Capheris stillata Simon, 1905
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5296.3.4 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B60263A8-DD7F-4D3C-93B5-8C280D6C55B1 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7984005 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038E87AC-FFB5-043F-FF26-F9320068AA90 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Capheris stillata Simon, 1905 |
status |
|
Capheris stillata Simon, 1905 comb. rest.
Figs 13–14 View FIGURE 13 View FIGURE 14 , 18 View FIGURE 18
Capheris stillata Simon, 1905: 171 , fig. 3 (♁).
Cydrela stillata View in CoL — Jocqué, 2009: 123 (transfer from Capheris View in CoL ).
Type material. Syntype ♁ from INDIA: Puducherry: Mahé / Mayyazhi , 11°42’N 75°32’E, 2 m a.s.l., date unknown, leg. M. M. Maindron, repository MNHN, Paris (registration number unknown, Simon’s number 22495), not examined GoogleMaps .
Other material examined. INDIA: Kerala: Wayanad, Kuruva Island , 11°48’N 76°05’E, 760 m a.s.l., 2014, from bark, by hand, collector unknown: 1 ♁ ( ADSH210 View Materials ) GoogleMaps .
Remarks. The type specimen was not available for the present study as it is currently not found in the collection of MNHN and may be misplaced elsewhere (Elise-Anne Leguin, pers. comm.). I have found a male Capheris specimen in the old Arachnida collection of ADSH. The somatic features of this male specimen match with the description of C. stillata and the shape of its palp’s RTA looks also similar to that species (compare Simon 1905: fig. 3 ( Fig. 14A View FIGURE 14 ) with Figs 13H, J View FIGURE 13 , 14D View FIGURE 14 ). Moreover, the collecting locality of this male specimen is lying less than 93 kms away from the type locality of C. stillata . So, I tentatively consider this male specimen as C. stillata , which is described hereafter.
Diagnosis. Males of C. stillata are most similar to the males of Capheris approximata (Karsch, 1878) as both share long RTA with apical bifurcation and broad conductor, but can be separated from the latter species by RTA with a basal process (vs. absent in C. approximata ), conductor with distal curvature (vs. median curvature in C. approximata ) and mediolaterally originating embolus (vs. basolateral in C. approximata ) (compare Figs 13H–J View FIGURE 13 , 14C–D View FIGURE 14 with Jocqué 2009: figs 155–156).
Redescription. Male in alcohol ( Figs 13A–G View FIGURE 13 ). Body length 6.15. Carapace 3.62 long, 2.43 wide. Opisthosoma 2.53 long, 1.82 wide. Carapace, eye region, clypeus, chelicerae, labium, endites, sternum reddish brown; leg and palp segments brown with green shades; dorsal and lateral opisthosoma black with chalk-white broad patches, venter brown with chalk-white spots, black patches and striae; spinnerets brown. Fovea short, longitudinal, straight, dark. PER straight in dorsal view ( Fig. 13B View FIGURE 13 ). Clypeus high ( Fig. 13D View FIGURE 13 ). Chelicerae without teeth ( Fig. 13F View FIGURE 13 ). Sternum anterolaterally with two large indentations and laterally provided with three pairs of precoxal sclerites (II, III & IV) ( Fig. 13G View FIGURE 13 ). Tarsi II–IV provided with ventral spinules of varying numbers. Opisthosoma oval, hirsute. Eye diameters and interdistances: ALE 0.09, AME 0.12, PLE 0.11, PME 0.10; AME–ALE 0.14, AME–AME almost contiguous, ALE–ALE 0.04, ALE–PME 0.10, PME–PLE 0.16, PME–PME 0.09. Clypeus height at AMEs 0.47, at ALEs 0.74. Chelicerae 0.81 long. Sternum 1.59 long, 1.32 wide. Measurements of palp and legs: Palp 4.15 [1.67, 0.97, 0.38, 1.13], I (right) 8.04 [2.27, 0.86, 1.90, 1.78, 1.23], II 6.60 [1.88, 0.97, 1.23, 1.58, 0.94], III 6.08 [1.83, 0.92, 0.93, 1.57, 0.83], IV 8.54 [2.36, 1.00, 1.57, 2.39, 1.22]. Leg formula: 4123. Spination of palp: no spines, instead with short but thick macrosetae; legs: femur I do 2 rl 1, II–IV do 2; patellae I–II spineless, III pl 1 pld 1 rl 1, IV pl 1 pld 1 do 1 rl 1; tibia I plv 2 rlv 1, II pld 1 plv 2 rlv 2, III pld 3 plv 3 do 2 rl 2 rld 1 rlv 3, IV pld 3 plv 3 do 2 rl 2 rld 1 rlv 3; metatarsus I plv 2 rlv 3, II pl 1 pld 1 plv 1 rlv 3 vt 1, III pl 2 pld 2 plv 3 rl 1 rld 3 rlv 3 vt 1, IV pl 1 pld 3 plv 5 do 1 rl 2 rld 3 rlv 3; tarsi I–IV spineless. Palp ( Figs 13H–J View FIGURE 13 , 14B–D View FIGURE 14 ). Femur strongly developed, larger than leg femora ( Fig. 13H View FIGURE 13 ). Tibia with RTA large, flat, slightly bifid at its extremity as seen ventrally ( Figs 13H–J View FIGURE 13 , 14C–D View FIGURE 14 ), dorsal prong slightly longer than ventral one, with a basolateral triangular process ( Figs 13I–J View FIGURE 13 , 14C–D View FIGURE 14 ). Cymbium with numerous short, thick macrosetae: basodorsally with cluster of eight, prolateroapically two and prolaterally nine ( Figs 13I–J View FIGURE 13 , 14B–D View FIGURE 14 ), without cymbial fold. Subtegulum membranous ( Figs 14B–C View FIGURE 14 ). Tegulum simple, with slight posterolateral swelling ( Fig. 14C View FIGURE 14 ). Embolus narrow, originating mediolaterally to tegulum, partially covered by conductor ( Figs 13I View FIGURE 13 , 14C View FIGURE 14 ). Conductor broad, membranous, longitudinally folded, distoprolaterally originating, with distoretrolaterad curvature, directed at 2-o’ clock ventrally ( Figs 13I–J View FIGURE 13 , 14C–D View FIGURE 14 ).
Female. Unknown.
Distribution. India (Kerala (new record), Puducherry) ( Simon 1905; present data) ( Fig. 18 View FIGURE 18 ).
Justification of the transfer. This species was originally placed under Capheris ( Simon 1905) . Jocqué (2009) erroneously transferred it to Cydrela , without proper justification. This species also has diagnostic features of Capheris species including carapace without deep concavity at level of fovea, ALEs situated in front of AMEs, ALEs almost separated by their radius, straight PER, sternum shied-shaped, with precoxal sclerites, anterolaterally with deep indentations accommodating endites, and very stout palps ( Figs 13B–E, G–H View FIGURE 13 ). Based on these observations, the transfer of C. stillata is fully justified.
MNHN |
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Capheris stillata Simon, 1905
Sankaran, Pradeep M. 2023 |
Cydrela stillata
Jocque, R. 2009: 123 |
Capheris stillata
Simon, E. 1905: 171 |