Corythalia circumflexa ( Mello-Leitão, 1939 )

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko, 2020, Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini), Zootaxa 4806 (1), pp. 1-144 : 52-54

Corythalia circumflexa ( Mello-Leitão, 1939)

Figs 26 A–C, 62D, 72H, 76H

Taeoma circumflexa Mello-Leitão 1939: 90 , fig. 81 (description of subadult ♂ & illustration of ♀). Lectotype ♀ (here desig- nated) from Paraguay: Departamento Presidente Hayes: ”Monte Sociedad”, today known as Benjamin Aceval, near Villa Hayes , ca. 25°01’S, 57°36’W, about 80 m a.s.l. Dr Carl Ternetz leg. 1895, NHMB 1216 a-II (ex. NHMB 1200 a); Paralectotype s.a. ♂ (here designated) from Venezuela: Falcon: highly likely Distr. of Acosta, Area between Auraurima and San Juan de Los Cayos, roughly ca. 11°00’N, 68°34’ (+/- 20 km) W, about 90 m a.s.l., Dr Hans Gottfried Kugler leg. 1925–1934, NHMB 1216 a; all type material examined.

Corythalia circumflexa — Galiano 1962: 15 (transfer from Taeoma , description of subadult male). Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) continuous; postero-medial margins of W with steep increase to antero-medial direction leaving a large and very broad, roughly trapezoid area posteriorly up to the posterior margin of epigyne ( Figs 26A , 72H ). Vulva with large arch-like structures anteriorly; short copulatory ducts meeting secondary spermathecae (SS) from lateral direction; connective ducts between primary spermathecae (PS) and SS arising from SS at anterior section and running a long transversal section before turning posteriorly to meet PS ( Figs 26B , 76H ).

Description. Male: unknown.

Female: total length 9.2, carapace length 4.2, maximal carapace width 3.0, width of eye rectangle 2.3, opisthosoma length 4.3, opisthosoma width 3.2, fovea length 0.31. EYES: AME 0.70, ALE 0.42, PME 0.12, PLE 0.37, AME–AME 0.09, AME–ALE 0.12, PME–PME 2.03, PME–PLE 0.42, ALE–PLE 0.99, PLE–PLE 1.88, clypeus height at AME 0.39, clypeus height at ALE 0.83. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I -, II 3004, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I -, II 2024, III 3134, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.4 [1.2, 0.6, 0.5, 1.1], I - [2.2, 1.3, -, -, -.], II 6.5 [2.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.1, 0.6], III 7.6 [2.5, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 0.7], IV 8.1 [2.5, 1.3, 1.6, 1.9, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 43??. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with elongated oval epigynal windows with continuous anterior margin; septum also continuous and moderately broad ( Figs 26A , 72H ); postero-medial margins of W with steep increase to antero-medial direction, distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow quite long (about half the width of W), all this resulting in a large and very broad, roughly trapezoid area posteriorly up to the posterior margin of epigyne ( Figs 26A , 72H ); epigynal field (EF) surrounding epigyne very narrowly, EF broader than long ( Figs 26A , 72H ); only about 1/3 of primary spermathecae (PS) visible through cuticle of W, rest of PS visible in the large trapezoid area at posterior section of epigyne ( Figs 26A , 72H ). Vulva with round PS being distinctly larger than secondary spermathecae. Vulva with large arch-like structures anteriorly (the latter do not seem to have a functional meaning [anymore?] but only enhancing rigidity of the entire copulatory organ); short copulatory ducts meeting secondary spermathecae (SS) from lateral direction ( Figs 26 B–C, 76H); head of spermatheca directed posteriorly on secondary spermatheca (SS) ( Figs 26 B–C, 76H); connective ducts not distinctly narrow and with one main section running transversally and one running longitudinally after a distinct curve (90°), meeting PS ventro-medially ( Figs 26 B–C, 76H). Fertilisation duct arising centro-anteriorly on PS, being bent laterally ( Figs 26 B–C, 76H). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 62D ). Legs brown to light red-brown, except for some articles being (slightly) lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 62D ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present ( Fig. 62D ).

Remarks. (A) At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2017) the female lectotype was labelled C. cincta ( Badcock, 1932) and was in vial NHMB 1200a. It is here transferred to the syntype series of Taeoma circumflexa and subsequently designated as the lectotype of T. circumflexa . For detailed reasoning see remark (C) below!

(B) At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2017) the paralectotype male was the only specimen in the vial NHMB 1216a holding the type series of Taeoma circumflexa . According to the original publication ( Mello-Leitão 1939, p. 90, Fig. 81) there should be a female specimen in this type series, too. A female with an epigyne that clearly corresponds to the illustration of the epigyne of T. circumflexa in Mello-Leitão (1939 , p. 90, Fig. 81) was found in the vial NHMB 1200a (identified as C. cincta ). Consequently, this female is here included in the syntype series of T. circumflexa and subsequently designated as the lectotype. Hence, the subadult male in the present vial is designated as the paralectotype of T. circumflexa . For detailed reasoning see remark (C) below!

(C) At the time when the requested material of Corythalia from the NHMB Basel arrived at the SMNK (Apr. 2017) inconsistency in the composition of the two type series of the species Taeoma circumflexa ( Mello-Leitão, 1939) with the collection number 1216a and Taeoma barbipes ( Mello-Leitão, 1939) [coll.-no. 1217a] was recognised. Note: Taeoma was recognised as junior synonym of Corythalia by Galiano (1962). For both species the original publication listed a different number and/or composition of specimens as were in fact found in the respective vial. The vial of T. circumflexa [1216a; with the data: Venezuela, Falcon Prov., Dr H.G. Kugler leg., deposited 1934] only held one subadult (thus immature) male. In Mello-Leitão (1939, Fig. 81), however, a female is illustrated and also mentioned in the description. In the case of the species T. barbipes according to Mello-Leitão (1939) only a male/ males (the number of males examined by the author does not get clear from the original publication!) should exist, no female(s) was/were mentioned. Nevertheless, the type series was found split into two vials [both with the same collection number 1217a]. The first vial still contained the original label written by C. Ternetz and held an adult male [ Paraguay, Monte Sociedad, Dr C. Ternetz leg. 1895]. Note: another label in that vial with the notation “ Lectotypus ” was added by Lothar H.E.W. Forcart (A. Hänggi, pers. comm.). This male exactly corresponds to the illustrations in Mello-Leitão (1939) and Galiano (1962) for the species C. barbipes . The second vial held a relatively small female (body length 5.8 mm) and a label saying “1217a - Paratypoid”, which was certainly also added by Forcart. According to the original publication there is no female mentioned for C. barbipes (see above). In addition, Forcart never published any study treating the genus Corythalia . Consequently, the “ lectotype ” and “ paratype ” designations are definitely void according to the ICZN. As there was only one single male found in the type vial, this male has to be regarded as the holotype of Taeoma (currently Corythalia ) barbipes . The inconsistency of both these type series ( Taeoma barbipes and T. circumflexa ) is certainly caused by the carelessness of Mello-Leitão himself. In his publication he sometimes listed (a) specimen(s) of one sex on top of the paragraph of the species description only with a size measurement and further below he listed (a) specimen(s) of the opposite sex with other descriptive aspects and an illustration: for Evarcha (currently Corythalia ) tropica , e.g., he listed a female with the size of 7 mm on top, but below he only described and illustrated a male (the type vial contains only one male)!

In addition to these two above mentioned type series a vial with a female identified as C. cincta ( Badcock, 1932) by Mello-Leitão with the coll.-no. 1200a was requested and arrived at the SMNK at the same day. It held a relatively large female with the body length of about 9.0 mm [according to the original label: Paraguay, Dr C. Ternetz leg. 1895]. Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 84) listed C. cincta but did neither mention the sex of the specimen he examined nor the locality, where it was found. After our examinations it is now obvious that he once examined this female and the female in the second vial of 1217a (see above). One of them was scheduled for being used as a female syntype of Taeoma circumflexa . Mello- Leitão’s identification of C. cincta was certainly based on the fact that the type locality of C. cincta is only about 185 km north/northwest of Monte Sociedad, where C. Ternetz collected his spider material from Paraguay (in fact, the holotype of C. barbipes , the large female in vial 1200a and with highest likelihood also the female of the second vial of 1217a). Definite identification of females of C. cincta is not possible, because to date this species is only known by males. In the course of the present study the exact correspondence of the epigyne of this large female [1200a] to the illustration in Fig. 81 in Mello-Leitão (1939) for T. circumflexa has been recognised. The size description in Mello-Leitão (1939) for C. circumflexa , however, much more corresponds to a smaller female (most likely that in the extra vial [second vial] of 1217a?).

The best way to solve this inconsistency and the only way to avoid taxonomical/nomenclatorial changes is the following:

According to the structure of its epigyne the female identified as C. cincta [1200a] by Mello-Leitão is clearly assignable to Fig. 81 in Mello-Leitão (1939) (epigyne of Taeoma circumflexa ). Consequently, a definite reference of this specimen to the species name C. circumflexa is given. So this female is here added to the (syn-) type series of C. circumflexa [1216a] and subsequently designated as the lectotype (the subadult male does not show any diagnostic characters to discriminate this species from other Corythalia species anyway). The type locality of the lectotype female of C. circumflexa is thus Monte Sociedad in Paraguay, only the paralectotype locality remains Falcon Province, Venezuela. Hence, it is very unlikely that the subadult male paralectotype and the female lectotype are conspecific. The description of the female of C. circumflexa in Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 90) rather fits to a smaller female (most likely that of the extra vial [second vial] 1217a?). In any case, this insufficient description does only have little descriptive relevance and definitely no valuable diagnostic information and relevance anyway.

For organisational reasons the female in 1217a [which should not exist according to Mello-Leitão (1939)] is now transferred to the (meanwhile empty) vial 1200a. It is here identified as Corythalia cf. conferta sp. nov.

(D) It is possible (and well imaginable) that with the examination of more material from the above mentioned region in Paraguay the lectotype female of C. circumflexa will turn out as conspecific with C. cincta . The size-dimensions are well corresponding and particularly the type locality is the same as for the holotype of Taeoma (currently Corythalia ) barbipes (even though it is also possible that the two specimens were not in the same vial before Mello-Leitão had examined them; however, it is as well possible that Mello-Leitão separated them in the course of examination).

(E) C. circumflexa (if indeed an explicit species and not a junior synonym of C. cincta , see remark above) shows characters roughly similar to C. scutellaris Bayer , sp. nov. Similarities: copulatory openings quite far lateral at epigyne, arch-like structures anteriorly in vulva. It is, anyway, difficult to say if these two species are closely related.

Distribution. Currently known only from Departamento Presidente Hayes, Paraguay.

Figures

FIGURE 26. Corythalia circumflexa, female lectotype from Departamento Presidente Hayes, Paraguay. A–C epigyne (A ventral view; B vulva, dorsal view; C schematic course of internal duct system).

FIGURE 62. Corythalia spp., photographic images of female specimens, dorsal view. Corythalia argentinensis: A Paratype MACN 5076 from Misiones, Argentina. Corythalia verhaaghi sp. nov.: B Holotype from Ceará, Brazil. Corythalia luctuosa: C Female SMNK-ARA 14035 from Saint Laurent du Maroni, French Guiana. Corythalia circumflexa: D Lectotype from Presidente Hayes, Paraguay. Corythalia dakryodes Bayer, sp. nov.: E Holotype from Magdalena, Colombia. Corythalia scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov.: F Paratype F-1 from south-eastern part of Ecuador. Corythalia waleckii: G Female RII/9741 (now in SMF) from Vargas, Venezuela. Corythalia foelixi Bayer, sp. nov.: H Female FR-973-00266 from Cayenne, French Guiana. Corythalia fulgipedia: I Female AMNH-IZC 00327943 from Aragua, Venezuela.

FIGURE 72. Corythalia spp., photographic images of epigynes, ventral view. Corythalia antepagmenti sp. nov.: A Paratype SMNK-ARA 13420 and B Holotype from Acre, Brazil. Corythalia parva: C Paralectotype from Brazil. Corythalia placata: D Lectotype from Trinidad. Corythalia argentinensis: E Paratype MACN 5076 from Misiones, Argentina. Corythalia verhaaghi sp. nov.: F Holotype from Ceará, Brazil. Corythalia luctuosa: G Female SMNK-ARA 14035 from Saint Laurent du Maroni, French Guiana. Corythalia circumflexa: H Lectotype from Presidente Hayes, Paraguay. Corythalia scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov.: I Paratype F-2 from south-eastern part of Ecuador.

FIGURE 76. Corythalia spp., photographic images of vulvae, dorsal view. Corythalia antepagmenti sp. nov.: A Holotype and B Paratype SMNK-ARA 13420 from Acre, Brazil. Corythalia parva: C Paralectotype from Brazil. Corythalia placata: D Lectotype from Trinidad. Corythalia argentinensis: E Paratype MACN 5076 from Misiones, Argentina. Corythalia verhaaghi sp. nov.: F Holotype from Ceará, Brazil. Corythalia luctuosa: G Female SMNK-ARA 14035 from Saint Laurent du Maroni, French Guiana. Corythalia circumflexa: H Lectotype from Presidente Hayes, Paraguay. Corythalia scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov.: I Paratype F-2 from south-eastern part of Ecuador.