Rothus auratus Pocock, 1900

Cruz Da Silva, Estevam L. & Sierwald, Petra, 2015, First description of the male of Rothus vittatus Simon, 1898 (Araneae: Pisauridae), with a review of the African nursery web spider genus Rothus Simon, 1898, African Invertebrates 56 (2), pp. 325-342 : 339-340

Rothus auratus Pocock, 1900

Figs 43–48

Rothus auratus Pocock, 1900: 326 ; Pocock 1902: 16, pl. 3, fig. 3; Blandin 1977: 554, fig. 14.

Diagnosis: The female of R. auratus can be distinguished from those of R. aethiopicus ( Fig. 8) and R. vittatus ( Fig. 30) by the slightly elongated lateral lobes and by the wider middle field of the epigynum ( Fig. 48). Male unknown.

Redescription:

Female ( South Africa, BMNH 1901.3.9.37).

Total length 12.2. Prosoma 5.5 long, 4.6 wide, light brown, with two wide lateral whitish bands ( Figs 43, 44). Clypeus light brown, 0.38 high ( Fig. 47).Anterior eye row straight, 1.48 wide ( Fig. 47); posterior recurved, 1.86 wide ( Fig. 44). Eye measurements: AME 0.24, ALE 0.32, PME 0.36, PLE 0.30; AME–AME 0.18, AME–ALE 0.18, PME–PME 0.28, PME–PLE 0.42, OQA 0.62, OQP 1.01, OQH 0.94. Chelicerae light brown, with white bristles ( Fig. 47). Sternum light brown, bristly; (estimated, sternum damaged) 2.5 long, 2.4 wide ( Figs 45, 46). Labium (damaged, no measurements) dark brown, light brown distally ( Fig. 46). Legs light brown, relative length: I-II-IV-III, I – femur 6.30/ patella-tibia 7.96/ metatarsus 5.14/ tarsus 2.98/ total 22.38; II – 6.14/ 7.80/ 5.31/ 2.65/ 21.90; III – 5.31/ 7.47/ 3.48/ 2.32/ 18.58; IV – 5.81/ 6.64/ 6.47/ 2.86/ 21.78. Ventral pairs of macrosetae on tibiae: I-4; II-4; III-3; IV-3. Opisthosoma 7.1 long, light brown, with dark brown band at anterior portion ( Fig. 43). Venter light brown, with thin dark brown median band ( Fig. 45). Epigynum with deep excavation of middle field, lateral lobes with wide oval curve, anteriorly reaching epigastric furrow, with significant distance to each other ( Fig. 48).

Type material examined: Holotype: ♀ SOUTH AFRICA: Northern Cape: Namaqualand, Garies [30°13'S 19°12'E] ( BMNH 1901.3.9.37).

Remarks: Unfortunately the internal structures of the female genitalia could not be examined, since we did not want to dissect the only available specimen, the holotype. Rothus auratus and R. vittatus may be conspecific. The paucity of material of R. vittatus prohibits an evaluation of the intraspecific variability of the female copulatory organs. Furthermore, the single specimen of R. auratus is significantly larger than all of the specimens of R. vittatus that we examined. Therefore, we opt for maintaining both as separate species at this point.

Distribution: South Africa (Northern Cape) ( Fig. 1).