Pimoa sangri Zhang & Li, 2021
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1029.64080 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E4AB7004-4633-4051-97DF-E02F1F68CCC4 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/512CDF6A-E167-446F-898E-B2C0B921A032 |
|
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:512CDF6A-E167-446F-898E-B2C0B921A032 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Pimoa sangri Zhang & Li |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Pimoa sangri Zhang & Li sp. nov. Figures 41 View Figure 41 , 42 View Figure 42 , 57 View Figure 57 , 59 View Figure 59
Type material.
Holotype: ♂ (IZCAS-Ar41997), China, Tibet, Lhoka, along provincial highway 306 from Gyaca County to Sangri County, 29.05°N, 92.39°E, ca. 4329 m, 27.VIII.2018, X. Zhang, Z. Bai and J. Liu leg. Paratypes: 1♂2♀ (IZCAS-Ar41998-Ar42000), same data as holotype.
Etymology.
The specific name is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality.
Diagnosis.
The male of Pimoa sangri sp. nov. resembles those of P. gandhii (see Hormiga 1994a: 60, figs 218-223) and P. nyingchi (see Zhang et al. 2020: 91, fig. 8A-C) but can be distinguished from P. gandhii by the V-shaped pimoid cymbial sclerite (Fig. 57B View Figure 57 ) (vs. L-shaped), by having the pimoid embolic process shorter than the embolus (Figs 41A View Figure 41 , 57B View Figure 57 ) (vs. longer), and distinguished from P. nyingchi by the embolus beginning at the 4:30 o’clock position (Fig. 57B View Figure 57 ) (vs. 3:00), and the narrow cymbial denticulate process (Fig. 57B View Figure 57 ) (vs. broad). The female of P. sangri sp. nov. also resembles P. gandhii (see Hormiga 1994a: 60, figs 224-231) but can be distinguished by the wide proximal fertilization ducts (Fig. 42A View Figure 42 ) (vs. narrow) and by the rectangular spermathecae, divided into two parts (Fig. 42A View Figure 42 ) (vs. oval).
Description.
Male (holotype): Total length 8.52. Carapace 4.04 long, 3.28 wide. Abdomen 4.48 long, 2.28 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.20, ALE 0.16, PME 0.17, PLE 0.16; AME-AME 0.13, AME-ALE 0.17, PME-PME 0.15, PME-PLE 0.25. Leg measurements: I: 28.94 (8.28, 9.41, 8.22, 3.03); II: 28.36 (7.88, 9.07, 8.75, 2.66); III: 18.87 (5.63, 5.66, 5.74, 1.84); IV: 24.38 (6.97, 7.97, 7.38, 2.06). Habitus as in Fig. 42E View Figure 42 . Carapace yellowish with black lateral margins; thoracic fovea and radial grooves distinct; sternum brownish. Abdomen black with yellowish transverse chevrons, nearly oval. Legs brownish with black annulations. Palp (Figs 41A, B View Figure 41 , 57B View Figure 57 ): patella short, almost as long as tibial length, with one retrolateral macroseta; tibia short, ca. 1/2 of cymbial length, with several macrosetae and a dorsal process; paracymbium short, ca. 1/3 of cymbial length, hook shaped; pimoid cymbial sclerite V-shaped, ca. 1/3 of cymbial length; cymbial denticulate process short and distally curved, with more than 15 cuspules; median apophysis slender; conductor indistinct; pimoid embolic process distally pointed, shorter than embolus; embolus beginning at the 4:30 o’clock position; embolic tooth absent.
Female (paratype): Total length 8.80. Carapace 3.44 long, 3.22 wide. Abdomen 5.36 long, 3.36 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.19, ALE 0.19, PME 0.20, PLE 0.18; AME-AME 0.14, AME-ALE 0.18, PME-PME 0.17, PME-PLE 0.25. Leg measurements: I: 26.73 (7.25, 9.15, 7.55, 2.78); II: 23.40 (6.49, 7.72, 6.78, 2.41); III: 17.01 (5.19, 5.44, 4.72, 1.66); IV: 21.14 (6.16, 7.07, 5.88, 2.03). Habitus as in Fig. 42F, G View Figure 42 . Carapace yellowish with black lateral margins; thoracic fovea and radial grooves distinct; sternum brownish. Abdomen dark brown with yellowish transverse chevrons. Legs brownish with black annulations. Epigyne (Fig. 42A-D View Figure 42 ): triangular; ventral plate broad, length subequal to width; dorsal plate triangular; copulatory openings distinct; spermathecae nearly rectangular, divided into two parts, separated by ca. 1/2 width of spermatheca; fertilization ducts yellowish, laterally oriented.
Distribution.
Known only from the type locality, Tibet, China (Fig. 59 View Figure 59 ).
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.