Hoplopholcus trakyaensis Demircan & Topçu, 2017

Figs 410–428

Hoplopholcus trakyaensis Demircan & Topçu, 2017: 83, figs 1–3 (♂ ♀).

Hoplopholcus longipes (Spassky, 1934) (misidentification)— Naumova et al. 2016: 434.

Diagnosis. Distinguished from known congeners by shapes of procursus and bulbal processes (Figs 419–420, 423–426): tip of procursus with distinctive distal element (arrow in Fig. 419; proximally strongly sclerotized, with weakly sclerotized pointed tip), ventral spine of procursus almost straight and with small proximal process dorsally (similar to H. figulus), ventral ‘knee’ of procursus barely visible; ventral bulbal sclerite ribbon-shaped (i.e. relatively flat and only slightly widened distally), dorsal membranous process distinct. Females are difficult to distinguish externally from congeners; pair of ventral furrows of uterus externus (arrows in Fig. 427) possibly diagnostic (poorly visible in uncleared specimens); median pouch of uterus externus variably visible in uncleared specimens (Figs 413, 416); ventral sclerotized arc with strong median sclerite similar to H. bursa (compare Figs 386 and 427); lateral internal pouches connected to ventral arc and strongly developed.

Type material. TURKEY, Tekirdağ: ♂ holotype, NOHUAM (PHO-02/11-60), Saray District, Ayvacık Village, Küçük Kalaslı cave [~ 41.50°N, 27.95°E; see Notes below], 183 m a.s.l., 22.ix.2014; examined . 30♂ 19♀ paratypes from seven caves in Saray District in Tekirdağ Province and from Vize District in Kırkareli Province (details in Demircan & Topçu 2017), all in NOHUAM , 1♀ from Saklısu cave examined .

Other material examined. TURKEY, Kırkareli: 1♂ 1♀ 3 juvs, NMNHS, Demirköy District, Yildiz dağlari (Strandzha Mountains), near Sarpdere, Dupnisa Mağarası (41.841°N, 27.556°E), 350 m a.s.l., 25.vii.2006 (P. Stoev, S. Lazarov, D. Duhalov) .

BULGARIA, Burgas: 1♂ 1♀, NMNHS, Strandzha Mountains, Tsarevo town, Sarpijskata pestera cave [42.0025°N, 27.8440°E], 26.ix.2006 (B. Petrov) .

Redescription. Male (Dupnisa Mağarası, NMNHS). MEASUREMENTS. Total length 4.3, carapace width 1.7. Distance PME-PME 130 µm; diameter PME 140 µm; distance PME-ALE 40 µm; diameter AME 60 µm; distance AME-AME 60 µm. Leg 1: 33.4 (9.0 + 0.7 + 9.2 + 11.9 + 2.6), tibia 2: 6.8, tibia 3: 5.1, tibia 4: 6.2; tibia 1 L/d: 61.

COLOR (in ethanol). Carapace mostly pale ochre-yellow, medially dark brown; clypeus only slightly darkened; sternum black; legs ochre-yellow, with darker rings subdistally on femora and tibiae and in patella area; abdomen pale gray with large black marks dorsally and diffuse pattern covering most of ventral side.

BODY. Habitus as in congeners (cf. fig. 1A in Demircan & Topçu 2017). Ocular area slightly elevated. Deep thoracic pit and indistinct pair of shallow furrows diverging from pit toward posterior margin. Clypeus unmodified. Sternum wider than long (1.10/0.75), unmodified. Abdomen oval, dorso-posteriorly rounded.

CHELICERAE. As in Figs 421–422, with pair of latero-distal apophyses provided with two modified coneshaped hairs each; fine stridulatory ridges barely visible in dissecting microscope.

PALPS. As in Figs 410–412; coxa with low retrolateral hump, trochanter barely protruding ventrally, retrolateral dark line on femur barely visible, distinct prolateral stridulatory pick; procursus (Figs 419–420) with barely visible ventral ‘knee’, with distinctive distal element (arrow in Fig. 419; proximally strongly sclerotized, with weakly sclerotized pointed tip), ventral spine almost straight; genital bulb (Figs 423–426) with ribbon-shaped ventral sclerite (i.e. relatively flat and only slightly widened distally), with distinct dorsal membranous process (Fig. 424).

LEGS. Femur 1 with single row of ~18 ventral spines; with curved hairs on tibiae and metatarsi 1 and 2; few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium of tibia 1 at 5%; prolateral trichobothrium present on all leg tibiae; tarsi without distinct pseudosegments but with many small platelets.

Male (variation). Tibia 1 in two other males seen: 9.0, 9.8. Mean tibia 1 length in 30 males studied by Demircan & Topçu (2017): 9.0 (but see Notes below).

Female. In general similar to male but without spines on legs. Tibia 1 in three females seen: 8.8, 10.3, 10.3. Mean tibia 1 length in 19 females studied by Demircan & Topçu (2017): 11.0 (but see Notes below).

FEMALE GENITALIA. Epigynum as in Figs 413, 416, epigynal plate roughly triangular with very shallow median depression; sclerotized internal arcs, median pouch of uterus externus, and pair of lateral pouches visible in uncleared specimens; with pair of light brown weakly bulging areas in front of epigynum; simple, very short but wide posterior plate. Internal genitalia (Figs 414–415, 417–418, 427–428) with strong median sclerite on ventral sclerotized arc; uterus externus with median pouch and pair of distinctive ventral furrows (arrows in Fig. 427); lateral pouches strongly developed, connected anteriorly to ventral arc, almost parallel; pore plates large, oval, converging anteriorly.

Notes. The type locality is misspelled in the original publication (Ayvancık instead of Ayvacık) and the coordi- nates are wrong (27.417°E instead of ~ 27.95°E).

If the measurements in Demircan & Topçu (2017) were correct, this would be one of the very few Pholcidae species with longer female than male legs. In fact, the value for mean male/female tibia 1 length in this species would be 0.82, which is by far the lowest value ever reported (Huber 2011 reported 0.89 for Pholcus fragillimus but with small sample sizes; the lowest value based on more reasonable sample sizes was reported for Smeringopus natalensis in Huber 2012: 0.94). However, the ratio of male femur1/tibia 1 given in Demircan & Topçu (2017) for 30 male paratypes (10.6/9.0) strongly suggests a measurement error.

Distribution. Known from several caves in the Strandzha Mountains of Turkey and Bulgaria (Fig. 448).