Corythalia drepane, Bayer & Höfer & Metzner, 2020

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko, 2020, Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini), Zootaxa 4806 (1), pp. 1-144 : 23-27

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/6C498447-6E51-4B16-A134-E054C1D620CF
taxon LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:act:6C498447-6E51-4B16-A134-E054C1D620CF
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Corythalia drepane
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Corythalia drepane View in CoL sp. nov.

Figs 3F View FIGURE 3 , 11 View FIGURE 11 A–E, 12A–D, 57C, 61E, 64E–F, 68C, 71E–F, 75H–I urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:6C498447-6E51-4B16-A134-E054C1D620CF

Type material. Holotype: ♂, BRAZIL: Amazonas : Manaus: Reserva Ducke, 02°55’30”S, 59°58’30”W, non-inun- dated primary forest, C. Martius leg. 01 Feb. 1994, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02324 , final deposition INPA GoogleMaps . Paratypes: 2 ♂, 5 ♀ with the same data as for holotype, except date of sampling and collection numbers GoogleMaps : 1 ♂, H. Höfer & T . Gasnier leg. 28 Sep. 1992, sample no. E4, SMNK-ARA 13424 ; 1 ♂, C. Martius leg. 04 Apr. 1994, inter- im deposition SMNK-ARA 02326 , final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, H. Höfer & T . Gasnier leg. 30 Sep. 1991, sample no. BE II/1 (arboreal funnel trap, SMNK-ARA 02321 ; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 24 Nov. 1993, interim deposition SMNK- ARA 02322, final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 28 Dec. 1993, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02323 , final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 04 Apr. 1994, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02325 , final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 23 Feb. 1994, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02327 , final deposition INPA. 1 ♀, BRAZIL: Amazonas : Manaus: NW of Manaus: Igapó Tarumã-Mirim, 3°00’50.4”S, 60°10’20.99”W, H. Höfer leg. 25 Feb. 1987, SMNK-ARA 13423 . GoogleMaps

Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus: Tarumã-Mirim , casa de ribeirinho: 1 ♂, H. Höfer leg. 06 Nov. 1987, SMNK 15327 View Materials . Road AM-010 km 30, Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, polyculture plantation: 1 ♀, H. Höfer leg. 13 June 2001 in Winkler sample, SMNK-ARA 17125 .

Etymology. The specific name refers to the sickle-shaped embolus of the male holotype (ancient Greek “drepane” means “sickle”); noun in apposition.

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) at its arising point at most 2.5x broader than at its subdistal section ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ) and distally directed (disto-) prolaterally; width of embolus base-circle more than half the width of tegulum (T) but less than 2/3; proximal lobus of tegulum (PTL) with distinct, stout prolateral projection/lobe ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 64 View FIGURE 64 E–F); RTA approximately straight (in retrolateral view, Figs 11B View FIGURE 11 , 12B View FIGURE 12 , 68C View FIGURE 68 ). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: septum of epigynal windows anteriorly not or just insignificantly diverging ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 71 View FIGURE 71 E–F); approximately round secondary spermathecae larger than 3/4 the diameter of primary spermathecae; at least distal 1/3 of connective ducts between secondary and primary spermathecae medially longitudinally in contact with each other ( Figs 11D View FIGURE 11 , 75 View FIGURE 75 H–I).

Description. Male (measurements of holotype first, those of all paratypes as range in parentheses): total length 4.9 (4.9–5.6), carapace length 2.5 (2.5–2.6), maximal carapace width 1.7 (1.7–1.8), width of eye rectangle 1.6, opisthosoma length 2.2 (2.2–2.5), opisthosoma width 1.7 (1.7–1.8), fovea length 0.20 (0.17–0.20). EYES: AME 0.53 (0.53–0.54), ALE 0.34, PME 0.09 (0.08–0.09), PLE 0.30 (0.29–0.30), AME–AME 0.04 (0.03–0.04), AME– ALE 0.06 (0.03–0.06), PME–PME 1.34 (1.28–1.34), PME–PLE 0.19 (0.19–0.21), ALE–PLE 0.60 (0.58–0.60), PLE–PLE 1.11 (1.08–1.11), clypeus height at AME 0.21 (0.20–0.25), clypeus height at ALE 0.54 (0.54–0.60). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500{1400}), II 1600 (1600{1500}), III–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005 (2005, 2003) II 3005 (3500, 3004{3003}), III 3134{3133} (3133, 3133{3123}), IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014 (2014, 2014{2004}), III 3144 (3134, 3134), IV 4144 (4144, 3144{4144}). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0 (2.0– 2.1) [0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.3, 0.3, 0.7], I 4.0 (4.0–4.2) [1.3, 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.9, 0.7, 0.4 (0.4–0.5)], II 4.0 (4.0–4.3) [1.4 (1.3–1.4), 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.8 (0.8–0.9), 0.7, 0.4 (0.4–0.5)], III 5.2 (5.2–5.3) [1.8 (1.7–1.8), 0.8, 1.0 (1.0–1.1), 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], IV 5.2 (4.9–5.2) [1.7 (1.6–1.7), 0.7, 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 1.1, 0.6 (0.5–0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 4&32&1 (3421, 342&1, leg numbers connected by “&” with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) longer than half the width of tegulum, relatively slender and sickle-shaped, its distal section pointing disto-prolaterally ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ), arising point of E at medio- to prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB) ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ); EB centrally often with flat hump ( Fig. 11A View FIGURE 11 ), embolus base circle more than half as broad as tegulum (T) but less than 2/3 ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ). T slightly narrower than cymbium, sperm duct doublestacked S-shaped, occupying about retrolateral 2/3 of T ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64 View FIGURE 64 E–F), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) distinctly developed, covering more than half the length of palpal tibia ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64 View FIGURE 64 E–F). Cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded, at distal 1/4 slightly lighter and with scopula ( Fig. 68C View FIGURE 68 ). Palpal tibia short to medium-sized, slightly broader than long ( Figs 11 View FIGURE 11 A–B, 12A–B, 64E, 68C), ventral tibial bump not distinctly developed but recognisable ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ). RTA in ventral view relatively slim, with dorsal serration and distal knob ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ), in retrolateral view also relatively slim and ventrodistally with rounded projection and dorso-distally with several teeth ( Figs 11B View FIGURE 11 , 12B View FIGURE 12 , 68C View FIGURE 68 ). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown ( Fig. 57C View FIGURE 57 ). Legs (dark) brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 57C View FIGURE 57 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing ( Fig. 57C View FIGURE 57 ).

Female (measurements of all paratypes as range; for spination pattern most frequent states first, less frequent ones in parentheses in the sequence of frequency): total length 5.5–6.5, carapace length 2.4–2.6, maximal carapace width 1.8–2.1, width of eye rectangle 1.6–1.8, opisthosoma length 2.6–3.0, opisthosoma width 2.0–2.2, fovea length 0.19–0.20. EYES: AME 0.53–0.55, ALE 0.34–0.36, PME 0.08–0.09, PLE 0.27–0.28, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04–0.05, PME–PME 1.37–1.53, PME–PLE 0.21–0.26, ALE–PLE 0.63–0.68, PLE–PLE 1.11–1.21, clypeus height at AME 0.22–0.30, clypeus height at ALE 0.54–0.63. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400, II–III 1500, IV 0500 (0500, 0400); patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002 (2004, 3004), II 2003 (2002, 3004), III 3133 (2123, 2023), IV 2023 (2023{2022}, 3033); metatarsus I 2004, II 2004 (2004{2014}), III 3134, IV 4044 (4044{4034}, 4134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0–2.2 [0.7–0.8, 0.4, 0.3–0.4, 0.6], I 3.7–4.2 [1.2–1.3, 0.7–0.8, 0.8–0.9, 0.6–0.7, 0.4–0.5], II 3.6–4.1 [1.2–1.3, 0.7–0.8, 0.7–0.9, 0.6–0.7, 0.4], III 4.8–5.3 [1.7, 0.7–0.8, 0.9–1.1, 1.0–1.1, 0.5–0.6], IV 4.9–5.3 [1.6–1.7, 0.7–0.8, 1.0–1.1, 1.1–1.2, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4312 (4&312; legs IV & III with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigynal windows (W) elongated, but not distinctly, anterior margins of W medially not reaching each other (anterior gap) ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 71F View FIGURE 71 ); septum of W anteriorly not diverging and not reaching anterior margins of W (gap approximately as long as width of septum); fine margin completely enclosing both W ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 12C View FIGURE 12 , 71 View FIGURE 71 E–F). Epigynal field well recognisable and broader than long. Primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling W up to about proximal 1/2, in lateral extension, however, clearly not reaching lateral margin of W ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 71 View FIGURE 71 E–F). Copulatory ducts of vulva short, running from medial copulatory openings (slightly antero-) laterally to secondary spermathecae (SS) ( Figs 11D View FIGURE 11 , 12D View FIGURE 12 , 75 View FIGURE 75 H–I); connective duct quite narrow, arising anteriorly in retrolateral section of SS and meeting primary spermathecae medially to postero-medially; heads of spermathecae centrally at posterior section of SS ( Figs 11 View FIGURE 11 D–E, 75I); primary spermathecae (PS) not distinctly larger than SS and roughly round; fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly at medial half of primary spermathecae and running (slightly postero-) laterally ( Figs 11 View FIGURE 11 D–E, 75H–I). COLOURATION: as in male (see above), but darker, e.g carapace darker red brown ( Fig. 61E View FIGURE 61 ), legs almost completely red brown, except for coxae, which are light yellowish red brown and patellae, which are light red brown ( Fig. 61E View FIGURE 61 ). In some specimens central transversal band on opisthosoma being curved (recurv).

Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Among the male types not very high: prolateral projection at proximal tegulum lobe in one paratype ( Fig. 12A View FIGURE 12 ), slightly less distinct than in holotype ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ). Tegulum in holotype rather compact ( Figs 11A View FIGURE 11 , 64E View FIGURE 64 ), whereas in paratypes ( Figs 12A View FIGURE 12 , 64F View FIGURE 64 ) tegulum slightly more elongated and appearing slightly slimmer. In retrolateral view dorso-distal teeth on RTA being slightly more distinctly developed in paratype [E4] ( Fig. 12B View FIGURE 12 ) than in holotype ( Fig. 11B View FIGURE 11 ) and other paratype.

In female paratypes copulatory organs also show rather low variation. In specimen SMNK-ARA 02321 ( Fig. 71E View FIGURE 71 ) epigynal windows minimally more elongated than in remaining specimens ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 12C View FIGURE 12 , 71F View FIGURE 71 ). Epigynal field slightly longer in SMNK-ARA 02321 ( Fig. 71E View FIGURE 71 ) than in other specimens ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 12C View FIGURE 12 , 71F View FIGURE 71 ). In specimen SMNK-ARA 02321 ( Fig. 75H View FIGURE 75 ) distance over both secondary spermathecae (in comparison to distance over both primary spermathecae) slightly longer than in remaining paratypes ( Figs 11D View FIGURE 11 , 12D View FIGURE 12 , 75I View FIGURE 75 ). In female paratype SMNK- ARA 02322 ( Fig. 12D View FIGURE 12 ) primary spermathecae minimally more transversally elongated than in other females.

Remarks. The species is similar to C. conferta sp. nov., C. antepagmenti sp. nov., C. insularis and C. ricti Bayer , sp. nov., as far as the males are concerned. All share a similar embolus, embolus base (except for C. ricti Bayer , sp. nov.), sperm duct course and general shape of tegulum. Females are neither similar to C. antepagmenti sp. nov. nor to C. conferta sp. nov., however, very similar to C. drepanopsis sp. nov., whose conspecific males are still unknown. From C. insularis and C. ricti Bayer , sp. nov., on the other hand, the females are still unknown. All this impedes a prediction on possible relationships.

Distribution. Known from Central Amazonia, Brazil.