Zimiris doriai Simon, 1893

PLATNICK, NORMAN I. & PENNEY, DAVID, 2004, A Revision of the Widespread Spider Genus Zimiris (Araneae, Prodidomidae), American Museum Novitates 3450, pp. 1-12 : 8-9

Zimiris doriai Simon

Figures 1–8, 12–19

Zimiris doriae Simon, 1882: 240 , pl. 8, figs. 12– 15 (juvenile female holotype from Aden, Yemen, should be in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale , Genoa, not examined).—Deeleman­ Reinhold, 2001: 553, fig. 962 (habitus, male from Sudan).

Zimiris indica Simon, 1884 : CXLI (female holotype from Ramnad, India, in MNHN, examined).— Dalmas, 1919: 333, fig. 33 (epigynum).— Cooke, 1964: 261, figs. 65–68 (both sexes, from Madras, Tamil Nadu, India; this male first described, but not illustrated, by Sherriffs, 1919: 220, sub Z. doriai ).—First synonymized by Brignoli, 1979: 125.

Zimiris mammillana Thorell, 1890: 384 (female holotype from the Dutch East Indies, probably Java, in SMNH, examined). NEW SYNONYMY.

Zimiris doriai: Simon, 1893: 338 , fig. 300 (emendation of patronym for Giacomo Doria).— Dalmas, 1919: 332 (description of first adult female, with damaged epigynum, from Yemen).— Brignoli, 1979: 125, figs. 5–8 (both sexes, from Sudan).

Zimiris griseus Banks, 1898: 214 , pl. 13, fig. 4 (juvenile female holotype from Mexico, no specific locality, deposited in California Academy of Sciences, destroyed). NEW SYNONYMY.

Zimiris guianensis Dalmas, 1919: 335 , figs. 20, 34 (female holotype from French Guiana, should be in MNHN, lost). NEW SYNONYMY.

Zimiris grisea: Dalmas, 1919: 336 (emendation of gender).

Neozimiris platnicki Alayón, 1992: 2 , fig. 1A, B (female holotype from San Antonio de los Baños, La Habana, Cuba, in the Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Havana, compared with our figures by Dr. G. Alayón). NEW SYNONYMY.

DIAGNOSIS: Males differ from those of Z. diffusa by the bent, sinuous retrolateral tibial apophysis (figs. 4, 5) and the relatively narrow, retrolaterally excavated conductor (fig. 4); females differ from those of Z. diffusa by the omega­shaped rather than triangular epigynal midpiece (fig. 6) and by the longer, narrower paramedian epigynal ducts (figs. 6, 7).

MALE ( Dominican Republic): Total length 3.0. Carapace 1.29 long, 1.00 wide, abdomen 1.71 long, 1.07 wide. Carapace and legs pale yellow, abdomen pale white. Legs unusually long (femora, tibiae I 1.67, 1.59; II 1.36, 1.16; III 1.19, 1.03; IV 1.71, 1.71). Leg spination: tibiae III p0–0–1, v1p–1p–1p; IV p0–0–1, v2–1p–2; metatarsi: III v0–0–1p; IV v0–1p–2. Retrolateral tibial apophysis bent, sinuous (figs. 4, 5), embolus proapical, spiniform, accompanied by narrow, retrolaterally excavated conductor (figs. 3, 4).

FEMALE ( Sudan): Total length 3.5. Carapace 1.54 long, 1.38 wide, abdomen 1.98 long, 1.32 wide. Coloration as in male. Legs unusually long (femora, tibiae I 1.76, 1.58; II 1.58, 1.38; III 1.39, 1.26; IV 2.05, 2.00). Leg spination: tibiae III p0–0–1, v1p–1p–1p; IV p0–0–1, v2–1p–2, r0–0–1; metatarsi: III v0–0–1p; IV v1p–1p–2. Epigynal midpiece omega­shaped (fig. 6), paramedian ducts long, narrow (figs. 6, 7).

MATERIAL EXAMINED: Dominican Republic: Puerto Plata: Hotel Victoriana , Puerto Plata, Mar. 25, 2003, on wall in room at night (D. Penney, AMNH), 13 . India: Tamil Nadu: Madras , Sept. 1917, bedroom wall, College House ( R. Sherriffs, ZMUC), 23, 4♀ ; Ramnad [= Ramanathapuram] ( MNHN 4615 ), 1♀ (holotype) . Indonesia: Java: probable locality, no further data available (Van Hasselt, SMNH), 1♀ (holotype) . Ivory Coast: Appouesso , 6 ° 35 ̍ N, 3 ° 29 ̍ W, Feb. 15, 1997, in house ( R. Jocque´, L. Baert, MRAC 205391 ), 1♀ . Sudan: Al­Khartum : Khartoum, June 1967 (W. Wismeyer, RMNH 7997 ), 1♀ , Aug. 1967 (W. Wismeyer, RMNH 7996 ), 23 . Yemen: no specific locality ( MNHN 9841 ), 1♀ (with damaged epigynum).

DISTRIBUTION: Widespread, probably including at least Mexico ( Banks, 1898), Cuba ( Alayón, 1992), Dominican Republic, French Guiana ( Dalmas, 1919), Ivory Coast, Sudan, Eritrea (juvenile of undetermined species, recorded from Massawa by Kulczyński, 1901: 2), Yemen, India, Malaysia ( Simon, 1893: 336, 338), and Java.

SYNONYMY: The type species of Zimiris was originally described on the basis of a juvenile from Yemen; given that a male from nearby Socotra is here assigned to Z. diffusa , that Yemeni juvenile holotype might belong to either of the species recognized here. In the interest of nomenclatorial stability, it seems best to accept Dalmas’ (1919) identification of an adult female from Yemen as representing Z. doriai (i.e., to accept MNHN 9841 as the ‘‘defactotype’’ of this name); given that assumption, the material examined by both Cooke (1964) and Brignoli (1979) remains correctly identified. Under that assumption, however, it also seems likely that each of the remaining available names is a synonym of Z. doriai .

Although Dalmas (1919) expressed doubts that Z. mammillana Thorell is correctly placed in Zimiris , Thorell’s description of the epigynum typographically likens the shape of the epigynal midpiece to the Greek letter omega, which fits exactly the structure of Z. doriai (rather than Z. diffusa ). Since Simon (1882) had illustrated the spinneret characters of the genus, but did not illustrate the epigynum of Z. indica (the only other adult female described prior to Thorell’s work), this epigynal (and presumed spinneret) match made it seem very unlikely that Thorell’s specimen was misplaced, or anything other than a female of Z. doriai . At our request, Dr. Giuliano Doria of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genoa, kindly attempted to locate Thorell’s specimen; when he was unsuccessful, he suggested that because the specimen had been received by Thorell from Van Hasselt, rather than from Genoa, it might be retained in the Thorell collection in Stockholm. Our colleague Dr. Torbjörn Kronestedt was able to find the type for us in that collection, and as a result we can confirm both the generic placement of the specimen and the status of the name as a junior synonym of Z. doriai .

Banks’ illustration of the spinnerets of Z. grisea clearly shows a member of this genus, but his description of the juvenile includes no features that separate that now­destroyed specimen from Z. doriai . Jiménez (1999) recorded specimens from the inside and outside walls of houses in the city of La Paz, Baja California Sur (under the names Zimiris griseus and Zimiris sp. ); she has kindly compared that material with copies of our illustrations and confirmed that the specimens belong to Z. doriai .

Dalmas’ figure of the epigynum of Z. guianensis differs little from the one he provid­ ed for Z. indica , and in those few details that do differ, his figure corresponds more closely to Z. doriai than to Z. diffusa . Dalmas based his species on a specimen from the Simon collection; the absence of that tube from the Simon collection in MNHN (C. Rollard, in litt.) may indicate that Simon had already determined that the name is a synonym.

Alayón’s epigynal figures for N. platnicki also show a relatively large and open epigynal midpiece, and relatively long and narrow paramedian ducts; given that Z. diffusa has not yet been found anywhere in the New World, Alayón’s synanthropic specimens seemed much more likely to represent Z. doriai than Z. diffusa . That has now been confirmed by Dr. Alayón, who was kind enough to compare the holotype with copies of our figures.

Figures

Figs. 12–15. Zimiris doriai Simon, female. 12. Trichobothrial base, tarsus I, dorsal view. 13. Tarsal organ, leg I, dorsal view. 14. Claws, claw tufts, and basal pair of tarsal setae, leg IV, distal view. 15. Basal pair of tarsal setae, distal view.

Figs. 16–19. Zimiris doriai Simon, female. 16. Spinnerets, distal view. 17. Anterior lateral spinneret, distal view. 18. Posterior median spinnerets, distal view. 19. Posterior lateral spinnerets, distal view.