Corythalia chalcea Crane, 1948

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 : 74-77

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-FFDC-C118-66AB-F97462564E70

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Corythalia chalcea Crane, 1948
status

 

Corythalia chalcea Crane, 1948 View in CoL

Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 A–E, 59B, 63A, 66B–C, 69H, 73G, 77F

Corythalia chalcea Crane 1948: 14 View in CoL , figs 9A–B, 10A–B (description & illustration of ♂ & ♀). Holotype ♂ from Venezuela: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande   GoogleMaps , Portachuelo   GoogleMaps , ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1200 m, cloud forest, leg. 10 May 1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical   GoogleMaps research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe, Cat. No. 461191 Collections of the Department of Tropical Research   GoogleMaps , New York, today possibly AMNH. Paratype (1 ♀) with the same data as for holotype, except leg. 23 May 1946, Cat No. 461192 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY, today possibly at AMNH; all type material could currently not be found by the curators of the AMNH (however, must not inevitably be lost), thus not examined, however, additional material of C. chalcea View in CoL , once examined by Crane, was available and could be examined, see below.

Material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande, all taken within a radius of 1/ 2 kilometer of Rancho Grande, ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1200 m, cloud forest: 1 ♂, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327853; 1 ♂, leg. 10 June 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327893; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, leg. 1945, “used for drawings, epigynum dissected”, AMNH-IZC 00327895; 3 ♂, leg. 1945, AMNH-IZC 00327910-1–3; 3 ♀, “only female epigynes; C. fulgipedia (single, large) and C. chalcea (several, small) (“crescent”& “bronze”)”, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326918- 1–3; 1 ♀, “measured”, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327835; 1 ♀, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327847; 1 ♀, leg. 12 June 1946, reared, died 28 July 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327862; 1 ♀, “measured”, leg. July 1945, AMNH-IZC 00327866; 1 ♀, leg. 1945, AMNH-IZC 00327896 (all leg. 1945–1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; all specimens with Cat No. 461200 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY).

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species, except C. electa , by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [at most as long as width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66 View FIGURE 66 B–C), if at all, minimally S-shaped, without widened section(s) at distal half and distally evenly bifurcated ( Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66 View FIGURE 66 B–C); distal section of E directed prolatero-distally; embolus base (EB) circle just moderately broad (still narrower than 2/3 the width of T, Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66 View FIGURE 66 B–C). Distinguished from C. electa by: E slightly shorter (shorter than the width of T; in C. electa E almost as long as width of T) and tip of E less clearly bifurcated; ventral tibial bump slightly smaller and not as far prolaterally at distal section of palpal tibia. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective ducts (DST) between primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS) quite broad (width slightly more than 1/3 the diameter of PS) and long (slightly more than 2x diameter of PS) ( Figs 36D View FIGURE 36 , 77F View FIGURE 77 ); SS quite narrow (mostly hardly broader than DST) and quite short, with mainly transversal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly ( Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 D–E, 77F); copulatory ducts (CD) quite short (about as long as width of SS), final section of CD (before meeting SS) running transversal laterally (minimally antero-laterally) ( Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 D–E, 77F). Septum (SW) of epigynal windows (W) broad (width at central section more than 1/4 the width of one W ( Figs 36C View FIGURE 36 , 73G View FIGURE 73 ); W not as elongated ( Figs 36C View FIGURE 36 , 73G View FIGURE 73 ) as in other species of the C. waleckii group.

Description. Male (measurements of all males as range): total length 5.7–8.5, carapace length 2.9–3.5, maximal carapace width 2.2–2.6, width of eye rectangle 1.6–2.1, opisthosoma length 2.9–3.7, opisthosoma width 1.7– 2.5, fovea length 0.27–0.27. EYES: AME 0.59–0.67, ALE 0.37–0.42, PME 0.09–0.11, PLE 0.33–0.39, AME–AME 0.04–0.05, AME–ALE 0.05–0.07, PME–PME 1.42–1.56, PME–PLE 0.29–0.34, ALE–PLE 0.72–0.84, PLE–PLE 1.59–1.73, clypeus height at AME 0.30–0.38, clypeus height at ALE 0.64–0.81. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal (including 1 additional extremely small even smaller than other) tooth located directly next to the other) and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns of the specimens listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, 1600, II–IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 2015, II 3015, III 3133, IV 3133, 3143; metatarsus I 2024, 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144, 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4–3.3 [0.9–1.2, 0.4–0.5, 0.3–0.5, 0.8–1.1], I 5.7–6.7 [1.9–2.2, 1.1–1.2, 1.1–1.4, 1.1–1.3, 0.5–0.6], II 5.7–6.6 [1.9–2.2, 1.1–1.2, 1.1–1.3, 1.1–1.3, 0.5–0.6], III 7.6–8.6 [2.4–2.7, 1.1–1.3, 1.7–1.9, 1.7–1.9, 0.7–0.8], IV 7.3–8.2 [2.2–2.5, 1.0–1.2, 1.7–1.8, 1.8–2.0, 0.6–0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 3412. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) medium-sized to moderately long [shorter than width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section about 1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), if at all, minimally S-shaped and distally evenly bifurcated ( Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66 View FIGURE 66 B–C); width of embolus base (EB) circle more than 1/2 but less than 2/3 the width of T; T (clearly) narrower than cymbium ( Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66 View FIGURE 66 B–C); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, distinguished from remaining T-section (only rarely T in retrolatero-proximal direction blunt-rounded conically converging); cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia not distinctly short, somewhat longer than broad ( Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 A–B, 66B–C, 69H) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite conspicuous, conical, distally rounded and located prolatero-distally at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with (slight) serration and distal knob ( Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66 View FIGURE 66 B–C), in retrolateral view serration not recognisable and RTA distally converging ( Figs 36B View FIGURE 36 , 69H View FIGURE 69 ). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown ( Fig. 59B View FIGURE 59 ). Legs dark brown (to red-brown), except for tarsi and patellae III & IV being lighter ( Fig. 59B View FIGURE 59 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, transversal bands relatively narrow, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted and chevron-like patch in central band in most specimens not recognisable ( Fig. 59B View FIGURE 59 ).

Female (measurements of all females as range): total length 6.1–8.8, carapace length 3.0–3.6, maximal carapace width 2.0–2.6, width of eye rectangle 1.6–2.1, opisthosoma length 3.1–4.2, opisthosoma width 2.3–3.1, fovea length 0.22–0.30. EYES: AME 0.55–0.66, ALE 0.33–0.40, PME 0.09–0.10, PLE 0.31–0.36, AME–AME 0.04–0.06, AME–ALE 0.05–0.08, PME–PME 1.43–1.58, PME–PLE 0.32–0.34, ALE–PLE 0.77–0.85, PLE–PLE 1.42–1.86, clypeus height at AME 0.35–0.38, clypeus height at ALE 0.69–0.76. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns of the specimens listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, 1600, II–III 1600, IV 0600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2004, II 3004, 3014, III 3123, 3133, IV 3133, 3123, 2133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.3–3.0 [0.8–1.1, 0.5–0.6, 0.3–0.5, 0.7–0.8], I 5.1–6.1 [1.6–2.1, 1.0–1.1, 1.1–1.2, 0.9–1.1, 0.5–0.6], II 5.0–6.0 [1.6–2.0, 1.0–1.1, 1.0–1.2, 0.9–1.1, 0.5–0.6], III 6.0–7.3 [1.9–2.3, 1.1–1.2, 1.2–1.5, 1.2–1.6, 0.6–0.7], IV 6.0–7.4 [1.9–2.3, 1.0–1.1, 1.2–1.5, 1.3–1.8, 0.6–0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with (elongated) oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W broad and anteriorly distinctly diverging ( Figs 36C View FIGURE 36 , 73G View FIGURE 73 ); strongly converging lateral margins of W reaching further anteriorly than anteriormost parts of septum; epigynal field slightly broader than long; primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior ( Figs 36C View FIGURE 36 , 73G View FIGURE 73 ). Vulva with approximately round PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) relatively short and distinctly narrow (mostly hardly broader than width of connective duct (DST) between SS and PS), with mainly transversal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly ( Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 D–E, 77F); copulatory ducts quite short and with transversal lateral direction; DST distinctly broad and relatively long; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising medio-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally ( Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 D–E, 77F). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown ( Fig. 63A View FIGURE 63 ). Legs dark brown (to red-brown), except for tarsi and patellae III & IV being lighter ( Fig. 63A View FIGURE 63 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, transversal bands slightly narrower than in most other Corythalia species, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted and chevron-like patch in central band absent ( Fig. 63A View FIGURE 63 ).

Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Males: in some specimens embolus minimally shorter ( Fig. 66C View FIGURE 66 ) and reaching less far distally than in others ( Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66B View FIGURE 66 ). Tegulum sometimes slightly more “shouldered” in retrolatero-distal section ( Figs 36A View FIGURE 36 , 66B View FIGURE 66 ) than in others ( Fig. 66C View FIGURE 66 ). Females: epigyne and epigynal windows (W) in some specimens slightly more elongated ( Fig. 73G View FIGURE 73 ) than in others ( Fig. 36C View FIGURE 36 ). Lateral margins of W after strongly coverging anterior-medially reaching further medially in some specimens ( Fig. 73G View FIGURE 73 ) than in others ( Fig. 36C View FIGURE 36 ). Connective ducts in some specimens slightly longer ( Fig. 77F View FIGURE 77 ) than in others ( Fig. 36D View FIGURE 36 ); secondary spermathecae in some specimens even narrower ( Fig. 77F View FIGURE 77 ) than most others ( Fig. 36D View FIGURE 36 ), but rarely slightly broader (not illustrated).

Remarks. As mentioned above and like in the case of the species C. fulgipedia , also firstly described by Crane, the types (holotype male and paratype female) could not be found in the arachnid collection of the AMNH, where actually all Crane-material should have been deposited since the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society no longer existed or its collections no longer existed, respectively. See remark under the species description of C. fulgipedia for further details about possible causes for the possible loss of the types, etc. We would highly welcome if the types were found some day in the future and could be re-examined, but for the present study we think it is a good compromise that the additional specimens from the type locality (Rancho Grande) that were determinated by J. Crane herself, were here thoroughly re-examined and illustrated/ measured/ characterised. Some of these specimens were even used as samples/templates for illustrations or measurements in Crane (1948). It goes without saying that all the specimens examined in the course of the present study exactly corresponded to each illustration of the male palp or the female epigyne/ vulva in Crane (1948) for C. chalcea .

Within the C. waleckii species-group C. electa might be the closest relative of C. chalcea . This species is strikingly similar in having a relatively narrow and only moderately long embolus, a moderately broad embolus base and a sperm duct occupying at most the retrolateral 2/3 of the tegulum with its loops. We would not even exclude that C. chalcea is actually a junior synonym of C. electa . However, without further material of C. electa available we, for now, consider the very fine differences in palp morphology (see above) diagnostic and thus specific. Additionally, the females of C. electa are still unkown. So, for now, we consider C. chalcea a valid species.

Distribution. Currently known only from Aragua, Venezuela.

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Salticidae

Genus

Corythalia

Loc

Corythalia chalcea Crane, 1948

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko 2020
2020
Loc

Corythalia chalcea

Crane, J. 1948: 14
1948
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF