Porrhomma macrochelis (Emerton, 1917)

Gongylidium macrochelis Emerton, 1917 — Emerton (1917): p. 263, Figs. 15.1–3 (descr. ♂); synonymised with Macrargus multesimus (O. Pickard-Cambridge) by Buckle et al. (2001: 130), based on type material examination.

Porrhomma macrochelis — Chamberlin & Ivie (1947): p. 61.

Material examined. ALASKA, 5 mi. So. Rapids on Richardson Highway, 63°42'N, 145°50'W, June 16, 1945, 1 ♀, J.C. Chamberlin coll., det . Wilton Ivie 1946; Matanuska, 61°N, 149°W, August–October, 1943, 1 ♀, leg. J.C. Chamberlin, det. Wilton Ivie (AMNH) .

Comments. In the original description, the male of Gongylidium macrochelis is characterised by a dull orange cephalothorax, large and thick chelicerae with a large tooth on the front, by scattered elevations at the base of the hairs on the front side of chelicerae, by a paracymbium with a round tooth turned toward the tibia (Emerton 1917). According to these characteristics, the species is not Porrhomma . Holm (1960) noted: “ Gongylidium macrochelis Emerton is most probably a synonym of Macrargus multesimus (O. Pickard-Cambridge) .” Buckle et al. (2001) revised type material and confirmed this synonymy.

Chamberlin & Ivie (1947) transferred G. macrochelis to the genus Porrhomma and also mentioned the record of females: “63°N, 145°W, 5 mi. So. Rapids on Richardson Highway, June 16, 1945, ♀, J.C. Chamberlin. 61°N, 149°W, Matanuska, August–October 1943 (♀) and September 23, 1944 (Ƌ ♀), J.C. Chamberlin.” The female is neither described nor depictured.

I examined two female samples mentioned by Chamberlin & Ivie (1947). These females can not be assigned to the genus Porrhomma, the epigynum lacks the typical pit. These females also can not be assigned to Macrargus multesimus, the epigynum lacks the typical scapus described by O. Pickard-Cambridge (1875) or by Gnelitsa & Koponen (2010). Designation of these females as Porrhomma macrochelis represents a misidentification.