Paradonea parva (Tucker)

Miller, Jeremy A., Griswold, Charles E., Scharff, Nikolaj, Řezac, Milan, Szűts, Tamas & Marhabaie, Mohammad, 2012, The velvet spiders: an atlas of the Eresidae (Arachnida, Araneae), ZooKeys 195, pp. 1-144 : 72-74

Paradonea parva (Tucker) Figs 14 D–I70A–F 71

Adonea parva Tucker, 1920: 451, pl. 28, fig. 2.

Paradonea parva (Tucker, 1920). Lawrence 1968: 116.

Diagnosis.

Distinguished from other eresids except Seothyra and some Stegodyphus by the embolic division, which is much longer than the tegular division (Fig. 14 D–I); distinguished from Seothyra by the median eye group, which have the PME clearly larger than the AME (AME/PME ca. 0.5, Fig. 70F; median eyes small and subequal Seothyra , Fig. 10K); distinguished from Stegodyphus by having the PLE position>0.33 (<0.28 in Stegodyphus ). By contrast with most other eresids (except Paradonea striatipes , Paradonea presleyi sp. n., Seothyra , and some Stegodyphus ), Paradonea parva has a slightly enlarged leg I (Fig. 70D, E).

Note.

The holotype specimen is bleached and damaged (Figs 14 D–F, 70 A–C). The description is based mostly on better preserved, putatively conspecific individuals. However, there are morphological differences including carapace shape (compare Fig. 70C with Fig. 70F) and the shape of the palpal conductor (compare Fig. 14E with Fig. 14H), which could be taken to mean that there is more than one species in this complex. But for now, we attribute these differences to preservation artifacts. The discovery and examination of more fresh specimens would be helpful in resolving this question. For now, we present photographs of both the holotype (Figs 14 D–F, 70 A–C) and a more well-preserved specimen (Figs 14 G–I, 70 D–F).

Description.

Male (4 km N of Hopetown, South Africa, AcAT 97/988, NCA): Carapace with white setae concentrated in thoracic region and posterior of cephalic region, and forming two longitudinal lines connecting the lateral eyes; cephalic region subtriangular, longer than wide, slightly raised; AME distinctly smaller than PME (AME/PME 0.45), median eyes slightly overlapping on horizontal and vertical axes; ALE tubercles absent; PER slightly narrower than AER (PER/AER 0.94), PLE position on carapace 0.35; clypeal hood forms a slightly less than 90° angle; fovea indistinct. Chelicerae slightly excavated mesally, with lateral boss. Legs with patches and bands of white setae; leg I slightly thickened; with row of distal ventral macrosetae on metatarsus I–IV, a few scattered ventral macrosetae on tarsus I–IV and metatarsus III–IV; leg I slightly thickened. Abdomen with two longitudinal stripes of white hairs ectal to sigilla (Fig. 70 D–F).

Male palp with proximal-distal axis; tegulum bulbous; conductor and embolus together form apical complex running more or less distally; conductor moderately sclerotized, broad with longitudinal ridges, tip blunt, embolic division much longer than tegular division; cymbium with several prolateral, fewer retrolateral macrosetae (Fig. 14 G–I).

Female: Unknown.