Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889

SANKARAN, PRADEEP M. & CALEB, JOHN T. D., 2023, Notes on Indian wolf spiders: II. Genus Hippasa Simon, 1885 (Araneae: Lycosidae Hippasinae), Zootaxa 5230 (2), pp. 101-152 : 114-119

Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889

Figs 10–13 , 36

Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889: 377 (♂ ♀). Marusik & Nadolny 2021: 224, figs 1A–D, 2A–H, 3A–G, 4A–I (♂ ♀).

Trochosa löffleri Roewer, 1955: 771 , fig. 22 (♀). First synonymised by Marusik & Nadolny (2021).

Hippasa afghana Roewer, 1960: 33 , fig. 25a–b (♀). First synonymised by Marusik & Nadolny (2021).

Hippasa löffleri — Roewer 1960: 34 (transfer from Trochosa ).

Trochosa loeffleri — Brignoli 1983: 459.

Hippasa pisaurina Pocock, 1900: 250 (♀). Gravely 1924: 595, fig. 1H (♀). Dyal 1935: 143, plate XIII, fig. 48 (♀). Tikader & Malhotra 1980: 300, figs 111–115 (♂ ♀). Gajbe 2007: 497, figs 230–234 (♂ ♀). Biswas & Raychaudhuri 2007: 245, figs 21–27 (♂ ♀). Najim et al. 2019: 190, fig. 2A–D (♀). New synonymy

Hippasa madhuae Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 298 , figs 106–110 (♂ ♀). Bastawade 2008: 147. Marusik & Nadolny 2021: 228, fig. 8F–J (♂ ♀). New synonymy

Hippasa charamaensis Gajbe, 2004: 5 , figs 1–5 (♂ ♀). New synonymy

Hippasa sinai Alderweireldt & Jocqué, 2005: 61 , figs 38–39 (♂). Alderweireldt et al. 2017: 217, fig. 2 (♀). New synonymy

Type material. H. deserticola . Syntypes ♂ and ♀ from TURKMENISTAN: Imam-baba (41°50'N, 60°08'E) and Murgab (37°29'N, 61°58'E), date unknown, collector unknown, repository MNHN (register number unknown), not examined (illustrations of the male and female genitalia given in Marusik & Nadolny (2021) are diagnostic and were used for comparative purposes). H. pisaurina . Syntype ♀ from INDIA: Maharashtra: Pune (=Poona) (18°36'N, 73°39'E; 669 m alt.), 12 May, Wroughton leg., repository NHM (1899), not examined (illustrations of the female genitalia given in Tikader & Malhotra (1980) based on topotype material that were compared with the syntype and the subsequent images of female genitalia provided by Najim et al. (2019) are diagnostic and were used for comparative purposes). H. charamaensis . Holotype ♀ from INDIA: Chattisgarh: Kanker: Charama (formerly in Madhya Pradesh) (20°28'N, 81°20'E; 373 m alt.), 5 January 1984, U.A. Gajbe leg., repository NZC-ZSI (no register number specified), examined. Allotype ♂, with the same data as holotype, examined. H. madhuae . Holotype ♀ from INDIA: Maharashtra: Ahmednagar: Ahmednagar: Camp, 17 August 1974, M.S. Malhotra leg., repository NZC-ZSI (4665/18), examined. Allotype ♂, with the same data as holotype except 4666/18, examined. H. sinai . Holotype ♂ from EGYPT: Sinai desert: Nuweiba (28°58'N, 34°38'E): Ein Suchna: salt marsh, 20 March 2000, M. Alderweireldt leg., repository MRAC, Belgium (204 210), not examined (illustrations of holotype male given in Alderweireldt & Jocqué (2005: figs 38–39) are diagnostic and were used for comparative purpose).

Diagnosis. Males of H. deserticola are most similar to the males of H. funerea Lessert, 1925 as both share a tegular apophysis with short anterior and broad, triangular mesal arms and spiniform and slightly bent synembolus, but can be separated from the latter by straight anterior arm of tegular apophysis ventrally (vs. hook-shaped in H. funerea ), and mesal arm of tegular apophysis with anteriorly directed tip (vs. posteriorly directed in H. funerea , compare Figs 11B , 13B , and Marusik & Nadolny 2021: fig. 2A with Alderweireldt & Jocqué 2005: fig. 32). Females are similar to the females of H. lingxianensis Yin & Wang, 1980 as both share the epigynal median plate with a scape and short spermathecal stalks, but can be separated from the latter by scape without lobes (vs. bilobed in H. lingxianensis ), and oval spermathecae (vs. spherical in H. lingxianensis , compare Figs 11D, G , 13D , and Marusik & Nadolny 2021: fig. 3A, F with Wang et al. 2015: fig. 6F–G).

Supplementary description. Male in ethanol ( Fig. 10B ). Body length 8.26. Carapace 4.01 long, 2.72 wide. Opisthosoma 4.25 long, 2.06 wide. Pedipalp ( Fig. 11A–C ): segments hirsute; cymbium proximally wide, gradually narrowing towards apex, without apical claw-like macrosetae, distoventrally provided with long setae with bend tips ( Fig. 11A–C ). Tegulum large, occupying more than half of the ventral side of bulb ( Fig. 11A–C ). Subtegulum small, subglobular, posteroprolaterally located ( Fig. 11A ). Palea moderately broad, widely triangular, less sclerotised ( Fig. 11B ). Synembolus short, narrow, slightly curved, arising on ventroretrolateral margin of palea, with smoothly rounded tip ( Fig. 11B–C ). Tegular process broad, triangular ( Fig. 11B ). Tegular apophysis with short, flat, slightly curved anterior arm, which has a prolaterally directed, smoothly rounded tip and a short, posteriorly directed mesal arm ( Fig. 11B–C ). Conductor short, hyaline, lying behind embolus ( Fig. 11B ). Embolus thin, moderately long, curved ( Fig. 11B ).

Female in ethanol ( Fig. 10A ). Body length 10.70. Carapace 4.51 long, 2.92 wide. Opisthosoma 6.19 long, 3.95 wide. Genitalia ( Fig. 11D–G ): epigyne clothed in bushy setae, with widely triangular median and short lateral plates ( Fig. 11D ); median plate with a median, posteriorly directed trapezoid scape, with a small atrium leading to a short hood internally ( Fig. 11D–E ). Accessory glands apparently absent. Spermathecal stalks short, straight distally, converging ( Fig. 11F–G ). Spermathecae oval ( Fig. 11G ). Fertilization ducts anteriorly directed, diverging.

Justification of synonymies. Detailed examination of the holotype female of H. charamaensis and H. madhuae revealed that both have all the diagnostic features of the female of H. deserticola , including the shape of the scape of epigynal plate, size of epigynal atrium and shape and orientation of copulatory ducts and spermathecae (compare Figs 11D–G and 13C–D with Marusik & Nadolny 2021: fig. 3B, F–G). Based on these observations, we propose to consider H. charamaensis and H. madhuae as junior synonyms of H. deserticola .

Even though we were unable to examine the type of H. pisaurina , the female genitalic illustrations from Tikader & Malhotra (1980: figs 112–113), which were based on topotype material and compared with the type, are diagnostic. A comparison of these illustrations with the genitalia of H. deserticola show no distinguishable differences between these two species, indicating that both are conspecific, as suggested by Marusik & Nadolny (2021, compare Tikader & Malhotra 1980: figs 112–113 with Marusik & Nadolny 2021: fig. 3A–G). Thus, we propose to consider H. pisaurina as a junior synonym of H. deserticola .

Even though we were unable to examine the holotype of H. sinai , good illustrations for this species are available and a comparison of these illustrations with the genitalia of H. deserticola show no distinguishable differences between these two species, indicating that both are conspecific (compare Alderweireldt & Jocqué 2005: fig. 38; Alderweireldt et al. 2017: fig. 2 with Marusik & Nadolny 2021: figs 2A, 3A–G). Thus, we propose to consider H. sinai as a junior synonym of H. deserticola .

Distribution. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and India: Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra ( Simon 1889; Pocock 1900; Gravely 1924; Dyal 1935; Roewer 1955, 1960; Tikader & Malhotra 1980; Gajbe 2004, 2007; Alderweireldt & Jocqué 2005; Biswas & Raychaudhuri 2007; Bastawade 2008; Alderweireldt et al. 2017; Najim et al. 2019; Marusik & Nadolny 2021) ( Fig. 36 ).

Remarks. The NZC-ZSI collection has one glass tube for H. charamaensis , labeled as ‘ holotype and allotype’ (no register number specified), containing male and female specimens in good condition. The same tube has a small glass vial containing the dissected female genitalia. The NZC-ZSI collection also has three glass tubes for H. madhuae . A tube labeled as ‘holotype’ (4665/18) contains a female specimen in good condition, though with broken legs. The same tube has a small glass vial containing the dissected female genitalia. A second tube labeled as ‘allotype’ (4666/18) contains a male specimen in good condition, though with broken legs. We dissected the left pedipalp of the allotype for the present study. A third tube labeled as ‘ H. madhuae ’ (4432/18) contains two damaged female specimens collected in Dhakuria of Kolkata by B. K. Tikader on 10/10/1958.

Figures

FIGURE 10. Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889, types of Hippasa charamaensis Gajbe, 2004.A holotype female habitus, dorsal view. B allotype male habitus, dorsal view. C labels from type bottle. Scale bars: A–B, 2 mm.

FIGURE 11. Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889, genitalia of types of Hippasa charamaensis Gajbe, 2004.A–C left pedipalp of allotype male: A prolateroventral view; B ventral view; C retrolateral view. D–G holotype female genitalia: D epigyne, ventral view; E same, oblique ventral view; F vulva, dorsal view; G same, oblique dorsal view. Scale bars: A–C, 0.5 mm; D–G, 0.2 mm.

FIGURE 12. Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889, types of Hippasa madhuae Tikader & Malhotra, 1980. A holotype female habitus (NZC-ZSI 4665/18), dorsal view. B allotype male habitus (NZC-ZSI 4666/18), dorsal view. C–D labels from type bottle. Scale bars: A–B, 2 mm.

FIGURE 13. Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889, genitalia of types of Hippasa madhuae Tikader & Malhotra, 1980 (NZC-ZSI 4665/18 and 4666/18). A–B left pedipalp of allotype male: A prolateroventral view; B ventral view. C–D holotype female genitalia: C epigyne, oblique ventral view; D vulva, oblique dorsal view. Scale bars: A–B, 0.5 mm; C–D, 0.2 mm.

FIGURE 36. Geographic distribution records of Hippasa deserticola Simon, 1889 in India (Pocock 1900; Gravely 1924; Tikader & Malhotra 1980; Gajbe 2004, 2007; Bastawade 2008).