Phlegra bresnieri (Lucas, 1846)

Bosmans & Van Keer, 2012, On the spider species described by L. Koch in 1882 from the Balearic Islands (Araneae), Arachnologische Mitteilungen 43 (1), pp. 5-16 : 13-14

Family Salticidae Phlegra bresnieri (Lucas, 1846) ( Figs 37-38 )

Phlegra simoni L. Koch, 1882 : 667, pl. 21, fig. 37 (descr.

female); new synonymy.

Type material

Holotype female of Phlegra simoni from Spain, Baleares, Minorca, Riera near Palma, 30 May 1872, Schaufuss leg. ( ZMB 7932 ); examined .

Comparative material examined

GREECE. Attiki: Enoee ruins near Marathon ( N 38°9’13’’ E 23°56’33’’), 180 m, 3 males, stones in maquis, 19. IV. 2000, R. Bosmans leg. ( CRB).

Comments

The holotype female could be examined. The dorsal stripes on the prosoma and abdomen have disappeared, but the clypeus is densely covered with white hairs. The long, threadlike embolus is clearly visible and its placement in the genus Phlegra is thus confirmed. According to KOCH (1882), Phlegra simoni differs from P. bresnieri in the male palpal tibia which bears black hairs. Examination of some specimens of P. bresnieri from our collection show that the femora and patellae have white hairs, but only black ones on the tibiae (cfr. SIMON, 1876: 121: “Patte-mâchoire, au moins la patella et le femur, garnie en dessus de poils blancs”). As the palps are otherwise identical ( Figs 37, 38 ), the two species are here synonymised.

Distribution

Southern Europe to Azerbaijan, Ivory Coast, Tanzania.

Conclusions

Taxonomic studies by earlier arachnologists are of variable quality, but until there is proof to the contrary, they all have to be considered valuable. Some authors working on Mediterranean spiders in the past – for instance (but not exclusively) LUCAS (e.g. 1846), O. P.-CAMBRIDGE (e.g. 1872, 1876) and KULCZYŃSKI (e g. 1908, 1911) – presented detailed descriptions accompanied by excellent figures of the general appearance and sexual organs, making identification very easily possible. In most cases, however, examination of the type material is necessary to come to a definitive conclusion. Other authors gave long, very detailed descriptions but presented no figures at all; like for instance PAVESI (e.g. 1880, 1884) and the numerous papers by THORELL (e.g. 1875) and STRAND (e.g. 1906, 1908). Here, recognition of the species is not possible without examining the original type material. However, even if these species are not instantly recognizable, their names remain valid until has been stated in a publication that the types are not available; like for instance many types of Strand destroyed in the last World War.

In the case of the study by L. KOCH (1882) on the spiders of the Balearic Islands, the paper includes good drawings, in many cases making identification possible. Only ten of the 28 described species were redescribed previously, resulting in three valid names and seven synonyms. Type material of ten of the remaining 18 species could be examined by us. Five of these nine species names are valid: Cheiracanthium occcidentale , Dysdera mordax , Liocranum inornatum n. comb. and Haplodrassus parvicorpis n. comb. Four out of the nine species appeared to be synonyms of species described earlier. Erigone marina , Lycosa perspicax , Lycosa subhirsuta and Phlegra simoni are the junior synonyms of Oedothorax fuscus , Arctosa fulvolineata , Arctosa lacustris and Phlegra fasciata respectively. Finally, Trochosula conspersa is retransfered to its original genus, Lycosa , where it awaits further study.

Of the eight species whose types could not be examined, the drawings of L. Koch were care- fully studied and three species could be recognized. Ozyptila furcula was recognized and redescribed. Philodromus vegetus and Theridion elimatum were recognized as junior synonyms of Thanatus vulgaris and Enoplognatha diversa respectively. Lycosa fraissei , L. insulana , L. simplex and Pardosa tenuipes could not be recognized and are left in their original genus. Finally Lycosa misella is declared a nomen nudum, since the description was based on a juvenile specimen.

Figures

Figs. 24 - 38. Figs. 24 - 26: Ozyptila furcula L. Koch, 1882. 24. Male palp of Ozyptila furcula in KOCH (1882); 25. Male palp, ventral view; 26. Idem, lateral view. Figs. 27 - 28. Haplo- drassus parvicorpus (Roewer, 1951). 27. Male palp of Drassus parvulus in KOCH (1882). 28. Male palp of Haplodrassus parvicorpus, specimen from Tarifa. Figs. 29 - 35. Zelotes callidus (Simon, 1878). 29. Epigyne of Zelotes semirufus in KOCH (1882); 30. Epigyne of Zelotes callidus, specimen from Talavan; 31. Vulva; 32. Male palp of Zelotes callidus in SIMON (1914, fig. 298); 33. Male palp, detail; 34. Male palp, ventral view; 35. Male palp, lateral view; Fig. 36. Male palp of Zelotes plumiger L. Koch, 1882 in L. KOCH (1882). Figs. 37 - 38 Phlegra bresnieri (Lucas, 1846). 37. Male palp of Phlegra simoni in L. KOCH (1882); 38. Male palp of Phlegra bresnieri in METZNER (1999).