Psechrus tingpingensis Yin, Wang & Zhang, 1985

Bayer, Steffen, 2012, The lace-sheet-weavers — a long story (Araneae: Psechridae: Psechrus), Zootaxa 3379 (1), pp. 1-170 : 102-105

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3379.1.1
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6303262
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/D0272654-FFE5-582B-FF20-29DAFDC14056
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Psechrus tingpingensis Yin, Wang & Zhang, 1985
status

Treatment

Psechrus tingpingensis Yin, Wang & Zhang, 1985 View in CoL

Figs 55a–g View FIGURES 55 , 56a–f View FIGURES 56 , 86c View FIGURES 86 , 89c View FIGURES 89 , 92c View FIGURES 92

Psechrus tingpingensis Yin, Wang and Zhang 1985: 23 View in CoL , figs 3A–D (Description of ♀, illustration of ♀). [Holotype ♀ from CHINA: Hunan Province: Chengbu, Tingping; J.F. Wang & Y.J. Zhang leg. 31.VII.1982; HBI; Paratypes: 2 ♀♀ (one of which SB 194), with same data as for holotype; HBI; 12 ♀♀, CHINA: Guangxi Province: Longsheng; J.F. Wang & Y.J. Zhang leg. 07.VIII.1982; HBI, only one female paratype (SB 194) from Tingping examined, remaining type material not available on request, thus not examined]. Feng 1990: 34, figs 9.1–5, ad part, figs 9.3–5 misidentified [see remark below] (Description of ♀, figs 9.1–2: illustration of ♀ [?]). Song et al. 1999: 398, figs 232I–J (Illustration of ♀). Wang and Yin 2001: 341: figs 31–47 (Non description & illustration of ♂ and ♀ and SEM photos of somatic characters, misidentification, see Psechrus obtectus View in CoL sp. nov.). Chen et al. 2002: 10.

Psechrus xinping Chen, Zhang, Song & Kim 2002: 10 View in CoL , figs A–G ( Description of ♂ and ♀, illustration of ♂ and ♀). [Holotype ♀ ( SB 883 ) from CHINA: Guizhou Province, Taijiang County, Nangong Mountain; H.M. Chen leg. 14.V.2001; MHBU; Paratypes: 1 ♂ ( SB 884 ), 1 ♀, same data as for holotype; MHBU, female holotype and male paratype examined, female paratype not available on request, thus not examined]. Syn. nov.

Additional material examined. CHINA: Hunan Province: Shimen, Mt. Huping ; X.J. Peng & L.P. Xie leg. 25.VI.–05.VII.1992; 1 ♂ ( SB 529 ), HBI .

Revised diagnosis (see also diagnosis for sinensis -group above). Males with apically forked conductor (C) with two pointed tips and one flat, semicircular lobe ( Figs 55a–c View FIGURES 55 , 56a–c View FIGURES 56 ). Embolus (E) with two sclerotised apophyses at distal half ( Figs 55b–c View FIGURES 55 , 56b–c View FIGURES 56 ), one of which pointed and directed towards long tip of C ( Fig. 56c View FIGURES 56 ). Females very similar to P. obtectus sp. nov. in having trapezoid median septum (MS), the latter not, or not distinctly longer than broad ( Figs 55e View FIGURES 55 , 56d View FIGURES 56 , 58a View FIGURES 58 ), and with twisted copulatory ducts (CD) with their initial sections running transversally medially ( Fig. 55f View FIGURES 55 , 56f View FIGURES 56 , 58b View FIGURES 58 ). Distinguished by the anterior, twisted section of the copulatory duct (CD). In fact, the short section beyond the transversal, initial section of CD, almost as long as the diameter of one receptaculum ( Figs 55f View FIGURES 55 , 56f View FIGURES 56 ), whereas in P. obtectus sp. nov. it is shorter than half the diameter.

Description. Male (measurements of paratype of P. xinping first, those of SB 529 from Shimen in parentheses behind):

Body and eye measurements. Carapace length 8.5 (9.4), carapace width 5.8 (6.6), anterior width of carapace 3.5 (3.8), opisthosoma length 10.2 (10.7), opisthosoma width 5.1 (4.6). Eyes: AME 0.38 (0.44), ALE 0.47 (0.49), PME 0.51 (0.46), PLE 0.49 (0.49), AME–AME 0.24 (0.21), AME–ALE 0.08 (0.13), PME–PME 0.27 (0.35), PME–PLE 0.44 (0.49), AME–PME 0.68 (0.64), ALE–PLE 0.58 (0.63), clypeus height at AME 0.92 (1.07), clypeus height at ALE 0.83 (0.97).

Cheliceral furrow with three promarginal and four retromarginal teeth.

Measurements of palp and legs. Leg formula: 1423. Palp: 10.6 (11.6) [3.4 (3.8), 2.0 (2.1), 1.6 (1.6), 3.6 (4.1)]; Legs: I 68.7 (73.7) [17.7 (19.8), 3.9 (4.4), 19.2 (20.1), 19.8 (21.1), 8.1 (8.3)], II 53.0 (56.4) [14.5 (15.5), 3.4 (4.0), 14.1 (15.0), 14.8 (15.3), 6.2 (6.6)], III 35.3 (?) [10.3 (10.9), 2.5 (2.9), 8.6 (8.7), 9.7 (-), 4.2 (-)], IV 54.2 (56.7) [15.1 (16.0), 3.0 (3.3), 14.1 (14.0), 15.2 (16.7), 6.8 (6.7)].

Spination. Palp: 131, 000, 0000 (both); legs: femur I 525 (526), II 524{536} (536), III 545 (545), IV 544 (544); patella I–IV 000; tibia I 3036 (3036), II 3035 (3036), III 3022 (2034), IV 3034 (2034); metatarsus I 3045 (3035), II, IV 3035 (3035), III 3035 (-).

Palpal femur ventrally modified with strongly extending, rounded bulge ( Fig. 55d View FIGURES 55 ).

Copulatory organ (see also diagnosis and general description for sinensis -group). E dorsally slightly serrated ( Figs 56b–c View FIGURES 56 ). Sperm duct with transversal section in retrolateral distal half of T and with loop in prolateral half. Palpal tibia short ( Figs 56a–c View FIGURES 56 ) to very short ( Figs 55a–c View FIGURES 55 ).

Female (measurements of paratype ♀ [SB 194] of P. tingpingensis first, those of holotype of P. xinping in parentheses behind):

Body and eye measurements. Carapace length 5.9 (7.7), carapace width 4.4 (5.1), anterior width of carapace 3.2 (3.4), opisthosoma length 8.7 (10.1), opisthosoma width 3.7 (5.3). Eyes: AME 0.34 (0.41), ALE 0.39 (0.47), PME 0.43 (0.47), PLE 0.41 (0.47), AME–AME 0.18 (0.24), AME–ALE 0.10 (0.08), PME–PME 0.37 (0.40), PME–PLE 0.36 (0.46), AME–PME 0.58 (0.68), ALE–PLE 0.63 (0.61), clypeus height at AME 0.87 (1.15), clypeus height at ALE 0.74 (0.92).

Cheliceral furrow with three promarginal and four (five, left) retromarginal teeth (holotype of P. xinping three promarginal and four retromarginal).

Measurements of palp and legs. Leg formula: 1243. Palp: 7.9 (9.2) [2.6 (3.2), 1.1 (1.4), 1.4 (1.6), 2.8 (3.0)]; Legs: I 39.3 (43.4) [10.3 (11.7), 2.8 (3.0), 11.1 (12.3), 10.3 (11.2), 4.8 (5.2)], II 30.9 (35.1) [8.7 (9.9), 2.5 (2.8), 8.1 (9.6), 7.9 (8.6), 3.7 (4.2)], III 22.0 (25.2) [6.5 (7.4), 1.8 (2.3), 5.1 (6.2), 5.7 (6.1), 2.9 (3.2)], IV 31.1 (35.5) [8.7 (10.0), 2.2 (2.6), 8.0 (9.3), 8.1 (9.1), 4.1 (4.5)].

Palpal claw with 14 (13) teeth.

Spination. Palp: 131, 110, 1101, 1014 (both); legs: femur I 536 (535{534}), II 425 (525{535}), III 545 (535), IV 554 {544} (534); patella I–IV 000; tibia I 3036 (3035), II 2036 (3036), III 2022 (2024), IV 2033 {2023} (2034); metatarsus I 3035 (2027), II– III 3035 (3035), IV 3034 (3034).

Copulatory organ (see also diagnosis and general description of sinensis -group). Epigynal field (EF) may be associated with long and narrow epigynal muscle sigilla ( Fig. 56d View FIGURES 56 ). Slit sense organs mostly outside EF ( Fig. 56d View FIGURES 56 , but see also Fig. 55e View FIGURES 55 ). Spermathecal heads upon stalks ( Fig. 55f View FIGURES 55 ), the latter shorter than the ones of females of argentatus -group.

Colouration of male and female (see also description for sinensis -group and Psechrus ). Median bands on carapace not serrated. Lateral bands very narrow (at most 0.3 diameter of PME) and not serrated. Light longitudinal line ventrally on opisthosoma broken subdistally or strongly constricted subdistally and broad. If measured centrally on opisthosoma, its width is 0.8–1.2 of one half of the cribellum. Distal part (patch) broader than main section.

Remarks: Psechrus xinping Chen, Zhang, Song & Kim, 2002 is recognised as synonym of P. tingpingensis because the female copulatory organs of its holotype from Nangong Mountain and the paratype (SB 194) (holotype of P. tingpingensis was not available on request, but it was collected at exactly the same locality as this paratype, see above) of P. tingpingensis from Tingping match ( Figs 55e–f View FIGURES 55 , 56d,f View FIGURES 56 ). The diagnosis for the female of P. xinping in Chen et al. (2002) is not cogent. The diagnosis for the male, however, is cogent. It is obvious that they relied on the description and illustration of the male P. tingpingensis sensu Wang and Yin (2001 , figs 31–32). They discriminated their male P. xinping from the one in that publication with good reason. However, the male illustrated in Wang and Yin is not at all conspecific with P. tingpingensis . According to their material list, Wang and Yin examined just one male from Shimen (a “real” P. tingpingensis , examined in the present study, too, see Figs 55a–d View FIGURES 55 ). The other males were collected in Guangxi Prov., ca. 550 air km S SW, and in Vietnam, ca. 700 air km S SW of type locality of P. tingpingensis . The males and females from Vietnam were examined in the present study and have been recognised as representatives of a new, different species, P. obtectus sp. nov. (see below). In Wang and Yin (2001) only one male of the specimens they had considered as P. tingpingensis was illustrated, in fact one from Vietnam, as the examination of the respective material for the present study had shown. Hence, Chen et al. (2002) were the first (though unwittingly) to describe the male of P. tingpingensis , namely sub P. xinping .

Feng (1990) provided a description of a ♂ and ♀ of Psechrus , which he identified as P. tingpingensis . According to the illustration in his fig. 9.2 the ♀ may be a P. tingpingensis . Wang and Yin (2001), however, listed this “ P. tingpingensis ”-reference ( Feng 1990) in their synonymic list of P. kunmingensis , with the annotation “(female only) (misidentification)”. Maybe they did not recognise that, in fact, the male in Feng (1990, fig. 9.3–5) was misidentified. According to those illustrations the respective male with its simple, filiform embolus and the simple, distally rounded conductor is definitely a different species. I believe that it belongs to the ancoralis -group. There are some similarities with P. khammouan , but it is more likely that it belongs to a new species. The ♀ illustrated in Feng (1990, fig. 9.2) is either a P. tingpingensis or a P. kunmingensis , like Wang and Yin (2001) stated. In my opinion, however, P. kunmingensis is less likely, as the two characteristical lobes at posterior margin of median septum are missing in Feng’s illustration. Unfortunately Feng (1990) did not list the material he examined for his study. His illustrations are not informative enough to definitely identify the species he dealt with.

Distribution. China ( Fig. 96 View FIGURE 96 ).