Corythalia noda ( Chamberlin, 1916 )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:722DB6C9-2C18-48EB-B202-7F2AFF47F49F |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781-FF81-C141-66AB-FDF462A54B18 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Corythalia noda ( Chamberlin, 1916 ) |
status |
|
Corythalia noda ( Chamberlin, 1916) View in CoL
Figs 9 View FIGURE 9 A–C, 61D, 71D, 75G
Wala noda Chamberlin, 1916: 296 , pl. 25, fig. 2 (description & illustration of ♀). Holotype ♀ from PERU: Cuzco: Torontoy , about 2450 m a.s.l., Prof. H.W. Foote leg. 22 July 1911, during the Yale Peruvian Expedition, former collection- or samplenumber 306, MCZ 15880 . Paratype ♀ with the same data as for holotype, except sample-number 307, MCZ 15881, all type material examined .
Corythalia noda View in CoL — Richman 1989: 295 (Transfer from Wala and Hentzia View in CoL , following Roewer, to Corythalia View in CoL ).
Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) continuous; septum of epigynal windows (SW) not continuous; posterior margin of epigyne (PMoE) reaching beyond epigastric furrow ( Figs 9A View FIGURE 9 , 71D View FIGURE 71 ); secondary spermatheca (SS) slightly longer than broad; connective duct (DST) between SS and primary spermatheca (PS) longer than diameter of PS; copulatory ducts (CD) well recognisable, hardly covered by DST ( Figs 9 View FIGURE 9 B–C, 75G).
Description. Male: unknown.
Female: total length 6.1, carapace length 2.3–2.4, maximal carapace width 1.7, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 3.1, opisthosoma width 2.1, fovea length 0.23. EYES: AME 0.40, ALE 0.25, PME 0.07, PLE 0.19, AME–AME 0.05, AME–ALE 0.06, PME–PME 1.17, PME–PLE 0.21, ALE–PLE 0.55, PLE–PLE 0.99, clypeus height at AME 0.16, clypeus height at ALE 0.44. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1400{1200}), II 1400 (1500), III 1500 (1500), IV 0400 (0500); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III 1010 (1010), IV 1000 (1010); tibia I 2004 (2004), II 2003 (2004{2003}), III 2033 (1023), IV 1033 (0023); metatarsus I–II 2004, III 3134, IV 3044. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.1 [0.8, 0.4, 0.3, 0.6], I 4.0 [1.3, 0.8, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4], II 3.8 [1.3, 0.7, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4], III 4.5 [1.4, 0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5], IV 4.6 [1.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with stout oval W; septum uncontinuous (small gap between anterior and posterior half), posterior half of SW almost twice as broad as anterior half ( Fig. 9A View FIGURE 9 ). Epigynal field absent (or at least not recognisable); structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle ( Figs 9A View FIGURE 9 , 71D View FIGURE 71 ). Vulva with approximately oval PS directed transversally, slightly diagonally ( Figs 9B View FIGURE 9 , 75G View FIGURE 75 ); SS elongated oval with heads of spermathecae located postero-laterally. DST longer than diameter of PS, distal section clearly broader than proximal section, meeting PS medially. Copulatory ducts clearly recognisable and with antero-lateral direction. Fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly (shifted medially) on primary spermathecae, bent laterally ( Figs 9 View FIGURE 9 B–C, 75G). COLOURATION (both females old, partly bleached and many of the hairs rubbed off): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 61D View FIGURE 61 ). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 61D View FIGURE 61 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (at least not recognisable) ( Fig. 61D View FIGURE 61 ).
Remarks. By having an uncontinuous septum of epigynal windows, this species is similar to C. concinna sp. nov. and C. conferta sp. nov. Hence, these two species might be close relatives of C. noda .
Distribution. Known only from the type locality Cuzco ( Peru).
MCZ |
Museum of Comparative Zoology |
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Corythalia noda ( Chamberlin, 1916 )
Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko 2020 |
Corythalia noda
Richman, D. B. 1989: 295 |
Wala noda
Chamberlin, R. V. 1916: 296 |