Huriini Simon, 1901

Type genus. Hurius Simon, 1901, by original designation.

Revised diagnosis. Due to the “standard” salticid body form and leg proportions of huriines (Ruiz & Maddison 2015), i.e., short to compact body with moderately high carapaces, recognition of its members is possible by comparison with other amycoid tribes. Huriines differ from gophoines and bredines by not having flattened and elongate bodies (as in most gophoines and bredines), and from amycines by having leg IV longer than III. From sitticines, by having one retrolateral tooth on the chelicera (absent in sitticines). Females of huriines and simonellines differ from those of scopocirines, thiodinines and sarindines by not having the spermathecae anteriorly-placed in the epigyne, and copulatory ducts not concentrically coiled; on the other hand, males of huriines and simonellines differ from those of scopocirines, thiodinines and sarindines by having the male palp bulb usually more spherical. Huriines differ from simonellines by having only one retromarginal tooth in the chelicera of both sexes, and by not having females with dorsal and/or ventral abdominal scuta. In addition, huriines have orange, yellow, brownish-red and dark coloration, with dorsal abdominal pattern composed of dark chevrons (see arrows in Figs 1, 9, 27, 35, 43, 49, 53).

Notes. Here we reinterpreted Scoturius as having two RTA lobes (see discussion below), as described for Urupuyu (see Ruiz & Maddison 2015: 253). This new comprehension of a complex, bilobed RTA in Scoturius accompanied by a well-developed RvTA seems more plausible than the traditional idea of three independent tibial apophyses in that genus (see Simon 1901a; Galiano 1988). Some bredines, such as Breda Peckham & Peckham, 1894, also have well-developed RvTA (Ruiz & Brescovit 2013). Huriines differ from the flattened-bodied species of Breda by the curved RvTA positioned obliquely on the tibia (straight and parallel to tibia in Breda) and the developed RTA (lost in Breda).