Mimetus juhuaensis ( Xu, Wang & Wang, 1987 ) Liu & Xu & Marusik & Yin, 2021

Liu, Jinxin, Xu, Xiang, Marusik, Yuri M. & Yin, Haiqiang, 2021, Taxonomic notes on a pirate spider occurring in China (Araneae, Mimetidae), Zootaxa 4974 (3), pp. 565-576 : 567-573

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4974.3.5
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:40657606-0167-4917-83DA-ABD8C651D77D
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4923023
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE1B02-FFFD-FF90-7AB7-B45B245C28C8
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Mimetus juhuaensis ( Xu, Wang & Wang, 1987 )
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Mimetus juhuaensis ( Xu, Wang & Wang, 1987) View in CoL new combination

Figures 2–7 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 View FIGURE 7

Ero juhuaensis Xu, Wang & Wang, 1987: 65 View in CoL , fig. 1–4 (♀) (Holotype ♀ Teachers College of Huizhou , Huangshan City, China, not examined)

Ero jiuhuaensis Song et al., 1999: 73 , fig. 29O, P (♀, republication of the original figures, invalid emendation); Yin et al., 2012: 194, fig, 49a–d (♀, republication of the original figures).

Material examined. 1♀ 1♂ (Mime_0116, Mime_0117, Mime_0119, Mime_0120) 1♂ (subadult, Mime_0118): China, Hunan Province, Hengyang City, Hengshan County, Hengshan Mountain , Nantianmen , 27°16.31′N, 112°41.26′E, 910 m, 19.VII.2017, Ailan He, Qu Cai, Jinxin Liu et al GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. Mimetus juhuaenis is most similar to M. echinatus Wang, 1990 in having the elongate paracymbium with a subtriangular outgrowth and having the rectangular basal plate and lingulate scape of epigynum but can be distinguished by the wide and well-developed male cymbial apex (= vexillum) (vs. narrow and less developed in M. echinatus ) (cf. Figs 3B, C, E View FIGURE 3 , 5B, C, E View FIGURE 5 and Zeng et al. 2016: figs 1B, 2B); the process of conductor is 1/3 times longer than the total length of the conductor (vs. 1/2 times in M. echinatus ) (cf. Figs 3C, E View FIGURE 3 , 5C, E View FIGURE 5 and Zeng et al. 2016: figs 1C, 2C); scape of epigynum not reaching the posterior margin of the basal plate (vs. scape with the distal end beyond the posterior margin of basal plate in M. echinatus ); spermathecae with thick wall (vs. spermathecae with thin wall) (cf. Figs 4A, B View FIGURE 4 , 6A, B View FIGURE 6 with Zeng et al. 2016: figs 3B, 4B, C).

Description. Male (Mime_0116). Total length 3.29. Carapace 2.08 long, 1.81 wide. Sternum 1.05 long and 0.85 wide. Clypeus 0.24 high. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.16, ALE 0.12, PME 0.14, PLE 0.12, AME–AME 0.06, ALE–AME 0.09, PME–PME 0.08, PME–PLE 0.17. MOA 0.36 long, anterior width 0.39, posterior width 0.31. Leg lengths: I 10.67 (3.19, 0.86, 3.19, 1.86, 1.57), II 8.49 (2.28, 0.68, 2.19, 2.15, 1.19), III 5.81 (1.84, 0.61, 1.31, 1.18, 0.87), IV 7.12 (2.24, 0.65, 1.68, 1.56, 0.99). Opisthosoma 1.84 long, 1.38 wide.

Prosoma ( Fig. 2A, C, E, F View FIGURE 2 ). Carapace pyriform, deep yellow, with pattern behind ocular area, and gradually narrower from the ocular area to the posterior margin of carapace. Fovea inverted droplet shaped; AER recurved and PER straight, lateral eyes adjacent to each other. Chelicerae reddish-brown, with the paturon straight and long, and with 11 peg promarginal teeth and 2 normal retromarginal teeth. Endites deep yellow, 3 times longer than wide, with several macrosetae. Sternum yellow, sparsely covered with setae, posterior part arcuate.

Legs ( Fig. 4C–E View FIGURE 4 ). Brown, with irregular dark spots.

Opisthosoma ( Fig. 2A, C, E View FIGURE 2 ). Brown, oval, longer than wider, covered with long setae, with numerous dark patches and white spots dorsally.

Palp ( Figs 3 View FIGURE 3 , 5 View FIGURE 5 ). Femur long, 2 times longer than tibia. Tibia as long as cymbium, with setae of different length, especially with denser setae on the retrolateral side of the distal end. Cymbium subtriangular, covered by dense setae dorsally. Cymbial apex extended outward forming “vexillum” (Ve). Paracymbium developed, plump, slightly extending towards prolateral side, with a subtriangular outgrowth distally. Subtegulum semicircular. Tegulum with a prolateral apophysis (Ta). Conductor cylindrical, strongly sclerotized, and extending outward. Embolus heavily sclerotized, originating the position between 7 and 8 o’clock and extending clockwise for 90º.

Female (Mime_0117). Coloration deeper than males. Total length 4.68. Carapace 2.39 long and 1.52 wide. Sternum 1.10 long and 0.91 wide. Clypeus 0.24 high. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.14, ALE 0.14, PME 0.14, PLE 0.13, AME–AME 0.03, ALE–AME 0.12, PME–PME 0.10, PME–PLE 0.18. MOA 0.37 long, anterior width 0.37, posterior width 0.32. Leg lengths: I 12.13 (3.26, 0.88, 3.06, 3.44, 1.49), II 9.48 (2.74, 0.77, 2.33, 2.23, 1.41), III 6.24 (2.01, 0.62, 1.30, 1.29, 1.02), IV 7.73 (2.54, 0.72, 1.77, 1.53, 1.17). Opisthosoma 2.08 long, 2.09 wide.

Prosoma ( Fig. 2B, D, G, H View FIGURE 2 ). Carapace long oval, dark yellow, slightly narrow than male in width, with a broad reddish-brown band, wide marginal bands in posterior 1/3. Sternum reddish-yellow, with several patches. Labium reddish-brown. Chelicerae reddish-brown, indentation like in male.

Opisthosoma ( Fig. 2B, D, G View FIGURE 2 ). Brown, with more white spots than in male.

Epigynum ( Figs 4A, B View FIGURE 4 , 6A, B View FIGURE 6 ). With broad, well-developed basal plate and short scape. Basal plate 2.5 times wider than long, with the middle part sclerotized and partly covered by the scape and with the lateral margins curved and the posterior margin almost straight. Scape with posterior margin not reaching the posterior margin of the basal plate. Copulatory ducts short barely distinct seen. Spermathecae oval, deep red, touching each other. Fertilization ducts membranous, and widely separated from each other.

Distribution. China (Anhui, Hunan) ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 )

Remarks: According to the information of original description, female holotype of Ero juhuaensis is deposited in Huizhou Teachers College (now Huangshan University), Huangshan City, China. Despite all our efforts including connecting with the colleagues of Huangshan University, the authors do not know the current location of the holotype. It is very possible that holotype has been lost.

Judging from the information showed in the figures of the original paper ( Xu et al. 1987: figs 2–4), the female specimens studied in the present paper have the same characteristics of epigynum as in Ero juhuaensis : basal plate broad, well-developed, with the lateral margins curved and the posterior margin almost straight; scape short, with posterior margin not reaching the posterior margin of the basal plate; spermathecae longitudinal oval, with internal ducts distinct.