Corythalia sellata Simon, 1901

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko, 2020, Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini), Zootaxa 4806 (1), pp. 1-144 : 59-61

Corythalia sellata Simon, 1901 , stat. nov.

Figs 29 A–B

Corythalia sellata Simon 1901: 649 , plate with figs 768–777, I & J, which is equivalent to figs 776–777 (illustration of ♂; description missing!), either there was no type kept, as in the arachnid collection of the MNHN no specimen of this species exists (C. Rollard, pers. comm.) or Simon borrowed the specimen from another collection and returned it without any indication that it was a type; thus type not existing or not traceable anymore; Petrunkevitch 1911: 618; Lutz 1915: 104; Roewer 1954b: 1104 (listing with confused page numbers); Bonnet 1956: 1239 (establishment under status nomen nudum, here rejected); Platnick 2001 (nomen nudum); World Spider Catalog (2020) (nomen nudum).

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the (slightly) S-shaped embolus (E), the embolus base (EB) located centrally at the distal section of tegulum (T), meaning EB not reaching the prolateral margin of tegulum and RTA with distinct dorsal serration ( Fig. 29A ; as reproduction of Simon (1901: fig. 777).

Description. Male: spination of legs: according to the illustration in Simon (1901, Fig. 776, here reproduced in Fig. 29B ), leg III would not exhibit any spines on patella, 8 short spines were laterally on tibia (in Simon (1901: fig. 776) not mentioned if retro- or prolateral view of leg III; spines arranged very close to each other) and 2 long spines laterally on metatarsus. However, it should be considered that Simon might have overseen spines or misinterpreted structures as the material he had once examined might have been in bad condition.

Female: unknown.

Remarks. (A) The World Spider Catalog (2020) lists this species as a nomen nudum, which probably goes back to the respective assessment of this species in Bonnet (1956). However, this is not correct (or nowadays not longer correct) for the following reasons: the only information on this species is based on two illustrations in Simon (1901, Figs 776–777), reproduced herein ( Figs 29 A–B). Assignment of this species to Corythalia as defined herein is highly probable. The palp shows characters that are in concordance with the basic features for Corythalia . The male’s third leg was illustrated from patella on and clearly showed that tibia and metatarsus were covered with long and densely arranged fringe hairs, which is typical for Corythalia males. According to Article § 12.2.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) scientific names proposed before 1931 can be made available without a description in words if there is an ‘indication’. Such an indication can be—among other things—(an) illustration(s) of the taxon being named, which is the case here. Consequently, C. sellata Simon, 1901 is considered an available species name and, moreover, a valid species (species diagnosis according to the illustration of the male palp in Simon [1901] is possible, see above).

(B) The World Spider Catalog (2020) currently lists this species name with the incorrect year ‘1903’ as publication date for the first description: this listing goes back to an erroneous indication in the spider catalog of Roewer (1954a, b) on which (among others) the World Spider Catalog is based. Roewer (1954b, page 1104) erroneously confounded the figure numbers with the page number(s), but did not list this species name as a nomen nudum. The correct page number is 649, not 776 & 777. Simon’s work “Histoire Naturelle des Araignees” is an extensive study dealing with all spider families and was published in many parts with different publication dates. Platnick (2001), who established the online resource “World Spider Catalog” must have recognised that in Roewer (1954b) the page numbers 776 & 777 were listed and thus changed the publication date for the species C. sellata to 1903. If the page numbers were true, the treatment (in this case the illustrations) of C. sellata would indeed have belonged to the part which was published in 1903 ( Simon 1903; in the World Spider Catalog (2020) sub Simon 1903 a) (where other genera of Salticidae were treated, but not Corythalia !). However, as mentioned above, the page numbers in Roewer (1954b) are based on a confusion. Apparently Platnick (2001) listed C. sellata as nomen nudum because of the listing in the spider catalog of Bonnet (1956, p. 1239). This catalog is also widely distributed and very often cited and therein C. sellata is definitely listed as nomen nudum.

(C) Actually, for C. sellata a designation of a neotype would be highly desirable as it is virtually impossible to trace the specimen Simon (1901) once had examined—if it still exists, which is rather unlikely. However, the un- clear locality (see below) of the specimen examined by Simon (1901) and thus the unclear distributional information in general certainly complicate such a designation.

(D) The leg spination (see description above)—if correctly observed by Simon, which is highly question-able—would be different from all other Corythalia species examined herein. Some of the 8 lateral spines on tibia might have been artificially observed as they were possibly confused with bunches of fringe hairs or supposed under fringe hairs, but were actually not present. The spines on dorsal and ventral surfaces were either completely missing (overseen by Simon? Or indeed absent?) or (for Simon) indistinguishable from the long fringe hairs on tibia & metatarsus. Additionally, it is unclear if Simon examined this (these) male specimen(s) at his laboratory in Paris. It is also possible, that he was somewhere abroad and did not have access to good optical equipment. These aspects leave great doubts if Simon correctly characterised the spination of leg III.

(E) Assumed that the illustration of the male palp in Simon (1901) (reproduced in Fig. 29A ) is reliable, C. sellata is similar to the species of the C. waleckii species group ( C. waleckii , C. electa , C. metallica , C. fulgipedia , C. foelixi Bayer , sp. nov. and others) (see below) according to the elongated, strong, (at least slightly) S-shaped embolus and the basic shape of tegulum and of RTA. Consequently, it is possible that C. sellata is closely related to these species.

Distribution. As Simon (1901) did not mention any dates about collectors or locality of the material he once had examined and also did not provide distributional information on C. sellata , it is hardly possible to infer a possible distribution area. Petrunkevitch (1911) stated Antilles as distribution area, however, this information is not confident! Lutz (1915) doubted this statement as he supposed that Petrunkevitch listed this locality just because in Simon (1901) C. sellata was listed close to Corythalia [originally sub Habrocestum ] locuples and C. major , both reported from Hispaniola. But Lutz (1915) did not know about any registered and reliable records of C. sellata from the Antilles, which are, in fact, absent until today.

Figures

FIGURE 29. Corythalia sellata, unknown locality. A right palp, digitally mirrored, ventral view; B leg III (left, retrolateral view?). Both illustrations reproduced from Simon (1901).