Corythalia parva ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )

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 : 33-35

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-FFB5-C176-66AB-FEF0628E4DC4
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Corythalia parva ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )
status

Treatment

Corythalia parva ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) View in CoL

Figs 16 View FIGURE 16 A–F, 57F, 61H, 64I, 68F, 72C, 76C

Dynamius parvus Peckham & Peckham 1901: 340 , pl. 25, fig. 14, pl. 26, fig. 8 (description & illustration of ♂ & ♀). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from Brazil; G.W. & E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 639; MCZ 22546; Paralectotypes (4 ♂, one of which with individual number M-3, 1 ♀, 13– 15 juveniles, here designated) with the same data as for lectotype; MCZ 22546, all type material examined.

Corythalia parva View in CoL — Petrunkevitch 1911: 617 (Transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia View in CoL ).

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: embolus (E) distally truncated and only slightly reaching beyond distal margin of embolus base (EB), shorter than width of tegulum (T) and at its arising point at most 2x broader than subdistally ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ); arising point of E prolatero-proximally on EB; width of EB circle> 1/3 the width of T, but <1/2; T with distinct proximal tegulum lobe almost centro-proximally; not in retrolateral half or 2/3 as in most other Corythalia species) ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows small and approximately round; distance from posterior margin of epigynal windows to epigastric furrow slightly more than 2x diameter of epigynal window ( Figs 16D View FIGURE 16 , 72C View FIGURE 72 ); secondary spermathecae (as chambered structures) absent, however, copulatory duct section close to the spermathecal heads clearly broader than remaining sections of copulatory duct ( Figs 16E View FIGURE 16 , 76C View FIGURE 76 ).

Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotype M- 3 in parentheses): total length 6.1 (7.2), carapace length 2.7 (3.2), maximal carapace width 2.1 (2.4), width of eye rectangle 1.8 (1.9), opisthosoma length 2.7 (3.1), opisthosoma width 2.1 (2.3), fovea length 0.19 (0.23). EYES: AME 0.55 (0.58), ALE 0.34 (0.37), PME 0.10, PLE 0.28 (0.31), AME–AME 0.05, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.50 (1.60), PME–PLE 0.27 (0.28), ALE–PLE 0.76 (0.73), PLE–PLE 1.27 (1.33), clypeus height at AME 0.26 (0.37), clypeus height at ALE 0.61 (0.72). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 3005 (2005), II 3004 (3005), III 3134, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4 (2.6) [0.9 (1.0), 0.4, 0.3, 0.8 (0.9)], I 6.7 (7.5) [2.0 (2.3), 1.1 (1.2), 1.5 (1.7), 1.4 (1.5), 0.7 (0.8)], II 5.9 (6.9) [1.8 (2.2), 1.0 (1.0), 1.3 (1.5), 1.2 (1.4), 0.6 (0.7)], III 6.2 (6.9) [2.0 (2.3), 1.0 (1.1), 1.3 (1.4), 1.3 (1.4), 0.6 (0.7)], IV 6.1 (6.7) [1.9 (2.1), 0.9, 1.2 (1.4), 1.4 (1.5), 0.7 (0.8)]. LEG FORMULA: 1342 (12&34; in paralectotype legs II & III with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite short, tip truncated, arising point at prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB) ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ); EB less than half as broad as tegulum (T) ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ). T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped (in both male type specimens not recognisable in ventral view); proximal tegulum lobe located more or less centro-proximally ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ). Cymbium in ventral view ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ) distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded to epp-tip-shaped. Palpal tibia short, broader than long ( Figs 16 View FIGURE 16 A–C, 64I, 68F) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite inconspicuous but recognisable and rounded, with straight ventral direction ( Figs 16 View FIGURE 16 A–C). RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with slight serration ( Figs 16A, 16C View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ), in retrolateral view serration not even recognisable ( Figs 16B View FIGURE 16 , 68F View FIGURE 68 ). COLOURATION (consider that all type specimens are quite bleached): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 57F View FIGURE 57 ). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 57F View FIGURE 57 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing or at least not recognisable ( Fig. 57F View FIGURE 57 ).

Female: total length 6.9, carapace length 3.3, maximal carapace width 2.3, width of eye rectangle 1.9, opisthosoma length 3.0, opisthosoma width 2.3, fovea length 0.26. EYES: AME 0.54, ALE 0.33, PME 0.10, PLE 0.29, AME–AME 0.06, AME–ALE 0.11, PME–PME 1.65, PME–PLE 0.29, ALE–PLE 0.72, PLE–PLE 1.50, clypeus height at AME 0.32, clypeus height at ALE 0.70. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–II 1500, III 1600 {1500}, IV 0600 ; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002, II 3003 , III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III–IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8 [1.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.8], I 5.2 [1.7, 1.0, 1.1, 0.8, 0.6], II 5.4 [1.8, 1.0, 1.1, 0.9, 0.6], III 6.7 [2.3, 1.2, 1.2, 1.3, 0.7], IV 6.5 [2.1, 1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with round and small epigynal windows (W) being distinctly closer located to anterior margin of epigyne than to epigastric furrow; septum of W very short and very broad ( Figs 16D View FIGURE 16 , 72C View FIGURE 72 ). Epigynal field broader than long ( Figs 16D View FIGURE 16 , 72C View FIGURE 72 ). Thickened parts of copulatory organs visible through cuticle of W, even primary spermathecae ( PS) visible through cuticle further posterior ( Figs 16D View FIGURE 16 , 72C View FIGURE 72 ). Vulva with round PS; secondary spermathecae as such absent, but copulatory duct at initial section widened and antero-laterally in connection with heads of spermathecae, the latter relatively large ( Figs 16 View FIGURE 16 E–F, 76C). Copulatory ducts initially with antero-medial direction. Connective ducts (or better: copulatory ducts from distal end of widened section to primary spermathecae) narrow and proximally curved. Fertilisation ducts narrow, arising sub-antero-centrally on primary spermathecae, bent laterally ( Figs 16 View FIGURE 16 E–F, 76C). COLOURA- TION (female type specimen bleached and not in the best condition): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 61H View FIGURE 61 ). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 61H View FIGURE 61 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing or at least not recognisable ( Fig. 61H View FIGURE 61 ) .

Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Concerning the structure of embolus (E) there are slight differences between the male type specimens: in lectotype tip of E slightly diagonal truncated ( Figs 16A View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ), in paralectotype M-3 more transversally truncated ( Fig. 16C View FIGURE 16 ), additionally embolus minimally longer in M-3. Tegulum ( T) in lectotype prolaterally in upper proximal half with flat bulge. Proximal tegulum lobe ( PTL) in lectotype broader and with conspicuous prolatero-proximal direction ( Figs 16A View FIGURE 16 , 64I View FIGURE 64 ), in M-3 PTL with at most minimal prolatero-proximal direction (almost straight proximal) ( Fig. 16C View FIGURE 16 ) and distally more clearly rounded. In lectotype cymbium broader and longer and palpal tibia broader (in comparision to tegulum size) than in paralectotype M-3 .

Remarks. Conspecificity of the female paralectotype with the male lectotype and the male paralectotypes is not certain. In Peckham & Peckham (1901) there is no specified recorded locality given. Brazil is very huge and it is not certain (but possible) that males and the female were once found at the same spot.

At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2015) the type series of Dynamius parvus (MCZ 22546) contained two more males that were not conspecific with the remaining five males. The two differing males must have been erroneously put there at some time. G. Bodner (during an examination in Mar. 2000; written on one of the labels) also recognized that. In the course of the present study they have been recognized as the types of D. fimbriatus as they match the respective drawings in Peckham & Peckham (1901)! Consequently, they have been transferred to the vial with the original label of D. fimbriatus (MCZ 21310).

We are not able to make any predictions on possible relationships of C. parva . It shows characters that are hardly shared by any other Corythalia species: arising point of embolus (E) in prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB), consequently, short E only slightly reaching beyond distal margin of EB; tip of E truncated; basic shape of tegulm (including PTL). Females are also unique, having small, round epigynal windows conspicuously far distant from epigastric furrow and lacking secondary spermathecae.

Distribution. Known only from an unspecified locality in Brazil.