Makdiops shevaroyensis ( Gravely, 1931 )

Sankaran, Pradeep M., Kadam, Gautam, Sudhikumar, Ambalaparambil Vasu & Tripathi, Rishikesh, 2022, First record of Siamspinops Dankittipakul & Corronca, 2009 from India, first description of the female of Makdiops shevaroyensis (Gravely, 1931), and a catalogue of Indian selenopid fauna (Araneae, Selenopidae), Zootaxa 5194 (1), pp. 109-121 : 115-117

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.1.6
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:345FE712-0A1F-4EC8-B5EF-AC13FCF539E8
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7141999
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C56D8781-982F-A514-FF02-FF33910EFCF1
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Makdiops shevaroyensis ( Gravely, 1931 )
status

Treatment

Makdiops shevaroyensis ( Gravely, 1931) View in CoL

Figs 5–7 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 View FIGURE 7

Selenops shevaroyensis Gravely, 1931: 259 View in CoL , fig. 15C (♂).

Makdiops shevaroyensis Sankaran et al., 2020: 598 View in CoL View Cited Treatment , figs 3A–C, 4A–D (♂).

Type material. Holotype: ♂ from INDIA: Tamil Nadu: Salem, Yercaud, Servarayan Hills (=Shevaroy Hills) (11°46′N, 78°12′E; 1410 m a.s.l.), 1929, Mason (NZC-ZSI, Kolkata) (holotype images are presented in Sankaran et al. 2020: figs 3A–C, 4A–D). GoogleMaps

Other material examined. INDIA: Tamil Nadu: 1 ♀, Salem, Yercaud, Pagoda Point (11°46′N, 78°13′E; 1355 m a.s.l.), 04 December 2017, from bark, by hand, M.S. Pradeep & Jimmy Paul ( ADSH10275 View Materials ) GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. Females of M. shevaroyensis are similar to the females of Makdiops mahishasura Crews & Harvey, 2011 as both share deep posteromedian excavation of epigyne, transversely oriented membranous epigynal field with M-shaped anterior margin, longitudinally oriented posterior epigynal pockets, wide copulatory openings and broad copulatory ducts, but can be distinguished from the latter by the following combination of features: obliquely oriented tubular part of copulatory ducts (vs. longitudinally oriented in M. mahishasura ) and globular spermathecae with turns (vs. reniform without turns in M. mahishasura ) (compare Figs 5F–H View FIGURE 5 , 6A, C View FIGURE 6 with Crews & Harvey 2011: figs 85–86).

Description. Female ( Figs 5A–E View FIGURE 5 , colouration in alcohol): Carapace, clypeus, chelicerae pale brown, carapace with indistinct brownish streaks; endites, labium, sternum, leg and palp segments, spinnerets yellowish brown, leg segments with brownish annulations and blotches, palp segments with brownish blotches; opisthosoma creamy white with black posteriorly, dorsum with scattered brownish black spots and blotches ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Carapace with black, fine setae intermingled with short stiff setae, laterally with patches of white setae ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ). Cheliceral promargin with three teeth, retromargin with two ( Fig. 5E View FIGURE 5 ). Sternum rounded, rebordered ( Fig. 5D View FIGURE 5 ). Tarsi without scopulae. Opisthosoma sub-oval, with short black setae ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ). Body length 10.83. Carapace 4.17 long, 5.09 wide. Opisthosoma 6.66 long, 5.56 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: ALE 0.11, AME 0.23, PLE 0.39, PME 0.27; ALE–ALE 1.73, AME–ALE 0.53, AME–AME 0.21, PLE–PLE 2.07, PME–PLE 0.87, PME–PME 0.88. Clypeus height at AMEs 0.13, at ALEs 0.26. Length of chelicerae 1.37. Length of palp and legs: palp 4.24 [1.32, 0.80, 0.84, 1.28], I 15.33 [4.74, 1.96, 3.83, 3.37, 1.43], II 17.57 [5.72, 2.14, 4.57, 3.68, 1.46], III 14.43 [4.94, 1.56, 3.78, 2.98, 1.17], IV 16.84 [5.80, 1.72, 4.38, 3.50, 1.44]. Leg formula: 2413. Spination of palp: femur pld 1 do 5 rld 1 rlv 1, patella pld 1 do 2, tibia pl 1 pld 2 do 2 rl 1, tarsus pl 4 pld 2 plv 1 do 3 rl 3 rld 2 rlv 2 v 1; legs: femur I pl 2 do 3, II–IV do 3, patellae I–IV 0; tibiae I–II plv 3 rlv 3, III 0, IV plv 1; metatarsi I–II plv 2 rlv 2, III–IV 0; tarsi I–IV 0.

Genitalia ( Figs 5F–H View FIGURE 5 , 6A–C View FIGURE 6 ): epigyne with a deep posteromedian excavation ( Figs 5F–G View FIGURE 5 , 6A View FIGURE 6 ), with longitudinally oriented, arc-like epigynal pockets with sclerotised prolateral rims ( Figs 5F–G View FIGURE 5 , 6A View FIGURE 6 ; EP). Copulatory openings wide, semi-circular, transversely oriented, with sclerotised prolateral rims ( Figs 5F–G View FIGURE 5 , 6A View FIGURE 6 ; CO), enclosing a broad, transversely oriented, membranous epigynal median field with M-shaped anterior margin ( Figs 5F–G View FIGURE 5 , 6A View FIGURE 6 ; MF). Copulatory ducts unspiralled, with broad, flat proximal and transversely oriented, long, narrow, tubular distal parts ( Figs 5H View FIGURE 5 , 6C View FIGURE 6 ; CD). Spermathecae globular, proximal part with 3–4 turns ( Figs 5H View FIGURE 5 , 6C; S View FIGURE 6 ). Copulatory ducts, spermathecae and fertilization ducts entirely covered by hyaline uterus externus with broad, median, cup-shaped invagination ( Figs 5H View FIGURE 5 , 6B View FIGURE 6 ; UE, arrow). Fertilization ducts flat, diverging ( Fig. 6C View FIGURE 6 ; FD).

Male. For redescription and illustrations of the male, see Sankaran et al. (2020).

Note. There seems discrepancy in the terminologies used by various authors to denote different structures of the female genitalia of Makdiops and Siamspinops and possibly of other selenopid genera. For example, Dankittipakul & Corronca (2009) used the term ‘secondary epigynal pocket’ to denote the posteromedially located, paired epigynal invaginations found in Makdiops and Siamspinops ( Dankittipakul & Corronca 2009: fig. 27). The usage of ‘secondary epigynal pocket’ is confusing as these authors did not indicate the occurrence of ‘primary epigynal pocket’ in the female genitalia. Crews & Harvey (2011: fig. 81) and Yu et al. (2019: fig. 4) used the term ‘epigynal pocket’ to represent these invaginations. Dankittipakul & Corronca (2009) used the term ‘uterus externus’ to denote the hyaline membranous covering, but Crews & Harvey (2011: fig. 82) and Yu et al. (2019: fig. 5) used ‘posterodorsal fold’ or ‘posterodorsal epigynal fold’ to denote it. In fact, the sclerotised ‘posterodorsal fold’ can only be seen in the caudal view of the epigyne, whereas the hyaline ‘uterus externus’ can be visible ventrally and is always connected with the fertilization ducts. Some of the structures of the female genitalia of Siamspinops are found incorrectly named in previous works. For example, Dankittipakul & Corronca (2009: fig. 30) considered the entire spiralled structure of the genitalia as the spermathecae. However, Yu et al. (2019: fig. 5) considered it as the copulatory ducts. The latter authors considered the anterior most turn of the copulatory ducts as the spermathecae, which was considered as the spermathecal head by the former authors. The spermathecae in Siamspinops could be the turn of the copulatory ducts that may be anterior or posterior, to which the fertilization ducts always found attached as shown in Fig. 4E View FIGURE 4 . In fact, Dankittipakul & Corronca (2009: fig. 30) misidentified the spermathecae as the spermathecal head. The structure labelled as the accessory lobe of the spermathecae in Dankittipakul & Corronca (2009: fig. 35) corresponds to the accessory bulb of the spermathecae as shown in Figs 4D–E View FIGURE 4 .