Enguterothrix crinipes Denis, 1962 : 193

Andrei V. Tanasevitch, 2016, A case of disjunct montane linyphiid species (Araneae) in the Palaeotropics, with notes on synonymy and the description of a new species, Revue suisse de Zoologie 123 (2), pp. 235-240 : 236-237

Enguterothrix crinipes Denis, 1962

Enguterothrix crinipes Denis, 1962: 193 , figs 33-38.

Enguterothrix tenuipalpis Holm, 1968: 13 , figs 21-25, syn. nov.

Type material examined: MRAC #81008; male holotype of Enguterothrix crinipes . – MRAC #81009; female allotype of E. crinipes . – MRAC #131644; male holotype of E. tenuipalpis Holm, 1968 . – MRAC #127152; male paratype of E. tenuipalpis . – MRAC #131645; female allotype of E. tenuipalpis .

Remarks: Enguterothrix crinipes was described on the basis of a male and a female from Lubero, Democratic Republic of the Congo. A study of the holotype of E. crinipes has shown that its carapace is obviously deformed, i.e. its head part is flattened from above, and the carapace has been depicted in this way by Denis (1962: fig. 33). The palpal tibia of the specimen has been drawn in a way that makes it look somewhat wider than it actually is (op. cit.: fig. 35), and the palp has been sketched very schematically (op. cit.: fig. 36), so it is very difficult to understand its structure.

Enguterothrix tenuipalpis was described on the basis of two males and a female from the vicinity of the type locality of E. crinipes . In the description of E. tenuipalpis, Holm gave the convex shape of the head elevation on the male carapace and the narrower male palpal tibia as distinctions from E. crinipes . It is absolutely obvious that Holm did not examine the type of E. crinipes but compared his holotype of E. tenuipalpis with the schematic and inaccurate drawings of Denis (1962). Actually, the carapace of the E. crinipes holotype, when straightened, would have exactly the same shape as that of the male type of E. tenuipalpis . The shape of the palpal tibia of the male type of E. tenuipalpis , when observed from the same angle, is also identical to that of the E. crinipes holotype. A detailed comparison of the palp structure of the male types of both nominal species revealed that they are nearly identical.

The illustrations of the epigyne of both nominal species are very similar ( Denis, 1962: fig. 38 cf. Holm, 1968: fig. 25), but when re-examining the epigynes of the allotypes, i.e. #81009 ( E. crinipes ) and #131.645 ( E. tenuipalpis ), I noticed a difference: the seminal ducts in the allotype of E. crinipes are almost parallel to each other, while in the allotype of E. tenuipalpis they are diverging at a slight angle. This difference in the direction of the ducts may be attributed to individual variability. Similar intraspecific variation in epigynes was found in the Thai congener E. simpulum ( Tanasevitch, 2014) comb. nov. (see Tanasevitch, 2014: figs 24-25; under Apophygone ). All of this evidence shows that E. tenuipalpis and E. crinipes are the same species, and the first name therefore becomes a junior synonym of the second.

.

Distribution: The species is known from three localities in Lubero, North-Kivu Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo: in the mountains of Kabatsiro (2080 m a.s.l.), Burega (2100 m a.s.l.) and Bukristu (2000 m a.s.l.).