Blechroscelis azurea Badcock, 1932: 8 Mello-Leitão 1946 : 55 Mesabolivar azureus : Huber 2000: 227 M. cyaneotaeniatus Huber & Rheims 2011 : 281 The South American spider genera Mesabolivar and Carapoia (Araneae, Pholcidae): new species and a framework for redrawing generic limits Huber, Bernhard A. Zootaxa 2018 2018-03-19 4395 1 1 178 3ZXCH (Badcock, 1932) Badcock 1932 [151,609,1734,1760] Arachnida Pholcidae Mesabolivar GBIF Animalia Araneae 62 63 Arthropoda species azureus     Blechroscelis azureaBadcock, 1932: 8, fig. 3 (♂♀, Brazil: Rio de Janeiro). Synonymized with  Blechroscelis cyaneotaeniatus( Keyserling, 1891) in  Mello-Leitão 1946: 55.    Mesabolivar azureus: Huber 2000: 227(transferred and removed from synonymy with  M. cyaneotaeniatus).  Huber & Rheims 2011: 281.   Diagnosis.Distinguished from very similar  M. brasiliensisby shape of procursus (more evenly curved; tip with distinctive bifid process; Figs 262, 271) (females of the two species appear barely distinguishable but  M. azureusfemales tend to have shorter abdomens); from  M. kathrinaeand  M. pallensby thicker procursus tip (compare Figs 271–273); from  M. kathrinaealso by presence of epigynal pocket ( Fig. 264); from other congeners by combination of: relatively small pedipalps and epigynum (compared to body size), relatively long leg femora (male femur 1/ tibia 1: 1.3), thickened male femora 2 (in most males except smallest); and pale greenish coloration (in life; in ethanol pale ochre-yellow and greenish-gray).    Typematerial. BRAZIL:  Rio de Janeiro: 1♂ lectotype(designated herein), BMNH(1932.9.2.2), 1♀ paralectotype, BMNH(1932.9.2.3), “Corcavada” [Corcovado, 22.95°S, 43.21°W], 3.viii.1926(G.S. Carter, L.C. Beadle), examined.  Note.A lectotypeis chosen because the two syntypesare not conspecific. In agreement with  ICZN(1999), Recommendation 74B, the male is chosen because the only illustration in the original description is of the male palp.    Othermaterial examined. BRAZIL:  Rio de Janeiro: 5♂ 11♀, ZFMK( Ar19087), Cachoeiras de Macacu, Reserva Ecológica de Guapiaçú( 22°24.3’S, 42°44.1’W), ~  300–400 ma.s.l.,  24.ix.2009(B.A. Huber, A. Giupponi);  1♂ 3♀, same locality at 22°24.4’–25.3’S, 42°44.2’–44.3’W,  140–300 ma.s.l.,  25.ix.2009( B.A. Huber);  3♀in pure ethanol, ZFMK( Br09-105), same locality at 22°24.4’–25.3’S, 42°44.2’–44.3’W,  140–280 ma.s.l.,  23– 24.ix.2009( B.A. Huber). 1♂, USNM, near Petrópolis, Independência [22.551°S, 43.212°W], 5.v.1932(D.M. Cochran).  2♂, ZFMK( Ar19088), Paraty, degraded forest near Morro do Forte( 23°11.7’S, 44°42.8’W), ~  10–30 ma.s.l.,  23.viii.2007( B.A. Huber);  1♀in pure ethanol, ZFMK( Br07/100-33), same data.  2♂ 7♀ 1 juv., ZFMK( Ar19089–91), ~ 4 kmNW Penedo( 22°24.5’S, 44°33.0’–33.4’W), forest along river,  700–770 ma.s.l.,  14– 16.viii.2007( B.A. Huber).   FIGURES 253–260.Live specimens,  Mesabolivar kathrinaegroup and  M. cyaneotaeniatusgroup. 253–254.  M. azureus(Badcock, 1932), males from Penedo. 255–256.  M. kathrinaeHuber, 2015, male and female from Murici. 257–258.  M. cyaneotaeniatus(Keyserling, 1891), male and female from St. Hilaire/Lange. 259–260.  M. kaingang  sp. n., male and female from St. Hilaire/Lange.   FIGURES 261–265.  Mesabolivar azureus(Badcock, 1932)(ZFMK Ar 19087). 261–262. Left male palp, prolateral and retrolateral views. 263. Male chelicerae, frontal view. 264. Epigynum, ventral view. 265. Cleared female genitalia, dorsal view. Scale lines: 0.3.    Bahia: 3♂ 4♀ 1 juv., ZFMK( Ar19092), Reserva Biológica de Una, ‘site 1’ ( 15°11.0’S, 39°04.7’W), ~  70–100 ma.s.l.,  4.x.2011( B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González, M. Alves Dias);  1♀in pure ethanol, ZFMK( Br11-178), Reserva Biológica de Una(15°10’–11’S, 39°03’–04’W), ~  50–100 ma.s.l.,  4.x.2011( B.A. Huber, A. Pérez- González, M.Alves Dias).   Description. Male(ZFMK Ar 19087) MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 3.0, carapace width 1.05. Distance PME-PME 100 µm, diameter PME 70 µm, distance PME-ALE 60 µm, distance AME-AME 30 µm, diameter AME 40 µm. Sternum width/length: 0.7/ 0.5. Leg 1: 48.0 (13.3 + 0.5 + 10.4 + 21.3 + 2.5), tibia 2: 7.1, tibia 3: 5.3, tibia 4: 6.8; tibia 1 L/d: 80. Femora 1–4 width (at half length): 0.16, 0.23 ( 0.25 indistal third), 0.14, 0.14. COLOR (in ethanol). Prosoma ochre-yellow, carapace with dark median line; legs ochre-yellow to light brown, femora and tibiae with whitish tips ( Fig. 253); abdomen monochromous greenish-gray (in life greenish with darker internal marks dorsally and laterally). BODY. Habitus as Figs 253–254; ocular area weakly raised; carapace with distinct but shallow median furrow; clypeus unmodified; sternum unmodified. CHELICERAE. With pair of apophyses distally close to laminae (weakly protruding; not visible in lateral view) and pair of indistinct light processes proximally ( Fig. 263). PALPS. As in Figs 261–262; coxa very large relative to palp size (i.e. palps very small relative to body size; Fig. 254), with strong retrolateral apophysis; trochanter barely modified; femur with rounded retrolateral apophysis proximally and rounded ventral protrusion distally; procursus strongly curved, with distinctive widened tip with bifid, apparently hinged process ( Fig. 271); bulbal process distally with slightly sclerotized pointed process. LEGS. Without spines, without curved hairs, few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 2%; prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1; tarsus 1 with ~50 indistinct pseudosegments.  Male(variation). Males from Penedo with barely visible proximal cheliceral processes and minimally less widened procursus tip; males from Bahiawith slightly thicker procursus tip. Tibia 1 in12 other males: 8.1–10.7 (mean 9.9). Males from Paraty with shortest legs (tibia 1: 8.1, 8.7) and with femora 2 barely wider than other femora. Some males with dark mark in gonopore area.  Female. In general similar to male but femora 2 not thicker than other femora. Tibia 1 in 22 females: 6.9–8.4 (mean 7.4). Anterior epigynal plate as in Figs 264, 292, small, weakly sclerotized, barely protruding, with median pocket close to posterior margin, internal membranous ‘valve’ clearly visible through cuticle in most females; posterior plate indistinct, in some females barely visible. Internal genitalia as in Figs 265, 293, with large oval pore-plates.  Natural history.The spiders were found in domed webs freely suspended among the vegetation, usually about 1–2 mabove the ground.   Distribution.Known from several localities in Rio de Janeirostate and from one locality in southern Bahiastate ( Brazil) ( Fig. 730). 1835975822 2009-09-24 ZFMK Brazil Other 350 -22.405 Cachoeiras de Macacu 125 -42.735 Ar 63 64 16 11 5 Rio de Janeiro 1835975748 [280,1430,655,680] 2009-09-25 ZFMK B. A. Huber Brazil Other 220 -22.405 Cachoeiras de Macacu 125 -42.735 Ar 63 64 4 3 1 Rio de Janeiro 1835975724 2009-09-23 2009-09-24 2009-09-23 ZFMK B. A. Huber Brazil Other 210 -22.405 Br 125 -42.735 Ar 63 64 3 3 Rio de Janeiro 1835975731 2007-08-23 ZFMK B. A. Huber Brazil Ar 20 -23.195 Morro do Forte 125 -44.713333 Paraty 63 64 2 2 Rio de Janeiro 1835975718 [527,1135,799,824] 2007-08-23 ZFMK Br Brazil Ar 20 -23.195 Morro do Forte 125 -44.713333 Paraty 63 64 1 1 Rio de Janeiro 1835975722 2007-08-14 2007-08-16 2007-08-14 ZFMK B. A. Huber Brazil 735 -22.408333 Penedo Ar 63 64 10 7 2 Rio de Janeiro 1835975804 2011-10-04 ZFMK B. A. Huber & A. Perez-Gonzalez & M. Alves Dias 85 -15.183333 Reserva Biologica de Una 128 -39.078335 Ar 64 65 8 4 3 Bahia 1835975815 2011-10-04 ZFMK B. A. Huber & Gonzalez, M. 75 Reserva Biologica de Una Br 64 65 1 1 Bahia