Pimoa gyirong Zhang & Li, 2021
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1029.64080 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E4AB7004-4633-4051-97DF-E02F1F68CCC4 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/20F3098C-37B3-44A5-89BC-637AAEE09AC2 |
|
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:20F3098C-37B3-44A5-89BC-637AAEE09AC2 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Pimoa gyirong Zhang & Li |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Pimoa gyirong Zhang & Li View in CoL sp. nov. Figures 15 View Figure 15 , 16 View Figure 16 , 55 View Figure 55 , 59 View Figure 59
Type material.
Holotype: ♂ (IZCAS-Ar41949), China, Tibet, Shigatse, Gyirong County, Gyirong Town, near Lhanggyi Tso Holy Lake, 28.41°N, 85.40°E, ca. 3909 m, 7.VII.2019, X. Zhang, Z. Bai and J. Liu leg. Paratypes: 1♂2♀ (IZCAS-Ar41950-Ar41952), same data as holotype.
Etymology.
The specific name is a noun in apposition taken from the type locality.
Diagnosis.
The male of Pimoa gyirong sp. nov. resembles those of P. crispa (see Hormiga 1994a: 63, figs 233-238; Hormiga 1994b: fig. 1A, B) and P. rongxar Zhang & Li, 2020 (see Zhang et al. 2020: 94, fig. 10A-C) but can be distinguished from P. crispa by the distally narrower cymbial denticulate process (Fig. 55A View Figure 55 ) (vs. wider) and distinguished from P. rongxar by the broad cymbial denticulate process, with many cuspules distally (Figs 15B View Figure 15 , 55A View Figure 55 ) (vs. distally narrow, with few cuspules) and the shorter pimoid cymbial sclerite (Fig. 55A View Figure 55 ) (vs. large and wide subdistally). The female of P. gyirong sp. nov. resembles those of P. nyingchi (see Zhang et al. 2020: 91, fig. 9A-D) and P. reniformis (see Xu and Li 2007: 493, figs 42-47) but can be distinguished from P. nyingchi by the distally blunt dorsal plate (Fig. 16B View Figure 16 ) (vs. pointed) and distinguished from P. reniformis by the spermathecae separated by ca. 1/4 the width of a spermatheca (Fig. 16A View Figure 16 ) (vs. unseparated).
Description.
Male (holotype): Total length 5.41. Carapace 2.63 long, 2.31 wide. Abdomen 2.78 long, 2.03 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.18, ALE 0.19, PME 0.19, PLE 0.14; AME-AME 0.13, AME-ALE 0.14, PME-PME 0.11, PME-PLE 0.18. Leg measurements: I: 28.22 (7.75, 9.19, 8.34, 2.94); II: 24.19 (6.66, 7.91, 7.03, 2.59); III: 14.61 (4.34, 4.59, 4.34, 1.34); IV: 19.46 (5.59, 6.25, 5.59, 2.03). Habitus as in Fig. 16E View Figure 16 . Carapace yellowish with black lateral margins; thoracic fovea and radial grooves distinct; sternum brownish. Abdomen black with yellow chevrons, nearly oval. Legs brownish with black annulations, especially distinct on legs III and IV. Palp (Figs 15A, B View Figure 15 , 55A View Figure 55 ): patella short, ca. 1/2 of tibial length, with one retrolateral macroseta; tibia long, ca. 1/2 of cymbial length, with several macrosetae and a dorsal process; paracymbium short, ca. 1/3 of cymbial length, hook-shaped; pimoid cymbial sclerite V-shaped, distally pointed, ca. 1/2 of cymbial length; cymbial denticulate process long and distally blunt, with more than 47 cuspules; median apophysis slender; conductor distinct; pimoid embolic process distally pointed, longer than embolus; embolus beginning at the 6:30 o’clock position; embolic tooth absent.
Female (paratype): Total length 6.99. Carapace 3.31 long, 2.48 wide. Abdomen 3.68 long, 2.94 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.12, ALE 0.19, PME 0.19, PLE 0.18; AME-AME 0.11, AME-ALE 0.14, PME-PME 0.17, PME-PLE 0.21. Leg measurements: I: 18.88 (5.28, 6.35, 5.16, 2.09); II: 14.53 (5.06, 4.44, 3.28, 1.75); III: 13.31 (4.16, 4.18, 3.41, 1.56); IV: 17.08 (5.13, 5.89, 4.25, 1.81). Habitus as in Fig. 16F, G View Figure 16 . Carapace yellowish; sternum brownish. Abdomen black with yellow chevrons. Legs brownish with black annulations. Epigyne (Fig. 16A-D View Figure 16 ): trapezoidal; ventral plate broad, longer than wide; dorsal plate nearly tongue-shaped; copulatory openings indistinct; spermathecae oval, separated by ca. 1/4 width of spermatheca; fertilization ducts brownish, laterally oriented.
Distribution.
Known only from the type locality, Tibet, China (Fig. 59 View Figure 59 ).
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.