Corythalia blanda ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )

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 : 81-84

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:722DB6C9-2C18-48EB-B202-7F2AFF47F49F
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781-FFC5-C107-66AB-FCB062244BA8
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Corythalia blanda ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )
status

Treatment

Corythalia blanda ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) View in CoL

Figs 39 View FIGURE 39 A–E, 59D, 63C, 66E, 69J, 74A, 77I

Dynamius blandus Peckham & Peckham 1901: 338 , pl. 25, figs 9, 9a–b, pl. 26, fig. 1 (Description & illustration of ♂ & ♀) Lectotype ♀ (here designated) from Lesser Antilles GoogleMaps : Trinidad And Tobago: Trinidad: Port of Spain: Port of Spain, ca. 10°40’N, 61°30’W, about 50–150 m a.s.l., Walter Elias Broadway leg. 1888–1894. G.W. & E.G. Peckham Collection No. 651, MCZ 20545. Paralectotypes (here designated, all with exactly the same data as for lectotype: 9 ♂, 1 ♀): 3 ♂ (M-1–3), MCZ 20545-I (ex. 20545); the following paralectotypes were misidentified by Peckham & Peckham: 1 ♂ here identified as C. placata View in CoL , see respective species description, MCZ 20545-II (ex. 20545); 5 ♂, 1 ♀, here identified as C. waleckii View in CoL , see respective species description, MCZ 20545-III (ex. 20545); all type material examined.

Corythalia blanda View in CoL — Simon 1901: 654 (Transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia View in CoL ).

Additional material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande (within a radius of 2 km), ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 900 m, deciduous seasonal forest: 1 ♂, leg. 24 July 1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; formerly with Cat No. 461201 Collection of the Department of Tropical Research NY, AMNH-IZC 00327822-2 GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) narrow boomerang-shaped (meaning with curve at central section: proximal half approximately straight or slightly curved, with distal to retrolatero-distal orientation, distal half straight, having prolateral to disto-prolateral orientation) and quite long and narrow [longer than width of tegulum (T) and at central section at most 1/2 the width of RTA at central section (ventral view), Figs 39A View FIGURE 39 , 66E View FIGURE 66 ]; retrolateral margin of embolus base (EB) still recognisable in ventral view and not covered by E; width of EB just slightly longer than 1/2 the width of T; EB clearly distinguished from prolateral section of T ( Figs 39A View FIGURE 39 , 66E View FIGURE 66 ). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: actual epigynal windows (W) small and septum (SW) of W broad (SW clearly broader than 1/2 the diameter of W); W, beginnig from anterior, in a spiral-like way surrounded by an additional margin running out at anterior to anterior-medial section of epigyne ( Figs 39E View FIGURE 39 , 74A View FIGURE 74 ); secondary (SS) larger than primary spermthecae (PS); connective duct (DST) between SS and PS at distal section quite broad (clearly broader than 1/3 the diameter PS) and at pre-central section with distinct helical curve ( Figs 39 View FIGURE 39 C–D, 77I).

Description. Male (measurements of one paralectotype, those of other paralectotypes extremely similar and thus omitted): total length 8.2, carapace length 4.3, maximal carapace width 3.2, width of eye rectangle 2.3, opisthosoma length 3.7, opisthosoma width 2.8, fovea length 0.41. EYES: AME 0.71, ALE 0.45, PME 0.13, PLE 0.40, AME–AME 0.07, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.98, PME–PLE 0.38, ALE–PLE 0.99, PLE–PLE 1.85, clypeus height at AME 0.33, clypeus height at ALE 0.89. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2025, II 3025, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2014, 2024, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.2 [1.2, 0.5, 0.4, 1.1], I 7.3 [2.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.4, 0.7], II 7.5 [2.4, 1.4, 1.6, 1.4, 0.7], III 8.7 [2.7, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 0.8], IV 8.7 [2.8, 1.3, 1.7, 2.1, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 3&421 (&: legs connected with & exactly the same length). COPU- LATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite long [longer than width of tegulum (T)], quite narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), narrow boomerang-shaped and at tip slightly conical ( Figs 39A View FIGURE 39 , 66E View FIGURE 66 ); width of embolus base (EB) just slightly more than 1/2 the width of T; T narrower than cymbium ( Figs 39A View FIGURE 39 , 66E View FIGURE 66 ); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying slightly more than 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, only inconspicuously distinguished from remaining T-section; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section mostly (slightly diagonally) truncated; palpal tibia short, clearly broader than long ( Figs 39 View FIGURE 39 A–B, 66E, 69J) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view medium-sized, conical and distally broad rounded, located distally at prolatero-central section at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, relatively long, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with serration ( Figs 39A View FIGURE 39 , 66E View FIGURE 66 ), in retrolateral view serration only recognisable in distalmost 1/4 and RTA quite slim ( Figs 39B View FIGURE 39 , 69J View FIGURE 69 ). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown ( Fig. 59D View FIGURE 59 ). Legs (dark) red-brown, only tarsi III & IV lighter ( Fig. 59D View FIGURE 59 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, transversal light bands relatively narrow, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted, central band with rather inconspicuous chevron patch centrally ( Fig. 59D View FIGURE 59 ).

Female (lectotype): total length 7.4, carapace length 3.6, maximal carapace width 2.6, width of eye rectangle 2.0, opisthosoma length 3.3, opisthosoma width 2.7, fovea length 0.31. EYES: AME 0.63, ALE 0.40, PME 0.12, PLE 0.32, AME–AME 0.06, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.80, PME–PLE 0.40, ALE–PLE 0.93, PLE–PLE 1.59, clypeus height at AME 0.30, clypeus height at ALE 0.70. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–II 1500, III 1600, 1500, IV 0500 , 1500 ; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2014, II 3024 , III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134 , IV 3144 . MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.2 [1.0, 0.6, 0.6, 1.0], I 6.0 [1.9, 1.2, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], II 6.0 [1.9, 1.2, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], III 6.8 [2.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 0.7], IV 7.0 [2.1, 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 432&1 (&: legs connected with & exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with more or less round epigynal windows (W); septum of W very broad and anteriorly (slightly) diverging ( Figs 39E View FIGURE 39 , 74A View FIGURE 74 ); W, beginnig from anterior, in a spiral-like way surrounded by an additional margin running out at anterior to anterior-medial section of epigyne; epigynal field slightly broader than long; primary ( PS) and especially secondary spermathecae (SS), visible through cuticle of epigyne, PS filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior ( Figs 39E View FIGURE 39 , 74A View FIGURE 74 ). Vulva with quite small, sac-shaped PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) distinctly larger than PS, with heads of spermathecae arising laterally or postero-laterally ( Figs 39 View FIGURE 39 C–D, 77I); copulatory ducts medium-sized, partly covered by helically curved section of connective ducts ( DST) between SS and PS; DST moderately narrow at initial section and broad at distal half and quite long, meeting PS medially; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising centro-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally ( Figs 39 View FIGURE 39 C–D, 77I). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown ( Fig. 63C View FIGURE 63 ). Legs ( III & IV quite light) red-brown, except for tarsi III & IV being lighter ( Fig. 63C View FIGURE 63 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band inconspicuous but present ( Fig. 63C View FIGURE 63 ) .

Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. In some males proximal half of embolus straighter ( Fig. 66E View FIGURE 66 ) than in others ( Fig. 39A View FIGURE 39 ). Ventral tibial bump distally in some specimens more rounded ( Fig. 39A View FIGURE 39 ) than in others ( Fig. 66E View FIGURE 66 ).

Remarks. The type series of Dynamius blandus (MCZ 20545) turned out to be polytypic and included three different species of males and two different species of females. Consequently, the designation of a lectotype was indispensable. The female here designated as lectotype corresponds exactly to the drawing of Dynamius blandus in Peckham & Peckham (1901 , pl. 25, fig. 9). The illustrations of the male palps (pl. 25, figs 9a–b) are from retrolateral and from dorsal view and do hardly show any diagnostic characters. So it would have been a bad decision to designate a male as lectotype. Five males and one female could be identified as C. waleckii without any doubt (see respective species description above). One male was clearly smaller than the remaining eight ones. This male, additionally, showed a different dentition at the promargin of the cheliceral base. Its size and cheliceral dentition corresponded well to the female lectotype of C. placata . Accordingly, it is here described as the male of C. placata (see respective species description above). The three remaining males are certainly of one and the same species. As they could be clearly distinguished from the males of C. waleckii and corresponded well to the size-dimension and the dentition on the promargin of the cheliceral base of the female lectotype of C. blanda these three males are most likely conspecific with the female lectotype of C. blanda . They are here described as males of C. blanda and one of them certainly had been used as sample for the drawings in figs 9a–b in Peckham & Peckham (1901). Unfortunately, Peckham & Peckham (1901) did not provide an illustration with ventral view on the palp. However, the RTA in their fig. 9a resembles much more that of the three males mentioned above than that of C. waleckii or that of C. placata . The inconsistency of the type series of Dynamius blandus was already recognised by G. Bodner (who added a label with her point of view during an examination in Mar. 2000).

Corythalia blanda might be related to C. xanthopa as the following basic characters are similar: embolus (E) retrolaterally clearly protruding from embolus base (EB) and running in a long and wide curve prolatero-distally; retrolateral margin of EB in ventral view recognisable; proximal section of tegulum similar; RTA quite long and slim. Regarding the female genital morphological characters a close relationship to C. xanthopa cannot be inferred: epigynal windows with clearly different structure; Vulva with primary spermatheca being larger than secondary and connective ducts between both spermathecae without helical curve at central section in C. xanthopa and vice versa in C. blanda .

Distribution. Known from Trinidad and Venezuela.