Pimoa rongxar Zhang & Li, sp. nov.
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.940.49793 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A9CF0232-8E42-454E-8650-82A9D74346D6 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E6BBC56D-6580-54D9-8A68-44E4A68465E5 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Pimoa rongxar Zhang & Li, sp. nov. |
| status |
|
Pimoa rongxar Zhang & Li, sp. nov. View in CoL Figures 10 View Figure 10 , 11 View Figure 11 , 16 View Figure 16
Type material.
Holotype: ♂ (IZCAS-Ar40331), China, Tibet, Shigatse, Dinggyê County, Rongxar Town, Woods by the river, 28.07°N, 86.37°E, elevation ca. 3520 m, 29.VII.2018, X. Zhang and J. Liu leg. Paratype: 1♀ (IZCAS-Ar40332), same data as holotype.
Etymology.
The specific name is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality.
Diagnosis.
The male of Pimoa rongxar sp. nov. resembles P. reniformis (see Xu and Li 2007: 493, figs 36-41) and P. thaleri Trotta, 2009 (see Trotta 2009: 1404, fig. 1) but can be distinguished by the large, long and subdistally wide pimoid cymbial sclerite (Fig. 10B View Figure 10 , vs. small and narrow in P. reniformis ; vs. short and medially wide in P. thaleri ); distinguished from P. reniformis by the long palpal tibia, ca. 1/2 of the cymbial length (Fig. 10A-C View Figure 10 , vs. palpal tibia short, ca. 1/3 of the cymbial length); distinguished from P. thaleri by the pimoid embolic process which is longer than the embolus (Fig. 10B View Figure 10 , vs. a pimoid embolic process that is almost the same length as the embolus). The female of P. rongxar resembles P. indiscreta Hormiga, 1994 (see Hormiga 1994a: 66, figs 248-255) but can be distinguished by a pair of nearly round spermathecae (Fig. 11A View Figure 11 , vs. nearly oval) and by the laterally oriented pair of fertilization ducts (Fig. 11A-D View Figure 11 , vs. medially oriented fertilization ducts).
Description.
Male (holotype): Total length 3.97. Carapace 2.50 long, 1.92 wide. Abdomen 1.47 long, 1.86 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.12, ALE 0.14, PME 0.16, PLE 0.14; AME-AME 0.14, AME-ALE 0.15, PME-PME 0.11, PME-PLE 0.11. Leg measurements: I: 19.23 (5.26, 6.22, 5.19, 2.56); II: 16.79 (4.55, 5.38, 4.62, 2.24); III: 11.48 (3.27, 3.46, 3.21, 1.54); IV: 14.16 (3.97, 4.55, 4.04, 1.60). Habitus as in Fig. 11E View Figure 11 . Carapace brownish with black lateral margins; thoracic fovea and radial grooves distinct; sternum brownish. Abdomen dark gray. Legs brownish with distinct black annulations on all legs. Palp (Fig. 10A-C View Figure 10 ): patella short, ca. 1/2 of tibial length, with a single retrolateral macroseta; tibia long, ca. 1/2 of cymbial length, with several macrosetae and a dorsal process; paracymbium short, ca. 1/3 of cymbial length; pimoid cymbial sclerite large, long and subdistally wide, slightly shorter than cymbial length; cymbial denticulate process short, distally narrow, with more than ten cuspules; median apophysis slender; conductor distinct; pimoid embolic process longer than embolus, abruptly narrowing; embolus beginning at the 5:30 o’clock position; embolic tooth absent.
Female (paratype): Total length 7.63. Carapace 3.78 long, 2.95 wide. Abdomen 3.85 long, 2.63 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.17, ALE 0.20, PME 0.18, PLE 0.17; AME-AME 0.13, AME-ALE 0.17, PME-PME 0.18, PME-PLE 0.21. Leg measurements: I: 24.29 (6.67, 8.14, 6.60, 2.88); II: 22.50 (6.35, 7.44, 6.15, 2.56); III: 17.38 (5.19, 5.58, 4.62, 1.99); IV: 20.77 (6.15, 6.86, 5.58, 2.18). Habitus as in Fig. 11F, G View Figure 11 . Carapace yellowish with black lateral margins; thoracic fovea and radial grooves distinct; sternum brownish. Abdomen yellowish with black marks. Legs yellowish with distinct black annulations on all legs. Epigyne (Fig. 11A-D View Figure 11 ): triangular; ventral plate broad, length subequal to width; dorsal plate narrow, longer than wide; copulatory openings distinct; spermathecae nearly round, separated by ca. 1/4 width of spermatheca; fertilization ducts yellowish, laterally oriented.
Distribution.
Known only from the type locality, Tibet, China (Fig. 16 View Figure 16 ).
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.