Zelotes cingarus

Chatzaki, Maria, 2010, New data on the least known zelotines (Araneae, Gnaphosidae) of Greece and adjacent regions, Zootaxa 2564, pp. 43-61 : 50-52

Zelotes cingarus (O. P.- Cambridge, 1874)

Figs 15, 17, 19–21

Prosthesima cingara O. P.- Cambridge, 1874: 382, pl. 51, Fig. 10 (Df), holotype from Corfu (examined).

Prosthesima cingara O. P.- Cambridge, 1885: 19 (Dm).

Zelotes cingarus ; Drensky, 1936: 144; Reimoser, 1958: 572.

Prosthesima ilotarum Simon, 1884: 341 (Df) , holotype from Naxos (examined).

Zelotes ilotarum: Hadjissarantos, 1940: 82 , Figs 26–27 (f, Dm) from Peloponnisos and Attiki (examined); Chatzaki et al. 2003: 66, Figs 65–67, 70–71. Nov. Syn.

Diagnosis: Z. cingarus is distinguished by the long spiky tibial apophysis, the strong coiled embolar base and details of the prolateral sclerites of the male palpal organ. The latter characters are the main distinctive features between this species and the closely related Z. geshur Levy, 2009 and Z. helicoides n.sp. (see next section). Females are distinguished by the epigynal anterior margins exceeding the width of the lateral margins, an oval plate covering the posterior rim of the epigynal cavity and expanding laterally and by the large spermathecae almost touching each other.

Material: GREECE: Peloponnisos: Taygetos Mt., pine forest, 1350 m: 1 Ψ (05.VII.97 to 20.IX.97), deciduous forest, 750 m, 1 Ψ (20.X.97 to 01.XI.97); Mainalo Mt., conifer forest, 1400 m: 2ΨΨ (09.V.97 to 10.VII.97); maquis, 700 m: 1Ψ (09.V.97 to 10.VII.97) [all leg. I. Anastasiou]; Attiki: Marathonas, Ag. Marina: 1 ɗ (28.II.06 to 30.IV.06), 2 ɗɗ (07.I.08 to 02.III.08) (leg. D. Kaltsas); Aigaio islands: Samothraki: Feggari Mt, 300 m alt: 4 ɗɗ 1 Ψ (01.X.08 to 14.03.09); Fonias-Khpoi, phrygana: 1 ɗ (01.X.08 to 14.03.09); 1 ɗ (14.03.09 to 18.VII.09) [all leg. M. Chatzaki]; Kalymnos: Agia Aikaterini monastery, phrygana: 5 ΨΨ (06.IV.05 to 09.VI.05); NW of Vathy, cultivations: 1 ɗ (06.IV.05 to 09.VI.05); Pserimos islet: W of the only settlement of the islet: 1 Ψ (03.IV.05 to 07.VI.05); N of the settlement, cultivations: 3 ɗɗ 1 Ψ (02.IV.05 to 07.VI.05); Plath islet: Lakkos, field with Juniperus macrocarpa : 1 Ψ; field by the sea with Juniperus oxycedrus : 1 Ψ (03.IV.05 to 08.VI.05); Nisyros: Moni Evangelistrias: 2 ΨΨ (01.V.05 to 01.VI.05); Kaldera: 1 Ψ (01.V.05 to 05.VI.05); Avlaki 2 ΨΨ (01.V.05 to 05.VI.05); Lies 1 Ψ (02.V.05); Pergousa islet: 1 Ψ (03.V.05); Yali islet: 1 Ψ (30.IV.05); Kos: Kefalovrysi: 1Ψ; Zia: 1 Ψ (26.VI.01 to 09.IX.01) [all leg. M. Chatzaki]. Rodos: Lindos 1 Ψ (13.V.06 to 09.VII.06); Attaviros Mt., phrygana 1000 m: 1 Ψ (12.V.06 to 08.VII.06) [all leg. M. Chatzaki & D. Kaltsas]; Naxos: 1 Ψ (holotype of Z. ilotarum , MNHN 478); Ionio islands: Kerkyra (Corfu): 1 Ψ (holotype of Z. cingarus , NHMW 7836); Corfu, North of Linia, 74 m, olive and evergreen groves: 2 ΨΨ, 2 juv. ( SMF 58614); Thessalia: Larissa- Trikala, 157 m, N. Koutsocher, exposed dry slope, neglected grassland: 2 ΨΨ ( SMF 58608); N of Volos, 140 m, maquis: 1 Ψ ( SMF 58602); Ipeiros: Thesprotia, Igoumenitsa – Preveza, exit Pyrgi by Margariti, 100 m, close to lake: 1 Ψ ( SMF 58610); BULGARIA: South Pirin mt., Kalimantsi village: 3 ΨΨ (07.VII.02, col. C. Deltshev, leg. S. Lazarov); TURKEY: Asia Minor, Serai Degh: 1 Ψ [sub. Z.cingarus , NHMW 7835], Asia Minor, Smyrne: 1 imm ɗ ( ZMB 28779).

Comparative material: Zelotes geshur Levy, 2009 : ɗ holotype from Israel, Geshur (southern Golan, 217), ZMHUJ 15496, IX.98, leg. R. Sharon.

Taxonomic comments. Z. cingarus was described by O.P.- Cambridge (1874) based on a female individual from Kerkyra island (Corfu) and on a male from Tajikistan (O.P.- Cambridge (1885)). The species was later found in Lefkada by Reimoser (1958). Because no recent reference was made about this species, Bosmans & Chatzaki (2005) claimed the need of its redescription.

Z. ilotarum was described by Simon (1884) on the basis of females from Naxos and Athens. This species was rediscovered in Peloponnisos and Attiki by Hadjissarantos (1940), who presented the first illustration of the epigyne and described the male for the first time (p. 82, Figs 26–27 ). Chatzaki et al. (2003) confirmed the status of Z. ilotarum as a separate species and provided further illustrations which are included here ( Figs 14, 16, 18–20 ). The examination of the holotypes of Z. cingarus and Z. ilotarum leaves no doubt that they are conspecific. The characters proposed as distinctive of both species are in fact identical in all material examined in the present study, originating from several localities in Greece and adjacent regions with only minor variations. Hence the validity of Z. cingarus is here confirmed and Z. ilotarum represents a junior synonym of it.

Because the species here treated are distinguished by subtle details of the bulb, only known in the last decades, the identification by O. P.- Cambridge (1885) of a male from Tajikistan, far from the currently known range of this species, should be seen with skepticism.

On the other hand Z. geshur Levy 2009 (p. 34, Figs 77–78) was recently described from Geshur in southern Golan, Israel, based on a male specimen. According to Levy (2009: 35), Z. geshur “differs [from Z. ilotarum ] by subtle details of the palpal sclerites like the form of the coiled embolus and the absence of a dorsal transverse extension (X in Chatzaki et al. 2003, Figs 63, 66)”. The holotype of Z. geshur was examined by the author in order to make a direct comparison of the two species. The retrolateral coiled structure is the embolar base (EB). The embolus is hidden behind it and it is straight and only turning upwards on its end (see Figs 17, 19 ). This combined structure (embolar base and embolus) is very difficult to draw because of its robust and coiled shape which appears to change according to the position of the specimen. This particular character is identical in the two examined specimens. Levy’s drawings do not illustrate the dorsal part of Z. geshur , therefore there is no evidence of the presence or absence of the dorsal transverse extension (X), as illustrated here ( Fig. 17 ). Since only the type was available to the author, it was preferred to not dissect part of the cymbium and check the shape of the dorsal part. In any case, although the two species are very similar in details of the palpal organ (i.e., characteristic cymbium configuration, embolar base, embolus and tibial apophysis), they still present differences in parts of the prolateral sclerites: in Z. cingarus the terminal apophysis (TA) is transverse with the prolateral process (p) quite stout laterally, transverse and with two apical tips, while in Z. geshur the TA is diagonally directed, and the p has a single apical tip and it is declining abruptly at lateral side. The two species also differ in somatic characters: Z. cingarus is smaller in size, its entire body black, with eye area narrower, while Z. geshur is larger and brown. Z. geshur is also very similar to Z. helicoides n.sp. but again different from it, as will be discussed in the next section.

Distribution: Greece; Bulgaria; Turkey; one dubious record from Tadjikistan.

Figures

FIGURES 14 – 19. Zelotes helicoides n. sp. male (14, 16, 18). Zelotes cingarus male (15, 17, 19). Ventral view (14 – 15); retrolateral view (16 – 17); dorsal view (18 – 19). p = prolateral process, TA = terminal apophysis, EB = embolar basis, EM = embolus, M = median apophysis, X = dorsal extension. (From Chatzaki et al. 2003).

FIGURES 20 – 23. Zelotes helicoides n. sp. female (20 – 21). Zelotes cingarus female (22 – 23). Epigyne (20, 22). Vulva (21, 23). (From Chatzaki et al. 2003).

FIGURES 10 – 13. Trachyzelotes stubbsi female, specimen from Cyprus (10 – 11), specimen from Antikythira (12). Trachyzelotes adriaticus female, specimen from Crete (13). Epigyne (10, 12, 13). Vulva (11).

FIGURES 25 – 28. Zelotes argoliensis male: ventral view (25), retrolateral view (26). Zelotes argoliensis female. Epigyne (27); vulva (28). EP = embolic projection, TA = terminal apophysis, M = median apophysis.