Loureedia maroccana Gál, Kovács, Bagyó, Vári and Prazsák, 2017

Szűts, Tamás, Szabó, Krisztián, Zamani, Alireza, Forman, Martin, Miller, Jeremy, Oger, Pierre, Fabregat, Magali, Kovács, Gábor & Gál, János, 2023, A Study in Scarlet: Integrative Taxonomy of the Spider Genus Loureedia (Araneae: Eresidae), Diversity (238) 15 (2), pp. 1-26 : 16-18

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.3390/d15020238
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7630115
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B55C7B1A-ED64-8D60-FE10-A080D2BCFE6E
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Loureedia maroccana Gál, Kovács, Bagyó, Vári and Prazsák, 2017
status

Treatment

Loureedia maroccana Gál, Kovács, Bagyó, Vári and Prazsák, 2017 View in CoL .

Figures 1B View Figure 1 , 2C View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3 , 4E View Figure 4 , 6D,E View Figure 6 , 7D,E View Figure 7 , 8D,E View Figure 8 , 11C–E View Figure 11 , Figures 12–14 View Figure 12 View Figure 13 View Figure 14 .

Loureedia maroccana Gál et al., 2017: 12 View in CoL , Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2 , 3A–C View Figure 3 and 4A–D View Figure 4 (♂) [2] (original description).

L. lucasi: Henriques et al. 2018: 5 View in CoL [3] (in part; synonymy with L. lucasi View in CoL ; rejected here).

Type material. Holotype: male ( HNHM Araneae-8869 ), MOROCCO: Khémisset Province: near Sidi Boukhalkhal , 04.XI.2013 (leg. J. Gál). Paratypes: two males ( HNHM Araneae-9007 ), same data as for the holotype (examined).

Other examined material. One male ( PCGJ), MOROCCO: Khémisset Province: near Sidi Boukhalkhal, 04.XI.2013 (leg. J. Gál) , and one male ( PCGJ), MOROCCO: Khémisset Province: near Sidi Boukhalkhal, XI.2021 (leg. J. Gál) .

Remark: For a closer examination, the right palp of the holotype was removed and illustrated. However, the retrolateral arm of the conductor was accidentally damaged by the first author (see Figure 12 View Figure 12 ). One palp of one of the paratypes was removed for SEM, while the other one was also unintentionally damaged. These structures seemingly become fragile when deposited in 96% alcohol. Due to the relatively low number of specimens available, both the original (intact Figures 6E View Figure 6 , 7E View Figure 7 and 8E View Figure 8 and 12A View Figure 12 ) and damaged states ( Figures 6D View Figure 6 , 7D View Figure 7 , 8D View Figure 8 and 12B,C View Figure 12 ) of the holotype’s palp were illustrated.

Diagnosis. The male palp of L. maroccana ( Figures 3 View Figure 3 , 4E View Figure 4 , 6E View Figure 6 , 7E View Figure 7 , 13 View Figure 13 and 14A–N View Figure 14 ) is similar to that of L. lucasi ( Figures 4D View Figure 4 and 14O View Figure 14 ), as it has a relatively short stem of the conductor ( Figure 4D,E View Figure 4 ) and the retrolateral arm of the conductor is longer than the prolateral arm ( Figures 4D,E View Figure 4 and 6E View Figure 6 ). It differs from it, as both arms of the conductor bear pointed tips ( Figures 4E View Figure 4 , 6D,E View Figure 6 , 7D,E View Figure 7 and 8D,E View Figure 8 ) vs. blunt ( Figure 4D View Figure 4 ), there is a deeper concavity on the frontal margin of the conductor ( Figures 3 View Figure 3 and 4E View Figure 4 ), and there is an almost straight ectal margin ( Figures 4E View Figure 4 and 7D,E View Figure 7 ) at the stem of conductor ( Figure 3A View Figure 3 ) vs. with a distinct invagination apically ( Figure 4D View Figure 4 ). The basal margin of the conductor ( Figure 3A View Figure 3 ) is also wider in L. maroccana , and the prolateral arm is wider and longer ( Figures 4E View Figure 4 and 7E View Figure 7 ) than that of L. lucasi ( Figure 4D View Figure 4 ). The two species are also very similar in the male coloration pattern ( Figure 2B,C View Figure 2 ) but differ due to the reddish posterior part of the carapace in L. maroccana ( Figures 1C View Figure 1 and 2B View Figure 2 ) vs. dark ( Fig 2C View Figure 2 , Henriques et al. [3]: Fig 1d View Figure 1 ). Moreover, the male of L. maroccana lacks minute white spots on the dorsal abdominal surface ( Figure 1C View Figure 1 ) which are present in L. lucasi ( Figure 2C View Figure 2 ).

Description. Male. Habitus as in Figures 1C View Figure 1 , 2B View Figure 2 and 10C–E View Figure 10 . Total length: 8.77. Carapace: 4.39 long and 4.01 wide. Abdomen: 4.89 long and 3.97 wide. Eye sizes and inter-eye distances: AME 0.22, PME 0.19, ALE 0.12, PLE 0.20, AME–AME 0.39, and ALE–AME 1.08. The Carapace, sternum, labium, chelicerae, and maxillae dark brown with tones of red. Carapace mostly covered with long black and scarlet setae (these become orange ( Figure 10C View Figure 10 ) when bleached in alcohol; see the specimen depicted in Gál et al. [2]: Fig 2B View Figure 2 ) and with very few scattered short white setae on the posterior part of pars cephalica. Pars cephalica well covered with scarlet red scales. Legs covered with thin black hairs, with distinct regions of white hairs at the joints, forming distinct white annulations. Abdomen with a compact longitudinal median red stripe with lateral projections with tiny white spots at their tips. The most anterior pair of the crimson red pattern quadrangle with three lobes. The lateral lobes with white tips. Leg measurements: I: 10.2 (3.21, 1.73, 1.95, 1.97, 1.33); II: 9.28 (3.05, 1.56, 1.72, 1.83, 1.10); III: 8.28 (2.78, 1.72, 1.55, 1.50, 0.71); IV: 10.4 (3.28, 1.66, 2.31, 2.15, 0.98).

Palp as in Figures 3 View Figure 3 , 4E View Figure 4 , 6E View Figure 6 , 7E View Figure 7 , 8E View Figure 8 , 12 View Figure 12 , 13 View Figure 13 and 14 View Figure 14 . The stem of the conductor almost as long as wide ( Figure 14 View Figure 14 ). The mesal and ectal margins of the conductor with slight curvatures ( Figures 3 View Figure 3 and 14 View Figure 14 ). The retrolateral arm of the conductor ca. 1.5 times longer than the prolateral arm ( Figure 13A–C View Figure 13 ) and slightly curved centrally. Both arms have pointed tips ( Figures 4E View Figure 4 and 13A–C View Figure 13 ).