Coryssocnemis guacharo Huber,
treatment provided by
|Coryssocnemis guacharo Huber|
Coryssocnemis guacharo Huber sp. nov.
Distinguished from known congeners by armature of male chelicerae ( Fig. 163View Figs 157–164; pair of simple frontal processes); by shape of procursus ( Figs 157–159View Figs 157–164; slender distal sclerite slightly spiraling); by shapes of distal bulbal processes ( Figs 160–162View Figs 157–164; small ventral apophysis and larger dorsal transparent flap); by epigynum ( Fig. 166View Figs 166–171; semicircular plate with pair of shallow depressions), and by internal female genitalia ( Figs 164View Figs 157–164, 168View Figs 166–171; large contiguous pore plates; large median anterior receptacle).
The species name refers to the type locality; noun in apposition.
Other material examined
– Monagas • 6 ♂♂, 7 ♀♀, ZFMK (Ar 21853), and 1 ♂, 3 ♀♀, 3 juvs in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Ven02/100-26), same collection data as for holotypeGoogleMaps
• 1 ♂, ZFMK (Ar 21854), along trailView Figure
from Cueva del Guácharo to Salto la Paila (10.175° N, 63.558° W), ~ 1100 m a.s.l., 30 Nov. 2002 (B.A. Huber).
from Cueva del Guácharo to Salto la Paila (10.175° N, 63.558° W), ~ 1100 m a.s.l., 30 Nov. 2002 (B.A. Huber).GoogleMaps
MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 3.7, carapace width 1.5. Distance PME–PME 140 µm; diameter PME 140 µm; distance PME–ALE 120 µm; diameter AME 30 µm; distance AME–AME 20 µm. Leg 1: 50.1 (12.4 +0.7+11.7 + 21.7 +3.6), tibia 2: 7.9, tibia 3: 6.3, tibia 4: 7.3; femur 2 slightly wider than other femora (300 µm vs 280 µm); tibia 1 L/d: 81.
COLOR (in ethanol). Carapace ochre-gray with dark median line; ocular area slightly darkened; sternum yellowish; legs ochre to light brown, tips of femora and tibiae lighter, without dark rings; abdomen pale gray, dorsally and laterally with dark bluish marks, ventrally with light brown mark in gonopore area and dark blue median band behind gonopore.
BODY. Habitus very similar to C. simla Huber, 2000 (cf. Huber 2000: fig. 980). Ocular area moderately raised. Carapace with distinct thoracic groove, not inflated. Clypeus unmodified. Sternum wider than long (1.15/0.75). Abdomen slightly elongated, pointed at spinnerets.
CHELICERAE. As in Fig. 163View Figs 157–164, with pair of simple small frontal apophyses and additional pair of tiny apophyses directly behind main apophyses ( not visible in frontal view).
PALPS. As in Figs 155–156View Figs 155–156; coxa with retrolateral apophysis, trochanter with small ventral process, femur proximally with retrolateral-ventral process, distally with ventral apophysis slightly directed towards distal; procursus ( Figs 157–159View Figs 157–164) at basis with bifid dorsal process, distally with (1) long heavily sclerotized slender process slightly spiraling, membranous and transparent on prolateral side, (2) two roundish processes on prolateral side, and (3) two transparent fringed processes; genital bulb process complex ( Figs 160–162View Figs 157–164), distally with dark apophysis with small teeth on ventral side and large transparent flap.
LEGS. With single row of short spines on femur 1(~50) and femur 2 (~32); without curved hairs, few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium of tibia 1 at 2%; prolateral trichobothrium present on all leg tibiae; tarsus 1 with ~60 pseudosegments, mostly fairly distinct.
Tibia 1 in five males (incl. holotype): 11.3–12.0 (mean 11.7); number of spines variable (e.g., male with tibia 1 length 11.6: 40 spines on femur 1).
In general similar to male but without spines on legs. Tibia 1 in six females: 8.1–9.2 (mean 8.7). Epigynum ( Fig. 166View Figs 166–171) semicircular brown plate with pair of shallow dark depressions, dark median receptacle visible in uncleared specimens. Internal genitalia ( Figs 164View Figs 157–164, 167–168View Figs 166–171) with large contiguous pore plates and large median anterior receptacle.
Known from two neighboring sites in the Venezuelan state Monagas (Fig. 1037).
The spiders were very abundant in a secondary forest with coffee near Cueva del Guácharo.
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.