Mesabolivar cyaneotaeniatus ( Keyserling, 1891 ),
treatment provided by
|Mesabolivar cyaneotaeniatus ( Keyserling, 1891 )|
Pholcus cyaneotaeniatus Keyserling, 1891: 176 , pl. 6, figs 121, 121a –b (♂♀, Brazil: Rio de Janeiro).
Blechroscelis cyaneotaeniatus: Moenkhaus 1898: 99 –100 (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo). Mello-Leitão 1918: 107–108. (Both authors just translated Keyserling’s original description).
Mesabolivar cyaneotaeniatus: Huber 2000: 225 , figs 55, 883–894 (Brazil: Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, Pará – see Notes below). Machado 2007: 75 (Brazil: Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, São Paulo). Ramalho et al. 2008: 454 (São Paulo). Huber & Rheims 2011: 281 (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo). Castanheira et al. 2016: 12 (Rio de Janeiro).
Diagnosis. Easily distinguished from similar congeners ( M. tamoio , M. sai , M. kaingang ) by tip of procursus (compare Huber 2015: figs 136–138 and Figs 280–283View FIGURES 280–283, 285View FIGURES 284–291), by male chelicerae (with only one pair of distal apophyses, without proximal apophyses; Huber 2000: fig. 891) and by shape of epigynum ( Figs 300–303View FIGURES 292–305; pocket in posterior position, without thick cuticular rim surrounding pocket). Distinguished from all other known congeners by dorsal widening of procursus ( Figs 280–283View FIGURES 280–283), and by male femora with prolatero-dorsal stripes of short vertical hairs (Huber 2015: figs 157–159). From most other congeners also by single rows of blunt spines on male metatarsi 2 and 3 (Huber 2000: figs 889 and 890; similar spines are otherwise only known in some representatives of the ‘ aurantiacus group’, i.e. M. aurantiacus , M. cyaneus , M. eberhardi , M. huanuco ; Huber 2000).
Type material. BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro: ♂ lectotype , 3♀ paralectotypes (designated in Huber 2000), BMNH (0321–4), Miracema [21.413°S, 42.196°W] and “St. Antonio am Rio Pomba ” [= Santo Antônio de Pádua , 21.545°S, 42.185°W], date not given, leg. E.A. Göldi, examined (Huber 2000).GoogleMaps
New records. BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro: 2♂ 1♀, ZFMK (Ar 19117), Santa Maria Madalena , forest fragment (21°58.9’–59.1’S, 41°57.2’–57.6’W), 480–590 m a.s.l., 30.ix.–1.x.2010 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González) ; 2♂ 1♀ 1 juv. in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 10-75), same data . 1♂, ZFMK (Ar 19118), Cachoeiras de Macacu, Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçú (22°24.4’–25.3’S, 42°44.2’–44.3’W), 140–280 m a.s.l., 23.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber, A. Giupponi) ; 1♂ in pure ethanol, ZFMK ( Br 09-99), same data but 23–24.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber) ; 2♂, ZFMK ( Ar 19119), same data but 25.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber) ; 2♀, ZFMK ( Ar 19120), same locality at ~ 300–400 m a.s.l. (22°24.3’S, 42°44.1’W), 24.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber, A. Giupponi)GoogleMaps . 2♂, ZFMK (Ar 19121), Reserva Ecológica Rio das Pedras (22°59.5’S, 44°06.0’W), 50 m a.s.l., 25.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber)GoogleMaps ; 6♂ 1♀, ZFMK ( Ar 19122–23), same locality at 50–200 m a.s.l. (22°59.5’S, 44°06.0’–06.8’W), 26.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber, A. Giupponi)GoogleMaps ; 2♂ 1♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 09-115), Reserva Ecológica Rio das Pedras (22°59.5’S, 44°06.0’–06.8’W), 50–200 m a.s.l., 25– 26.ix.2009 (B.A. Huber) . 5♂ 7♀ 4 juvs, ZFMK (Ar 19124–27), ~ 4 km NW Penedo (22°24.5’S, 44°33.0’–33.4’W), forest along river, 700–770 m a.s.l., 14–16.viii.2007 (B.A. Huber); 3 juvs in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 07/100-7, 36), same data . 1♂ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (G003), Itatiaia [22.45°S, 44.59°W], 8–15.vi.2001 (H. Japyassú)GoogleMaps . 12♂ 3♀ 1 juv., ZFMK (Ar 19128–29), Paraty, degraded forest near Morro do Forte (23°11.7’S, 44°42.8’W), ~ 10–30 m a.s.l., 23.viii.2007 (B.A. Huber)GoogleMaps ; 3♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 07/100-29), same dataGoogleMaps . 3♀, ZFMK (Ar 19130), Cachoeira do Tobogã near Paraty (23°12.7’S, 44°47.5’W), ~ 220 m a.s.l., 22.viii.2007 (B.A. Huber)GoogleMaps ; 1♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 07/100-18), ~ 3.5 km NW Paraty (23°11.5’S, 44°43.9’W), degraded forest, ~ 50 m a.s.l., 21.viii.2007 (B.A. Huber)GoogleMaps . 1♂ 4 juvs in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 07/100-23), Cachoeira da Pedra Branca near Paraty (23°11.8’S, 44°46.0’W), forest near river, ~ 230 m a.s.l., 22.viii.2007 (B.A. Huber).GoogleMaps
São Paulo: 15♂ 4♀ 1 juv. in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br03/100-32, 33, 34), São Paulo, Jardim Zoológico (23.65°S, 46.62°W), 13.xii.2003 (B.A. Huber).
Santa Catarina: 1♀, ZFMK (Ar 19131), Serra do Itajaí National Park (27.058°S, 49.084°W), Chuva Trail, 300 m a.s.l., 15.x.2014 (B.A. Huber, L.S. Carvalho)GoogleMaps . 1♀, ZFMK (Ar 19132), Itapoá, Reserva Volta Velha (26°05.8’S, 48°39.1’W), 20 m a.s.l., 27–28.ix.2010 (B.A. Huber, J. Ricetti).GoogleMaps
Paraná: 1♂ 2♀, ZFMK (Ar 19133–34), Saint-Hilaire / Lange National Park , forest along river above Fazenda Niteroi (25.657°S, 48.601°W), ~ 100 m a.s.l., 11.x.2014 (B.A. Huber, L.S. Carvalho)GoogleMaps ; 2♂ 3♀ 1 juv., ZFMK (Ar 19135), Saint-Hilaire / Lange National Park , forest above Hotel Mata Atlântica (25.670°S, 48.600°W), ~ 200–300 m a.s.l., 12.x.2014 (B.A. Huber, L.S. Carvalho)GoogleMaps ; 2♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 14-141), same dataGoogleMaps .
Espírito Santo: 8♂ 9♀, ZFMK (Ar 19136), Vargem Alta, Fazenda Monte Verde (20°27.6’–28.2’S, 40°59.5’– 41°00.2’W), 1000–1200 m a.s.l., 2–3.x.2010 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González); 3 juvs in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 10-81), same data . 1♂ 1 juv., ZFMK (Ar 19137), Reserva Biológica de Sooretama , ‘site 1’ (19°03.3’S, 40°08.8’W), ~ 90 m a.s.l., 27.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González)GoogleMaps ; 1♂, ZFMK ( Ar 19138), same locality at ‘site 2’ (19°00.7’S, 40°06.5’W), ~ 80 m a.s.l., 28.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González)GoogleMaps . 4♂ 4♀, ZFMK (Ar 19139), Reserva Biológica Córrego do Veado , ‘site 1’ (18°22.1’S, 40°08.3’W), ~ 80 m a.s.l., 29.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González)GoogleMaps ; 1♂ 1♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 11-136), same dataGoogleMaps . 1♂, ZFMK ( Ar 19140), same locality at ‘site 2’ (18°21.7’S, 40°10.0’W), ~ 90 m a.s.l., 29.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González).GoogleMaps
Bahia: 2♂ 9♀, ZFMK ( Ar 19141), Parque Nacional do Pau Brasil, ‘site 2’ (outside park limits) (16°25.7’S, 39°21.1’W), ~ 60 m a.s.l., 1.x.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González, M. Alves Dias)GoogleMaps ; 1 juv. in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 11-157), same dataGoogleMaps .
Description (amendments; see Huber 2000). Tibia 1 in 45 newly examined males: 12.1–17.3 (mean 14.2); in 41 newly examined females: 8.8–13.6 (mean 10.9). Male femora 2 and 3 usually wider than other femora, especially distal thirds. Prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1. Tip of procursus variable, possibly indicating presence of more than one species ( Figs 280–283View FIGURES 280–283; see Notes below). Female legs without spines, all femora approximately same diameter. Epigynum slightly variable in size and shape, with or without sclerotized ridges originating at both sides from pocket ( Figs 300–303View FIGURES 292–305), possibly indicating presence of more than one species (see Notes below).
Natural history. The spiders were often found in high densities in disturbed areas, for example in ferns along trails and in road cuts. Individual webs were sometimes attached to each other. The webs were often quite exposed, with direct sunlight reaching the spiders. The webs were mostly found ~ 0.5–2 m above the ground, and consisted of two sheets, a domed upper sheet, diameter ~ 20–30 cm, and a rather flat lower sheet about 10 cm below the dome. When disturbed, the spiders first moved away, then started swinging with large amplitude and high frequency, and eventually dropped to the ground.
Distribution. Widely distributed from eastern Santa Catarina state to southern Bahia ( Brazil) ( Fig. 732View FIGURES 732–733) (but see Notes below).
Notes. As already noted previously (Huber 2014), the record for Pará, Belém in Huber (2000) is dubious and probably a result of mislabeling. Intensive recent collecting in Belém and in many other localities in Pará state has not resulted in this species, which - being large and conspicuous - is very unlikely to be missed when present.
The newly examined material suggests that two species might be included: the ‘true’ M. cyaneotaeniatus with a procursus as shown in Figs 280–281View FIGURES 280–283 (without retrolateral oblique sclerite, with longer ventral sclerite, with slightly curved tip), and a possible second species with a procursus as shown in Figs 282–283View FIGURES 280–283.
The epigyna seem to show congruent variation: ‘true’ M. cyaneotaeniatus with dark ridges originating at both sides from pocket ( Figs 300–301View FIGURES 292–305; see also Huber 2000: fig. 892), the possible second species without such ridges ( Figs 302–303View FIGURES 292–305).
In the male paralectotype, both pedipalps are missing, and the palps shown in Huber (2000) are from a different specimen (Parque Nacional Tijuca, “road to Paineiras”, ~22.948°S, 43.204°W). However, the female paralectotypes agree with what is here called the ‘true’ M. cyaneotaeniatus , so the decision of what should be the ‘true’ M. cyaneotaeniatus seems unproblematic.
Geographically, the ‘true’ M. cyaneotaeniatus is more southern (Santa Catarina to southern Espírito Santo), the possible second species more northern (Rio de Janeiro to southern Bahia), but there is considerable overlap in Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo states.
The species is not formally split here because I have not (re)examined all material available in collections. Ideally, a much denser sampling combined with molecular species delimitation methods should be done before splitting (or not splitting) this species.
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.