Porrhomma macrochelis ( Emerton, 1917 )

Růžička, Vlastimil, 2018, A review of the spider genus Porrhomma (Araneae, Linyphiidae), Zootaxa 4481 (1), pp. 1-75 : 66

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.