Sidydrassus rogue Tuneva, 2004
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.2.7 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3B4E0082-F3B6-485B-8376-68112C27C970 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7148889 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/BA4C87EF-FF9C-4912-FF60-30BC53571E96 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Sidydrassus rogue Tuneva, 2004 |
status |
|
Sidydrassus rogue Tuneva, 2004 View in CoL
Figs 5–6, 11–12 View FIGURES 1–12 , 31–36 View FIGURES 31–36 , 40–41 View FIGURES 37–43 , 44 View FIGURE 44
S. rogue Tuneva, 2004: 326 View in CoL , figs 17–21 (♂).
Material examined. MONGOLIA: Khovd Aimag: 1♂ ( ISEA, 001.8943), 46 km S from Altai Village, Bodonchyin-Gol River valley , 45°46’N, 92°10’E, cliff on the river bank, 1270 m, 07– 08.05.2012, A.A. Fomichev GoogleMaps ; 1♀ ( ISEA, 001.8944), same locality, 45°45’N, 92°11’E, stony desert, 1300 m, 07– 08.05.2012, A.A. Fomichev GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis. The male of S. rogue differs from all the congeners in having a strongly reduced RTA, which is 4 times shorter than tibia (vs. as long as tibia or twice shorter than tibia in other species) (cf. Figs 31–33 View FIGURES 31–36 and 13–15, 16–18 View FIGURES 13–18 , 25–27 View FIGURES 25–30 ). The female of S. rogue is very similar to that of S. tianschanicus , but can easily be distinguished by epigynal proportions: viz., in S. rogue the epigynal fovea is 1.7 times longer than wide and the anterior receptacles (Ar) are significantly larger than the posterior ones (Pr) (vs. epigynal fovea is 2.1 times longer than wide and the anterior and posterior receptacles are equal in size in S. tianschanicus ) (cf. Figs 40–41 and 42–43 View FIGURES 37–43 ).
Description. Male. Total length 8.0. Carapace: 3.4 long, 2.25 wide. Colouration. Carapace yellow-brown. Chelicerae and labium brown. Endites light brown. Sternum yellow-brown. Coxae yellow. Palps yellow-brown. Legs yellow. Mt–Ta of legs I–II light brown. Abdomen and spinnerets yellow-beige. Leg measurements: I: 3.05, 1.6, 2.8, 2.35, 1.65 (11.45). II: 2.75, 1.45, 2.3, 2.05, 1.5 (10.05). III: 2.55, 1.2, 1.95, 2.1, 1.4 (9.2). IV: 3.4, 1.4, 2.8, 3.4, 1.6 (12.6). Leg spination: I: Fe d1-0-1 p0-1-1; Ti v2-2-0; Mt v2-0-0. II: Fe d1-0-1 p0-1-1; Ti p0-0-1 v0-2-0; Mt v2-0-0. III: Fe d1-1-1 p0-1-1 r0-1-1; Ti d1-0-0 p1-1-1 r1-1-1 v1-2-2; Mt d0-2-0 p1-1-0 r1-1-0 v2-2-0. IV: Fe d1-1-1 p0-1-1 r0-1-1; Ti d1-0-1 p1-1-1 r2-0-1 v2-2-2; Mt d1-2-0 p1-1-0 r1-1-0 v2-0-2.
Palp as in Figs 31–36 View FIGURES 31–36 . Tegulum (Te) 1.6 times longer than wide. Sperm duct (Sd) well visible in ventral view. Median apophysis (Ma) small, two times shorter than the embolus (Em). Membrane of median apophysis (Mm) and triangular membrane (Tm) well-developed. Conductor (Cn) originates at a 12:30 o’clock position. Embolic apex slightly bent prolaterad.
Female. Total length 7.8. Carapace: 3.5 long, 2.45 wide. Colouration. Carapace yellow-brown. Chelicerae and labium light brown. Endites and sternum yellow-brown. Coxae yellow. Legs and palps yellow, darker distally. Abdomen grey-beige. Spinnerets yellow. Leg measurements: I: 3.05, 1.55, 2.55, 2.15, 1.55 (10.85). II: 2.85, 1.45, 2.35, 2.1, 1.5 (10.25). III: 2.75, 1.25, 2.1, 2.2, 1.4 (9.7). IV: 3.65, 1.5, 3.1, 3.65, 1.65 (13.55). Leg spination: I: Fe d1-0-1 p0-0-1; Ti v1-2-0; Mt v2-0-0. II: Fe d1-1-0 p0-1-2; Ti p0-0-1 v0-2-0; Mt v2-0-0. III: Fe d1-1-1 p0-1-1 r0-1- 1; Ti d1-0-0 p1-1-1 r1-1-1 v1-2-2; Mt d0-2-0 p1-1-0 r1-1-0 v2-0-2. IV: Fe d1-1-1 p1-0-0 r0-1-1; Ti d1-0-1 p1-1-1 r2-0-1 v1-2-2; Mt d1-2-0 p1-1-0 r1-1-0 v2-0-2.
Epigyne as in Figs 40–41 View FIGURES 37–43 . Fovea (Fo) cross-inclined, very wide, with thin lateral margins. Median plate (Mp) inverted triangle-shaped, almost smooth. Anterior receptacles (Ar) diverging, separated by 0.35 times of their diameter. Posterior receptacles (Pr) nearly rectangular, without pronounced heads.
Comments. The male of this species is well-described by Tuneva (2004). Here, I have also provided a description of the previously unknown female (see above).
Distribution. Previously, the species was known only from the type locality near Zaisan Lake in East Kazakhstan Oblast. The new record from western Mongolia represents the easternmost records of this species ( Fig. 44 View FIGURE 44 ). It is likely that it occurs also in Xinjiang Province of China.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Sidydrassus rogue Tuneva, 2004
Fomichev, Alexander A. 2022 |
S. rogue
Tuneva, T. K. 2004: 326 |