Mesiotelus scopensis Drensky, 1935

Zamani, Alireza, Fomichev, Alexander A., Naumova, Maria, Kaya, Rahşen S. & Marusik, Yuri M., 2024, New taxonomic and faunistic data on Liocranidae (Arachnida: Araneae) of West Palaearctic), with nine new species of Mesiotelus Simon, 1897, Zootaxa 5519 (2), pp. 190-214 : 203-206

Mesiotelus scopensis Drensky, 1935

Figs 20–24

Mesiotelus cyprius scopensis Drensky 1935: 106 , fig. 5 (♀).

Mesiotelus deltshevi Naumova 2020: 4 , figs 2–3 (♀); Zamani & Marusik 2021b: 560, fig. 5H–I (♀); Coşar et al. 2023: 10 , figs 6–11 (♀). Syn. n.

Mesiotelus caucasicus Zamani & Marusik 2021b: 560 , figs 3A–I, 4A–G, 5A–E (♂ ♀); Coşar et al. 2023: 9 , figs 1–5 (♀); Seropian et al. 2023: 259, fig. 66 (♀). Syn. n.

Mesiotelus cf. scopensis : Zarikian et al. 2022: 109, fig. 5A–E (♀).

Type material. Neotype ♂ ( ZMUT), BULGARIA: Kyustendil Prov.: Kyustendil, Shegava Canyon , 42°23'56.0"N, 22°43'53.8"E, 23.X.2021 (leg. M. Naumova). [designated here]

Other material. BULGARIA: Kyustendil Prov.: 1♂ 1♀ ( ZMUT) , 2♂ 1♀ ( IBER) , 2♂ 3♀ ( PCSI), Kraishte Region, Konyavska Mt., Shegava Canyon , 42°23'56.0"N, 22°43'53.8"E, 23.X.2021 (leg. M. Naumova & S. Indzhov) ; 1♀ ( ZMUT) , Kyustendil, Shegava Canyon , 42°23'56.0"N, 22°43'53.8"E, 23.X.2021 (leg. M. Naumova) ; Sofia Prov.: 1♀ ( PCSI), W Stara Planina Mts, Lakatnik railway station, 43°05'17.88"N, 23°22'55.92"E, 6.VI.2021 (leg. S. Indzhov) . AZERBAIJAN: Lerik District: 1♀ ( ZMMU), Divagatch , 38°41'44.4"N, 48°22'51.6"E, 25.V.2003 (leg. E. Guseinov) . TÜRKIYE: Diyarbakır Prov.: 1♀ ( ZMUT), Ergani Dist., Yukarıkuyulu , 38°11'08.6"N, 39°54'31.3"E, 13.IV.2008 ; Eskişehir Prov.: 1♂ ( ZMUT), Alpu-Mihalıççık Hwy, 20–25 km to Mihalıççık , 39°50'05"N, 31°11'36"E, 877 m, open ravine in semi-desert with oak and pine, 27.IX.2010 (leg. Y.M. Marusik) ; Gaziantep Prov.: 1♀ ( ZMUT), Şehitkamil Dist., Akçaburç , 37°14'55.6"N, 37°19'18.4"E, 7.V.2005 . GREECE: Central Macedonia: 12♂ ( IBER), Sharliya (Vrondos) Mts , 41°15'28.79"N, 23°24'51.45"E, pitfall trap, 4.X–1.XI.2018 (leg. M. Naumova) ; 1♀ ( IBER), ditto, pitfall trap, 6.VI–7.VIII.2019 (leg. M. Naumova) ; 1♂ 1♀ ( IBER), ditto, hand collected, 15.X.2019 (leg. M. Naumova) . IRAN: Tehran Prov.: 1♂ ( JAZM) , Tehran, 35°47'N, 51°24'E, X.2013 (leg. A. Zamani) .

Diagnosis. The male of this species is similar to that of M. patricki . It can be differentiated by the palpal patella longer than the tibia (not including RTA) (vs. subequal in length), and by the prolateral process of tegulum (Pp) longer than the tegular apophysis (cf. Figs 20 , 23 and Zamani & Marusik 2021a: fig. 11A, E). The epigyne of M. scopensis is rather variable in the shape of fovea and the size of the anterior hood and similar to that of M. confusus sp. nov. in having a small anterior hood and a long fovea, but differs by having distinct transversal wrinkles of the fovea (vs. indistinct), distinct copulatory ducts (vs. indistinct), and straight lateral margins (vs. curved) (cf. Figs 46–48 and Zamani & Marusik 2021b: fig. 5A–E).

Description. See Zamani & Marusik (2021b) for the male (sub M. caucasicus ), and Naumova (2020) and Zamani & Marusik (2021b) for the female (sub M. deltshevi and M. caucasicus , respectively). The epigyne is rather variable in shape, particularly in the width of the anterior hood, the shape of the posterior part of fovea, and the angle formed by the lateral margins (see Zamani & Marusik 2021b: fig. 5A, D, E, H). The length of the male chelicerae is also highly variable.

Comments. Unfortunately, the holotype of this species is lost ( Deltshev 2003). However, considering the overall shape of the epigyne illustrated by Drensky (1935) and the information provided in the comments for M. confusus sp. nov., we hereby propose M. deltshevi syn. n. and M. caucasicus syn. n. as junior synonyms of M. scopensis . Notably, the male of M. deltshevi was not described in the original description of the species. Based on material of both sexes collected in Bulgaria, it was found that the male palp of M. caucasicus is indistinguishable from that of the males conspecific with the females identical to the holotype of M. deltshevi (cf. Zamani & Marusik 2021b: fig. 4A–G and Figs 20–24 ). The differences in the lateral margins and anterior hood of the epigyne, which were considered in the diagnosis of M. caucasicus , are intraspecific variations expected to occur in species with relatively large distribution ranges (from Albania to northern Iran).

The records of M. scopensis from Golestan, Kohgiluyeh & Boyer-Ahmad and Sistan & Baluchistan provinces of Iran ( Zamani et al. 2020; Malek Hosseini et al. 2015) are based on misidentifications. The females reported from Golestan and Sistan & Baluchistan by Zamani et al. (2020) belong to M. patricki and M. sistanus Zamani, Fomichev & Marusik , sp. nov., respectively. A single female specimen reported from Kohgiluyeh & Boyer-Ahmad by Malek Hosseini et al. (2015) most likely belongs to M. iranicus Zamani & Marusik, 2023 , which was described from a cave in the nearby province of Lorestan. Unfortunately, we could not re-examine this material to propose a more solid identification.

The records of M. scopensis from Armenia ( Zarikian et al. 2022) and the Tehran Province of Iran ( Zamani et al. 2014) are based on material matching perfectly the type material of both M. deltshevi and M. caucasicus and, therefore, are correctly identified considering the revised definition of M. scopensis presented herein.

Considering that the holotype of M. scopensis has been declared lost, and given the complicated and confusing taxonomic history of this species, we have herein designated a neotype, following Article 75 of the Code ( ICZN 1999), to ensure nomenclatural stability. Unfortunately, we were unable to acquire topotypic material of this species. Despite extensive collection efforts over more than five years using various techniques (including pitfall traps), no specimens of this species have been found at its type locality, the St. Nicholas Šiševski Monastery near Skopje in North Macedonia. The validity of this type locality, along with other locations reported by Drensky, is highly doubtful (M. Komnenov, pers. comm.). Therefore, we have designated the neotype from material collected in neighboring Bulgaria.

Habitat. The specimens from Greece and Bulgaria were collected from cliffs and rocky slopes with very sparse vegetation, often under stones, on Karst terrain.

Distribution. North Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Türkiye, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and herein newly recorded from Georgia and Azerbaijan ( Fig. 75 ).

Figures

FIGURE 75. Collection localities of the studied liocranid species. 1—Agroeca angirasu; 2—A. cuprea; 3—A. inopina; 4—A. proxima; 5—Mesiotelus alanyensis sp. nov. (in part, specimens from Antalya); 6—M. bosmansi sp. nov.; 7—M. confusus sp. nov.; 8—M. cyprius; 9—M. damavandicus sp. nov.; 10—M. scopensis; 11—M. kravetsi sp. nov.; 12—M. mediterraneus sp. nov. and M. alanyensis sp. nov. (in part, specimens from Mersin); 13—M. patricki; 14—M. sistanus sp. nov.; 15—M. tadzhikus sp. nov.; 16—M. turanicus sp. nov.; 17—M. kulczynskii; 18—Scotina celans; 19—Sestakovaia annulipes. Some symbols could refer to more than one closely situated locality.

FIGURES 17–21. Whole palp (17, 20) and terminal part of palp (18–19, 21) of male of Mesiotelus confusus sp. nov. (17–19) and M. scopensis (20–21). 17—prolateral; 18, 20—retrolateral; 19—ventral; 21—dorsal. Scale bars: 17–19, 21—0.2 mm; 20— 0.5 mm. Abbreviation: Sd—sperm duct.

FIGURES 22–28. Terminal part of male palp of Mesiotelus scopensis (22–24) and M. kravetsi sp. nov. (25–28). 22, 26— prolateral; 23, 27—ventral; 24, 28—retrolateral; 25—dorsal. Scale bars: 0.2 mm.Abbreviations: Pp—prolateral tegular process, Tp—protruding distal-ventral part of tibia.

FIGURES 43–51. Epigyne of Mesiotelus bosmansi sp. nov. (43–45), M. confusus sp. nov. (46–48) and M. damavandicus sp. nov. (49–51). 43, 46, 49—intact, ventral; 44, 47, 50—macerated, ventral; 45, 48, 51—macerated, dorsal. Scale bars: 0.1 mm. Abbreviations: Ah—anterior hood, Lm—lateral margin, Re—receptacle.