Khorata epunctata, Yao & Li, 2010
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.2594.1.1 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039A4415-FFC3-3A01-FF77-BD6B131FFC9E |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Khorata epunctata |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Khorata epunctata View in CoL sp. nov.
Figs 9–12, 61
Type material: Holotype: male ( IZCAS), Shuita Cave [23°34.048ʹN, 107°40.777ʹE, alt. 285 m], Bafeng Mountain , Xingning Village , Jiucheng Town , Pingguo County, Baise, Guangxi, China, 3 August 2009, Z.Y. Yao and C.X. Wang leg. GoogleMaps Paratypes: 11 males, 14 females ( IZCAS), same data as holotype GoogleMaps .
Etymology: The specific name is from Latin epunctatus (spotless), in reference to the dorsal shield of prosoma; adjective.
Diagnosis: This species resembles K. fusui Zhang & Zhu, 2009 in having similar dorsal shield of prosoma (Figs 9C, 10C), but can be distinguished by the shape of proximal apophyses of male chelicerae (Figs 11B– C), the different distal elements of procursus (Figs 9A–B, D; 11A, D; 12A), and the nearly round pore plates of epigynum (Figs 10B, 12C). This species also resembles K. shao sp. nov. in having similar male chelicerae (Figs 11B–C, 53B–C) and similar ventral view of female genital area (Figs 10A, 12B, 52A, 54C), but can be distinguished by the absence of black margins on the dorsal shield of the prosoma (Figs 9C, 10C), the different distal elements of procursus (Figs 9A–B, D; 11A, D; 12A), and the shape of pore plates of epigynum
(Figs 10B, 12C).
+ 4.81 + 6.92 + 1.73), leg III: 14.25 (4.17 + 0.45 + 3.33 + 5.06 + 1.24), leg IV: 18.35 (5.45 + 0.47 + 4.49 + 6.79 + 1.15); tibia I L/d: 59. Habitus as in Fig. 9C. Dorsal shield of prosoma yellowish, without black margins, with narrow dark median line behind ocular area; sternum black. Legs yellowish, with slightly darker rings on femora (subdistally) and tibiae (proximally and subdistally). Opisthosoma grey with large black spots dorsally and ventrally. Ocular area slightly elevated and separated from prosoma, thoracic furrow shallow but distinct; distance PME-PME 0.09; diameter PME 0.15; distance PME-ALE 0.02; AME absent. Sternum slightly wider than long (0.69/0.63). Chelicerae as in Figs 11B–C, with pair of long, hooked frontal apophyses (distance between tips: 0.01); pair of strong proximal apophyses provided with scales, with lateral elliptic ledges, without modified hairs; pair of small ledges on frontolateral surface distally. Palps as in Figs 9A–B; 11A, D; trochanter with retrolateral apophysis and small ventral projection, femur with retrolateral apophysis, patella large, procursus simple proximally but complex distally, bulb simple, with embolus and small inconspicuous rounded hump retrolaterally. Retrolateral trichobothrium of tibia I at 9%; legs with short vertical hairs on all metatarsi (mostly dorsally and laterally), without spines and curved hairs; tarsus I with more than 30 pseudosegments, only about 17 distinct ones distally.
Variation: Tibia I in other males (n=6, leg I lost in the other five specimens): 7.02–8.10 (mean: 7.43).
Female: Similar to male, habitus as in Figs 10C–D. Tibia I in females (n=13, leg I lost in the other specimen): 6.42–7.41 (mean: 7.01). Genital area brown (Figs 10A, 12B), with internal structures nearly invisible through cuticle, without distinct pockets. Dorsal view of epigynum (Figs 10B, 12C) with two nearly round pore plates.
Distribution: The species is known only from the type locality ( Fig. 61 View FIGURE 61 ).
| IZCAS |
Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.