Asceua luki, Jocqué & Henrard, 2024
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.3897/afrinvertebr.65.138029 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9230378F-8FE3-4785-9FDE-E78FA65002BE |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/7E428F5E-48A4-55E5-9223-20F39B9893B8 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Asceua luki |
status |
sp. nov. |
Asceua luki sp. nov.
Figs 14 View Figure 14 , 15 View Figure 15 , 16 View Figure 16 , 24 View Figure 24
Type material.
Holotype: D. R. Congo • ♂: Bas-Congo, Mayombe, Luki Biosphere Reserve ; 5°38'S, 13°04'E; 22. IX. 2007; canopy fogging, secondary rainforest; D. De Bakker, and J. P. Michiels leg.; RMCA_247723 GoogleMaps . Paratypes: • 4 ♂♂ 3 ♀; as holotype; RMCA_235130 GoogleMaps ; • 1 ♂ 1 ♀; 21. IX. 2007; further as holotype; RMCA_235129 GoogleMaps ; • 3 ♂♂ 1 ♀; 20. IX. 2007; further as previous; RMCA_235128 GoogleMaps .
Diagnosis.
Males and females of this species differ from those of A. incensa by the pale venter of the abdomen (Fig. 14 C, F View Figure 14 ) and the triangular shape, as wide as high, of the chilum. In the male palp of A. luki the cymbial fold reaches the very tip of the cymbium and is strongly narrowed at the extremity (Figs 15 B, C View Figure 15 , 16 B View Figure 16 ), but it does not in A. incensa (Figs 8 C View Figure 8 , 9 B View Figure 9 ). In addition, the palp of A. luki is similar to that of A. lejeunei but differs by some details: in A. luki , the median prong of the tibial apophysis is provided with a prolateral triangular tooth visible in transparency (Fig. 15 D, E View Figure 15 ); in A. lejeunei the tooth on the slightly wider median prong of the tibial apophysis is thinner and curved (Figs 12 C View Figure 12 , 13 B View Figure 13 ). Females are recognised by the structure of the epigyne similar to that of A. palustris : in A. luki the scapus is longer and narrower and not strongly widened at the posterior tip, and the copulatory openings are in front of the scapus tip, whereas behind it in A. palustris (Figs 15 F View Figure 15 , 16 C View Figure 16 vs. Fig. 17 D, G View Figure 17 ); the posterior copulatory ducts are large and tightly wound, in A. luki they are narrower, loosely wound and crossing at the start in A. palustris (Fig. 15 G, H View Figure 15 vs. Fig. 17 E, F View Figure 17 ). Females of A. luki differ from A. lejeunei by the scape, which is not indented (Fig. 16 C View Figure 16 vs. Fig. 13 D View Figure 13 ).
Etymology.
The species name is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality.
Description.
Male Holotype. Fig. 14 A – D View Figure 14 . Total body length 2.68. Colour in ethanol: carapace brownish orange, with faint darker ‘ X’ in front of fovea, dark rings around eyes and dark clypeus; chelicerae pale brown; endites and labium medium brown with pale frontal margin; sternum yellowish brown with darker margins; legs: femora proximal third of Fe white, distal 2 / 3 yellow with dark prolateral stripe and extra retrolateral stripe on Fe IV; remainder of legs yellow with dark ventral stripe on patellae, tibiae and metatarsi; abdomen: dorsum sepia with transparent brown scutum, two longitudinal, oval pale spots in anterior half and two transverse oval spots in the middle; sides dark as dorsum; venter pale in anterior 2 / 3; spinnerets yellow surrounded by dark area continuing from dorsum. Carapace 1.32 long, 0.99 wide, 0.92 high. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME: 0.09; ALE: 0.10; AME – AME: 0.07; AME – ALE: 0.02; PME: 0.10: PLE: 0.12; PME – PME: 0.07; PME – PLE: 0.11. MOQ: frontal width 0.25, posterior width 0.26, length 0.28. Clypeus 0.30 high. Chilum: triangular poorly defined sclerite 0.07 wide and as high. Sternum shield-shaped, 0.64 long, 0.61 wide. Legs: all femora with one short dorsal spine in proximal half;; measurements in Table 6 View Table 6 .
Palp (Figs 15 A – C View Figure 15 , 16 A, B View Figure 16 ): large: length including Ti 0.61 times carapace length. Tibia with three apophyses: dorsal prong (DP) wide, concave in prolateral view, curved forward, with distal, spine-shaped prong pointing forward at an angle of 45 °, inserted on apophysis tip; median prong (MD) roughly square with prolateral tooth (Ex); ventral prong (VP) short, straight with rounded extremity; cymbium laterally compressed with large retrolateral semicircular fold (CF), strongly narrowed at extremity reaching cymbial tip, with small, retrobasal button-like process (RCP) fitting DP concavity and sharp conical prolateral extension (PCP); tegulum with ventral part provided with small tooth (TT) anteriorly; median apophysis (MA) rounded and concave opening towards the front; embolus long and whip shaped, its base smoothly tapered in retrolateral view, a broad triangle in ventral view.
Female Paratype ( RMCA _235130 ). Fig. 14 E – H View Figure 14 . Total body length 3.43. Colour as in male but for the absence of a scutum, pale dorsal spots larger and rounded, venter with smaller paler area behind epigastric fold. Carapace 1.73 long, 1.20 wide, 0.91 high. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME: 0.09; ALE: 0.10; AME – AME: 0.05; AME – ALE: 0.05; PME: 0.10: PLE: 0.10; PME – PME: 0.07; PME – PLE: 0.12. MOQ: frontal width 0.23, posterior width 0.26, length 0.31. Clypeus 0.28 high. Chilum: triangular, 0.10 wide and as high; shape as in male. Sternum shield-shaped, 0.67 long, 0.58 wide. Legs: all femora with one short dorsal spine in proximal half; measurements in Table 7 View Table 7 .
Epigyne (Figs 15 F – H View Figure 15 , 16 C View Figure 16 ): quadrangular area, as wide as long; scape (Sc) long, slightly narrower in anterior half, clearly widened at tip; copulatory openings in front of scape tip; ducts relatively wide, strongly wound, posterior part a short dense spire, anterior part with three densely superposed loops.
Variation.
Males (n = 8): TL 2.16–2.77; CL 1.28–1.73; white spots on dorsum sometimes narrower. Females (n = 4): TL 2.92–3.43, CL 1.21–1.68; white spots on dorsum wide.
Distribution.
The species is known from the type locality in western DR Congo (Fig. 24 View Figure 24 ).
RMCA |
Royal Museum for Central Africa |
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 |