Rothaeina beaudini Bennett, 2023

Bennett, Robb, Copley, Claudia & Copley, Darren, 2023, Revision of the western Nearctic spider genus Cybaeina including the description of Neocybaeina gen. nov. and Rothaeina gen. nov. (Araneae: Cybaeidae: Cybaeinae), Zootaxa 5318 (1), pp. 97-129 : 116-118

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5318.1.5

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:161E8842-5DB1-40CA-A4B7-2287462D86E1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8169896

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BF87AB-E43A-0702-09BE-F17361C8FCF0

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Rothaeina beaudini Bennett
status

sp. nov.

Rothaeina beaudini Bennett spec. nov.

Figs 66–69 View FIGURES 66–69 , 85 View FIGURES 84–86

Type material. U.S.A.: California: Holotype female. Tehama County, near junction south of Lassen Volcanic National Park , 19.ix.1961, W. Ivie & W.J. Gertsch ( AMNH) . Paratypes. Butte , 1♀, 3.3 mi. from junction of Humbug & Understock Roads, 5.v.1966, Dokes ( CAS) ; Plumas , 1♀, 9.2 mi. NE of Bucks Lake, 4.ix.1988, D. Ubick ( CAS) ; 7♀, S side of Lake Almanor , 5.ix.1959, V.D. Roth & W.J. Gertsch ( AMNH) ; Shasta , 1♀, 5 mi. N of Manzanita Lake, 19.ix.1961, W. Ivie & W.J. Gertsch ( AMNH) ; 3♀, Delta, N end of Shasta Lake , 3.ix.1959, W.J. Gertsch & V.D. Roth ( AMNH) ; 4♀, Emigrant Ford Rd. , 4 mi. S of Old Station, 4.ix.1959, V.D. Roth & W.J. Gertsch ( AMNH) ; Tehama, 1♀, Hwy 89, 3.5 mi. S of Lassen Volcanic National Park, 8.viii.1968, F.O. Leech ( UASM) ; 5♀, nr. junction S of Lassen Volcanic National Park , 19.ix.1961, W. Ivie & W.J. Gertsch ( AMNH) ;

Etymology. The specific name is a patronym honouring Beaudin A. Bennett who was born in January 1985 at the beginning of the first author’s study of Nearctic Cybaeinae.

Diagnosis. As is common among females of other Cybaeinae as well as other supraspecific taxa of spiders ( Bennett 2006), intraspecific variability and interspecific similarity of genitalic morphology characters can render the females of Rothaeina gen. nov. difficult to distinguish from each other. In some cases, collection with accompanying males, or geographic locality, may provide the best indication of species identification of females.

The male of R. beaudini spec. nov. is unknown; the female can usually be distinguished from its congeners by a combination of epigynal, atrial, and spermathecal characters. The atrium ( Fig. 66 View FIGURES 66–69 ) is usually small but prominent and U-shaped and, although various components of the vulval ducts are visible through the integument of the uncleared epigyne, none appear decidedly ring-shaped. The vulva ( Figs 67–69 View FIGURES 66–69 ) is relatively narrow with width (measured at widest extent of spermathecae) usually less than 3.5 times atrial height (measured from epigastric groove to atrium). Additionally, in the vulva the path of the copulatory and spermathecal ducts is relatively easily to trace from the atrium to the fertilization ducts and the medial transverse section of the spermathecae is inconspicuous in dorsal view.

In the females of the other species of Rothaeina gen. nov., the atrium is usually small but inconspicuous and never U-shaped ( Figs 70, 73 View FIGURES 70–74 , 75 View FIGURES 75–79 , 80 View FIGURES 80–83 ). Furthermore, the females of R petersoni spec. nov. and R. sequoia comb. nov. are unique among the females of Rothaeina gen. nov. in having the posterior-most spermathecal ducts clearly visible through the integument of the uncleared epigyne as circular, ring-like structures ( Figs 75 View FIGURES 75–79 , 80 View FIGURES 80–83 ) and the vulva is relatively broad (vulval width usually 4–5 times atrial height) ( Figs 77–79 View FIGURES 75–79 , 81–83 View FIGURES 80–83 ). Finally, in the females of the remaining two species ( R. jamesi spec. nov. and R. mackinleyi spec. nov.), the vulval ducts ( Figs 72, 74 View FIGURES 70–74 ) are more complex with the path from the atrium to the fertilization ducts difficult to trace and, in dorsal view, the medial transverse section of each spermatheca is prominent and conspicuous.

Description. As in diagnosis and description of the genus. Additional descriptive characters presented here. Abdomen pale or gray, lightly patterned.

Male: Unknown.

Female: (n=24). Epigyne ( Fig. 66 View FIGURES 66–69 ) with single, anteromedial atrium; atrium occasionally reduced or apparently absent. Vulva ( Figs 67–69 View FIGURES 66–69 ) with copulatory ducts separated at atrium; spermathecal ducts not as convoluted as in other species; Bennett’s glands within medial third of spermathecal ducts.

Measurements (n=20). CL 1.95–2.45 (2.26+0.15), CW 1.48–1.90 (1.73+0.11), SL 1.09–1.33 (1.23+0.07), SW 1.03–1.24 (1.14+0.06). Holotype CL 2.25, CW 1.73, SL 1.24, SW 1.17.

Note: Two species may be represented here. Specimens from the northwestern part of the distribution around Shasta Lake have more heavily pigmented abdomens and somewhat more complex spermathecal ducts ( Fig. 67 View FIGURES 66–69 ) than specimens from southeast of Shasta Lake ( Figs 68–69 View FIGURES 66–69 ). Because the male of R. beaudini spec. nov. is unknown and the vulval and atrial characters of females tend to be variable even within populations, all these specimens are here considered to be members of R. beaudini spec. nov.

Distribution and natural history. ( Fig. 85 View FIGURES 84–86 ). Rothaeina beaudini spec. nov. is endemic to north central and northeastern California, U.S.A., from the Shasta Lake area southeast to the northern Sierra Nevada. Within that area, females appear to have been relatively common in the 1950s and 1960s but only a single specimen has been recorded since the 1960s (in 1988) and the conservation status of this taxon is currently unknown.

AMNH

American Museum of Natural History

CAS

California Academy of Sciences

UASM

University of Alberta, E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Cybaeidae

Genus

Rothaeina

GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF