Psechrus crepido Bayer, 2012

Bayer, Steffen, 2014, Seven new species of Psechrus and additional taxonomic contributions to the knowledge of the spider family Psechridae (Araneae), Zootaxa 3826 (1), pp. 1-54 : 30-31

Psechrus crepido Bayer, 2012

Figs 29 D, 33B

Psechrus torvus— Reimoser 1934: 467 , (record of ♀ from Pumbarai, India, misidentified).

Psechrus ghecuanus— Levi 1982: 122 , figs 29–33, ad part, figs 32–33 misidentified (figs 32–33: illustration of ♀). Psechrus crepido Bayer 2012: 137 , figs 76a–d, 77a–h, 83g, 86j, 89k, 92k (Description & illustration of ♂ and ♀).

Material examined (1 ♀): INDIA: Tamil Nadu Prov.: Poombarai ( Pumbarai ), ca. 10°15'N, 77°24'E, 1700–2100 m, J. Carl and K. Escher leg. 31.III.1927, ♀ ( SB 1219 ), MHNG.

Remarks. In the first description of P. crepido Bayer (2012) mentioned that Reimoser (1934) and Levi (1982) had already examined material of this species sub P. t o r v u s ( O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1869) and P. ghecuanus Thorell, 1897 , respectively, in fact the female listed above. This female, deposited in MHNG, was not available for the study of Bayer (2012) as it was overlooked at the time it was requested. According to the accurate illustrations in Levi (1982), Bayer (2012) recognised the female as belonging to the species P. crepido , newly described therein. Fortunately this female was available for the present study and its affiliation to P. crepido can be confirmed. The individual character states of its epigyne and vulva can also be discussed in the context of intraspecific variability. On one of the labels in the vial says: “ Psechrus pumbarai LEVI; Type!”. However, a description of this “species” was never published. It is clear that this specimen does not have type-status. Apparently H.W. Levi originally intended to describe a new species based on this specimen, but later changed his decision and treated the respective specimen as P. ghecuanus ( Levi 1982) . Prior to the submission of the present manuscript I contacted H.W. Levi concerning this destined “ type specimen”. He informed me that he, prior to 1982, had no intention, and still has no intention of describing a new species on the basis of that female and that he (prior to 1982) had just forgotten to remove/change the respective label (H.W. Levi, pers. comm.).

Concerning its measurements, spination, colouration, cheliceral dentition etc. this female (SB 1219) ranges among the females examined in Bayer (2012).

Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. The epigyne of SB 1219 shows few differences to the female paratypes. The posterior edge of its median septum is slightly broader ( Fig. 29 D) and its epigynal slits reach minimally further anteriorly. Concerning the course of the slits clearly diverging anteriorly, it resembles the female paratype SB 646 ( Bayer 2012, fig. 77a). The vulva of SB 1219 mostly corresponds to those of the paratypes, but the spermathecal heads ( Fig. 33 B) are slightly smaller.

Distribution. (Southern) India.

Figures

FIGURE 29. Psechrus spp., photographic images of epigynes, ventral view. A. Psechrus ampullaceus sp. nov.. B. Psechrus obtectus. C. Psechrus kenting. D. Psechrus crepido. A. Holotype (SB 1240, MHNG) from Thac Bac, Lao Cai Prov., Vietnam. B. SB 1238, MHNG, from Yen Tu, Quang Ninh Prov., Vietnam. C. SB 1263, MHNG, from Hengchun, Pingtung County, Taiwan. D. SB 1219, MHNG, from Poombarai, Tamil Nadu Prov., India.

FIGURE 33. Psechrus spp., photographic images of vulvae, dorsal view. A. Psechrus kenting. B. Psechrus crepido. C. Psechrus quasillus sp. nov.. D. Psechrus huberi sp. nov.. A. SB 1263, MHNG, from Hengchun, Pingtung County, Taiwan. B. SB 1219, MHNG, from Poombarai, Tamil Nadu Prov., India. C. Holotype (SB 1224, MHNG) from Bau, Sarawak Prov., Borneo, Malaysia. D. Holotype (SB 1194, SMF) from Los Baños, Laguna Prov., Luzon, Philippines.