Smeringopina ibadan, Huber, Bernhard A., 2013
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3713.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:C5F0BC11-92C0-4B30-9DB3-200882AC8950 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6162021 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/B20287ED-FFFE-FF81-B990-C238FCCC3E95 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Smeringopina ibadan |
status |
sp. nov. |
Smeringopina ibadan View in CoL new species
Figs. 363–371 View FIGURES 359 – 371 , 384–389 View FIGURES 384 – 389
Type. ♂ holotype from Nigeria, Ibadan , IITA [International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 7°29.4’N, 3°53.4’E], fallow bush, 28.x.1974 (A. Russell-Smith), in ZFMK (Ar 10248).
Other material examined. NIGERIA: Ibadan , same locality as holotype, 22.iv.1974 (A. Russell-Smith), 1♀ in ZFMK (Ar 10249); same locality, secondary forest, 17.iv.1981 (A. Russell-Smith), 1♂ in ZFMK (Ar 10250); same locality, sweeping at road verges, 17.v.1974 (A. Russell-Smith), 1♂ in BMNH.
Etymology. The name is a noun in apposition, derived from the type locality.
Diagnosis. Easily distinguished from known congeners by huge distal male cheliceral apophyses ( Figs. 364 View FIGURES 359 – 371 , 387 View FIGURES 384 – 389 ), by distinctive shape of procursus ( Figs. 384–385 View FIGURES 384 – 389 ), and by longer than wide epigynum with flat and deeply indented anterior plate ( Figs. 368 View FIGURES 359 – 371 , 389 View FIGURES 384 – 389 ).
Male (holotype). Total body length 4.2, carapace width 1.6. Leg 1: 38.4 (9.0 + 0.5 + 9.3 + 18.0 + 1.6), tibia 2: 5.7, tibia 3: 4.1, tibia 4: 6.1; tibia 1 L/d: 70. Distance PME-PME 205 µm, diameter PME 140 µm, distance PME- ALE 55 µm, distance AME-AME 45 µm, diameter AME 135 µm. Carapace ochre-yellow with darker triangular mark posteriorly and lateral margins; ocular area ochre-yellow, clypeus with dark rim, sternum light brown; legs pale ochre-yellow, without darker rings; abdomen pale ochre-gray with barely visible darker pattern (specimen probably bleached). Habitus as in Figs. 365–367 View FIGURES 359 – 371 , ocular area slightly elevated, secondary eyes with indistinct ‘pseudo-lenses’; clypeus unmodified except longer than usual hairs; deep thoracic pit and pair of shallow furrows diverging behind pit. Chelicerae as in Figs. 364 View FIGURES 359 – 371 and 387 View FIGURES 384 – 389 , with lateral proximal apophyses, small frontal projections, and distinctively exaggerated distal apophyses bent upwards at their tips, without modified hairs ( Fig. 388 View FIGURES 384 – 389 ). Palps as in Figs. 369–371 View FIGURES 359 – 371 ; coxa with distinct retrolateral projection weakly sclerotized; trochanter with ventral sclerotized rim but without projection; femur with whitish ventral area bordered retrolaterally by weakly sclerotized flap, without prolateral modification; prolateral femur-patella joint shifted toward ventrally (though not extremely); tarsus without stronger hairs; procursus with several distinctive processes ( Figs. 384–385 View FIGURES 384 – 389 ; distal part appears hinged: Fig. 370 View FIGURES 359 – 371 ); bulb with weakly sclerotized conical embolus ( Fig. 386 View FIGURES 384 – 389 ). Legs without spines and curved hairs, with few vertical hairs (many hairs missing), retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 1.5%; prolateral trichobothrium present on all tibiae; pseudosegments barely visible. Gonopore apparently with two epiandrous spigots (not confirmed by SEM).
Variation. The other two males are bleached and in poor condition, with abdomens and tibiae 1 missing.
Female. In general similar to male; clypeus with shorter hairs. Tibia 1 missing. Epigynum longer than wide, with flat and deeply indented anterior plate and large posterior plate fitting into this indentation ( Fig. 368 View FIGURES 359 – 371 ); internal genitalia as in Figs. 363 View FIGURES 359 – 371 and 389 View FIGURES 384 – 389 .
Distribution. Known from type locality only ( Fig. 293 View FIGURE 293 ).
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |