Corythalia latipes C.L. Koch, 1846

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 : 12-15

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-FF9E-C15A-66AB-FA7863F44E9F
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Corythalia latipes C.L. Koch, 1846
status

Treatment

Corythalia latipes C.L. Koch, 1846 View in CoL

Figs 2A View FIGURE 2 , 5 View FIGURE 5 , 6 View FIGURE 6 A–E, 57A, 61A, 64A, 68A, 71A, 75A

Euophrys latipes C.L. Koch, 1846: 224 , fig. 1269 (description and illustration of ♂, dorsal view). Holotype ♂ from BRAZIL, “ Salticus latipes Perty ”, K. Sammlung München (= Munich), ZSM, however, neither found in ZSM (S. Friedrich & J. Spelda, pers. comm.) nor in NHMNB, ZMB, SMF, NHMW, NHM, OUMNH, MNHN and NMBE, where its deposition was also likely, thus considered lost. The following male is here designated as the Neotype: ♂ from BRAZIL: Bahia: Jussa- ri, Fazenda Teimoso GoogleMaps , ca. 15°09’S, 39°31’30”W, about 250 m a.s.l.; M.F. Dias leg. 21 Nov. 1998, IBSP 35165 View Materials , examined.

Corythalia View in CoL latipes— C.L. Koch 1850: 67 (transfer from Euophrys View in CoL , Corythalia View in CoL originally as subgenus of Euophrys View in CoL , elevated to genus rank by subsequent authors, e.g. Simon (1901)).

Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Bahia: Jussari (same recording event as for neotype, see above): 1 ♀ (F-1), IBSP 35165 View Materials - II . Ilhéus, Olivença , ca. 14°57’S, 39°01’W, about 50 m a.s.l. (mata-pitfall): 1 ♀ (F-2), M.F. Dias leg. 25 June 1998, IBSP 35916 View Materials GoogleMaps . Mata de São João, Fazenda Camurujipe, ca. 12°32’S, 38°20’W, about 120 m a.s.l. ( Am : 239): 1 ♀ (F-3), C. Machado leg. 2006, IBSP 85440 View Materials GoogleMaps . Lafaiete Coutinho, ca. 13°40’S, 40°13’W, about 600 m a.s.l. ( Am : 401): 1 ♀ (F-4), J. Romão leg. VII.2006 – VII.2007, IBSP 140454 View Materials GoogleMaps .

Remarks. The present neotype designation (see above) is based on ICZN § 75.3 and justified as the following qualifying conditions (according to ICZN § 75.3.1–7) are given: the description and the illustration in Koch (1846) definitely allow assignment to the same genus to which other species belong, which have (after 1846) been treated as members of Corythalia since a long time. For example, C. valida ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) , C. grata ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) , C. electa ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) , C. metallica ( Peckham & Peckham, 1894) or C. bicincta ( Petrunkevitch, 1925) have been found to have a quite similar colouration, habitus and somatical characters as C. latipes and were assigned to Corythalia by different authors experienced in salticid taxonomy. Thus, we follow Simon (1901), who regarded the representatives of the genera Dynamius (note: some of the above mentioned species were listed in this genus at that point of time. Additionally that genus held other species, e.g. D. opimus , sharing the main somatic characters with C. latipes , but differing in colouration of the opisthosoma) and (at least a large part of) the representatives of Escambia as being congeneric with C. latipes . He consequently listed the respective species from that time on under Corythalia [the oldest genus name available, after elevation to genus rank by Simon (1901)]. All characters described and illustrated by Koch (1846) for C. latipes are in concordance with the revised diagnosis for the genus Corythalia herein. As marginal note it may be added: the white scales along the margins of the proximal half of the carapace, which are present in most Corythalia species, are not recognisable in Koch’s drawing (see Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 ), however, they were described by Koch (1846) in the text of the description. Even though the identity of C. latipes as a representative of the genus Corythalia is free of doubt, the identity/definition of the distinct/particular species C. latipes (in comparison to other Corythalia species) is definitely puzzling without an objective reference, meaning an adult male specimen showing all diagnostic characters to discriminate C. latipes from other Corythalia species. In this context the specific structures of the male copulatory organ (i.e. the male palp) are indispensable. As C. latipes is the type species of Corythalia , it is even more comprehensible that its species identity has to be resolved. The original holotype is lost: Stefan Friedrich and Jörg Spelda have intensively searched the collections of the ZSM (even the entomological collections) and could not find it. After intensive search, neither could the curators of the arachnid collections of the natural history museums NHMNB, ZMB, NHMW, NHM, MNHN, OUMNH and NMBE. In most of these institutions the entomological collections (dry and ethanol) were also searched for. The deposition of the original holotype in one of the institutions mentioned above seemed likely, since parts of either the collection of C.L. Koch or that of J. A. M. Perty are hold there. The Corythalia male examined herein and designated as the neotype had been collected in Bahia in Brazil (see above). Its colouration pattern and the main somatic charcters correspond well to the illustration and description in Koch (1846) for C. latipes : body length: 2 2/3´´´ “lignes”/”Linien”, means 6.02 mm if Parisian “ligne” was used (which is more likely) or 5.40 mm if Bavarian “Linie” was used. Carapace dark red-brown, eye region even darker black-brown, behind and between posterior eyes with some patches of light scales, proximal margins of carapace with bands of light (white) scales; chelicerae red-brown, cheliceral fangs short ( Koch 1846). Opisthosoma: dorsally with two large, light beige, procurve lunulate patches in posterior two thirds (within them some fine dark areas) and one narrower light beige, trifurcate patch in anteriormost section (also with darker areas within) ( Koch 1846). These latter aspects only in parts correspond to the present neotype, but it is possible that the specimen Koch had once examined was dried and its opisthosoma shrunken. Legs I and II strong and broad, all legs quite dark red-brown, all legs with long fringe hairs, longest and most conspicuously developed in leg pair III; leg pair III longer than pairs I and II and minimally shorter than leg pair IV; leg tarsi yellow. Palps with similar basic colouration as legs, but with whitish hairs densely arranged on patellae and distal sections of femora ( Koch 1846).

Upon arrival in Nuremberg, where C.L. Koch was working at the time around 1846, the specimen must have been labelled as “ Salticus latipes Perty ” and must have been taken from the collection of Josef Anton Maximilian Perty containing mainly material from South America deposited at the Natural History Museum Munich (ZSM), as Koch (1846) states (see above). A jumping spider species Salticus latipes , however, was never described and published by J. A. M. Perty. It is possible that Perty originally intented to do so, but did not find the time or thought that Koch was more qualified to describe a Brazilian salticid. There is no detailed type locality for the former holotype of C. latipes given in Koch (1846); it is likely that is was once collected in the province of Bahia in Brazil: Perty (1833) described many Brazilian arachnids and, in the context of this study, he certainly collected/gathered a lot more arachnid species/specimens than those actually treated in his study. As type locality for several of “his” species, he listed the state of Bahia in Brazil. It is also most likely that the material was collected near the coast in Bahia, because in the 19 th century regions close to the coast were more often visited by researchers, due to an earlier peopling and a better infrastructure in contrast to higher life risk in the interior.

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (actual tubular section) at its distal and subdistal section very narrow (only ¼ the width of central section, Figs 6A View FIGURE 6 , 64A View FIGURE 64 ) and as long or slightly longer than width of tegulum; width of embolus base-circle about 2/3 the width of tegulum; RTA in retrolateral view with distinct dorsal serration, reaching far proximally (about 2/3 of the entire length of RTA is covered by the serration, Figs 6B View FIGURE 6 , 68A View FIGURE 68 ). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) not continuous because build by the (converging) lateral margin of epigynal window from lateral and slightly further posteriorly by the anteriorly extremely diverging margin of the septum of epigynal windows (SW) reaching far transversally lateral (more than half of the width of W); EW more than 1.25x longer than broad but less than 1.3x ( Figs 6C View FIGURE 6 , 71A View FIGURE 71 ); W more than 7x broader than SW, but less than 8x; secondary spermathecae very small (diameter only about ¼ the diameter of primary spermathecae, just slightly broader than spermathecal heads) ( Figs 6D View FIGURE 6 , 75A View FIGURE 75 ).

Description. Male (neotype): total length 6.1, carapace length 3.0, maximal carapace width 2.1, width of eye rectangle 1.8, opisthosoma length 2.6, opisthosoma width 1.8, fovea length 0.22. EYES: AME 0.59, ALE 0.36, PME 0.11, PLE 0.31, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.56, PME–PLE 0.26, ALE–PLE 0.72, PLE–PLE 1.27, clypeus height at AME 0.27, clypeus height at ALE 0.67. 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 2004, II 3014, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 4134, IV 4234{4144}. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.5 [0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.9], I 5.5 [1.8, 0.9, 1.2, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.5 [1.8, 0.9 1.2, 1.0, 0.6] III 6.6 [2.1, 1.0, 1.4, 1.5, 0.6], IV 6.7 [2.0, 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 or 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus moderately long, hose-like (distalmost section much narrower, almost filiform) and arising point approximately at medio-proximal section of embolus base ( Fig. 6A View FIGURE 6 ); embolus base circle about 2/3 the width of tegulum (T). T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying slightly more than retrolateral half of tegulum ( Figs 6A View FIGURE 6 , 64A View FIGURE 64 ), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe not clearly distinguished from residual tegulum, but

T retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending ( Figs 6A View FIGURE 6 , 64A View FIGURE 64 ). Cymbium in ventral view ( Figs 6A View FIGURE 6 , 64A View FIGURE 64 ) distally conically converging and at distalmost section broadly rounded, at distal 1/5 slightly lighter and with scopula ( Fig. 68A View FIGURE 68 ). Palpal tibia short, broader than long ( Figs 6 View FIGURE 6 A–B, 64A, 68A) and ventral tibial bump very small and rounded. RTA quite narrow in ventral view, dorsally with distinct serration ( Figs 6B View FIGURE 6 , 68A View FIGURE 68 ). CO- LOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Figs 5 View FIGURE 5 , 57A View FIGURE 57 ). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Figs 5 View FIGURE 5 , 57A View FIGURE 57 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing ( Fig. 57A View FIGURE 57 ).

Female (measurements of all specimens as range): total length 5.7–7.1, carapace length 2.6–2.8, maximal carapace width 1.9–2.0, width of eye rectangle 1.6–1.7, opisthosoma length 2.6–3.6, opisthosoma width 1.9–2.6, fovea length 0.14–0.21. EYES: AME 0.52–0.53, ALE 0.32–0.33, PME 0.09, PLE 0.29–0.30, AME–AME 0.04, AME– ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.44–1.51, PME–PLE 0.24–0.25, ALE–PLE 0.65–0.72, PLE–PLE 1.23–1.27, clypeus height at AME 0.26–0.27, clypeus height at ALE 0.60–0.62. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II–III 1600 (1600), IV 1600 (1600{1500}); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2002 (2002), II 3003 (3003), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I 2014 (2024), II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 4144 (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.2–2.3 [0.8–0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.7], I 4.2 [1.4, 0.7, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5], II 4.1–4.3 [1.4–1.5, 0.7, 0.8–0.9, 0.7, 0.5], III 5.2 [1.7, 0.8, 1.1, 1.1, 0.5], IV 5.1–5.4 [1.6–1.7, 0.7, 1.1–1.2, 1.2, 0.5–0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 3412 (4321). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with oval epigynal windows (W), septum (SW) relatively narrow ( Figs 6C View FIGURE 6 , 71A View FIGURE 71 ). Epigyne surrounded by an only narrow epigynal field being broader than long. Primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling large part of W (almost up to proximal 2/3, Figs 6C View FIGURE 6 , 71A View FIGURE 71 ). Vulva with almost round primary spermathecae being distinctly larger than (quite tiny) secondary spermathecae. Head of spermatheca directed posteriorly on secondary spermatheca ( Figs 6 View FIGURE 6 D–E, 75A). Connective ducts narrow, meeting primary spermathecae ventro-medially ( Figs 6 View FIGURE 6 D–E, 75A). Fertilisation ducts arising antero-centrally on primary spermathecae, being bent laterally. Copulatory ducts well recognisable and quite long ( Figs 6D View FIGURE 6 , 75A View FIGURE 75 ). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 61A View FIGURE 61 ). Legs brown to red-brown with hardly lighter sections recognisable ( Fig. 61A View FIGURE 61 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing ( Fig. 61A View FIGURE 61 ).