Paradonea striatipes Lawrence
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.195.2342 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/DEFD958C-2BD2-B419-00CA-B230ED094FF8 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Paradonea striatipes Lawrence |
status |
|
Paradonea striatipes Lawrence View in CoL Figs 10A, B13J, K68 A–C, G, H71
Paradonea striat ipes Lawrence, 1968: 116-118, figs 2f, 3b.
Diagnosis.
Distinguished from other Eresidae except Gandanameno , some Dresserus , Stegodyphus dumicola , Stegodyphus tentoriicola , and Loureedia annulipes by the bifid conductor (Figs 13J, K, 68G, H); distinguished from Dresserus and Gandanameno by the palpal conformation, which has a proximal-ventral axis with the helical embolus encircling the distal part (obliquely ventral-dorsal in Dresserus and Gandanameno with the embolus encircling the ventral part, Figs 12 G–I, 13 D–F, 33 I–K, 48 A–C); distinguished from Stegodyphus dumicola , Stegodyphus tentoriicola , and Loureedia annulipes by the shape of the conductor branches, which strongly diverge in orientation and feature a curved, spine-like dorsal branch and a broad ventral branch with several small sharp processes (Fig. 68H). Distinguished from other eresids except Paradonea parva , Paradonea presleyi sp. n., Seothyra , and some Stegodyphus by the enlarged leg I (Fig. 68A, B), distinguished from Paradonea parva , Paradonea presleyi sp. n., and Seothyra by the presence of a dense brush of setae, especially on the tibia (Fig. 68A, B); distinguished from Paradonea presleyi sp. n. and Stegodyphus by the separation of the median eyes on the vertical axis (Fig. 10A; broadly overlapping in Paradonea presleyi sp. n. and Stegodyphus , Figs 11E, 70I). Paradonea striatipes has the PLE in a more advanced position (ca. 0.25) than most other eresids (Fig. 11B; Dresserus , Gandanameno , and Stegodyphus may also have the PLE around 0.25). The markings, especially the distribution of white setae, are unique (Fig. 68 A–C). The palpi are relatively small proportional to body size compared to other eresids (Fig. 68B).
Description.
Male (Outjo Namibia, NMBA05700, BMSA): Carapace with broad band of white setae around margin and between AME; cephalic region subtriangular, longer than wide, strongly raised; AME distinctly smaller than PME (AME/PME 0.33), median eyes widely separated on horizontal axis, adjacent on vertical axis; ALE on distinct tubercles; PER much narrower than AER (PER/AER 0.82), PLE position on carapace 0.25; clypeal hood forms acute angle; fovea shallow. Chelicerae with lateral boss, basal three quarters covered in white setae, contiguous mesally. Legs with bands of white setae, especially dorsally along the length of most segments; leg I somewhat thickened and elongated, tibia I with brush of dark setae; with scattered ventral macrosetae on tibia II–IV and metatarsus and tarsus I–IV. Abdomen black with series of irregular transverse stripes formed by thick patches of white setae (Figs 10A, B, 68 A–C).
Male palp with proximal-distal axis; tegulum moderately elongate, subtrapezoidal; second loop of sperm duct follows complicated path featuring multiple switchbacks; conductor and embolus together form apical complex making 1.5 helical turns; conductor with conspicuous bifid apophysis arising from retrolateral side, consisting of a spine-like dorsal branch curving distally for nearly 180° and a broad, flattened ventral branch with several small sharp processes along the ventral and distal margins; tegular division longer than embolic division; cymbium with a few mesosetae (only slightly thicker than normal setae) over dorsal to prolateral surface (Figs 12J, K, 68G, H).
Female: Unknown.
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.