Aname eddieorum -complex

Figs 1, 3B, 5B, 7, 34–48

Remarks

See the key to complexes and Figures 3–5 for diagnostic information. In life, spiders of the eddieorum - complex vary from honey-tan to dark brown in colour, with the anterior legs often slightly darker than the posterior legs (Fig. 7); however, colour can vary a surprising amount within species (see, for example, the two female A. briggsi sp. nov. specimens pictured in Fig. 7). Females of the eddieorum - complex generally have reflective bronze setae on the carapace, and sometimes the dorsal abdomen and femora. Males of at least some species have a dense covering of reflective silver setae on the carapace and dorsal abdomen (Fig. 7). Spiders of this complex generally make an open, silk-lined burrow without silk outside of the entrance, with the entrance often on an angle, and with a hidden secondary ‘wishbone’ entrance. The burrows are often found in areas with a leaf-litter layer, and indeed the entrance may be somewhat embedded in the leaf-litter (Fig. 7).

Distribution

The eddieorum -complex has a largely inland distribution in Queensland and northern New South Wales, occurring from the Darling Riverine Plains, Brigalow Belt South, and New England Tablelands bioregions, north to the Brigalow Belt North, Mitchell Grass Downs and Desert Uplands bioregions in north Queensland (near the border with the Einsleigh Uplands) (Fig. 7). They are generally found on or west of the Great Dividing Range, except A. aurensis sp. nov. which extends to near the coast around Townsville and Ayr. The two most southerly species, A. mulgana sp. nov. and A. eddieorum sp. nov., are both widespread; however, in central Queensland many species occur, each with seemingly relatively small ranges. This may be due to the increased topological complexity in this region, and the adjoining boundaries between several different bioregions.

Composition

The eddieorum -complex includes nine described species: Aname aurensis sp. nov., A. briggsi sp. nov., A. dingo sp. nov., A. eddieorum sp. nov., A. hughenden sp. nov., A. longitheca Raven, 1985, A. mulgana sp. nov., A. rupicola sp. nov., and A. warrego sp. nov .. Based on the drawings of Hogg (1902), A. diversicolor likely also belongs to the eddieorum -complex; however, this species is not treated in this revision as the type specimen is lost, and we were not able to resample at the type locality. Two other potentially distinct species are shown in the phylogeny (Fig. 1) and on the map for this complex (Fig. 7), A. sp. “marlong”, and A. sp. “emerald”; however, further evidence is required to confirm that these species are distinct from others known from the area.

Key to species in the Aname eddieorum -complex

NB. Males are unknown for A. dingo sp. nov., and females are unknown for A. hughenden sp. nov., and A. warrego sp. nov.

1. Males.................................................................................................................................................. 2

– Females .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Males

2. Tibia I widening from the proximal end to the base of the tibial spur when in lateral view (e.g., Figs 34, 36, 41) .................................................................................................................................. 3

– Tibia I about the same width from the proximal end to the base of the tibial spur when in lateral view (e.g., Figs 39, 42, 48) ......................................................................................................................... 7

3. Embolus length <2.5 × bulb length (Figs 34, 46) ............................................................................. 4

– Embolus longer (Figs 36, 41, 44) ...................................................................................................... 5

4. Metatarsus I proximal excavation length ~0.46 × metatarsus I length (Fig. 46) ................................ .............................................................................................................................. A. rupicola sp. nov.

– Metatarsus I proximal excavation shorter (~0.37 × metatarsus I length) and distal pad longer (Fig. 34) ............................................................................................................... A. aurensis sp. nov.

5. Embolus relatively straight (Fig. 41) ............................................................... A. hughenden sp. nov.

– Embolus more curved (Figs 36, 44) .................................................................................................. 6

6. Metatarsus I proximal excavation length ~0.43 × metatarsus I length (Fig. 44) ................................ ............................................................................................................................. A. mulgana sp. nov.

– Metatarsus I with a shorter proximal excavation (~0.36 × metatarsus I length) and longer distal pad (Fig. 36) .................................................................................................................. A. briggsi sp. nov.

7. Palp tibia length>3.0 × width (Fig. 48) ............................................................... A. warrego sp. nov.

– Palp tibia less elongate (Figs 39, 42) ................................................................................................. 8

8. Embolus length ~2.2 × bulb length (Fig. 39) ................................................... A. eddieorum sp. nov.

– Embolus longer (~2.7 × bulb width) and more strongly curved (Fig. 42)........................................... .................................................................................................................. A. longitheca Raven, 1985

Females

9. Spermathecae with lateral vesicles terminating in relatively wide ends (Figs 40, 45).................... 10

– Spermathecae with lateral vesicles with relatively narrow ends (e.g., Figs 35, 37–38)...................11

10. Sternum with bald patches lateral to the sigilla and without thorn-like setae around the anterior edges; coxae with rounded medioventral corners (Fig. 40).............................. A. eddieorum sp. nov.

– Sternum without bald patches lateral to the sigilla and with short, thorn-like setae around the anterior edges; coxae with more angular medioventral corners (Fig. 45)......................... A. mulgana sp. nov.

11. Spermathecae medial vesicle length>0.8 × genitalia width (Fig. 37) ................... A. briggsi sp. nov.

– Spermathecae with shorter medial vesicles (<0.65 × genitalia width) (Figs 35, 38, 47) ................ 12

12. Spermathecae with slightly bent lateral vesicles (Fig. 47) ................................... A. rupicola sp. nov.

– Spermathecae with straighter lateral vesicles (Figs 35, 38, 43) ...................................................... 13

13. Spermathecae medial vesicle length>0.6 × genitalia width; sternum with dark patches of cuticle surrounding and lateral to the sigilla (Fig. 43) ......................................... A. longitheca Raven, 1985

– Spermathecae with shorter medial vesicles; sternum without dark patches of cuticle lateral to the sigilla (Figs 35, 38).......................................................................................................................... 14

14. Spermathecae medial vesicle length ~5.3 × width; body dark red in colour (Fig. 35) ....................... ............................................................................................................................. A. aurensis sp. nov.

– Spermathecae with longer medial vesicles (length ~6.2 × width); body lighter in colour (Fig. 38) .. .................................................................................................................................. A. dingo sp. nov.