Runcinioides Mello-Leitão, 1929

Faleiro, Bárbara T. & Santos, Adalberto J., 2019, Revision of the crab-spiders of the genus Runcinioides Mello-Leitão, 1929 (Araneae, Thomisidae), Zootaxa 4567 (1), pp. 25-46 : 26-29

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4567.1.2
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:13DBDF5F-66C4-4A8E-9A97-9F55BC0A59FB
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5936231
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AB87B1-FFD2-C136-84F6-F8847B6C66A5
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Runcinioides Mello-Leitão, 1929
status

Treatment

Genus Runcinioides Mello-Leitão, 1929 View in CoL View at ENA

Runcinioides Mello-Leitão, 1929: 211 View in CoL . Mello-Leitão 1944: 319; Mello-Leitão 1947: 276; Caporiacco 1954: 140; Lehtinen 2004: 151; Lehtinen & Marusik 2008: 190.

Misumenops View in CoL ad part. Rinaldi 1988: 20.

Type species: Runcinioides argenteus Mello-Leitão, 1929 , by subsequent designation ( Roewer 1955).

Diagnosis. Runcinioides is included in the Misumenini tribe sensu Lehtinen (2004) and shares some characteristics of the group, like the presence of a coupling pocket in the epigyne and male legs I and II with brownish annulations. Males of Runcinioides can be distinguished from all other Misumenini by the presence of a long embolus originating in 4-6 o’clock position in ventral view of the left palp, that runs widely separated from the tegulum in the distal half of the bulb ( Figs 2c View FIGURE 2 , 4e View FIGURE 4 , 6a View FIGURE 6 , 8c View FIGURE 8 , 9c View FIGURE 9 , 11e View FIGURE 11 , 14a View FIGURE 14 ). The female can be distinguished by the presence of a large, non-sclerotized and flexible coupling pocket (= hood sensu Benjamin 2011) ( Figs 2a View FIGURE 2 , 3e View FIGURE 3 , 5 View FIGURE 5 a–c, 9a, 10e, 13a–c), and by the long and coiled stalk of the spermathecae and copulatory ducts ( Figs 2b View FIGURE 2 , 3f View FIGURE 3 , 5 View FIGURE 5 d–e, 9b, 10f, 13d–e).

Description. Small to medium sized spiders (total length: males 2.62–5.04; females 2.92–9.74). Males usually smaller than females, the size dimorphism more accentuated in R. litteratus . Carapace and opisthosoma covered with spiniform setae, especially in R. argenteus ( Figs 3 View FIGURE 3 a–c, 4a–c, 10a–c, 11a–c). Male and female with a line of marginal setae on the carapace, more conspicuous in the males ( Figs 4c View FIGURE 4 , 11c View FIGURE 11 ). Leg formula I-II-IV-III. Two tarsal claws, retroclaw with four ( R. litteratus ) to five ( R. argenteus ) large teeth and one small basal tooth ( Figs 6f View FIGURE 6 , 14f View FIGURE 14 ), proclaw with four ( R. litteratus ) to five ( R. argenteus ) larger teeth and numerous small basal teeth ( Fig. 14f View FIGURE 14 ). Distal tarsus with few pseudotenent setae and some twisted setae ( Figs 6f View FIGURE 6 , 14f View FIGURE 14 ). Macrosetae on the lateroventral side of tibia and metatarsus I and II more conspicuous in the female ( Figs 3 View FIGURE 3 a–b, 10a–b,) than in the male ( Figs 4 View FIGURE 4 a–b, 11a–b). Carapace with two longitudinal dark bands ( Figs 1 View FIGURE 1 , 3 View FIGURE 3 a–c, 4a,c, 8b, 10a,c, 11a,c, 12), male legs I–II with dark rings ( Figs 1c View FIGURE 1 ; 4 View FIGURE 4 a–b; 11a–b) and opisthosoma usually with dorsal dark spots ( Figs 1 View FIGURE 1 b–d, 4a, 8b, 10a, 11a, 12c–f). Male palp larger compared to other genera of Misumenini; without ITA; promargin of the RTA with apical, transverse ridges ( Figs 6e View FIGURE 6 , 14e View FIGURE 14 ); retrolateral margin of the cymbium with a large tutaculum, which ends in a transverse groove ( Figs 2 View FIGURE 2 c–d, 4d–e, 6a–b, d, 9d, 11f, 14d); tegulum round, very sclerotized, with a marginal deep slit delimited by a ridge, which is more pronounced prolaterally ( Figs 2 View FIGURE 2 c–d, 4e–f, 6a–b, d, 9c–d, 11e–f, 14a,d); embolus long, originating at 4 o’clock, with clockwise direction in the left palp ( Figs 2c View FIGURE 2 , 4e View FIGURE 4 , 6a View FIGURE 6 , 8c View FIGURE 8 , 9c View FIGURE 9 , 11e View FIGURE 11 , 14a View FIGURE 14 ). Epigyne with two small cavities caudal to the posterior margin of the coupling pocket, henceforth called “anchor openings” ( Figs 2a View FIGURE 2 , 3e View FIGURE 3 , 5a View FIGURE 5 , 9a View FIGURE 9 , 10e View FIGURE 10 , 13 View FIGURE 13 a–b); copulatory openings aside the coupling pocket ( Figs 5 View FIGURE 5 a–c, 13c). spermathecae with large spermathecal glands (= “head of spermathecae”) ( Figs 2b View FIGURE 2 , 3f View FIGURE 3 , 5 View FIGURE 5 d–f, 9b, 10f, 13d–f); copulatory ducts hyaline, with several loops before attachment to the long and tubular stalk of the spermathecae ( Figs 2b View FIGURE 2 , 3f View FIGURE 3 , 5 View FIGURE 5 d–e, 9b, 10f, 13d–e); fertilization ducts adhered to the posterior plate and attached to the base of the spermathecae ( Figs 2b View FIGURE 2 , 3f View FIGURE 3 , 5d View FIGURE 5 , 9b View FIGURE 9 , 10f View FIGURE 10 , 13 View FIGURE 13 d–e). Male spinnerets ( Fig. 7a View FIGURE 7 ): ALS with one major ampullate gland spigot and a nubbin on prolateral margin and numerous piriform gland spigots on retrolateral margin ( Fig. 7b View FIGURE 7 ); PMS with three anterior aciniform gland spigots and one nubbin, one central tartipore and one posterior minor ampullate gland spigot and a nubbin ( Fig. 7c View FIGURE 7 ); PLS with numerous aciniform gland spigots ( Fig. 7d View FIGURE 7 ).

Remarks. We have examined the female type specimens of Runcinioides pustulatus (MNHN 9401) and R. souzai (MZSP 73), and found their genitalia significantly different from the remaining species of the genus. For instance, both are devoid of the characteristic non-sclerotized and flexible coupling pocket mentioned above. In addition, the recently discovered males of both species do not match the genus diagnosis presented above, and their palp morphology is consistent with characters of other thomisid genera (R.A. Teixeira, pers. comm.). Thus, we decided not to include those species in this revision, and provisionally they should be treated as incertae sedis.

Distribution. Eastern Brazil, from the state of Rio Grande do Norte to Rio Grande do Sul ( Figs 15 View FIGURE 15 a–b). There are two literature records outside Brazil, from French Guiana ( Caporiacco 1954), but since we could not find the specimens, these records remain doubtful.

Composition. Two species, R. argenteus and R. litteratus .