Raveniola zaitzevi ( Charitonov, 1948 )

Zonstein, Sergei, Kunt, Kadir B. & Yağmur, Ersen A., 2018, A revision of the spider genus Raveniola (Araneae, Nemesiidae). I. Species from Western Asia, European Journal of Taxonomy 399, pp. 1-93 : 34-37

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2018.399
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E836E138-D6E2-4F62-B4B3-CE2E073F2B24
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14525602
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B9B44C-5656-0C03-5106-862BFD224B39
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Raveniola zaitzevi ( Charitonov, 1948 )
status

Treatment

Raveniola zaitzevi ( Charitonov, 1948) View in CoL

Figs 12 View Figs 7–12 , 18 View Figs 13–18 , 27–28 View Figs 25–30 , 31, 34 View Figs 31–36 , 55–56 View Figs 52–58 , 61, 63, 66 View Figs 59–67 , 80 View Figs 79–83 , 93 View Figs 90–95 , 113 View Figs 102–116 , 126 View Figs 117–128 , 141 View Figs 141–144 , 161 View Figs 161–164 , 193–194 View Figs 189–197 , 208–209 View Figs 204–212 , 220 View Figure 220

Brachythele zaitzevi Charitonov, 1948: 135 (♀).

Brachythele recki Mcheidze, 1983: 122 , fig. 1 (♀). syn. nov.

Brachythele zaitzevi – Brignoli 1983: 123. — Zonstein 1985: 160.

Raveniola zaitzevi View in CoL – Zonstein 1987: 1015. — Dunin 1988: 1247; 1989: 33. — Platnick 1989: 91. — Mikhailov 1997: 20. — Guseinov, Aliev & Snegovaya 2003: 192. — Guseinov & Alieva 2008: 281.

Raveniola recki View in CoL – Zonstein 1987: 1015. — Platnick 1989: 90. — Mikhailov 1997: 20.

Diagnosis

In the general shape of its embolus Raveniola zaitzevi is similar to R. vonwicki and R. marusiki sp. nov. ( Figs 193–194 View Figs 189–197 ; cf. Figs 195–196 View Figs 189–197 ), but differs from the former in possessing an embolic keel, and from the latter by having completely different configuration of that keel (very low and evenly micro-serrate in R. zaitzevi , and high heterogeneous in R. marusiki sp. nov). However, in the shape of the spermathecae, R. zaitzevi shows some resemblance to R. micropa from another species group, because they both share relatively short and conical spermathecal bases (but it should be noted that females of two closer relatives of R. zaitzevi , namely R. mazandaranica and R. marusiki sp. nov., are as yet unknown). Nevertheless, females of R. zaitzevi are well-distinguishable from those of R. micropa , because they have longer spermathecae with large globular lateral receptacles which are considerably wider than the medians (in R. micropa spermathecae wider and shorter, and lateral receptacles are subequal to medians, Figs 208– 209 View Figs 204–212 ; cf. Figs 206–207 View Figs 204–212 ).

Material examined

Holotype

GEORGIA: ♀, Lagodekhi, 11 Jun. 1937, A.F. Zaitzev leg. ( ZMPU).

Paratypes GEORGIA: 2 ♀♀, collection data as for holotype ( ZMPU).

Additional material (10 ♂♂, 62 ♀♀, 8 juvs)

AZERBAIJAN: 1 ♀, Qakh, 41°25′ N, 46°55′ E, 700 m, 19 Jun. 1977, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 1 ♀, Bucaq , 41°05′ N, 47°22′ E, 600 m, 7 Jul. 1978, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 2 ♀♀, Car ( Dzhar ), 41°40′ N, 46°41′ E, 800 m, 6–14 Jul. 1981, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 7 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀, same locality but 900–1100 m, 17 Sep. 1987, S.L. Zonstein leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 1 ♀, Zaqatala , 41°38′ N, 46°38′ E, 650 m, 10 Jul. 1981, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 12 ♀♀, Qalaybugurt , 40°45′ N, 48°34′ E, 900 m, 12 Jul. 1982, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Pirkuli Reserve , 40°46′ N, 48°35′ E, 1200–1400 m, 25–29 May 1984, D.V. Logunov leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 2 ♂♂, same collection data but 5–9 Sept. 1984 ( TAU); GoogleMaps 8 ♀♀, 2 juv., Tazakand , 40°53′ N, 49°11′ E, 250 m, 23 May 1986, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 12 ♀♀, 4 juvs, Vandam , 40°56′ N, 47°46′ E, 700 m, 17 Jun. 1986, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 3 ♀♀, 2 juvs, Qusanca , 40°44′ N, 48°06′ E, 900 m, 20 Jun. 1986, P.M. Dunin leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 12 ♀♀, Ismayilli , 40°49′ N, 48°10′ E, 700 m, 5 Oct. 1988, I. Pashenko leg. ( TAU). GoogleMaps

GEORGIA: 7 ♀♀, Lagodekhi Reserve, 41°51′ N, 46°17′ E, 600–1200 m, 24 Jul. 1982, Y.M. Marusik leg. (ZMMU).

Description

Male (Car; described here for the first time)

HABITUS. See Fig. 55. View Figs 52–58

MEASUREMENTS. TBL 13.80, CL 5.40, CW 4.67, LL 0.36, LW 0.87, SL 2.42, SW 2.28.

COLOUR. Carapace, palps and legs dorsally brownish orange; eye tubercle with three brownish black spots surrounding AMEs and each of two groups including PME and lateral eyes; chelicerae orangered; sternum, labium, maxillae, palps and legs ventrally pale reddish brown; entire abdomen light greyish brown, with darker brown dorsal pattern represented by interrupted median lanceolate spot and few pairs of also interrupted transverse fasciae located posteriorly, spinnerets pale yellowish brown.

PROSOMA. Carapace and chelicerae as shown in Fig. 80 View Figs 79–83 . Clypeus and eye group as in Fig. 113 View Figs 102–116 . Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.13 (0.18), ALE 0.23, PLE 0.13, PME 0.13, AME– AME 0.12(0.07), ALE–AME 0.10(0.08), ALE–PLE 0.09, PLE–PME 0.03, PME–PME 0.35. Each cheliceral furrow with 10–11 promarginal teeth and 8–10 mesobasal denticles. Maxillae with 8–9 cuspules each.

LEGS. Tibia and metatarsus I as shown in Fig. 141 View Figs 141–144 . Scopula: distal on metatarsi I–II, entire on tarsi I, narrowly divided on tarsi II, elsewhere absent. Trichobothria: 2 rows of 9–11 each on tibiae, 10–11 on metatarsi, 9–11 on tarsi, 8–9 on cymbium. Paired claws: inner and outer margins with 6–8 teeth each.

SPINATION. Palp: femur d1–1–1, pd1, rd1; tibia d1–1–1, p1–1–1, r1, v2–3–2; cymbium d7(9). Leg I: femur d1–1–1–1(0), pd1–1, dr1–1; tibia p1–1, pv2–1(2), rv1–1–m–m; metatarsus p1, v1–2–2(3). Leg II: femur d1–1–1–1(0), pd1–1; patella p1–1; tibia p1–1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus p1–1(0)–1, v2–2–3. Leg III: femur d1–1–1–1, pd1–1–1, rd1–1; patella p1–1, r1; tibia d1, p1–1, r1–1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus d1–1, p1–1–1, r1–1–1, v2–2–3. Leg IV: femur d1–1–1–0, pd1–1–1, rd1; patella p1(0)–1, r1; tibia d1–1, p1–1, r1–1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus d1–1–2–1, p1–1–1, r1–1(0)–1, v2–1–1–3. Patella I aspinose.

PALP. Tibia, cymbium and palpal organ as shown in Fig. 161 View Figs 161–164 . Embolic keel vestige represented by very low micro-serrate edge formed by numerous uniformly-shaped denticles; subapical part of embolus corkscrew-shaped ( Figs 193–194 View Figs 189–197 ).

SPINNERETS. PMS: length 0.35; diameter 0.18. PLS: maximal diameter 0.37; length of basal, medial and apical segments 0.78, 0.63, 0.60; total length 2.01; apical segment shortly digitiform.

LEG MEASUREMENTS. ♂(♀).

	Femur	Patella	Tibia	Metatarsus	Tarsus	Total
Palp	3.10 (3.32)	1.27 (1.85)	2.05 (2.17)	–	0.99 (1.95)	7.41 (9.29)
Leg I	4.77 (4.10)	2.58 (2.47)	3.62 (3.03)	3.02 (2.30)	1.90 (1.83)	15.89 (13.73)
Leg II	4.05 (3.65)	2.27 (2.38)	2.97 (2.88)	2.98 (2.32)	1.83 (1.77)	14.10 (13.00)
Leg III	3.43 (3.17)	1.83 (1.95)	2.32 (2.17)	3.30 (2.75)	1.86 (1.83)	12.72 (11.87)
Leg IV	4.62 (4.05)	2.00 (2.37)	3.53 (3.25)	4.47 (3.97)	2.12 (2.13)	16.74 (15.77)

Female (from Lagodekhi)

HABITUS. See Fig. 56. View Figs 52–58

MEASUREMENTS. TBL 17.20, CL 6.22, CW 4.97, LL 0.57, LW 1.10, SL 2.87, SW 2.60.

COLOUR. As in male, but chelicerae slightly darker, cherry-red; clypeus lighter, yellowish brown.

PROSOMA. Carapace and chelicerae as shown in Fig. 93 View Figs 90–95 . Clypeus and eye group as in Fig. 126 View Figs 117–128 . Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.12(0.16), ALE 0.26, PLE 0.12, PME 0.10, AME–AME 0.17(0.13), ALE–AME 0.11(0.09), ALE–PLE 0.05, PLE–PME 0.08, PME–PME 0.40. Each cheliceral furrow with 10–11 promarginal teeth and 6–7 denticles. Maxillae with 9–12 cuspules each. Sternal sigilla small, oval and submarginal as shown in Fig. 63. View Figs 59–67

LEGS. Scopula: distal on metatarsi I–II, entire on tarsus I and palpal tarsus, narrowly divided on tarsus II, elsewhere absent. Trichobothria: 2 rows of 9–10 each on tibiae, 11–15 on metatarsi, 10–13 on tarsi, 8 on palpal tarsus. Paired tarsal claws: 6–7 teeth on inner margin, 5–6 on outer margin. Palpal claw with 4 promarginal teeth.

SPINATION. All femora dorsally with one basodorsal spine and 3–6 bristles (undeveloped spines) located medially and distally; palpal patella and patellae I–II aspinose. Palp: femur pd1; tibia v2–2–3; tarsus v8(9). Leg I: femur pd1; tibia v2–2–3; metatarsus v2–2–1. Leg II: femur d1, pd1; tibia p1–1, v2–2– 3; metatarsus v2–2–2. Leg III: femur pd1–1, rd1–1; patella p1–1, r1; tibia d1, p1–1, r1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus pd1–1, p1–1–1, r1–1, v2–2–2(3). Leg IV: femur pd 1(0), rd1; patella r1; tibia p1–1, r1(0)–1– 1, v2–2–3; metatarsus p1–1–1, r1–1–1–1, v2–2–2–2(3).

SPERMATHECAE. Moderately narrow and relatively short, with large globular lateral receptacles ( Fig. 208 View Figs 204–212 ).

SPINNERETS. See Fig. 66 View Figs 59–67 . PMS: length 0.50; diameter 0.21. PLS: maximal diameter 0.60; length of basal, medial and apical segments 0.85, 0.53, 0.60; total length 1.98; apical segment shortly digitiform.

Variation

Carapace length in males varies from 4.42 to 5.57, in females from 4.70 to 6.45. The dorsal abdominal pattern in specimens collected from eastern, less humid part of the geographical range, is weakly developed to indistinct. In some females, independent of the localities they were taken from, the posterior half of the carapace looks somewhat lighter in colour than the anterior one (as in specimens T.S. Mcheidze used to describe as Brachythele recki ). The structure of the spermathecae in all females examined shows a quite insignificant variation (see Figs 208–209 View Figs 204–212 ).

Ecology

The spiders were found inhabiting soil cavities under stones and logs in broad-leaved forests of the low mountain zone and of the midlands. These forests are dominated by Quercus iberica M.Bieb. and Fagus orientalis Lipsky , respectively.

Distribution

Southern slope of Caucasus Major east of 46° E (north-eastern Georgia, north-western Azerbaijan). See Fig. 220 View Figure 220 .

Notes

Mcheidze (1983) considered some differences in the colouration of the carapace, in the tarsal claw dentition, and in the number of cuspules sufficient to consider two females from Lagodekhi, Georgia as representatives of a distinct species, Brachythele recki . Having examined the available material, we found that all these differences lay within the limits of intraspecific variability. We thus regard B. recki to be a synonym of B. zaitzevi Charitonov, 1948 .