Stenosfemuraia cuadrata González-Sponga, 2005

Huber, Bernhard A. & Arias, Quintin, 2017, Revision of the Venezuelan spider genus Stenosfemuraia González-Sponga, with new generic and specific synonymies (Araneae, Pholcidae), Zootaxa 4341 (4), pp. 495-508 : 500-503

Stenosfemuraia cuadrata González-Sponga, 2005

Figs 15–27 , 45–48

Stenosfemuraia cuadrata González-Sponga, 2005: 106 , pl. 4, figs 1–9 (♂ ♀). Stenosfemuraia sp.: Bruvo-Mađarić et al. 2005: 663 (DNA sequence: 28S); Astrin et al. 2006: 445 (DNA sequences: 16S, CO1).

Diagnosis. Males are easily distinguished from S. parva by armature of male chelicerae ( Fig. 24 ; one pair of simple frontal apophyses; see also fig. 3 in González-Sponga 2005); from S. pilosa by shape of procursus ( Figs 47–48 ; slender in dorsal view, without subdistal side branch, with simple tip; possibly indistinguishable from S. parva ); from both species also by more slender femora (~0.13 versus 0.19–0.21 in S. parva and 0.29–0.34 in S. pilosa ). Females differ from congeners by sclerotized lateral elements of epigynal plate ( Figs 19 , 26 ; absent in S. pilosa ; rather parallel orientation in S. parva ) and by distinctive shape of anteriorly contiguous pore plates ( Figs 21 , 27 ). Males and females also differ from congeners by longer legs (♂ tibia 1 L/d: ~60 versus <40; ♂ tibia 1:>5.0 versus <4.0; ♀ tibia 1:>3.0 versus <3.0).

Type material. VENEZUELA: Vargas: 22♂ 16♀ types (+8 juvs and 4 prosomata) (see Notes below), MIZA ( GS 1164 part), Hacienda El Limón, Municipio Carayaca, 950 m [~ 10.532°N, 67.119°W; see Notes below], 12.viii.1989 – 4.v.1991 (A.R. Delgado de González , M.A. González-Sponga), 3♂ examined by BAH .

Other material examined. VENEZUELA: Aragua: 4♂ 3♀ 1 juv., ZFMK (Ar 18253), forest above Colonia Tovar (10.417°N, 67.300°W), ~ 2100 m a.s.l., under dead leaves on ground, 26.xi.2002 (B.A. Huber) ; 4♂ 6♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Ven 02/100-10), same data . 2♀, MNHN (Ar 10052 part), with Simon’s label “14653 Psil.— Tovar!”, no further data [leg. E. Simon, 1887–88].

Redescription. Male (ZFMK Ar 18253). MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 2.5, carapace width 1.0. Distance PME-PME 80 µm, diameter PME 100 µm, distance PME-ALE 90 µm, distance AME-AME 20 µm, diameter AME 20 µm. Sternum width/length: 0.75/0.50. Leg 1: 21.1 (4.9 + 0.4 + 5.1 + 8.8 + 1.9), tibia 2: 3.1, tibia 3: 2.4, tibia 4: 2.8; tibia 1 L/d: 60. Femora 1–4 width (at half length): all ~0.13.

COLOR (in ethanol). Carapace ochre-yellow with brown marginal bands and median mark including ocular area and clypeus ( Fig. 15 ); sternum whitish; legs ochre-yellow, femora and tibiae with subdistal darker rings (and indistinct light tips); abdomen pale gray, dorsally and laterally with dark bluish internal marks, ventrally with indistinct light brown plate in front of gonopore, without mark behind gonopore.

BODY. Habitus as in Figs 15–16 ; ocular area raised; carapace elevated, with deep median furrow; clypeus and sternum unmodified.

CHELICERAE. With one pair of simple (undivided) frontal apophyses ( Fig. 24 ).

PALPS. As in Figs 22–23 ; coxa with retrolatero-ventral apophysis; trochanter barely modified; femur with retrolatero-ventral process proximally and small ventral apophysis distally; procursus very simple, slender in dorsal view, without subdistal side branch ( Figs 47–48 ); bulb with two dorsal processes, distal apophysis curved, very slender towards tip ( Figs 45–46 ).

LEGS. Without spines; with curved hairs on metatarsi 1–3, few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 6%; prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1; tarsus 1 with ~25 pseudosegments, distally distinct.

Male (variation). Tibia 1 in 8 other males: 5.0–5.7 (mean 5.3). Internal abdominal marks less distinct in types. One male with few curved hairs also on tibiae 1–3.

Female. In general similar to male ( Figs 17–18 ), legs without curved hairs. Tibia 1 in 7 females: 3.3–3.7 (mean 3.5). Epigynum as in Figs 19–20 , 25–26 ; with large protruding weakly sclerotized area in front of light brown epigynal plate, with pair of dark lateral sclerites in transversal orientation, posterior margin evenly curved; posterior plate simple. Internal genitalia as in Figs 21 and 27 , with pair of anteriorly contiguous pore-plates, membranous median sac, and anteriorly diverging sclerites/‘wings’.

Natural history. All specimens were collected from forest leaf litter. González-Sponga (2005) specifically mentions Cecropia leaves.

Distribution. Known from medium to high elevation forests (950–2100 m a.s.l.) in Aragua (Tovar area) and Vargas states, Venezuela ( Fig. 1 ).

Notes. González-Sponga (2005) reported 1♂ holotype (“1164a”), 1♀ paratype (“1164b”), and 21♂ 27♀ adult paratypes without specific collection number. Only one vial was found at MIZA, labeled “1164” and containing 22♂ 16♀ 8 juvs and 4 prosomata. Of the 22♂, three belong to S. parva and were separated (see above) (and clearly labeled as being part of the S. cuadrata type series). The label says “Hda El Limón, Dpto Vargas, DF” (which differs only with respect to administrative units from the locality as published in the original description: “Hacienda El Limón, Municipio Carayaca, Estado Vargas) and lists four dates: “ 12-8-89, 29-10-89, 10-8-90, 4-5- 91 ” (which agrees with the range in the original description). We suspect that this is the entire type series and that a holotype was never physically separated from this series. Since the identity of the species is beyond doubt, and since the holotype might just be misplaced rather than lost, we prefer not to designate a neotype and to treat the type specimens unspecifically as “ types ”.

González-Sponga (2005) gives the distribution of S. cuadrata as “Galipán, Parque Nacional El Avila, Estado Vargas ”. This does not agree with the type locality. The exact coordinates of the type locality are not known to us, but Hacienda El Limón is close to the town of Carayaca, while Galipán [San Antonio de Galipán] is a town within the limits of El Ávila National Park and lies about 25 km E of the type locality. We do not have an explanation for this contradiction. In addition, the coordinates in González-Sponga (2005) are clearly wrong (about 32 km SW of Carayaca, in the state of Aragua).

Some measurements in González-Sponga (2005) are clearly wrong, e.g.: female carapace width (0.4; should be ~0.7).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Known distribution of Stenosfemuraia.

FIGURES 15 – 21. Stenosfemuraia cuadrata, ZFMK Ar 18253. 15 – 18. Male and female, dorsal and lateral views. 19 – 20. Epigynum, ventral and lateral views. 21. Cleared female genitalia, dorsal view (arrows: lateral sclerites / ‘ wings’).

FIGURES 22 – 27. Stenosfemuraia cuadrata, ZFMK Ar 18253. 22 – 23. Left pedipalp, prolateral and retrolateral views. 24. Male chelicerae, frontal view. 25 – 26. Epigynum, lateral and ventral views. 27. Cleared female genitalia, dorsal view. Scale lines: 0.3.

FIGURES 41 – 52. Stenosfemuraia parva (41 – 44, ZFMK Ar 18251), S. cuadrata (45 – 48, ZFMK Ar 18253) and S. pilosa (49 – 52, ZFMK Ar 18254). Genital bulb processes (all at same scale) in dorsal (41, 45, 49) and ventral (42, 46, 50) views. Palpal tarsus and procursus (all at same scale) in prolateral (43, 47, 51) and dorsal (44, 48, 52) views. Scale lines: 0.3.