Mesiotelus confusus Zamani, Fomichev, Naumova & Marusik, 2024

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 : 196-197

Mesiotelus confusus Zamani, Fomichev, Naumova & Marusik , sp. nov.

Figs 5, 6 , 17–19 , 46–48

Mesiotelus cyprius scopensis : Hadjissarantos 1940: 96, fig. 32a‒b (♂); Lazarov 2009: 34, figs 6‒10 (♂ ♀).

Mesiotelus skopensis : Bosmans et al. 2009: 34, figs 29‒33 (♂ ♀, lapsus).

Mesiotelus scopensis : Elverici et al. 2013: 306 , figs 6‒11 (♂ ♀); Naumova 2020: 4, figs 4‒5 (♀); Zamani & Marusik 2021: 560, fig. 5F‒G (♀); Coşar et al. 2023: 11, figs 12‒16 (♀); Tutar & Yağmur 2023: 208, fig. 13A‒D (♂ ♀); Demircan Aksan 2023: 1432, fig. 2A‒B (♀); Bosmans 2023: 34, figs 9C, H, 10C (♂ ♀).

Type material. Holotype ♂ ( ZMUT), TÜRKIYE: Kayseri Prov.: nr. Develi Dist. , 38°21'41"N, 35°28'56"E, 1274 m, among vegetation on rocky slope, 18.IX.2010 (leg. Y.M. Marusik).

Paratypes: 8♂ 6♀ ( ZMUT), same data as for the holotype ; 1♀ ( ZMUT), Antalya Prov.: Alanya Dist., rd. of Elikesik Vil. , 36°33'55.6"N, 31°55'30.3"E, 24 m, maquis on southern exposed slope, 8.I.2013 (leg. Y.M. Marusik) ; 1♂ 1♀ ( ZMUT), Alanya Dist., Asmaca Vil. , 36°36'32.3"N, 32°03'12.4"E, 686 m, 3.I.2013 (leg. Y.M. Marusik) ; 1♀ ( ZMUT), Hatay Prov.: İskenderun, Orhangazi , 36°37'18.0"N, 36°14'07.3"E, 4.V.2008 ; 1♀ ( ZMUT), İzmir Prov.: Kemalpaşa Dist., Vişneli Vil. , Fetrek Cave , 38°20'46.6"N, 27°25'16.3"E, 311 m, 5.VI.2009 (leg. Y.M. Marusik) ; 1♂ 1♀ ( ZMUT), Kahramanmaraş Prov.: Türkoğlu Dist., Yeşilyurt Vil. , 37°14'21.7"N, 36°45'23.7"E, 11.III.2008 ; 1♂ ( ZMUT), Onikişubat Dist., Döngel Vil., Döngel Caves , 37°51'32.8"N, 36°38'28.4"E, 30.V.2008 ; 1♀ ( IBER), BULGARIA: Kardzhali Prov.: Eastern Rhodopes Mts. , 41°37'36.5"N, 25°32'10.0"E, 365 m, 14.V.2019 (leg. M. Naumova) .

Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the confusing history of this species and the fact that it has been repeatedly misidentified as M. scopensis .

Diagnosis. The male of the new species differs from that of M. scopensis , with which it was previously confused, by having a subtriangular tibial apophysis (vs. with parallel sides) (cf. Figs 18 and 24 ), a thinner sperm duct (Sd) (cf. Figs 19 and 23 ), a relatively shorter palpal tibia (cf. Figs 17 and 20 ), and the apparent absence of a prolateral tegular process (vs. distinctly present). The epigyne of M. confusus sp. nov. differs from that of M. scopensis by having digitiform copulatory ducts (vs. indistinct), and curved lateral margins (Lm) (vs. straight) (cf. Figs 46–48 and Zamani & Marusik 2021b: fig. 5A–E).

Description. Male (holotype). Habitus as in Fig. 5 . Total length 4.00. Carapace 1.85 long, 1.47 wide. Eye sizes: AME 0.08, ALE 0.11, PME 0.10, PLE 0.09. Carapace light brown, relatively densely coated with dark short setae. Chelicerae and labium brown. Maxillae light brown. Sternum pale yellow. Legs yellowish-brown. Abdomen and spinnerets dark grey, abdomen lighter ventrally. Ventral paired tibial spines: I, II: 2p, III, IV: 3p. Measurements of legs: I: 7.01 (1.64, 0.96, 1.81, 1.57, 1.03), II: 6.26 (1.75, 0.92, 1.48, 1.37, 0.74), III: 5.72 (1.57, 0.76, 1.21, 1.49, 0.69), IV: 8.65 (2.28, 0.88, 2.13, 2.38, 0.98).

Palp as in Figs 17–19 ; femur almost as long as patella+tibia; patella longer and thicker than tibia; tibia ca. 3 times long than wide, RTA slightly longer than tibia wide, dorsal margin straight, basal half of ventral margin subparallel to dorsal one, distal part triangular; cymbium 2 times longer than wide; bulb suboval, ca. 1.7 times longer than wide; sperm duct thin, as wide as proximal width of tegular apophysis; prolateral process indistinct.

Female. Habitus as in Fig. 6 . Total length 5.65. Carapace 2.00 long, 1.67 wide. Eye sizes: AME: 0.10, ALE: 0.12, PME: 0.09, PLE: 0.11. Coloration as in male. Paired ventral tibial spines: I, II: 2p; III, IV: 3p. Measurements of legs: I: 6.87 (1.94, 1.04, 1.63, 1.34, 0.92), II: 5.93 (1.66, 0.90, 1.40, 1.19, 0.78), III: 5.45 (1.48, 0.76, 1.18, 1.33, 0.70), IV: 8.24 (2.17, 0.95, 2.02, 2.18, 0.92).

Epigyne as in Figs 46–48 ; epigynal plate 1.5 times longer than wide; fovea 2 times longer than its maximal width; anterior hood slightly wider than long; lateral margins roundly bent; copulatory duct short and thin; receptacles (Re) oval, 1.3 times longer than wide, spaced almost by their width.

Comments. Mesiotelus cyprius scopensis Drensky, 1935 was described based on female specimens collected in the surroundings of Skopje, North Macedonia ( Drensky 1935). Hadjissarantos (1940) described and illustrated what they considered the conspecific male from Attica, Greece. Bosmans et al. (2009) elevated this subspecies to full species status and illustrated specimens of both sexes, which they had identified following Hadjissarantos (1940). While the male palp illustrated by Bosmans et al. (2009) matches that illustrated by Hadjissarantos (1940), the epigyne differs significantly from the one illustrated by Drensky (1935), a point even noted by Bosmans et al. (2009). Therefore, it can be concluded that the male illustrated by Hadjissarantos (1940) is not conspecific with the female described by Drensky (1935). Hadjissarantos’ error led to a cascade of misidentifications by subsequent researchers. Consequently, all previous records of M. scopensis from Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye in fact belong to M. confusus sp. nov., as they were all identified based on the illustrations provided by Hadjissarantos (1940) and Bosmans et al. (2009).

Distribution. Bulgaria, Greece, and Türkiye ( 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 1–6. Dorsal habitus of Agroeca angirasu (1), A. cuprea (2), Mesiotelus alanyensis sp. nov. (3), M. bosmansi sp. nov. (4) and M. confusus sp. nov. (5–6). 1–4, 6—female; 5—male. Scale bars: 2 mm.

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 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.

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.