Leucauge argyra (Walckenaer 1841)

Figs 1A–D, 7

Tetragnatha argyra Walckenaer, 1841: 219, pl. 19, figs. 1a–d. Type specimens from Guadeloupe, lost according to Levi, 1980: 28.

Linyphia aurulenta C. L. Koch, 1845: 127, pl. 425, fig. 1049. Type specimen from St. Thomas. Levi, 1980: 28 (Syn.)

Linyphia ornata Taczanowski, 1874: 66 . Type material from Cayenne and Saint-Laurent-du-Maron, French Guiana. Banks, 1909: 163 (Syn.).

Meta argyra: Keyserling, 1881: 563, pl. 16, figs. 12–12a.

Argyroepeira argyra: Keyserling, 1893: 343, pl. 18, figs. 253a–d; McCook, 1894: 243, pl. 24, figs. 2–3b; Simon, 1894: 730, fig. 806.

Argyroepeira aurulenta: Simon, 1898: 871.

Plesiometa argyra: F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1903: 438, pl. 41, figs. 15–16a.

Leucauge argyra: Banks, 1909: 163.

Leucauge aurulenta: Archer, 1951: 6, figs 5–6 (Removed from synonymy of Leucauge venusta Walckenaer, 1841).

Leucauge argyroaffins Soares & Camargo, 1948: 381, figs. 40–42. Male holotype from Nova Xavantina, Mato Grosso, Brazil, X/1946, deposited in MZSP 1330. We have examined photographs of the holotype. New synonymy.

Other material examined. MEXICO, female from unknown location, 05/IX/1952, unknown coll. (IBSP 11884) . CUBA, two males and female from Rio La Mula, Guamá, Santiago de Cuba, 16/ VI /1999, A. Sánchez coll. (IBSP 169936) . DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, female from Punta Cana, La Altagracia , VII/2009, G. R . S. Ruiz coll. (IBSP 214480) . PUERTO RICO, male and female from Jayuya, 20/III/1986, H. L. Levi, coll. (IBSP 6233) . MARTINIQUE, three males and six females from Carrere, 08-21/ VI /2013, A. Sanchéz coll. (IBSP 169861). BRAZIL, male from Usina Hidrelétrica de Balbina (01°54′56,7″S 59°28′25″W), Presidente Figueiredo, Amazonas, 01/IV/1994, Naldrand coll. (IBSP 14503); fourteen males, thirty-four and five juveniles from Mina do Sossego (06°26’33.4”S 50°54’57.2”W), Marabá, Pará 05/III/2004, E. Wanzeler coll. (MPEG 4122); male and female from Riacho Cheio D’água, povoado Cheio D’água, Aldeias Altas (4°38’16.7”S 43°29’46.4”W), Maranhão, 30/ XII/2021, G. S. Lustosa et al. Coll. (CHNUFPI 4350); twelve females from Rio Igaraçu, Parnaíba (2°53’40.11”S 41°45’10.25”W), Piauí 01/ VI /2010, L. S. Carvalho et al. coll. (CHNUFPI 4137); male and four females from João Pessoa (07°06’54”S 34°51’03”W), Paraíba 23/XII/1982, M. C. Santos coll. (IBSP 14286); male and nine females from Campus UFSe, São Cristóvão (11°0′54″S 37°12′21″W), Sergipe , 12/ VI /1996, A. D. Brescovit coll. (IBSP 7635); three females from Usina Hidrelétrica Luís Eduardo Magalhães (9°45’21”S 48°22’23”W), Palmas, Tocantins, 10/I/2002, D. M. Cândido & M. Costa coll. (IBSP 40561); male from Estação Experimental Biológica (15°44’10.8”S 47°53’00.4”W), Asa Norte, Brasília, Distrito Federal, 05/ V /2006, P. C. Motta et al., coll. (DZUB 4595); four females from Campus Darcy Ribeiro (15°45’55.9”S 47°51’22.8”W), Asa Norte, Brasília, Distrito Federal, 03/ V /2004, J. Roger coll. (DZUB 3022); male and three females from Salvador (12°57’48”S 38°24’44”W), Bahia, X/2012, T . S. Melo et al. coll. (IBSP 235737); three males and four females from Parque Estadual do Rio Doce (19°39’31”S 42°34’32”W), Marliéria, Minas Gerais 13-16/VII/2018, T . G. Kloss coll. (UFMG 22436); male and three females from Ilha Solteira (20°25’58”S 51°20’33”W), São Paulo , 25/ VI /1973, M. P. Bueno coll. (IBSP 2665); male, two females and three juveniles from Usina Hidrelétrica Engenho Sérgio Motta (22°28′46″S 52°57′25″W), Presidente Epitácio, São Paulo, 16/I-13/II/1999, team IBSP coll. (IBSP 23124);

Justification of the synonymy. Leucauge argyroaffins was described by Soares and Camargo (1948) based on a single male collected in Nova Xavantina, state of Mato Grosso (Fig 1A). This specimen is damaged, having lost both palps and most of the color pattern, but the chelicerae remain undamaged, where a distal constriction typical of L. argyra is seen. The authors used two main diagnostic features to differentiate L. argyroaffins from L. argyra: the shape of the cymbial hook and the presence of a dorsobasal process, against its supposed absence on L. argyra, which is inaccurate. The fig. 40 of their work depicts a palp with these structures, same as those presented by L. argyra males. It should be noted that the curvature of the cymbial hook is not a reliable diagnostic feature because it may vary slightly within populations. Furthermore, in the original description of the L. argyroaffins holotype, the color described for the male is the same as that shown by L. argyra . The combination of these factors led us to propose the synonymy of these species.

Diagnosis. This species differs from most congenerics by its unique genitalia: females are distinguished by their projected epigynum with a ventral process (Fig 1B) only shared with the species herein described (see below), but differ by the conical shape of the projection. Males share the presence of dorsobasal process covered with setae with of Leucauge globosa (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889), but L. argyra differs by the presence of a very sclerotized sickle-shaped conductor, bigger body size (more than 4 mm) and thicker legs. The species described below and L. argyra are the only known to possess the cymbial hook, however L. argyra is distinct for carrying both cymbial apophyses. (Fig 1D).