Corythalia electa ( Peckham & Peckham, 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 : 72-74

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:722DB6C9-2C18-48EB-B202-7F2AFF47F49F

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781-FFD2-C11D-66AB-FAC865804F2C

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Corythalia electa ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )
status

 

Corythalia electa ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901) View in CoL

Figs 35 View FIGURE 35 A–B, 59A, 66A, 69G

Escambia electa Peckham & Peckham 1901: 336 , pl. 26, figs 11, 11a–c (description & illustration of ♂ and ♀), partim, figs 11 and fig. 11a misidentified (= C. spiralis View in CoL ), (figs 11b–c: description & illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from New Grenada, today: Colombia or Panama (less likely); G.W. & E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 655, MCZ 21175: herein designated Paralectotypes: 2 ♀ (misidentified, identified by us as C. spiralis View in CoL ; individual numbers: F-7: female with 7 legs, F-2: only 2 legs) with the same data as for lectotype, MCZ 21175; all type material examined.

Corythalia electa View in CoL — Petrunkevitch 1911: 616 (transfer from Escambia to Corythalia View in CoL ); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 191 (illustra- tion of ♂); Zhang & Maddison 2015: 44, figs 27–33, 649 (illustration of ♂ & ♀, misidentified, = most likely an undescribed Corythalia View in CoL species).

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species, except C. chalcea , by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [at most as long as width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 66A View FIGURE 66 ), if at all, minimally S-shaped, without widened section(s) at distal half and distally evenly bifurcated ( Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 66A View FIGURE 66 ); distal section of E directed prolatero-distally; embolus base (EB) circle just moderately broad (still narrower than 2/3 the width of T, Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 66A View FIGURE 66 ). Distinguished from C. chalcea by: E slightly longer (its length almost the width of T; in C. chalcea E shorter than width of T) and tip of E more clearly bifurcated; ventral tibial bump slightly larger and further prolaterally at distal section of palpal tibia.

Description. Male (lectotype): total length 6.6, carapace length 3.0, maximal carapace width 2.3, width of eye rectangle 1.7, opisthosoma length 3.1, opisthosoma width 2.1, fovea length 0.28. EYES: AME 0.55, ALE 0.34, PME 0.11, PLE 0.32, AME–AME 0.01, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.46, PME–PLE 0.29, ALE–PLE 0.69, PLE– PLE 1.19, clypeus height at AME 0.13, clypeus height at ALE 0.68. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005, II 3024, III 3134, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014 {2024}, II 2024, III 3034, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4 [0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.8], I 5.5 [1.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.5 [1.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.0, 0.6], III 6.8 [2.2, 1.0, 1.4, 1.5, 0.7], IV 6.7 [2.0, 0.9, 1.4, 1.6, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 342&1 (legs I & II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) moderately long [at most as long as width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section <1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), if at all, minimally S-shaped and distally clearly and evenly bifurcated ( Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 66A View FIGURE 66 ); embolus base (EB) circle broader than 1/2 but less than 2/3 the width of T; T narrower than cymbium ( Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 66A View FIGURE 66 ); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, clearly distinguished from remaining T-section; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia not distinctly short, slightly longer than broad ( Figs 35 View FIGURE 35 A–B, 66A, 69G) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite conspicuous, conical, distally rounded and located prolatero-distally at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, with retrolaterodistal direction and dorsally with (slight) serration ( Figs 35A View FIGURE 35 , 66A View FIGURE 66 ), in retrolateral view serration also just slightly recognisable and RTA distally converging ( Figs 35B View FIGURE 35 , 69G View FIGURE 69 ). COLOURATION (male holotype strongly bleached, especially opisthosoma, thus colouration difficult to infer): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown ( Fig. 59A View FIGURE 59 ). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) ( Fig. 59A View FIGURE 59 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, no statement possible about chevron-like patch in central band ( Fig. 59A View FIGURE 59 ).

Female: unknown.

Remarks. As mentioned above the two female paralectotypes of Escambia electa are not conspecific with the male lectotype. After the examination of C. spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901) material from a certain locality in Brazil, where males and females were found together, we were able to definitely assign a female form of Corythalia to the male C. spiralis (see also species description of C. spiralis below). The female types of E. electa correspond exactly to this form, meaning these females could be definitely identified as C. spiralis . As the latter species shows a totally different basic structure in male and female copulatory organs, it is obvious that C. electa (the male lectotype can clearly be recognised as representative of the C. waleckii species-group) and C. spiralis belong to completely different species-groups. The female paralectotypes of E. electa clearly show the basic characters that are typical for the C. opima species-group (including also C. spiralis ; characteristics of this species-group, see below under species description of C. opima ). Hence, even though it would not have been possible to definitely identify the female paralectotypes (for example: assumed, they were belonging to an undescribed species slightly different from C. spiralis and C. opima but would, anyway, clearly show the basic characters of the C. opima group), it would have been obvious for reasons of interfering character states of two different species groups in one and the same type series. The following two previous publications already would have given rise to doubts that the type series of E. electa was monotypic: Crane (1948) had examined lots of males and females of C. fulgipedia and C. chalcea , all recorded at the same locality in Venezuela. Both species belonging to the C. waleckii species-group. The males of these species are strikingly similar to C. electa . The females, however, show the basic characters typical for those of the C. waleckii species-group which are strikingly different to those of the C. opima species-group shared by the female paralectotypes of Escambia electa . Chickering (1946) was the first who described and illustrated females of C. spiralis . His illustrations of the female epigyne and vulva ( Chickering 1946, Figs 143–144) clearly show the basic characters of the C. opima species-group. The characters are also shared by the female paralectotypes of E. electa (which are meanwhile definitely identified as C. spiralis , see above). The males of C. spiralis , however, are distinctly different from the male lectotype of C. electa by having a much longer and slimmer RTA, elongated tegulum and a helical embolus with at least 1.3 windings around embolus base, which is typical for the C. opima species-group (see below).

As mentioned in the remark above C. electa is clearly assignable to the C. waleckii species-group. Consequently, it is very likely that the other species of that species-group are close relatives of C. electa . Especially C. chalcea is strikingly similar to C. electa in having a relatively narrow and only moderately long embolus, a moderately broad embolus base and a sperm duct occupying at most the retrolateral 2/3 of the tegulum with its loops. We would not exclude that C. chalcea is actually a junior synonym of C. electa . However, without further material of C. electa available we, for now, consider the very fine differences in palp morphology (see above) (that might as well could be regarded as intraspecific variation by other authors) diagnostic and thus specific. Consequently, for now, we consider C. chalcea a valid species.

Zhang & Maddison (2015: 44, Figs 27–33 View FIGURE 27 View FIGURE 28 View FIGURE 29 View FIGURE 30 View FIGURE 31 View FIGURE 32 View FIGURE 33 , 649) showed illustrations of males and females they had identified as C. electa (material originated from Ecuador). After comparison with the male lectotype of C. electa it becomes obvious that they had misidentified their material. It is highly likely that they actually dealt with a species not yet described and named. For us the male and female copulatory organs shown in their figures are not assignable to any currently described Corythalia species.

Distribution. Known from an unspecified locality in Colombia (or less likely Panama?).

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Salticidae

Genus

Corythalia

Loc

Corythalia electa ( Peckham & Peckham, 1901 )

Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko 2020
2020
Loc

Corythalia electa

Zhang, J. X. & Maddison, W. P. 2015: 44
Proszynski, J. 1976: 153
Petrunkevitch, A. 1911: 616
1911
Loc

Escambia electa

Peckham, G. W. & Peckham, E. G. 1901: 336
1901
Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF