Melychiopharis Simon, 1895
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5555.1.5 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A343FE14-67CC-45AF-9A41-809E47390884 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14508672 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038287B7-626B-0D62-FF61-FA29FD2DF487 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Melychiopharis Simon, 1895 |
status |
|
Genus Melychiopharis Simon, 1895 View in CoL
Melychiopharis Simon, 1895: 907 View in CoL .
Melychiopharis View in CoL : Levi 2002: 562 (transferred to Theridiidae View in CoL ); Santos et al. 2005: 59 View Cited Treatment (transferred to Araneidae View in CoL ); Brescovit et al. 2011: 61 View Cited Treatment .
Type species: Melychiopharis cynips Simon, 1895 View in CoL from Brazil, by monotypy.
Diagnosis. Members of Melychiopharis are easily distinguished from all members of any other genera of Araneidae (except Testudinaria Taczanowski, 1879 and Heterognatha Guérin, 1839 ) by the following characteristics: absence of flagelliform gland spigot of the PLS in females ( Fig. 5H View FIGURE 5 ); male palp without radix ( Figs 3A View FIGURE 3 , 7A View FIGURE 7 , 10A View FIGURE 10 ); carapace with deep setal pit dorsally and laterally ( Figs 4A View FIGURE 4 , 6A View FIGURE 6 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ), labium fused with sternum, metatarsi III and IV with two trichobothria and absence of sustentaculum ( Fig. 5A, B View FIGURE 5 ). From Testudinaria and Heterognatha by their sternum encompassing coxae ( Figs 4C View FIGURE 4 , 5C View FIGURE 5 ); while carapace is as long as wide (longer than wide in Melychiopharis ) and sternum do not surround coxae in Testudinaria and Heterognatha (see Dupérré & Tapia 2023: figs 1b, 4b; Levi 2005: figs 6, 9). Furthermore, males are distinguished by their palpal median apophysis rugged ( Figs 3A View FIGURE 3 , 7A View FIGURE 7 , 10A View FIGURE 10 ); smooth in the latter (see Dupérré & Tapia 2023: figs 3d, 4e; Levi 2005: fig. 11). Females are differentiated by the presence of an epigastric scutum ( Figs 2B View FIGURE 2 , 9D View FIGURE 9 ), absent in the latter (see Dupérré & Tapia 2023: fig. 8b).
Description. Total length, male (1.90‒2.59), female (2.50‒2.83). Carapace: pear-shaped, elongated; fovea absent, cephalic grove absent; covered with deep setal pits ( Figs 1A View FIGURE 1 , 4A View FIGURE 4 ); sternum surrounding coxae ( Fig. 4C View FIGURE 4 ); labium fused to sternum ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ). Eyes: eight eyes of equal size ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 , 4B View FIGURE 4 ). Opisthosoma: dorsally covered either by a single, large scutum, or by several paired and unpaired scuta different in males and females ( Figs 1A View FIGURE 1 , 6A View FIGURE 6 , 8A View FIGURE 8 ); ventrally with large epigastric scutum surrounding the epigyne, book lungs and lateral side extending postepigastric, venter with median scutum, spinneret scutum that can be fused and set of small scuta ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2 ), pattern formed by ventral scuta differ in males and females; colulus small, triangular. Legs: formula 1423; relatively long and thin, spineless or with few spines, lacking annulations, metatarsi I‒II with one trichobothria, metatarsi III‒IV with two trichobothria, three claws, sustentaculum on leg IV absent ( Fig. 5A, B View FIGURE 5 ). Genitalia: Male palp with relatively long femur, ca 4x longer than wide; patella short, as long as wide; tibia slightly longer than wide; cymbium about 1.7x longer than wide, and as long as femur+patella, wide proximally and tapering toward tip, with moderate to deep dorsal excavation ( Figs 1F View FIGURE 1 , 6E View FIGURE 6 , 8E View FIGURE 8 ); paracymbium small, lacking setae; bulb without radix, median apophysis (ma) with rugose anterior part, in some species with long posterior extension ( Fig. 3A View FIGURE 3 ); conductor (c) small, smaller than median apophysis, membranous; embolus with large base, roundly bent, its tip resting on conductor. Female epigyne well sclerotized, epigynal plate arount 2x wider than long with bell-shaped median depression ( Fig. 3C View FIGURE 3 ); internal genitalia with rounded to oval spermathecae ( Figs 3D View FIGURE 3 , 10D View FIGURE 10 ).
Composition. Melychiopharis bibendum Brescovit, Santos & Leite, 2011 , M. cynips Simon, 1895 , M. davincii Dupérré & Tapia sp. nov., M. komischtier Dupérré & Tapia sp. nov. and, M. peruviana Eskov & Marusik sp. nov.
Remarks. Not much is known about the biology of these spiders, specimens are scarce, less than 10 specimens have been collected so far and no in situ observation has been achieved. Most specimens were collected by beating vegetation and fogging ( Santos et al. 2005) or visual search, but no web where ever observed ( Brescovit et al. 2011).
Distribution. Ecuador, Brazil and Peru.
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 |
Melychiopharis Simon, 1895
Dupérré, Nadine, Tapia, Elicio, Marusik, Yuri & Eskov, Kirill 2024 |
Melychiopharis
Brescovit, A. D. & Santos, A. J. & Leite, C. M. P. 2011: 61 |
Santos, A. J. & Brescovit, A. D. & Levi, H. W. 2005: 59 |
Levi, H. W. 2002: 562 |
Melychiopharis
Simon, E. 1895: 907 |