Umuara xingo, Oliveira, Luiz Fernando M. & Brescovit, Antonio D., 2015
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3980.3.7 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4027F9AC-3408-4E96-99FF-60E68CF2D1D2 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6102523 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/060CC06C-FFF6-6867-FF7C-BE3AFEBAFB50 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Umuara xingo |
status |
sp. nov. |
Umuara xingo View in CoL new species
Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 C–D; 3A–H; 4
Type material. Male holotype and female paratype from Usina Hidrelétrica de Xingó (9°37’59”S; 37°47’44”W), Canindé de São Francisco, Sergipe, Brazil, 04.III.2000 – 29.III.2001, L. Ianuzzi leg., deposited in IBSP 91398.
Etymology. The specific name is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality.
Diagnosis. Males of Umuara xingo resemble those of Umuara pydanieli by the shape of the retrolateral tibial apophysis (see Brescovit, 1997, figs. 251–252), but can be recognized by the inconspicuous apophysis of embolic process ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 A, B) and by the median apophysis with enlarged base ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 B, C). Females are distinguished from all others species in the genus by the extremely narrowed epigynal lateral borders and by the conical median hood ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 G).
Description. Male (IBSP 91398). Carapace orange with grayish-green paramedian strips; border of eyes black; chelicerae, labium and endites orange; sternum yellow, with dark borders; legs orange, with ventral face of coxa, trochanter and femur white; abdomen dorsally yellowish, with scattered paramedian grayish-green stripes, ventrally white; spinnerets yellow ( Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 C). Total length 4.4, carapace length 1.89, width 1.6. Clypeus height 0.08. Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.08, ALE 0.1, PME 0.1, PLE 0.1, AME–AME 0.02, AME–ALE 0.02, PME–PME 0.1, PME–PLE 0.08, ALE–PLE 0.02. Chelicerae 1.0 long, with three promarginal teeth and five retromarginal denticles. Leg measurements: Leg I—femur 2.4/ patella 0.9/ tibia 2.7/ metatarsus 2.5/ tarsus 0.9/ total 9.4; II—2.0/ 0.9/ 1.9/ 1.8/ 0.7/ 7.3; III—1.5/ 0.5/ 1.2/ 1.4/ 0.4/ 5.0; IV—2.1/ 0.7/ 1.9/ 2.5/ 0.55/ 7.75. Leg spination: I—metatarsus p0; II—tibia v2-1 p-2-2, p1-0-1, metatarsus v2-1 -0; III—tibia v1 p-2-2, p1-1-1, r0-1-1, metatarsus v2-1 p-2, r0-1-1; IV—tibia v1 p-2-2. Palp with retrolateral tibial apophysis slightly curved at tip, base small ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 D, E); embolus short, enlarged at base, embolic process covered by tegulum ( Figs. 3 View FIGURE 3 A–B, F).
Female (IBSP 91398). Coloration as male ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 D). Total length 5.7, carapace length 2.49, width 1.8. Clypeus height 0.08. Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.08, ALE 0.1, PME 0.1, PLE 0.1, AME–AME 0.06, AME– ALE 0.04, PME–PME 0.14, PME–PLE 0.14, ALE–PLE 0.06. Chelicerae 1.1 long, with eight promarginal teeth and nine retromarginal denticles. Leg measurements: Leg I—femur 2.1/ patella 0.9/ tibia 2.0/ metatarsus 1.9/ tarsus 0.8/ total 7.7; II—1.8/ 0.8/ 1.65/ 1.5/ 0.6/ 6.35; III—1.5/ 0.6/ 1.0/ 1.3/ 0.4/ 4.8; IV—2.1/ 0.7/ 1.8/ 2.3/ 0.5/ 7.4. Leg spination: I—tibia v2-2 -0, p0, r0, metatarsus p0; II—tibia v2-2 -0, r0, metatarsus p0, r0; IV—tibia r0-1-1. Abdomen: length 3.0, epigastric furrow 0.7 from tracheal spiracle, spiracle 1.4 from base of spinnerets. Epigynum: copulatory ducts extremely long; spermathecae not separated; fertilization ducts long, two times the length of spermathecae ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 H).
Variation. Males (n=10) total length 3.1–5.4; carapace 1.5–2.15; femur I 1.6–3.0. Females (n=10) total length 1.8–5.4; carapace 1.5–2.2; femur I 1.4–1.9.
Other material examined. BRAZIL, Ceará: Crateús, Serra das Almas (05°10’40”S; 40°40’40”W), 2003, 1♀, M. Carvalho leg. ( IBSP 63591); Paraíba: Km 196, 22. V.1976, 4 ♂, 3♀, P.F.L. Duarte leg. ( IBSP 28065); Areia, Reserva Mata do Pau Ferro (06°59’28”S; 35°45’04”W), 23–29. IX.1999, 1 ♂, A.D. Brescovit et al. leg. ( IBSP 138953); 23–29. IX.1999, 1 ♀, A.D. Brescovit et al. leg. ( IBSP 138954); São João do Cariri (07°23’27”S; 36°31’58”W), III.2004, 1 ♂, 1♀, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91323); III.2004, 1 ♂, 1♀, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91324); III.2004, 2 ♂, 2♀, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91325); III.2004, 1 ♂, 1♀, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91326); III.2004, 1 ♂, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91327); III.2004, 1 ♂, 1♀, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91328); III.2004, 1 ♂, S.C. Dias leg. ( IBSP 91329); VIII.2010, 1 ♀, Zepelini leg. ( IBSP 166248); Sergipe: Canindé de São Francisco, Usina Hidrelétrica de Xingó (09°37’24”S; 37°47’37”W), 04.III.2000 –29. III.2001, 1 ♂ ( IBSP 91393); 1♂ ( IBSP 91394); 1♀ ( IBSP 91395); 1♀ ( IBSP 91396); 1♀ ( IBSP 91397); 1♂ ( IBSP 91392); 1♂ ( IBSP 91399); 1♂ ( IBSP 91400); 1♂ ( IBSP 91401); 1♂ ( IBSP 91402); 1♂ ( IBSP 91403); 1♂ ( IBSP 91405); 1♀ ( IBSP 91406); 1♂ ( IBSP 91407); 1♀ ( IBSP 91408) all collected by L. Ianuzzi; Itabaiana (10°42’36”S; 37°16’42”W), 14–20. IX.1999, 1 ♀, A.D. Brescovit et al. leg. ( IBSP 138778); Bahia: Central (11°08’09”S; 42°06’46”W), Sítio do Aceno, 17. VII.2000, 1 ♀, E. Folly leg. ( IBSP 26211); Fazenda Pau de Colher, 22. VI.2002, 1 ♀, F. Cunha leg. ( IBSP 138826); 22. VI.2002, 1 ♀, E.F. Ramos leg. ( IBSP 138825); Itapetinga (05°15’12.48”S; 40°15’19.78”W), III–IV.2003, 1 ♀, J.P.S. Alves leg. ( IBSP 66470); Maracás (13°26’27”S; 40°25’51”W), 2007, 1♀, P.M. Brito leg. ( IBSP 148755); Senhor do Bonfim (10°27’46”S; 40°11’27”W), III–VII.2008, 1 ♂ ( IBSP 133751); 1♂, 1♀ ( IBSP 133752); 1♀ ( IBSP 133753); 2♂ ( IBSP 133754); 1♀ ( IBSP 133755); 1♀ ( IBSP 133756); 1♂ ( IBSP 133757); 1♀ ( IBSP 133748); 1♀ ( IBSP 133749) all collected by J.S. Costa; Espírito Santo: São Mateus, Reserva Florestal Vale do Rio Doce (19°18’00”S; 40°19’00”W), 5– 12. I.1998, 2 ♂, 1♀, A.D. Brescovit et al. leg. ( IBSP 16642); 5–12. I.1998, 4 ♂, 7♀, A.D. Brescovit et al. leg. ( IBSP 24374); Rio de Janeiro: Arraial do Cabo (22°57’57”S; 42°01’40”W), 15. XII.1995, 1 ♀, R.S. Bérnils leg. ( MZSP 14986).
Distribution. Known from the states of Ceará, Paraíba, Sergipe, Bahia, Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 ).
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |