Corythalia opima ( Peckham & Peckham, 1885 )

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 : 109-113

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-FFF9-C124-66AB-F97464344888
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Corythalia opima ( Peckham & Peckham, 1885 )
status

Treatment

Corythalia opima ( Peckham & Peckham, 1885) View in CoL

Figs 53 View FIGURE 53 A–E, 60H, 63G, 67K, 70K, 74G, 78F

Jotus opimus Peckham & Peckham 1885: 71 , pl. 2, figs 7, 7a–b (description & illustration of ♂ & ♀). Lectotype ♂ (here desig- nated; only left palpus of the specimen left, body misplaced or lost) from Guatemala (eastern part) (no further information), G.W. & E.G. Peckham Coll. No. 462, MCZ 22400. Paralectotypes (1 ♂, only left palpus left, body misplaced or lost, 1 ♀, 1 juvenile, here designated) with the same data as for lectotype, MCZ 22400 (♂ and juvenile paralectotypes are here put in separate vial, ♀ paralectotype ♀ in another separate vial); all type material examined.

Dynamius opimus— Simon 1888: 205 (transfer from Jotus View in CoL to Dynamius ); Banks 1898: 283, pl. 17, fig. 25 (illustration of ♀); Peckham & Peckham 1901: 340, pl. 25, Fig. 6 View FIGURE 6 (illustration of habitus of ♀).

Sidusa View in CoL opima— F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 219, pl. 18, figs 5–6 [transfer from Dynamius to Sidusa View in CoL , not followed by subsequent authors; description & illustration of ♂ & ♀ after Peckham & Peckham (1885)].

Sidusa fulvoguttata F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 214 , pl. 17, figs 1, 1a (description & illustration of ♀) Syntypes (3 ♀, all ex Collection Frederick DuCane Godmann & Osbert Salvin): 1 ♀, Mexico: Vera Cruz: Atoyac, H.H. Smith leg. before 1897, NHM; 1 ♀, Guatemala (no further information), F. Sarg leg. before 1897, NHM; 1 ♀, Guatemala: Guatemala city, Stoll leg. before 1897, NHM; all type material examined; F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 219 ([probable] synonymy with S. opima View in CoL established by F.O. Pickard-Cambridge himself in the same publication, synonymy followed by all subsequent authors and corroborated in the present study).

Sidusa spiralis F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 217 , pl. 17, figs 14, 14a–e (description & illustration of ♂) partim, pl. 17, figs 14a–c misidentified (= C. opima View in CoL ), pl. 17, figs 14, 14d–e (= in fact Corythalia View in CoL [at that time Sidusa View in CoL ] spiralis , see species description below).

Corythalia opima View in CoL — Simon 1901: 652, 657 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia View in CoL ); Peckham & Peckham 1909: 444 (description of ♂ & ♀).

Corythalia View in CoL spiralis— Petrunkevitch 1925: 212, fig. 131 (description & illustration of ♂), misidentified (after thorough assess- ment of description and illustration in Petrunkevitch 1925; = C. opima View in CoL ); Roewer 1933: 185 (record from Mexico, Vera Cruz; according to distribution area most likely misidentified, = C. opima View in CoL ); Kraus 1955: 63, pl. 10, figs 177–179 (description & illustration of ♂ & ♀), misidentified (material re-examined for the present study, see below; = C. opima View in CoL ); Prószyński 2017: 83, figs 36S-1–3 (illustration of ♂ after F. O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901, pl. 17, fig. 14b & ♀ after Chickering 1946) partim, fig. 36S-1 [male palp] misidentified (= C. opima View in CoL ), figs 36S-2–3 [female epigyne & left half of vulva] (illustration of ♀ of C. spiralis ).

Additional material examined. MEXICO: Tabasco: Teapa : 1 ♂ paralectotype of Sidusa spiralis , misidentified, H.H. Smith leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann & Osbert Salvin Collection, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 5) . GUATEMALA (no further information): 9 ♂ paralectotypes (with individual numbers M-1–M-4, M-6–M- 9, M-11) of Sidusa spiralis , misidentified, F. Sarg leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann & Osbert Salvin Collection, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 2b & 4b) . EL SALVADOR (for all remaining material listed below): San Salvador: San Salvador, Institute, 700 m: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 27 June 1951, SMF 8435 About SMF . Banana plantation near Institute, 670 m: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 18 June 1951, SMF 8436 About SMF . Street from San Salvador to Suchitoto: 1 ♀, A. Zilch leg. 21 June 1951, SMF 8432 About SMF . Santa Ana: Laguna de Guija, 420 m: 2 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 26 June 1951, SMF 8433 About SMF . East of Volcano Izalco , Hacienda Buena Vista: 1 ♀, A. Zilch leg. 26 July 1951, SMF 8434 About SMF . La Paz: Forest 6 km north of Los Blancos : 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 20 June 1951, SMF 8437 About SMF . San Vicente: Finca El Carmen, 1300 m: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 11–16 June 1951, SMF 8438 About SMF .

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) very long [slightly longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; beginning at arising point from embolus base (EB) E with more than 1.3 but less than 1.5 windings around EB; E in ventral view proximally at arising point at least 10x broader than in distal third ( Figs 53A View FIGURE 53 , 67K View FIGURE 67 ); RTA very long and extremely narrow (spine-like) (1.3–1.5x longer than width of T) ( Figs 53 View FIGURE 53 A–B, 67K, 70K). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigyne without epigynal windows, but with a rather spiral-like or helical structure ( Figs 53C View FIGURE 53 , 74G View FIGURE 74 ). Vulva without secondary spermathecae (at least not recognisable as widened chamber); primary spermathecae (PS) just slightly widened and distinctly elongated; vulva with elongated blind sac laterally next to PS ( Figs 53 View FIGURE 53 D–E, 78F), blind sac shorter and narrower than PS (rarely not narrower, however, at most as broad as PS); copulatory duct very long (about as long as width of entire epigyne) ( Figs 53D View FIGURE 53 , 78F View FIGURE 78 ).

Description. Male (from lectotype only palpus left, hence, no measurements possible, thus measurements of largest male from additional material given): total length 8.6, carapace length 4.2, maximal carapace width 3.1, width of eye rectangle 2.4, opisthosoma length 3.7, opisthosoma width 2.6, fovea length 0.37. EYES: AME 0.76, ALE 0.46, PME 0.14, PLE 0.40, AME–AME 0.05, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.97, PME–PLE 0.30, ALE–PLE 0.92, PLE–PLE 1.75, clypeus height at AME 0.40, clypeus height at ALE 0.94. Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600 {1500}, 1500, II 1600, III 3500{2500}, 2600, IV 2600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 3025, 3014, II 3016, 3015, III 3034, 3134, IV 3134{3034}, 3134; metatarsus I 2024, 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.1 [1.2, 0.5, 0.3, 1.1], I 7.6 [2.4, 1.4, 1.7, 1.4, 0.8], II 7.7 [2.5, 1.4, 1.7, 1.4, 0.8], III 9.3 [3.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.0, 0.9], IV 9.0 [2.7, 1.3, 1.9, 2.2, 0.9]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) very long [slightly longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; E in ventral view proximally at arising point at least 10x broader than in distal third ( Figs 53A View FIGURE 53 , 67K View FIGURE 67 ), arising point distally at embolus base (EB); direction of distal section of E prolatero-distally to (rarely minimally proximo-) prolaterally; EB in ventral view completely visible, but very small and narrow (width of EB 1/4–9/23 the width of T); EB located prolatero-centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium ( Figs 53A View FIGURE 53 , 67K View FIGURE 67 ) and more elongated than in other Corythalia species; sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe broad to very broad (> 2/3, <3/4 the width of entire T); cymbium in ventral view distally broad conically converging, at distalmost section broad rounded; palpal tibia short, broader than long ( Figs 53 View FIGURE 53 A–B, 67K, 70K) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view inconspicuous (if at all recognisable); RTA in ventral view extremely narrow (spine-like) and very long (at least 1.3 x longer than width of tegulum), with almost distal direction and without serration ( Figs 53A View FIGURE 53 , 67K View FIGURE 67 ), in retrolateral view RTA subdistally rarely with additional very small and extremely narrow side-branch ( Figs 53B View FIGURE 53 , 70K View FIGURE 70 ), however, mostly without such a side-branch. COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown, light scale hairs laterally at proximal sections of carapace sometimes just indistinctly recognisable ( Fig. 60H View FIGURE 60 ) (but consider that only old museum material was examined). Legs brown to red-brown, more or less unicoloured, however fourth leg pair mostly lighter ( Fig. 60H View FIGURE 60 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band very bright, just moderately broad and centrally mostly interrupted; chevron-like patch in central band thus mostly missing (rarely present in specimens where central band not interrupted); posterior band always separated/ interrupted medially ( Fig. 60H View FIGURE 60 ); sometimes with large, light beige patch reaching medially from central band up to posterior band.

Female (paralectotype female): total length 10.2, carapace length 5.1, maximal carapace width 3.9, width of eye rectangle 2.8, opisthosoma length 5.1, opisthosoma width 3.5, fovea length 0.65. EYES: AME 0.92, ALE 0.56, PME 0.16, PLE 0.48, AME–AME 0.07, AME–ALE 0.11, PME–PME 2.53, PME–PLE 0.38, ALE–PLE 1.10, PLE–PLE 2.24, clypeus height at AME 0.59, clypeus height at ALE 1.22. Cheliceral furrow with Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth or with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600, II 1700, III–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 3014, II 3024{3025}, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 3014, II 1023, III 3134, IV 4044. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 4.5 [1.6, 0.9, 0.7, 1.3], I 9.0 [2.9, 1.8, 1.8, 1.6, 0.9], II 9.2 [3.0, 1.8, 1.9, 1.6, 0.9], III 10.9 [3.4, 1.9, 2.2, 2.3, 1.1], IV 10.9 [3.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.5, 1.0]. LEG FORMULA: 4&321 (legs 4 and 3 with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne without epigynal windows but with helical or spiral-like structure on each side with copulatory opening latero-centrally ( Figs 53C View FIGURE 53 , 74G View FIGURE 74 ); posterior margin of helical structure not reaching epigastric furrow; anterior arches of copulatory ducts (CD) visible through cuticle of epigyne, directly (medio-) anterior of each helical structure; epigynal field minimally broader than long ( Figs 53C View FIGURE 53 , 74G View FIGURE 74 ). Vulva with narrow (just about twice as broad as CD) and distinctly elongated primary spermathecae (PS); secondary spermathecae absent (or at least not recognisable as widened chamber); heads of spermathecae (HS) also not recognisable [remark: anterior arche of CD with two to three very flat and small elevations/bulges; one of these might represent HS]; copulatory ducts very long, meeting PS posteriorly ( Figs 53 View FIGURE 53 D–E, 78F); fertilisation ducts (very) narrow, arising antero-centrally (at tip) on PS, bent laterally ( Figs 53 View FIGURE 53 D–E, 78F); blind sac (BS) lateral to PS shorter and narrower than PS (at most as broad as PS, but rarely the case) and generally not reaching as far anterior as PS, CD meeting BS posteriorly (at the same locality as PS). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown, light scale hairs laterally at proximal sections of carapace sometimes just indistinctly recognisable ( Fig. 63G View FIGURE 63 ). Legs brown to red-brown (lighter than in males), almost unicoloured (only patellae slightly lighter), however, third and fourth leg pair slightly lighter than anterior two leg pairs ( Fig. 63G View FIGURE 63 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, central transversal band very bright, just moderately broad and centrally mostly interrupted; chevron-like patch in central band thus generally missing; posterior band always separated/ interrupted medially; often with large, light beige patch occupying medial section of opisthosoma over posterior 2/3 ( Fig. 63G View FIGURE 63 ).

Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Concerning male copulatory organ shape and width of proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) with noteworthy variation (sometimes about 2/3 the width of tegulum (T), sometimes even 3/4; sometimes PTL in proximal third (near proximal ending) with lateral bulges and even broader than further distally); additionally width of embolus base (EB) with slight variation (sometimes just minimally more than 1/4, sometimes almost 2/5 the width of T) and gap between proximal section of embolus and (prolatero-) distal section of EB in some specimens slightly larger than in others. Lectotype male exhibiting a tiny and extremely narrow apohysis dorsally at subdistal section of RTA ( Fig. 53B View FIGURE 53 ) being absent in all other males of C. opima examined in the present study. Even paratype male (originating from the same locality as holotype) only showing a very small bulge dorsally at subdistal section of RTA. Consequently, such a tiny side-apohysis might appear in males of C. opima , but very rarely. Females: in some specimens copulatory duct slightly longer than in others; followingly orientation of primary spermathecae and blind sacs also with variation (sometimes not as longitudinal as in others but rather diagonal).

Remarks. Corythalia opima is very similar to C. spiralis . Males have in common: long, filiform and spiralshaped embolus; small embolus base; very long and spine-like RTA; quite elongated tegulum. Females: epigyne without epigynal windows (as present in most other Corythalia species) but with helical or spiral-like structure; vulva with additional blind sacs next to primary spermathecae (PS); PS narrow and longitudinally elongated. These two species are certainly closely related. Formally, these two species might be united as representatives of the C. opima species-group.

Distribution. Known from USA (Arizona) ( Petrunkevitch 1911), Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador.