Corythalia placata ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )

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 : 37-39

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-FFB1-C172-66AB-FF6C63F64E4C
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Corythalia placata ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )
status

Treatment

Corythalia placata ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) View in CoL

Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 A–E, 57H, 61I, 64L, 68H, 72D, 76D

Dynamius placatus Peckham & Peckham 1901: 339 , pl. 25, fig. 11 & 11a–c, pl. 26, fig. 2, partim, pl. 25, figs 11a–c misidentified (= Corythalia waleckii View in CoL ) (remaining figs: description & illustration of ♀). Lectotype ♀ (here designated) from Lesser Antilles : Trinidad and Tobago: Trinidad; Walter Elias Broadway leg. 1888–1894; G.W. & E.G. Peckham Collection No. 658; MCZ 22679; paralectotype ♀ & 4 juveniles /p.s.a. ♀ (here designated; remark: it is uncertain if the juveniles and p.s.a. ♀ are conspecific with the two mature female types!) with the same data as for lectotype; MCZ 22679-I/-II; the following paralectotypes with the same data as for lectotype were definitely misidentified: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, both here identified as C. waleckii View in CoL , MCZ 22679-III, all type material examined.

Corythalia placata View in CoL — Petrunkevitch 1911: 618 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia View in CoL ). Proszynski 1976: 153, f. 192 [after Peckham & Peckham (1901): pl. 25, fig. 11b], misidentified; = C. waleckii View in CoL ).

Additional material examined. LESSER ANTILLES: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Trinidad : Port of Spain: Port of Spain, ca. 10°40’N, 61°30’W, about 50–150 m a.s.l.: 1 ♂ paralectotype of Dynamius blandus , misidentified, Walter Elias Broadway leg. 1888–1894, G.W. & E.G. Peckham Collection No. 651, MCZ 20545- II GoogleMaps (ex MCZ 20545) .

Additional doubtful material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande, taken within a radius of 2 kilometers of Rancho Grande , ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1100 m, lower cloud forest; leg. 1945–1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; formerly with Cat No. 461202 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY: 1 ♂ with label saying “P16, male, drawn, meas., holotype ”, found within a large jar holding C. xanthopa specimens examined and identified by Crane around 1948, AMNH-IZC 00327948 GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: embolus (E) short, distally pointed and at distal half with dorsal apophysis being only partly covered by E and thus in ventral view still visible as elongated lobe-like structure prolaterally of the prolateral margin of E ( Figs 18A View FIGURE 18 , 64L View FIGURE 64 ). Proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) relatively short and covering palpal tibia only at distal 1/4 ( Figs 18A View FIGURE 18 , 64L View FIGURE 64 ). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) (more or less) round; distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow slightly more than 0.4x and less than 0.5x diameter of W; epigynal field missing ( Figs 18C View FIGURE 18 , 72D View FIGURE 72 ); copulatory ducts extremely short, copulatory openings more or less directly leading into secondary spermathecae (SS); primary spermathecae (PS) including fertilisation ducts (FD) located anterior of SS; FD arising posteriorly on PS ( Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 D–E, 76D).

Description. Male: total length 4.6, carapace length 2.3, maximal carapace width 1.6, width of eye rectangle 1.4, opisthosoma length 1.9, opisthosoma width 1.4, fovea length 0.14. EYES: AME 0.47, ALE 0.31, PME 0.09, PLE 0.24, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.03, PME–PME 1.26, PME–PLE 0.19, ALE–PLE 0.54, PLE–PLE 1.05, clypeus height at AME 0.18, clypeus height at ALE 0.46. Cheliceral furrow with 2 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (promarginal teeth both exremely small and very close together). SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–IV 1500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3024, III 2133, IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2014, III–IV 3134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 [0.6, 0.3, 0.2, 0.6], I 3.7 [1.2, 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4], II 3.7 [1.2, 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4], III 4.9 [1.5, 0.7, 1.1, 1.1, 0.5], IV 4.8 [1.4, 0.6, 1.1, 1.2, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 341&2 (legs I & II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite short, narrow, tip pointed, at distal half with dorsal apophysis and arising point at centro-proximal section of embolus base (EB) ( Figs 18A View FIGURE 18 , 64L View FIGURE 64 ); EB circle slightly less than half as broad as tegulum (T); T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked Sshaped, occupying more than retrolateral 1/2 of tegulum; proximal tegulum lobe not distinctly distinguished, short and proximally more or less rounded ( Figs 18A View FIGURE 18 , 64L View FIGURE 64 ). Cymbium in ventral view ( Figs 18A View FIGURE 18 , 64L View FIGURE 64 ) distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded. Palpal tibia short, broader than long ( Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 A–B, 64L, 68H) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view rather inconspicuous and flat conical, with slightly distal direction ( Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 A–B). RTA medium-sized, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with inconspicuous serration ( Figs 18A View FIGURE 18 , 64L View FIGURE 64 ), in retrolateral view serration not even recognisable ( Figs 18B View FIGURE 18 , 68H View FIGURE 68 ). COLOURATION (male not in good condition, opisthosoma cuticle separated from subcuticle, most of the hairs rubbed-off): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 57H View FIGURE 57 ). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being (only slightly) lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 57H View FIGURE 57 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, no statement possible about chevron-like patch in central band ( Fig. 57H View FIGURE 57 ).

Female: total length 4.0, carapace length 1.9, maximal carapace width 1.4, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 1.9, opisthosoma width 1.3, fovea length 0.10. EYES: AME 0.39, ALE 0.26, PME 0.08, PLE 0.21, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.09, PME–PLE 0.17, ALE–PLE 0.51, PLE–PLE 0.91, clypeus height at AME 0.14, clypeus height at ALE 0.36. Cheliceral furrow with 2 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (promarginal teeth both tiny and very close together). SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1300 {1400}, II–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I–II 1003, III 2123, IV 2124 {2133}; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 [0.6, 0.3, 0.3, 0.5], I 2.8 [0.9, 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3], II 2.8 [0.9, 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3], III 3.9 [1.3, 0.5, 0.9, 0.8, 0.4], IV 3.8 [1.2, 0.5, 0.8, 0.9, 0.4]. LEG FOR- MULA: 342&1 (legs I & II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with round epigynal windows (W); septum of W relatively broad (almost 1/3 as broad as diameter of W) ( Figs 18C View FIGURE 18 , 72D View FIGURE 72 ); distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow slightly more than 0.4x and less than 0.5x diameter of W; epigynal field missing ( Figs 18C View FIGURE 18 , 72D View FIGURE 72 ). Vulva exhibiting a totally inverted system: transversal drop-shaped primary spermathe-

cae (PS) located anteriorly with arising point of fertilisation ducts (FD) posteriorly ( Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 D–E, 76D); secondary spermathecae (SS) located posteriorly with extremely short copulatory ducts meeting SS from postero-medially, heads of spermathecae located anteriorly at SS ( Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 D–E, 76D). Connective ducts between PS and SS very narrow and short, arising posteriorly at SS, running a curve and then running (slightly latero-) anteriorly, meeting PS latero-posteriorly. FD narrow and bent laterally ( Figs 18 View FIGURE 18 D–E, 76D). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 61I View FIGURE 61 ). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 61I View FIGURE 61 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present, additionally with white patch centrally in brown section between central and posterior light band ( Fig. 61I View FIGURE 61 ).

Remarks. The female specimen MCZ 22679 is here designated as the lectotype. The type series is polytypic in including misidentified specimens of C. waleckii (see above). Several drawings ( Peckham & Peckham 1901, pl. 25, Figs 11 View FIGURE 11 a–c) of a palp of a male specimen the authors considered conspecific with the female mentioned above and below have clearly turned out to belong to a male of C. waleckii . The epigyne of the female lectotype clearly corresponds to the respective drawing in Peckham & Peckham (1901, pl. 25, Fig. 11 View FIGURE 11 ). So there is a clear reference to the type of epigyne the authors considered specific for the new species they wanted to introduce and was, in fact, new, meaning not already known to science at that point of time (around 1900).

The small male paralectotype of Dynamius blandus listed with the type material of C. blanda (see below) was here recognised as definitely being misidentified. Due to the small body length and the dentition of the promargin of the cheliceral base (two very small and narrow teeth, instead of one in the other species originally found in the same vial [ C. waleckii , C. blanda ]) it is very likely that this male is conspecific to the female lectotype of C. placata . However, it should be considered that conspecificity is not 100% certain as the collecting events in Trinidad by W.E. Broadway yielded several species and may not originate from one and the same spot. Consequently, it cannot be excluded that this male belongs to an additional different species (other than C. blanda , C. waleckii and C. placata ; e.g. still not described or still only known by females). Independently of the new identification in the course of the present examinations the mentioned male keeps its paralectotype status (of Dynamius blandus ). Though it was here separated from the original (type) series, the original collection number is still integrated in the new collection number and it was clearly mentioned that it was taken from the mentioned type series/collection number and actually still belongs there but for organisational reasons and for reasons of better handling it was separated.

The type series of Dynamius placatus (MCZ 22679) contained two (identifiable) species and some juvenile specimens. For organisational reasons and for reasons of better handling it was split into several subseries (see above). One female and one male were identified as C. waleckii . The juveniles cannot be identified to species. However, we find it more likely that they belong to either C. waleckii or to C. blanda than to C. placata because the dentition of the retromargin of the cheliceral furrow corresponds to the first mentioned species.

The male from Venezuela (AMNH-IZC 00327948; formerly Crane-collection) corresponds to the male MCZ 20545-II, apart from a few very fine differences (might rather be of intraspecific nature). Due to these fine differences and to the fact that the matching of the male MCZ 20545-II with the female lectotype of C. placata is not for 100% certain we listed the male from AMNH under doubtful material. As a male with the (field-?/ sample-?) no. P16 was not listed in Crane (1948) in the material list of C. xanthopa we wonder for which description this male might have been used and even more for which illustration it might have been the template/sample. Certainly an illustration of a somatic structure, otherwise the completely different structure of the palp must have attracted her attetion. This male is definitely not the holotype of C. xanthopa and as there is no clear reference of this male to a specimen listed (or illustrated with its palp) in Crane (1948) the type denotation on the label is definitely void according to the ICZN.At least parts of the Crane collection were not well organised by her (or collaborators?), hence, such kind of confusion is not surprising. To this see also the remarks under the species descriptions of C. fulgipedia , C. chalcea and C. xanthopa , below.

We are not able to make any assumptions on possible relationships of C. placata . It shows characters that are not shared by any other Corythalia species: i.e. totally inverted system of the vulva, etc. (see above).

Distribution. Trinidad and possibly Venezuela.