Raveniola pontica ( Spassky, 1937 )

Zonstein, Sergei, Kunt, Kadir B. & Yağmur, Ersen A., 2018, A revision of the spider genus Raveniola (Araneae, Nemesiidae). I. Species from Western Asia, European Journal of Taxonomy 399, pp. 1-93 : 15-18

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2018.399
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E836E138-D6E2-4F62-B4B3-CE2E073F2B24
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5980283
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B9B44C-5679-0C36-5177-80A3FCC14DE8
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Raveniola pontica ( Spassky, 1937 )
status

Treatment

Raveniola pontica ( Spassky, 1937) View in CoL

Figs 3–5 View Figs 1–6 , 10 View Figs 7–12 , 15 View Figs 13–18 , 26 View Figs 25–30 , 48–49 View Figs43–51 , 59–60 View Figs 59–67 , 71 View Figs 68–73 , 87 View Figs 84–89 , 105 View Figs 102–116 , 120 View Figs 117–128 , 132 View Figs129–132 , 152 View Figs 149–152 , 178–179 View Figs 171–179 , 202 View Figs 198–203 , 219 View Figure 219

Brachythele pontica Spassky, 1937: 368 (♀).

Brachythele pontica – Spassky & Minenkova 1940: 140. — Roewer 1942: 196. — Bonnet 1955: 912. — Zonstein 1985: 159.

Raveniola pontica View in CoL – Zonstein 1987: 1015 — Platnick 1989: 90. — Mikhailov 1997: 20. — Ponomarev & Chumachenko 2007: 157. — Ponomarev & Mikhailov 2007: 130. — Kovblyuk & Ponomarev 2008: 151, figs 36–40 (♂). — Ponomarev 2009: 144. — Kovblyuk et al. 2011: 37. — Ponomarev et al. 2012: 470.

Diagnosis

This species differs from other members of the same group by having a longer embolus with a rounded subapical keel ( Figs 178–179 View Figs 171–179 ; cf. Figs 171–177 View Figs 171–179 ) and by possessing long and moderately wide spermathecae, with median and lateral receptacles located close to each other ( Fig. 202 View Figs 198–203 ; cf. Figs 198– 201, 203 View Figs 198–203 ).

Material examined

Lectotype (designated by Zonstein 1985: 159) RUSSIA: ♀, Khosta (10 km SSE of Sochi), 43°31′ N, 39°53′ E, Aug. 1928, S.A. Spassky and N. Spasskaya leg. ( ZISP). GoogleMaps

Additional material (130 ♂♂, 14 ♀♀, 2 juvs)

GEORGIA / ABKHAZIA: 1 ♀, 2 juvs, Gagry, 1–16 June 1916, D.M. Fedotov leg. ( ZMPU); 1 ♂, same locality, no other data ( MNHN 17887 ); 3 ♂♂, Myussera , 43°09′ N, 40°28′ E, 50–100 m, 5–16 Jul. 1985, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 3 ♂♂, Odishi , 43°05′ N, 41°05′ E, 500–900 m, 23 Aug.–17 Sep. 1988, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 9 ♂♂, 1 ♀, Tsebelda , 43°01′ N, 41°17′ E, 450–500 m, 20 Jun.–1 Jul. 1990, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU). GoogleMaps

RUSSIA: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Lazarevskoe, 65 km NE of Sochi , 43°55′ N, 39°21′ E, 20 May–23 Jun. 1984, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 5 ♂♂, same collection data as preceding, 10 Aug.–6 Sep. 1984 ( TAU); GoogleMaps 6 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀, same collection data as preceding, 20 May–5 Jun. 1990, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 26 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀, Kalezh , 44°00′ N, 39°20′ E, 150–400 m, Jun.–Aug. 1984, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 2 ♂♂, Solokh-Aul , 43°47′ N, 39°40′ E, 300–400 m, 6–8 Aug. 1984, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 6 ♂♂, Sochi, 25 Jul.–5 Sep. 1986, Y.V. Zaets leg. ( TAU); 1 ♂, Mt Fisht , 43°58′ N, 39°55′ E, 1800 m, 7 Aug. 1988, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 31 ♂♂, 4 ♀♀, Mt Pseashkho, Pslukh Gorge , 43°43′ N, 40°25′ E, 1200–1700 m, Jun.–Jul. 1988, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 8 ♂♂, Mamedia Gorge , 43°50′ N, 39°20′ E, 200–300 m, 23 Aug.–30 Sep. 1988, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU); GoogleMaps 28 ♂♂, Psezuapse River valley , 5–15 km E of Lazarevskoe, 100–500 m, 1–25 Sep. 1988, A.G. Koval leg. ( TAU).

Description

Male (from Lazarevskoe)

HABITUS. See Fig. 48. View Figs43–51

MEASUREMENTS. TBL 13.10, CL 5.51, CW 4.78, LL 0.40, LW 0.85, SL 2.48, SW 2.37.

COLOUR. Carapace brownish rufous; eye tubercle with dark brown central and two symmetric lateral spots surrounding AMEs and lateral eyes, respectively; chelicerae and whole leg I intensive reddish brown; palps and legs II–IV brownish rufous; sternum, labium and maxillae light yellowish rufous; abdomen dorsally light greyish brown, with brown pattern represented by median lanceolate spot fused and crossed with few transverse fasciae, and with numerous small lighter spots on darker background; spinnerets and ventral surface of abdomen light yellowish grey.

PROSOMA. Carapace and chelicerae as shown in Fig. 71 View Figs 68–73 . Clypeus and eye group as in Fig. 105 View Figs 102–116 . Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.15(0.19), ALE 0.23, PLE 0.15, PME 0.15, AME–AME 0.10(0.06), ALE–AME 0.08(0.06), ALE–PLE 0.05, PLE–PME 0.03, PME–PME 0.35. Each cheliceral furrow with 10 promarginal teeth and 7–8 mesobasal denticles. Maxillae with 7–8 cuspules each.

LEGS. Tibia and metatarsus I as shown in Fig. 132 View Figs129–132 . Scopula (thinner than in other congeners except for R. micropa ): distal on metatarsi I–II, entire on tarsus I; divided by setae on tarsus II; only few scopuliform hairs on tarsi III–IV. Trichobothria: 2 rows of 10–11 each on tibiae, 11–13 on metatarsi, 11–14 on tarsi, 8–9 on cymbium. Paired claws: inner and outer margins with 7–8 teeth each on tarsi I–II, with 6–7 teeth each on tarsi III–IV.

SPINATION. Palp: femur d1–1–1, pd1; tibia d1–1, p1–1–1, r1, pv1–1–1, r1, v1–1; cymbium d6(7). Leg I: femur d1–1–1–1, pd1; tibia p1–1, pv1(0), rv1(0)–1-m–m. Leg II: femur d1–1–1–1, pd1–1–1; patella p1; tibia p1–1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus p1, v2–2–2(3). Leg III: femur d1–1–1–1, pd1–1–1, rd1(0)–1(0)–1; patella p1–1, r1; tibia d1–1, p1–1, r1–1, v2–2–2(3); metatarsus d1–1–1, p1–1–1, r1–1–1, v2–2–3. Leg IV: femur d1–1–1–1, pd1–0–1, rd1–1; patella p1, r1; tibia d1–1, p1–1–1, r1–1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus d1–1–1–1, p1–1–1, r1–1–1, v2–1–2–3. Metatarsus I and patella I aspinose.

PALP. Tibia, cymbium and palpal organ as shown in Fig. 152 View Figs 149–152 . Surface of bulb with numerous shallow wrinkles ( Fig. 4 View Figs 1–6 ). Unlike in other members of same group, entire embolus relatively long, but its apical part between keel and tip apex very short and narrow ( Figs 178–179 View Figs 171–179 ).

SPINNERETS. PMS: length 0.45; diameter 0.27. PLS: maximal diameter 0.40; length of basal, medial and apical segments 0.63, 0.36, 0.48; total length 1.47; apical segment shortly digitiform.

LEG MEASUREMENTS. ♂(♀).

	Femur	Patella	Tibia	Metatarsus	Tarsus	Total
Palp	2.85 (2.65)	1.70 (1.60)	2.28 (1.87)	–	1.12 (1.72)	7.95 (7.84)
Leg I	4.57 (3.57)	2.78 (2.28)	3.65 (2.77)	3.73 (2.13)	2.35 (1.65)	17.08 (12.40)
Leg II	3.98 (3.23)	2.37 (2.05)	3.18 (2.37)	3.23 (2.15)	2.07 (1.70)	14.83 (11.50)
Leg III	3.47 (3.10)	2.05 (1.88)	2.77 (2.15)	3.55 (2.67)	2.10 (1.75)	13.94 (11.55)
Leg IV	4.48 (3.80)	2.30 (2.12)	3.60 (3.27)	5.12 (4.17)	2.37 (2.07)	17.87 (15.43)

Female (from Lazarevskoe)

HABITUS. See Fig. 49. View Figs43–51

MEASUREMENTS. TBL 16.15, CL 5.05, CW 4.35, LL 0.44, LW 1.05, SL 2.33, SW 2.35.

COLOUR. As in male.

PROSOMA. Carapace and chelicerae as shown in Fig. 87 View Figs 84–89 . Clypeus and eye group as in Fig. 120 View Figs 117–128 . Eye diameters and interdistances: AME 0.14(0.17), ALE 0.25, PLE 0.13, PME 0.13, AME–AME 0.10(0.07), ALE–AME 0.07(0.06), ALE–PLE 0.06, PLE–PME 0.03, PME–PME 0.38. Each cheliceral furrow with 9 promarginal teeth and 5–6 mesobasal denticles. Maxillae with 7–8 cuspules each.

LEGS. Scopula: distal on metatarsi I–II, divided on tarsus I and palpal tarsus, widely divided on tarsus II, elsewhere absent. Trichobothria: 2 rows of 8–9 each on tibiae, 10–14 on metatarsi, 11–12 on tarsi, 9 on palpal tarsus. Paired claws: outer and inner margins with 5–7 teeth each. Palpal claw with 4 teeth on inner margin.

SPINATION. All femora with one basodorsal spine and 2–3 dorsal bristles; palpal patella and patellae I–II aspinose. Palp: femur d1, pd1; tibia p1–1, v2–1–3; tarsus d5(6). Leg I: femur d1, pd1; tibia p1–1, v2–2–2; metatarsus v2–2–2. Leg II: femur d1, pd1; tibia p1–1, v2–2–2; metatarsus p1, v2–2–2. Leg III: femur d1, pd1, rd1–1; patella p1, r1; tibia d1, p1–1, r1–1, v2–2–3; metatarsus d1–1, p1–1–1, r1–1– 1–1, v2–2–3. Leg IV: femur d1, rd1; patella p1, r1; tibia d1, p1–1, r1–1, v2–2–2(3); metatarsus d1–1, p1–1–1–1, r1–1–1–1–1, v2–2–2–3.

SPERMATHECAE. Moderately long and wide, with receptacles close set to each other ( Fig. 202 View Figs 198–203 ).

SPINNERETS. PMS: length 0.44; diameter 0.27. PLS: maximal diameter 0.48; length of basal, medial and apical segments 0.85, 0.35, 0.38; total length 1.58; apical segment shortly digitiform.

Variation

Carapace length in males varies from 4.40 to 5.75, in females from 4.35 to 5.93 mm. In some specimens the distal abdominal pattern is almost indiscernible. The copulative organs of both sexes do not show any significant variation.

Ecology

Judging from sample data and collecting localities, R. pontica is a very common spider species which occurs in different types of subcoastal and montane broad-leaved forests (see Figs 225–227 View Figs 223–229 ). At the upper limit of their distribution (1800 m), the spiders have been found inhabiting subalpine meadows above the mid-mountain forest zone. The relatively rarely sampled females are believed to hide in cavities under stones, logs, trunks of fallen trees, etc., whereas the vagrant males have been collected mostly in pitfall traps.

Distribution

The currently known area inhabited by this species is shown in Fig. 219 View Figure 219 . It includes Abkhazia and the far south of Russia, i.e., the Black Sea coast and the adjacent NW-Caucasus area from Bolshoy Utrish Cape in the north-west (44°45′ N, 37°24′ E) to the surroundings of Sokhumi (Sukhum) (43°00′ N, 41°00′ E) in the south and Maykop (43°31′ N, 39°52′ E) in the east (according to Ponomarev & Chumachenko 2007; Ponomarev & Mikhailov 2007; Kovblyuk & Ponomarev 2008 and the aforementioned label data). When describing this species, Spassky (1937) also mentioned a female that had been collected at Batumi. However, this record in fact refers to R. adjarica sp. nov. (see below).

Remarks

Although males of Raveniola pontica and R. adjarica sp. nov. are well distinguishable from each other, the conspecific females could not be identified as belonging to either of these species without dissecting and examining the vulvae. This may explain why Spassky assigned both females at his disposal to the same species. It is much more difficult to understand, however, why both spiders collected from quite different localities were placed in the same vial. In addition, both females are of approximately equal size! As the material had been desiccated at least once and then macerated, the identification of these specimens has become problematic. Some time was devoted to understanding which of them was collected at Khosta and which at Batumi. Since the Khosta specimen was mentioned first and its characters were found to correspond better to the original description, it was designated as the lectotype ( Zonstein 1985; erroneously called the “holotype”).