.57, width at AEs 1.88. Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.71, ALE 0.29, PME 0.07, PLE 0.29; AME-AME 0.03, ALE-ALE 1.34, AME-PME 0.63, PLE-PLE 1.34, PME-PME 1.44, PME-PLE 0.40. Clypeus height 0.16. Length of chelicera 0.93. Measurement of palp and legs: palp 2.46 [0.78, 0.34, 0.43, 0.91], leg I 7.67 [2.32, 0.92, 2.25, 1.43, 0.75], II 7.33 [2.29, 0.91, 1.95, 1.36, 0.82], III 8.17 [2.65, 0.68, 2.03, 1.97, 0.84], IV 7.52 [2.18, 0.62, 1.99, 2.02, 0.71]. Leg formula 3142. Leg spination: femur I pl 3 rl 3 do 3, II pl 2 rl 2 do 3, III pl 2 do 3, IV do 3; patella III-IV pl 1 rl 1; tibia I-II plv 4 rlv 4, III-IV pl 1 rl 3 plv 1 rlv 1; metatarsus I-II plv 2 rlv 2, III pl 2 rl 2 plv 2 rlv 2 v 1, IV pl 2 rl 2 plv 2 rlv 2; tarsi I-IV spineless. In all details mostly as male, except for the following: elongate and robust than male (Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ); clypeus pale yellow, densely covered with white setae (Fig. 1H View Figure 1 ); endites distal tip without anterolateral protuberance (Fig. 1E View Figure 1 ); abdomen covered with colourless and white setae, venter without any prominent markings (Fig. 1D, E View Figure 1 ). Epigyne wider than long, with a pair of small epigynal pockets, atrium ovoid (Figs 2D View Figure 2 , 3C View Figure 3 ); copulatory openings widely separated, crescent-like, with closely-arranged posterior margins (Figs 2D View Figure 2 , 3C View Figure 3 ); copulatory ducts very long with several loops, finally entering the spermathecal reservoir posteriorly (Figs 2E View Figure 2 , 3D View Figure 3 ); fertilisation ducts long, orientated laterally, positioned at the anterior region of spermathecae (Figs 2E View Figure 2 , 3D View Figure 3 ).

Distribution.

India: Karnataka (new locality record), Kerala (new locality record), Meghalaya (new locality record), Odisha, West Bengal (Fig. 7 View Figure 7 ).

Variations.

Body length: Male: 4.87-7.83 (n = 3). Female: 4.89-9.58 (n = 19).

Remarks.

Mating plugs were found covering the copulatory openings of the holotype female of E. chilapataensis (Biswas & Biswas, 1992) and of several other females examined from Karnataka and Meghalaya (Figs 3E, F View Figure 3 , 4A-F View Figure 4 , 5C, D View Figure 5 ).

The record of Epeus daiqini Patoleta, Gardzińska & Żabka, 2020 from India was based on the male and female specimens collected from Pathanamthitta, Kerala ( Sibi et al. 2023). However, illustrations of the male and female copulatory organs provided by Sibi et al. (2023) do not match those of the type specimens of E. daiqini : the male palp with serrated cymbial apophysis (absent in the holotype male of E. daiqini ); relatively short and less coiled copulatory ducts (long and strongly coiled in the paratype female of E. daiqini ) (cf. figs 3E-G and 4G-H in Patoleta et al. (2020) with figs 1D-F and 2D-E in Sibi et al. (2023)). Their genital morphology is similar to those of freshly-collected male and female specimens of E. albus (cf. Figs 2A-E View Figure 2 , 3A-D View Figure 3 , 4A-F View Figure 4 with figs 1D-F and 2D, E in Sibi et al. (2023)). Based on these observations, it is apparent that the species is misidentified by Sibi et al. (2023) and it belongs to E. albus .