Panjange Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983

Huber, Bernhard A. & Nuñeza, Olga M., 2015, Evolution of genital asymmetry, exaggerated eye stalks, and extreme palpal elongation in Panjange spiders (Araneae: Pholcidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 169, pp. 1-46 : 3-6

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2015.169
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BB0E51AB-C0E6-4054-AFED-939D14BD1EFB
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6095765
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/8E428795-FFB0-6E77-FE13-FAC6FB9FE71B
treatment provided by	Jeremy
scientific name	Panjange Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983
status

Treatment

Genus Panjange Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983 View in CoL View at ENA

Panjange Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983: 123–124 View in CoL .

Type species by original designation: Panjange lanthana Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983 View in CoL .

Panjange View in CoL View at ENA – Deeleman-Reinhold 1986a: 47, Fg. 6; 1986b: 220. — Huber 2001: 118–119; 2011: 108–110.

Note on species groups

Previous work on Panjange has identiFed three species groups, the nigrifrons group on Borneo, the widespread cavicola group (Sulawesi to northern Australia) and the previously monotypic lanthana group on the Philippines ( Deeleman-Reinhold & Platnick 1986; Huber 2011). The present cladistic analysis largely recovers these three groups, but the cavicola group is considered paraphyletic ( Fig. 1 View Fig. 1 ).

The present paper focuses on the lanthana group A separate paper on the nigrifrons group is in preparation, as is a molecular phylogeny of the entire genus and of its relationships to other Pholcinae.

IdentiFcation key

This key is primarily designed to identify species groups of Panjange and species of the lanthana group. It mostly works for males and females, but females remain difFcult to identify. An examination of the cleared internal genitalia may be necessary (step 7); geography rather than morphology may help to separate females (step 2); in one species, the female is unknown ( Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov.; step 4).

1. Male chelicerae with distal frontal apophyses (Fg. 472 in Huber 2011); female epigynal scape short or absent (Fgs 473, 492 in Huber 2011); known only from Borneo......................... nigrifrons group

– Male chelicerae without distal frontal apophyses, only with pair of proximal processes (e.g., Figs 17 View Figs 17 – 19 , 40 View Figs 38 – 44 , 66 View Figs 66 – 68 ); epigynal scape long and strongly folded (e.g., Figs 22 View Figs 20 – 23 , 36 View Figs 35 – 37 , 67 View Figs 66 – 68 )........................................... 2

2. Embolus parallel to male bulbal process (appendix); known from Sulawesi to Australia .................. ...................................................................................................................................... cavicola group

– Embolus and bulbal appendix pointing in opposite directions (e.g., Figs 18 View Figs 17 – 19 , 64 View Figs 64 – 65 , 69 View Figs 69 – 73 ); known from the Philippines only ..................................................................................................... lanthana group...3

3. Eight eyes (AME present; lenses clearly visible in dissecting microscope); without pointed processes arising from male eye triads (Fg. 441 in Huber 2011); procursus with two distal hinged processes (Fgs 436, 437 in Huber 2011)......................... Pa. lanthana Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman, 1983

– Six eyes (AME absent; rarely tiny, barely visible in dissecting microscope and apparently nonfunctional: Fig. 45 View Figs 45 – 49 ), with pointed processes arising from male eye triads (e.g., Figs 17 View Figs 17 – 19 , 28 View Figs 26 – 30 , 66 View Figs 66 – 68 , 76 View Figs 74 – 78 ); procursus with only one distal hinged process .................................................................................. 4

4. Procursus extremely wide and strongly curved ( Fig. 91 View Figs 90 – 92 ); eye stalks short, with spines contacting each other ( Fig. 90 View Figs 90 – 92 ); bulbal processes (embolus and appendix) very short ( Fig. 91 View Figs 90 – 92 ).......................... ............................................................................................................... Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov.

– Procursus, male ocular area, and bulbal processes different ............................................................. 5

5. Male palpal segments (distal of trochanter) extremely long (femur about 15 × as long as wide; Figs 64, 65 View Figs 64 – 65 ); female epigynal scape extremely long ( Fig. 67 View Figs 66 – 68 ) ........... Pa. hamiguitan Huber sp. nov.

– Male palpal segments shorter (femur less than 7 × as long as wide; e.g., Figs 19 View Figs 17 – 19 , 25 View Figs 24 – 25 , 39 View Figs 38 – 44 ); female epigynal scape shorter (e.g., Figs 22 View Figs 20 – 23 , 29 View Figs 26 – 30 , 72 View Figs 69 – 73 ) .................................................................................... 6

6. Male clypeus without spines; dorsal tarsal elongation very long ( Figs 18 View Figs 17 – 19 , 24 View Figs 24 – 25 ); male procursus asymmetric; female epigynal scape directed toward posterior.......................................................... 7

– Male clypeus with spines ( Figs 71 View Figs 69 – 73 , 76 View Figs 74 – 78 , 81 View Figs 79 – 83 ); dorsal tarsal elongation short ( Figs 70 View Figs 69 – 73 , 75 View Figs 74 – 78 , 80 View Figs 79 – 83 ); male procursus symmetric; female epigynal scape directed toward anterior ( Figs 72 View Figs 69 – 73 , 77 View Figs 74 – 78 , 82 View Figs 79 – 83 ) ................. 9

7. Male eye stalks short ( Fig. 17 View Figs 17 – 19 ); spines on male eye stalks short, not contacting each other; pore plates round ( Fig. 23 View Figs 20 – 23 )............................................................................... Pa. malagos Huber sp. nov.

– Male eye stalks very long ( Figs 28 View Figs 26 – 30 , 35 View Figs 35 – 37 ); spines on male eye stalks long, contacting each other ( Fig. 49 View Figs 45 – 49 ); pore plates oval ( Figs 30 View Figs 26 – 30 , 37 View Figs 35 – 37 )................................................................................................................... 8

8. Male palpal trochanter with only one long retrolateral apophysis ( Fig. 25 View Figs 24 – 25 ); male palpal tarsal elongation widening distally ( Fig. 24 View Figs 24 – 25 ); female epigynal scape with two lobes ( Fig. 29 View Figs 26 – 30 ).................... ................................................................................................................ Pa. casaroro Huber sp. nov.

– Male palpal trochanter with two short retrolateral apophyses ( Fig. 39 View Figs 38 – 44 ); male palpal tarsal elongation not widening distally ( Fig. 38 View Figs 38 – 44 ); female epigynal scape simple ( Fig. 36 View Figs 35 – 37 ) ......... Pa. camiguin Huber sp. nov.

9. Appendix of genital bulb with simple curved tip ( Fig. 69 View Figs 69 – 73 ); male palpal retrolatero-ventral trochanter apophysis with simple rounded tip ( Fig. 70 View Figs 69 – 73 ); female epigynal scape without widening ( Fig. 72 View Figs 69 – 73 ) ..... ..................................................................................................................... Pa. isarog Huber sp. nov.

– Appendix of genital bulb with biFd tip ( Figs 74 View Figs 74 – 78 , 79 View Figs 79 – 83 ); male palpal retrolatero-ventral trochanter apophysis biFd ( Figs 75 View Figs 74 – 78 , 80 View Figs 79 – 83 ); female epigynal scape with widening ( Figs 77 View Figs 74 – 78 , 82 View Figs 79 – 83 ) ........................ 10

10. Retrolateral process on procursus massive, with parallel ridges ( Fig. 75 View Figs 74 – 78 ); female internal genitalia with large lateral structures and elongate pore plates ( Fig. 78 View Figs 74 – 78 ) ................ Pa. dinagat Huber sp. nov.

– Retrolateral process on procursus smaller, with two pointed tips ( Fig. 80 View Figs 79 – 83 ); female internal genitalia without large lateral structures and roundish pore plates ( Fig. 83 View Figs 79 – 83 ) .......... Pa. marilog Huber sp. nov.

Cladistic analysis

Preliminary analyses including all available species of Panjange (all 18 described species plus Fve undescribed species) revealed that the highly aberrant Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov. was also the most difFcult to place in the cladogram. It ended up at three different positions, resulting in many trees and a consensus with large polytomies. For this reason, Pa. bukidnon Huber sp. nov. was deleted from the Fnal matrix. It may be correctly placed in the lanthana group but its sister taxon remains unknown (see Monophyly and relationships below).

One potentially informative character system was also largely deleted from the Fnal matrix. The apophyses and processes on the male palpal trochanter come in a wide variety of numbers, shapes and positions, and it seemed impossible to code them in a convincing way. Only one detail was left in the matrix (Appendix 3, character 10).

Using NONA with hold/100, mult*200 (or hold/10; mult*10.000), and amb- for the matrix in Appendix 1 and equal character weights resulted in two most parsimonious cladograms with a length of 37 (Ci = 70; Ri = 90). Variation occurred only among outgroup taxa and in the support for the monophyly of Panjange (characters 15 and 20, or only character 20). The cladogram shown in Fig. 1 View Fig. 1 is the strict consensus of these two cladograms.

Using TNT with the implicit enumeration algorithm resulted in the same two trees, as did successive weighting in NONA (with the consistency index as weighting function). Implied weighting in Pee-Wee (which resolves character conFict in favor of the characters that have less homoplasy) was used with various settings of the constant of concavity K (1–6) to explore the stability of different clades under different weighting regimes. Major differences to the tree shown in Fig. 1 View Fig. 1 occurred only with K=1 and K=2, which resulted in large polytomies and no support for the monophyly of Panjange . However, even in these trees, the monophyly of the lanthana group was consistently recovered as was its close relationship to the cavicola group. The only difference within the lanthana group concerned the position of Pa. hamiguitan Huber sp. nov., which was not sister to Pa. isarog Huber sp. nov. + ( Pa. dinagat Huber sp. nov. + Pa. marilog Huber sp. nov.) but placed in a basal tetrachotomy.