Halocosa hatanensis ( Urita, Tang & Song, 1993 )

Wang, Lu-Yu, Irfan, Muhammad, Marusik, Yuri M. & Zhang, Zhi-Sheng, 2024, Review of the wolf spider genus Halocosa Azarkina & Trilikauskas, 2019 from China (Araneae, Lycosidae), ZooKeys 1218, pp. 99-111 : 99-111

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.3897/zookeys.1218.137275
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:556194B5-C6C1-46BA-8E4D-6BB94C51F7C4
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14187666
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4D65EAAA-A9B4-54D0-B433-995B2131CB2D
treatment provided by	ZooKeys by Pensoft
scientific name	Halocosa hatanensis ( Urita, Tang & Song, 1993 )
status

Treatment

Halocosa hatanensis ( Urita, Tang & Song, 1993) View in CoL

Figs 1 C, D View Figure 1 , 2 B, D, F, H View Figure 2 , 6 View Figure 6 , 7 View Figure 7 , 8 View Figure 8 , 9 (哈腾盐狼蛛 View Figure 9 )

Pardosa hatanensis Urita, Tang & Song, 1993: 46, figs 1 A, B (holotype ♂ from Hatan Tohoi, Bayannur Meng, Inner Mongolia, China, deposited in Inner Magnolia Normal University, Hohhot, China, not examined). View in CoL

Halocosa hatanensis View in CoL : Azarkina and Trilikauskas 2019: 557 (transferred from Pardosa View in CoL ).

Pardosa jartica Urita, Tang & Song, 1993: 47, figs 2 A, B (holotype ♀ from Jartai, Alxa Meng, Inner Mongolia China, deposited in Inner Magnolia Normal University, not examined). syn. nov. View in CoL

Halocosa jartica View in CoL : Azarkina and Trilikauskas 2019: 557 (transferred from Pardosa View in CoL ).

Material examined.

China: Xinjiang: 1 ♀, Qiemo County, 31 July 2006, F. Zhang leg. • 1 ♂ 2 ♀, Korla City, Tashidian Town , 25 May 2009, D. Sun and Y. W. Zhao leg. • 2 ♀, Ruoqiang County, Taitema Lake , 39°28.309′N, 88°16.791′E, 789 m, 10 May 2013, L. Y. Wang leg. GoogleMaps • 1 ♂, Qiemo County , 38°41.504′N, 86°53.235′E, 1029 m, 10 May 2013, L. Y. Wang leg. GoogleMaps • 1 ♀, Yuli County , 41°06.476′N, 86°30.650′E, 868 m, 1 June 2014, L. Y. Wang and X. K. Jiang leg. GoogleMaps • 7 ♂ 4 ♀, Yuli County , 40°43.939′N, 87°20.139′E, 863 m, 1 June 2014, L. Y. Wang and X. K. Jiang leg. GoogleMaps • 1 ♂ 10 ♀, Ruoqiang County, Taitema Lake , 39°28.309′N, 88°16.791′E, 789 m, 1 June 2014, L. Y. Wang and X. K. Jiang leg. GoogleMaps • 3 ♂ 2 ♀, Qiemo County , 38°41.536′N, 86°53.263′E, 1004 m, 2 June 2014, L. Y. Wang and X. K. Jiang leg. GoogleMaps • 6 ♂, Qiemo County, Kalamilan River , 37°57.796′N, 84°26.794′E, 1260 m, 2 June 2014, L. Y. Wang & X. K. Jiang leg. GoogleMaps • 1 ♀, Yutian County, Keliya River , 36°51.678′N, 81°42.622′E, 1382 m, 3 June 2014, L. Y. Wang and X. K. Jiang leg. GoogleMaps Qinghai: 1 ♂, Geermu , 15 Septemper 2002, M. S. Zhu leg. GoogleMaps Inner Mongolia: 3 ♂ 1 ♀, Alashanzuoqi, Jilantai (Jartai) Salt Lake , 39°43.281′N, 105°44.705′E, 1017 m, 7 June 2015, T. Lu and G. Q. Huang leg. GoogleMaps • 1 ♂ 2 ♀, Bayannur, Wulateqianqi, Eerdengbulage , Wuliangsuhai , 40°51.577′N, 108°50.906′E, 1025 m, 14 June 2015, T. Lu and G. Q. Huang leg. GoogleMaps Ningxia: 1 ♂ 1 ♀, Shizuishan City, Pingluo County, Sha Lake , 38°47.890′N, 106°20.934′E, 1104 m, L. Y. Wang, H. Y. Liu and K. Yu leg. GoogleMaps

Diagnosis.

This species is similar to H. cereipes (L. Koch, 1878) (Figs 2 A, C, E, G View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3 – 5 View Figure 5 ), but differs by the tall and almost square tegular sclerite vs. dwarf in H. cereipes ; the long and crooked terminal apophysis vs. short, strong and flat; the long and thin subterminal apophysis vs. wide and short; the bifurcate median apophysis, ventral branches curved, dorsal branch straight and pointed vs. not bifurcate, end bent to conductor (Figs 2 H View Figure 2 , 6 A, B View Figure 6 , 7 C – F View Figure 7 , 8 View Figure 8 ); the crack-shape copulatory openings and located below of the septum (vs. arc-shaped, located on the anterior position of the septum); and the width of spermathecal head almost the same as the width of spermathecal stalk (vs. width of spermathecal head greater than the width of spermathecal stalk) (Figs 6 C, D View Figure 6 , 7 G, H View Figure 7 ).

Description.

Males total length 7.52–10.36. One male (Figs 1 D View Figure 1 , 7 A View Figure 7 , from Qiemo County) total length 7.52: carapace 3.84 long, 2.73 wide; opisthosoma 3.82 long, 2.04 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.20, ALE 0.14, PME 0.36, PLE 0.32; AME – AME 0.13, AME – ALE 0.05, PME – PME 0.24, PME – PLE 0.30. Clypeus height 0.18. Leg measurements: I 11.82 (3.20, 4.03, 2.73, 1.86); II 11.52 (3.18, 3.81, 2.66, 1.86); III 11.58 (3.04, 3.55, 3.24, 1.75); IV 15.84 (4.00, 4.74, 4.83, 2.23).

Palp (Figs 2 H View Figure 2 , 6 A, B View Figure 6 , 7 C – F View Figure 7 , 8 View Figure 8 ). Cymbium c. 1.9 times longer than wide. The end of terminal apophysis curving, subterminal apophysis thin and membranous, shorter than the length of terminal apophysis. Median apophysis vertical and bifurcate, concave in lateral view. Tegular sclerite tall and almost square. Embolus long whip-like, smoothly rounded, slightly bent near tip, making almost whole circle, partly hidden by tegular ridge and median apophysis, base of embolus located in position of 2 o’clock. Conductor membranous.

Females total length 8.01–13.21. One female (Figs 1 C View Figure 1 , 7 B View Figure 7 , from Qiemo County) total length 8.01: carapace 4.03 long, 2.75 wide; opisthosoma 4.04 long, 2.45 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.23, ALE 0.15, PME 0.35, PLE 0.32; AME – AME 0.10, AME – ALE 0.04, PME – PME 0.27, PME – PLE 0.32. Clypeus height 0.19. Leg measurements: I 10.74 (3.05, 3.66, 2.29, 1.74); II 10.25 (2.88, 3.50, 2.20, 1.67); III 10.60 (2.90, 3.41, 2.63, 1.66); IV 14.62 (3.76, 4.55, 4.30, 2.01).

Epigyne (Figs 6 C, D View Figure 6 , 7 G, H View Figure 7 ). Copulatory openings crack-shaped and located below of the septum. Spermathecal heads slightly inflated, approaching the anterior margins of spermathecal stalks. Spermathecal stalks as wide as heads. Accessorial gland arc-shaped, with a small and spherical head. Fertilization ducts small, crescent-shaped.

Distribution.

China (Xinjiang, Qinghai, Ningxia and Inner Mongolia) (Fig. 9 View Figure 9 ).

Remarks.

Sample collected from the type locality of H. jartica contains specimens of both sexes. Comparison of these specimens with illustrations and descriptions of the H. jartica female and male of H. hatanensis reveals no differences, and therefore, we synonymized these names. The distance between the type localities is about 140 km. Although two species were described in the same paper, we consider H. hatanensis as the senior synonym because of page priority, and also because males have more diagnostic characters than females.