Euophrys C. L. Koch, 1834
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.37828/em.2018.18.4 |
|
publication LSID |
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AF50CFA8-DF48-455F-A2E6-DE36742E8CC1 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C387E2-FFD9-FFA9-FDD0-1D88A84FA453 |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Euophrys C. L. Koch, 1834 |
| status |
|
Gen. Euophrys C. L. Koch, 1834 View in CoL
Figures 1-18 View Figure 1 View Figure 2 View Figure 3 View Figure 4 View Figure 5 View Figure 6 View Figure 7 View Figure 8 View Figure 9 View Figure 10 View Figure 11 View Figure 12 View Figure 13 View Figure 14 View Figure 15 View Figure 16 View Figure 17 View Figure 18
Type species. Euophrys frontalis (Walckenaer, 1802) View in CoL .
Documentation studied. Literature data including both published and unpublished documentation, as well as experience of original research of the author carried out since 1954.
Diagnosis. Specific identification of males (after ascertaining conformity of palps) can be best done by frontal color pattern (orbital scales around eyes I, clypeal scales, anterior surfaces of chelicerae, as well as pigmentation and scales on palps, and legs I-II ( Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 4 View Figure 4 A-C, E, G-J, 5-7). Specific identification of females by details of thin and gently bent ducts (in some species making distally a loop or knot) as well as by ball shaped spermathecae, and by location of copulatory opening correlated with superficial thickenings of white "windows" membrane.
Description. Small spiders (length of body in majority of species between 3-4 mm, rarely up to 7 mm long), usually with cryptic dorsal coloration, males differing by color of clypeal scales 6 *, arranged into transverse
6 Dr. D. E. Hill, an author of excellent paper on scales in Salticidae (1979) has sent me the following lucid explanation on usage of terms "scales", "setae" and "hairs". "Since "setae" is just the Latin word for "hairs" I use this as a general term for all of these structures that emerge through sockets in the cuticle. Scales (or "scalae" in neoLatin or scientific Latin) are just one type of setae, those that bend after emerging from the socket to lie along the surface. I also suspect that scales lack sensory neurons at the base. I like your term "orbital scales" as this is very descriptive of the specialized scales that commonly surround salticid eyes. Similar terms like "clypeal scales" are also very descriptive. If they are not scales, then I would just call them setae (like clypeal setae). If they are really stout I call these "spines." There are one to several of these between the AME of Thorelliola and Maratus , for example. Other descriptors, like long scales, short scales, flattened scales, pigmented scales, or iridescent scales, are also useful. Of course there is stripe across clypeus, or just covering the whole clypeus, as well as orbital scales encircling eyes I, also black appearance of legs I-II, usually terminated by white tarsus ( Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 5-7 View Figure 5 View Figure 6 View Figure 7 and 18C View Figure 18 ), however, note repetition of that pattern in unrelated genera ( Figs 3-4 View Figure 3 View Figure 4 ).
Palps. Relatively uniform within Euophrys , are characterized by single coil of embolus (a curl), in resting position located anterolaterally in front of tegulum, with diameter equal to about one half of width of bulbus ( Fig. 1F View Figure 1 , 3F View Figure 3 and other). There are two translucent loops of spermophor (out of complicated knot deeper in bulbus), the anterior 3/4 complete, of the posterior one only half of a bent is visible, they are separated by a tightly compressed remnants of a loop, opening retrolaterally. The width of spermophor loops vary, but seldom exceed mid-line of the bulbus. The shape of bulbus is elongate oval, unusually with posterior third distinctly narrower. Palps shown on Figs 11-12 View Figure 11 View Figure 12 , 13 View Figure 13 A-C, 14B, 15B-C, E-F are relatively uniform. Tibial apophysis in this genus is generally thin, almost setae-like and difficult to notice, in some cases are not marked on drawings, possibly missing.
Epigyne, external view. Partially hidden among dense setae on ventral surface of abdomen, its tegument is whitish and contains a pair of membranous "window" in its anterior half, with posterior half dark due to translucent dark, sclerotized spermathecae ( Fig. 1K View Figure 1 , 8D View Figure 8 , 11C View Figure 11 ). Proportions of white and dark areas, their comparative length and width are diagnostic characters, but unfortunately differences between species are not striking. There are no distinct limits of "window" and their separating divider is often indistinct, the surface of "windows" has indistinct thickening, oval, or broadly spiral shaped (these may be of diagnostic value. More useful character is provided by translucent internal structures, but these are only partially visible without clearing and staining.
Internal structures of epigyne - spermathecae and ducts. Although visible as translucent in natural appearance of epigyne, these can be studied precisely only after clearing of epigyne of soft tissues, preferably stained and mounted in a temporary slide 7 *
These structures are most important characters confirming identification of a genus, and separating some species. Spermathecae in Euophrys are sclerotized, ball shaped, and are extended anteriorly by broad, gradually narrowing ducts having the same thickness of the walls ( Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 11D View Figure 11 ), anteriorly bent, coiled or even twisted into a knot ( Figs 1 View Figure 1 L-M, 3M, 7, 8D, 11D, F, G, I, L, M, 12C, D-L). In some species ducts may be thinner and rather attached to than looking just as extension of sclerotized spermathecae, (somewhat intermediate to these in genus Talavera ) but are still not membranous ( Figs 12F, G, L View Figure 12 , 13C View Figure 13 ). Relative shape of ducts of Euophrys petrensis is presented differently in various papers, usually as very thin, Talavera -like ( Fig. 2N View Figure 2 ) but in SEM photograph looks much broader ( Fig. 3E View Figure 3 – compare Fig. 22B View Figure 22 ). Structure and shape of ducts is so different in E. subtilis ( Fig. 16H View Figure 16 ) and E. falciger ( Fig. 13J View Figure 13 ) that their classification is uncertain. Interesting variation of ducts, twisted loose spring like, is visible in E. terrestris ( Fig. 16J View Figure 16 ). Ducts shown on Figs 13F, G View Figure 13 , 14A View Figure 14 are looking still different, and those on Figs 14D, E View Figure 14 even more. Interpretations of all these differences require more research.
nothing like a photograph. Once preserved, one can still dry a specimen and determine the iridescent color, but of course pigments are lost in alcohol. If I can't see a bend at the base of a seta, and it is not flattened or compressed, I just call it a seta. Generally the scales of salticids point in the direction in which the old cuticle is pulled off during a molt, but their are exceptions. for example, the orientation of scales on the dorsal opisthosomal plate (scute) of adult male Maratus can be quite variable."
7 The epigyne can be detached from the body by sliding the tip of a small scalpel (or tip of thin siringe) under it, and cutting the tegument around the epigyne. Clearing of soft tissues could be done by bathing in COOL aqueous 10-20% solution of KOH for some 24 hours, next stained in the very light colored alcohol solution of Chlorazol Black E for a short time. Examination should be done under a compound microscope, photographed with camera with automatic setting and timing device, attached to a photo tube of microscope. The best method of drawing is to use “net micrometer” (a piece of glass with a fine grid of minute squares inside the ocular of the microscope), and to draw the examined structures as seen in each square, on a sheet of paper with a grid drawn on it (or translucing from a grid put beneath paper).. Palps should be examined detached from body, under alcohol in a Petri dish, fixed in requested position in a layer of fine sand covering bottom of a dish. After examination/ epigyne or palp should be stored in a minute vial (which can be self made from glass tubing), put into specimen vial.
General appearance. Standard documentation of general appearance of a salticid should become macrophotographs of live specimen, showing animal in three views (dorsal, frontal and lateral), with photographs of preserved specimen as additional, documentation for Museum bound researchers. Stress on macrophotographs may be troublesome, but scientific result will be worth of that. Deep change of color pattern takes place during preservation in alcohol - the deterioration of colors may be slow, taking years in some genera, but very rapid and tremendous in other, including Euophrys , when the animal become unrecognizable within minutes[!] after submerging specimen in alcohol (compare photos of live Euophrys - Figs 4-9 View Figure 4 View Figure 5 View Figure 6 View Figure 7 View Figure 8 View Figure 9 with photos of specimens preserved in alcohol - Fig. 10 View Figure 10 , see also FOOTNOTE 7 (page 44) on Euophrys pseudogambosa below). Although drawings and photographs of preserved specimens do not convey their true outlook, they are still valuable partial documentation. Producing photographs of live Euophrys is difficult for a laboratory bound taxonomist, but somehow it should be done for demonstration of true properties of described species. The recognition markings are located on parts of body visible to other spiders, on level of their vision, that is on face (orbital and clypeal scales, pigmentation and scales pattern on chelicerae, palps and legs I and II). Natural coloration is unchanged in spiders preserved dry, like insects, but these specimens become shrunken. The remedy would be routine photographing of collected specimens before preservation. Also white setae become transparent in alcohol and disappear (compare Figs 1 View Figure 1 A-B with D) (simple solution may be temporary drying up of specimens taken out from alcohol - an operation practiced routinely in XIX century, for instance by E. Simon and W. Kulczyński).
Testing relative value of diagnostic characters - is demonstrated on Fig. 7 View Figure 7 - it conforms superiority of internal structure of epigyne and frontal color pattern in males, while palps seem to be too uniform to separate species. Note that color pattern is not correlated with genitalic characters ( Fig. 7 View Figure 7 ): red or yellow stripe on clypeus in males does not correlate with epigyne of their respective females, while palps of respective males do not show noticeable differences. Several males with red clypeus differ, however, by colors of palps, bunches of setae on palps and by color of orbital scales. Apparently single characters are insufficient to separate displayed species, a number of characters should be considered.
Remarks. This paper accepts (somewhat tentatively) 55 species of Euophrys as recognizable (that is having diagnostic drawings of genitals, at least for one sex), another 21 " Euophrys " are pending re-classification, unrecognizable species are not included. Catalogue of whereabouts of 114 nominal species and types of " Evophrys " (including Pseudeuophrys and Talavera ) in collections is given by Prószyński (1971: 404-408, data repeated in 2016b).
Distribution. Euophrys is distributed in Palaearctics and Africa, with 2 species penetrating North America. Reports on occurrence in South and Central America (http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/salticidae.php) are apparently based on misidentifications ( Fig. 17 View Figure 17 ).
Composition (diagnostic drawings in brackets). Type species: Euophrys frontalis (Walckenaer, 1802) ( Figs 1 View Figure 1 -A-N, 3-F, L-MO, 4-A-B, 5A, 7A, 8A, 11A-D, 22A, D,). The following species are included: Euophrys acripes (Simon, 1871) ( Fig. 12A View Figure 12 ), E. albimana Denis, 1937 ( Fig. 13E View Figure 13 ), E. baliola (Simon, 1871) ( Fig. 15F View Figure 15 ), E. bifida Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Fig. 10A View Figure 10 , 13F View Figure 13 ), E. [?] bryophila Berry, Beatty & Prószyński , 1996 ( Fig. 16A- B View Figure 16 ), E. catherinae Prószyński, 2000 ( Fig. 12F View Figure 12 , 22A View Figure 22 ), E. cochlea Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Fig. 10B View Figure 10 , 14A View Figure 14 ), E. convergentis Strand, 1906 ( Fig. 14B View Figure 14 ), E. dhaulagirica Żabka, 1980 ( Fig. 14C View Figure 14 ), E. declivis Karsch, 1879 ( Fig. 14D View Figure 14 ), E. difficilis (Simon, 1868) ( Fig. 15A View Figure 15 ), E. elizabethae Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs. 10C View Figure 10 , 13D View Figure 13 ), E. evae Żabka, 1981 ( Fig. 11G View Figure 11 ), E. everestensis Wanless, 1975 ( Fig. 14F View Figure 14 ), E. falciger Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10H View Figure 10 , 16 View Figure 16 I-J), E. flavoatra (Grube, 1861) ( Fig. 15C View Figure 15 ), E. gambosa (Simon, 1868) ( Figs 4C View Figure 4 , 11 View Figure 11 H-J), E. cf. gambosa ( Figs 11 View Figure 11 K-L), E. gracilis Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10D View Figure 10 , 13H View Figure 13 ), E. herbigrada (Simon, 1871) ( Fig. 5C View Figure 5 , 7C View Figure 7 , 12G View Figure 12 , 22A, D View Figure 22 ), E. kataokai Ikeda, 1996 ( Figs 10P View Figure 10 , 13A View Figure 13 ), E. kawkaban Wesolowska & van Harten, 2007 ( Fig. 15L View Figure 15 ), E. kirghizica Logunov, 1997 ( Figs 12L View Figure 12 ), E. [?] kororensis Berry, Beatty & Prószyński , 1996 ( Figs 16C- D View Figure 16 ), E. limpopo Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10I View Figure 10 , 15D View Figure 15 ), E. maseruensis Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10J View Figure 10 , 15E View Figure 15 ), E. meridionalis Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Fig. 10K View Figure 10 , 15E View Figure 15 ), E. miranda Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Fig. 10L View Figure 10 , 17G View Figure 17 ), E. monadnock Emerton, 1891 ( Figs 12 View Figure 12 B-C, 22D), E. namulinensis Hu, 2001 ( Fig. 15J View Figure 15 ), E. nana Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10M View Figure 10 , 15H View Figure 15 ), E. nangqianensis Hu, 2001 ( Fig. 14E View Figure 14 ), E. nearctica Kaston, 1938 ( Fig. 12E View Figure 12 ), E. nepalica Żabka, 1980 ( Fig. 15I View Figure 15 ), E. nigritarsis (Simon, 1868) ( Fig. 5E View Figure 5 , 8D View Figure 8 ), E. nigromaculata (Lucas, 1846) ( Fig. 10N View Figure 10 ), E. omnisuperstes Wanless, 1975 ( Fig. 14G View Figure 14 ), E. petrensis C. L. Koch, 1837 ( Fig. 3 View Figure 3 A-E, 4H, 6A, 7E), E. proszynskii Logunov, Cutler & Marusik, 1993 ( Fig. 13B View Figure 13 ), E. pseudogambosa Strand, 1915 ( Figs 4K View Figure 4 , 11 View Figure 11 M-N, 18A-C), E. pulchella Peckham & Peckham, 1894 ( Fig. 15K View Figure 15 ), E. purcelli Peckham & Peckham, 1903 ( Figs 10G View Figure 10 , 13G View Figure 13 ), E. quadripunctata (Lucas, 1846) ( Fig. 10O View Figure 10 ), E. recta Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10F View Figure 10 , 15B View Figure 15 ), E. rufibarbis (Simon, 1868) ( Figs 6C View Figure 6 , 7F View Figure 7 , 9B View Figure 9 , 12 View Figure 12 H-I, 22A, D), E. subtilis Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 10E View Figure 10 , 16 View Figure 16 G-H), E. sulphurea (L. Koch, 1867) ( Figs 5B View Figure 5 , 7B View Figure 7 , 8F View Figure 8 , 11F View Figure 11 ), E. talassica Logunov, 1997 ( Fig. 12M View Figure 12 ), E. terrestris (Simon, 1871) ( Figs 6E View Figure 6 , 7G View Figure 7 , 12 View Figure 12 J-K, 22A, D), E. turkmenica Logunov, 1997 ( Fig. 13C View Figure 13 ), E. uphami (Peckham & Peckham, 1903) ( Fig. 15M View Figure 15 ), E. uralensis Logunov, Cutler & Marusik, 1993 ( Figs 12 View Figure 12 D-E), E. [?] wanyan Berry, Beatty & Prószyński , 1996 ( Figs 16 View Figure 16 E-F), E. wenxianensis Yang & Tang, 1997 ( Fig. 15G View Figure 15 ), E. yulungensis Żabka, 1980 ( Figs 14 View Figure 14 H-I). 55 species.
Species pending reclassification (diagnostic drawings in brackets). " Euophrys " " Euophrys" alabardata Caporiacco, 1947 ( Fig. 17Q View Figure 17 ), "E." albopatellata Petrunkevitch, 1914 ( Fig. 17C View Figure 17 ), " E." altera (Simon, 1868) male – reinstated synonym ( Fig. 17A View Figure 17 1 View Figure 1 ), " E." altera - female = Icius hamatus ( Fig. 17A View Figure 17 2 View Figure 2 ), " E." alticola Denis, 1955 , ( Fig. 17B View Figure 17 ), " E." bifoveolata Tullgren, 1905 ( Fig. 17D View Figure 17 ), " E." concolorata Roewer, 1951 (replacement name) ( Fig. 17G View Figure 17 1 View Figure 1 ), " E." cooki Żabka, 1985 ( Fig. 17I View Figure 17 ), “ E.” griswoldi Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Figs 17H View Figure 17 ), " E." jirica Żabka, 1980 ( Fig. 17E View Figure 17 ), " E." megastyla Caporiacco, 1949 ( Fig 17I View Figure 17 . 1 View Figure 1 ),"E." melanoleucus Mello-Leitão, 1944 ( Fig. 17L View Figure 17 ), " E." menemerella Strand, 1909 ( Fig. 17J View Figure 17 ), " E." miranda Wesolowska, Azarkina & Russell-Smith, 2014 ( Fig. 17G View Figure 17 ), " E." newtoni Peckham & Peckham, 1896 ( Fig. 17K View Figure 17 ), " E." patellaris Denis, 1957 ( Fig. 17F View Figure 17 ), " E." sima Chamberlin, 1916 ( Fig. 17M View Figure 17 ), " E." testaceozonata Caporiacco, 1922 ( Fig. 17N View Figure 17 ), " E." valens Bösenberg & Lenz, 1895 ( Fig. 17P View Figure 17 ), " E." ysobolii Peckham & Peckham, 1896 ( Fig. 17R View Figure 17 ), Y -Z - Euophrys griswoldi ( Figs 17H View Figure 17 ), E. tengchongensis Lei & Peng, 2012: 5 , f. 3a-b, 7a-g (Dmf). – pending classification but have no permission to copy these diagnostic drawings). 21 species.
SOURCES: A-D - ©Photo by M. Schäfer https://kleinesganzgross.de/gallery.php, E - ©Photo by P. Oger https://arachno.piwigo.com/index?/category/salticidae. All ©copyrights are retained by the original authors and copyright holders, used by their courtesy.
SOURCES: A-D - ©Photos by Michael Schäfer https://kleinesganzgross.de/gallery.php, E - ©Photos by H. Metzner. All ©copyrights are retained by the original authors and copyright holders, used by their courtesy.
SOURCES: Photos A-H - ©Photo by Michael Schäfer https://kleinesganzgross.de/gallery.php, I - ©Photo by Pierre Oger, for source of draqings - see captions to Figs 11-12 View Figure 11 View Figure 12 .All ©copyrights are retained by the original authors and copyright holders, used by their courtesy.
SOURCES: Copyright © & photo by Michael Schäfer https://kleinesganzgross.de/gallery.php, except D - by ©P. Oger. All ©copyrights are retained by the original authors and copyright holders, used by their courtesy.
SOURCES: Copyright © & photo by Michael Schäfer https://kleinesganzgross.de/gallery.php. All ©copyrights are retained by the original authors and copyright holders, used by their courtesy.
Species requiring some comments
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.