Corythalia spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 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: 113-118

publication ID

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

publication LSID

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

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781-FFE5-C121-66AB-FE28637A48D0

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Corythalia spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901 )
status

 

Corythalia spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901)  

Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 A–E, 55A–C, 60I, 63H, 67L, 70L, 74H, 78G –H

Sidusa spiralis F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 217   , pl. 17, figs 14, 14a–e (description & illustration of ♂) partim, pl. 17, figs 14a–c misidentified (= C. opima   ), pl. 17, figs 14, 14d–e (illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from Panama: Chiriquí: Bugaba, G. C. Champion leg. between Nov. 1882 and Mar. 1883 (mostly during the dry season), Frederick Du- Cane Godmann & Osbert Salvin Collection, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 1). Paralectotypes (14 ♂, here designated): Guatemala (no further information), F. Sarg leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann & Osbert Salvin Collection: 1 ♂ (individual number M-12), NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 2a); 1 ♂ (M-13) with the same data as above, NHM 1905-4- 28 -298–307 (pt. 3); 2 ♂ (M-5, M-10) also with the same data as above, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 4a); all following 10 ♂ paralectotypes were misidentified and could, along with the present study, be identified as C. opima   : Guatemala (no further information), F. Sarg leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann & Osbert Salvin Collection: 1 ♂ (M-11), NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 2b); 8 ♂ (M-1–M-4, M-6–M-9) with the same data as above, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 4b); Mexico: Tabasco: Teapa, H. H. Smith leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann & Osbert Salvin Collection, 1 ♂, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 5); all type material examined; Banks 1909: 221 (record from Costa Rica, genus name Sidusa   misapplied).

Corythalia spiralis   — Simon 1903: 790 (transfer from Sidusa   to Corythalia   ). Petrunkevitch 1925: 212, fig. 131 (description & illustration of ♂), misidentified (= C. opima   ). Roewer 1933: 185 (record from Mexico, Vera Cruz; according to distribution area most likely misidentified = C. opima   ); Chickering 1946: 158, figs 143–144 (description & illustration of ♀); Kraus 1955: 63, figs 177–179 (description & illustration of ♂ & ♀), misidentified (= C. opima   ); Prószyński 2017: 83, figs 36S- 1–3 (illustration of ♂ after F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901, pl. 17, fig. 14b & ♀ after Chickering 1946) partim, fig. 36S-1 [male palp] misidentified (= C. opima   ), Figs 36 View FIGURE 36 S-2–3 [female epigyne & left half of vulva] (illustration of ♀).

Additional material. NEW GRENADA, today: COLOMBIA (or less likely PANAMA): 2 ♀ paralectotypes of Escambia electa   , misidentified, G.W. & E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 655 (separate vial)   , MCZ 21175 View Materials . Departamento Magdalena: Santa Marta, introduced to Basel ( Switzerland ) (with fruits?): 2 ♀, 1 juvenile, Prof. Dr Ed. Handschin deposited 1930   , NHMB 1027 View Materials a. Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta: San Pedro , 10°54’N, 74°02’45”W, about 1410 m a.s.l., forest, “jumping over the underground of the forest”: 1 ♂, C. Kugler leg. 02 Oct. 1977, sample no. #7, for- mer GoogleMaps   LNK coll. no. 0372, SMNK-ARA 14031. VENEZUELA: Amazonas: Rio Surumoni , roughly 3° N, 66° W, 120–150 m a.s.l., L2: 1 ♀, Manfred Verhaagh leg. 05 Oct. 1998, with former label type «LNK—Landessammlungen für Naturkunde, Karlsruhe» GoogleMaps   , SMNK-ARA 14032. FRENCH GUIANA: St. Laurent du Maroni: Fracas, La Trinité Nature Reserve (westernmost section), 04°36’2.16”N, 53°24’43.2”W, about 150 m, primary forest: 1 ♀, Frédéric Ysnel leg. 31 Oct. 2008 by beating shrubs & trees, sample number: FR-973-00111 GoogleMaps   , GCBUR. Cayenne: Cayenne, Montagnes des Chevaux , ca. 04°43’N, 52°25’W, 17 m a.s.l., forest: 1 ♂, Vincent Vedel leg. 09 Nov. 2010, Sample number: FR-973-00337 GoogleMaps   , GCBUR. BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus: Reserva Ducke , 02°55’12’’S, 59°58’48’’W, 1 ♀, H. Höfer GoogleMaps   & T. Gasnier leg. 30 Mar. 1992, sample number BE I/1 (arboreal funnel trap)   , SMNK-ARA 02513. Mato Grosso do Sul: Rio Pardo : 1 ♂, F.S. Cunha & C   . R. Souza leg. 22–25 May 2001   , IBSP 53388 View Materials . Santa Rita do Rio Pardo : 1 ♀   , R. Bertani & K. Kashimata leg. 24 Apr. 2001   , IBSP ex. 53255. Corumbá, Passo do Lontra, Sub-regiões Miranda e Abobral : 2 ♂, J. Raizer et al. leg. June 1998 – Nov. 1999 (Am: 187)   , IBSP 86135 View Materials . Anaurilândia : 1 ♀, F.S. Cunha & C   . R. Souza leg. 05–11 Mar. 2001   , IBSP ex. 53374. São Paulo: Porto Primavera, Usina Hidrelétrica Sérgio Motta; Equipe   IBSP leg. 2001: 1 ♂, 4 ♀   , IBSP 53142 View Materials ; 2 ♂   , IBSP 53033 View Materials   .

Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia   species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) very long [longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; beginning at arising point from embolus base (EB) E with more than 1.5 windings around EB (but less than 1.9); E in ventral view proximally at arising point at most 6x broader than in distal third ( Figs 54A View FIGURE 54 , 67L View FIGURE 67 ); RTA very long and extremely narrow (spine-like) (1.3–1.5x longer than width of T) ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 A–B, 67L). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia   species by the following characters in combination: epigyne without epigynal windows, but with a rather spiral-like or helical structure ( Figs 54C View FIGURE 54 , 55A View FIGURE 55 74H View FIGURE 74 ). Vulva with just slightly widened secondary spermathecae, anteriorly distinctly rounded and posteriorly with straight margin; primary spermathecae (PS) just slightly widened (even less than SS) and clearly elongated; vulva with elongated blind sac laterally next to PS ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H), blind sac broader and longer than PS ( Figs 54D View FIGURE 54 , 55B View FIGURE 55 , 78 View FIGURE 78 G–H) (rarely just minimally longer than PS).

Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotypes and additional males as range in parentheses): total length 5.8 (4.6–7.4), carapace length 2.7 (2.1–3.2), maximal carapace width 2.2 (1.8–2.4), width of eye rectangle 1.7 (1.4–2.1), opisthosoma length 1.6 (2.0–3.3), opisthosoma width 1.7 (1.4–2.4), fovea length 0.21 (0.20–0.25). EYES: AME 0.56 (0.45–0.59), ALE 0.32 (0.28–0.36), PME 0.08 (0.08–0.09), PLE 0.28 (0.27–0.33), AME–AME 0.03 (0.02–0.07), AME–ALE 0.05 (0.05–0.11), PME–PME 1.48 (1.32–1.65), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.23– 0.31), ALE–PLE 0.68 (0.57–0.78), PLE–PLE 1.37 (1.08–1.47), clypeus height at AME 0.22 (0.20–0.35), clypeus height at ALE 0.58 (0.54–0.78). Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth, more rarely, but also recognised 1 pro- and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINA- TION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600 (1600, 1500), II 1600 (1700, 1600, 1500), III 2600 (2600, 2700, 1600), IV 1600 (1600, 0500); patella I–II 1010 (1010, 1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 3024 (3024, 4004, 4014), II 4035 (3024, 3014, 3025), III 3134 (3133), IV 3134 (3134, 3133); metatarsus I 3124 (2124, 2024), II 2024 (2124, 2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 3144 (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.3 (1.8–2.6) [0.8 (0.8–1.0), 0.4 (0.2–0.4), 0.2 (0.1–0.3), 0.9 (0.7–1.0], I 5.5 (3.9–6.1) [1.8 (1.2–2.0), 1.0 (0.7–1.1), 1.2 (0.8–1.3), 0.9 (0.7–1.1), 0.6 (0.5–0.6)], II 5.3 (4.0–6.1) [1.8 (1.3–2.0), 0.9 (0.7–1.1), 1.2 (0.8–1.3), 0.9 (0.7–1.1), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], III 6.5 (5.0–7.0) [2.1 (1.6–2.2), 0.9 (0.7–1.0), 1.4 (1.0–1.4), 1.4 (1.1–1.6), 0.7 (0.6–0.8)], IV 6.7 (4.7–6.9) [2.2 (1.5–2.2), 0.9 (0.6–1.0), 1.3 (1.0–1.4), 1.6 (1.1–1.6), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 4312 (3421, 3412). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) very long [longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; E in ventral view proximally at arising point at most 6x broader than in distal third ( Figs 54A View FIGURE 54 , 67L View FIGURE 67 ), arising point (retrolatero-) proximally at embolus base (EB); direction of distal section of E prolatero-distally to (sometimes proximo-) prolaterally; EB in ventral view completely visible, but very small and narrow (width of EB> 1/5, <1/3 the width of T); EB located approximately centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium ( Figs 54A View FIGURE 54 , 67L View FIGURE 67 ) and more elongated than in other Corythalia   species; sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe broad (about 2/3 the width of T); cymbium in ventral view distally broad conically converging, at distalmost section broad rounded; palpal tibia short, broader than long ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 A–B, 67L, 70L) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view inconspicuous ( Figs 54A View FIGURE 54 , 67L View FIGURE 67 ); RTA in ventral view extremely narrow (spine-like) and very long (at least 1.3 x longer than width of tegulum), with retrolatero-distal to distal direction and without serration ( Figs 54A View FIGURE 54 , 67L View FIGURE 67 ), in retrolateral view exactly the same ( Figs 54B View FIGURE 54 , 70L View FIGURE 70 ). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown ( Fig. 60I View FIGURE 60 ). Legs brown to red-brown, more or less unicoloured (patellae minimally lighter), however fourth leg pair mostly lighter ( Fig. 60I View FIGURE 60 ). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band very bright, just narrow and centrally interrupted; chevron-like patch in central band thus missing; posterior band also narrow (even slightly narrower than central) and always separated/ interrupted medially ( Fig. 60I View FIGURE 60 ).

Female (measurement of female F-4 from Usina Hidrel. Sérgio Motta first, those of remaining females as range in parentheses): total length 7.5 (5.9–8.6), carapace length 3.0 (2.7–3.4), maximal carapace width 2.3 (2.0–2.5), width of eye rectangle 1.9 (1.6–2.0), opisthosoma length 3.8 (2.6–4.8), opisthosoma width 2.7 (1.9–3.2), fovea length 0.20–0.23. EYES: AME 0.60 (0.51–0.62), ALE 0.34 (0.31–0.35), PME 0.09 (0.07–0.10), PLE 0.29 (0.25– 0.30), AME–AME 0.05 (0.03–0.06), AME–ALE 0.08 (0.05–0.08), PME–PME 1.63 (1.47–1.69), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.25–0.30), ALE–PLE 0.76 (0.67–0.78), PLE–PLE 1.48 (1.33–1.55), clypeus height at AME 0.28 (0.22–0.35), clypeus height at ALE 0.63 (0.54–0.69). Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth or more rarely 1 pro- and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1700 {1500} (1500), II 1600 (1600), III 1600 {2600} (1600, 1500), IV 0600 (0500, 0600, 1500); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 3008{2004} (3005, 3004, 3025), II 3025{3015} (3005, 3004), III 3134 (3133, 2133), IV 3144 (3133); metatarsus I 2028 {2024} (2024), II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134, 3144), IV 3144 (4143, 4044). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.6 (2.1–2.8) [0.9 (0.8–0.9), 0.5 (0.3–0.5), 0.4 (0.3–0.4), 0.8 (0.7–0.8)], I 4.9 (4.2–5.2) [1.6 (1.3–1.8), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 1.0 (0.8–1.1), 0.8 (0.7–0.9), 0.6 (0.4–0.6)], II 4.7 (4.2–5.0) [1.6 (1.3–1.6), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 0.8 (0.7–0.9), 0.5 (0.4–0.5)], III 5.9 (4.9–6.4) [1.9 (1.7–2.0), 1.0 (0.8–1.1), 1.1 (0.9–1.3), 1.2 (1.0–1.3), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)], IV 6.1 (5.2–6.7) [2.0 (1.7–2.1), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 1.2 (1.1–1.4), 1.3 (1.1–1.5), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne without epigynal windows but with helical or spiral-like structure on each side (of imaginal longitudinal axis of body) with copulatory opening centrally ( Figs 54C View FIGURE 54 , 55A View FIGURE 55 , 74H View FIGURE 74 ); posterior margin of helical structure not reaching epigastric furrow; anterior sections of secondary spermathecae (SS) visible through cuticle of epigyne, anterior of each helical structure; epigynal field broader than long ( Figs 54C View FIGURE 54 , 55A View FIGURE 55 , 74H View FIGURE 74 ). Vulva with widened SS (but not distinctly) with rounded anterior margin and straight posterior margin; heads of spermathecae very small, flat and inconspicuous (but generally recognisable) and located antero-laterally or centro-laterally on SS ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 D–E, 78G–H); primary spermathecae (PS) narrow [just slightly broader than copulatory duct (CD) or connective duct (DST) between SS and PS] and distinctly elongated, sometimes curved; DST quite long (about 2x as long as PS), not distinctly narrow and meeting PS and blind sac (BS) from posterior; CD moderately long, running anteriorly and meeting SS postero-laterally ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H); fertilisation ducts (very) narrow, arising antero-centrally (at tip) on PS, bent laterally ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H); BS located lateral (but not directly) to PS; BS longer (rarely just minimally longer) and broader than PS and generally reaching further anteriorly than PS ( Figs 54 View FIGURE 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown ( Fig. 63H View FIGURE 63 ). Legs brown to red-brown, unicoloured ( Fig. 63H View FIGURE 63 ), third and fourth leg pair rarely slightly lighter than anterior two leg pairs. Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, central transversal band very bright, just moderately broad (mostly narrower than in C. opima   ) and centrally mostly interrupted (if not interrupted, with extremly narrow section medially, connecting the two broader sections “approaching” fom lateral); chevron-like patch in central band missing ( Fig. 63H View FIGURE 63 ); posterior band similarly narrow or narrower than central band and always separated/ interrupted medially ( Fig. 63H View FIGURE 63 ).

Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Some males with distal section of embolus (E) directed prolaterally (or even proximo-prolaterally); number of windings around EB varying from 1.55 to 1.8. Intraspecific variation in females quite conspicuous: Helical structure of epigyne with slightly less windings in some specimens ( Fig. 55A View FIGURE 55 ) than in others ( Figs 54C View FIGURE 54 , 74H View FIGURE 74 ); gap between posterior margin of helical structure and epigastric furrow slightly longer in some specimens ( Figs 55A View FIGURE 55 , 74H View FIGURE 74 ) than in others ( Fig. 54C View FIGURE 54 ); rounded anterior margins of secondary spermathecae (SS) visible through cuticle of epigyne not reaching as far anterior in some females ( Fig. 74H View FIGURE 74 ) than in others ( Figs 54C View FIGURE 54 , 55A View FIGURE 55 ); epigynal field less distinct in some specimens ( Fig. 74H View FIGURE 74 ) than in others ( Figs 54C View FIGURE 54 , 55A View FIGURE 55 ). Primary spermathecae (PS) sometimes curved centrally ( Figs 54D View FIGURE 54 , 78H View FIGURE 78 ) or proximally; position of heads of spermathecae (HS) varying, sometimes latero-distally ( Fig. 54D View FIGURE 54 ), sometimes centro-laterally ( Fig. 78G View FIGURE 78 ) or rarely HS thus small that not even recognisable ( Fig. 55B View FIGURE 55 ); blind sac of right half of vulva reaching distinctly further anteriorly than left in some specimens ( Figs 78 View FIGURE 78 G–H), in others vice versa ( Fig. 55B View FIGURE 55 ); in some females distal parts of PS slightly bent laterally ( Fig. 55B View FIGURE 55 ).

Remarks. Conspecificity of the females presented in the present study with the male lectotype of Corythalia   (originally sub Sidusa   ) spiralis   is certain. That material was available from localities where males corresponding to the lectotype were collected together with females here presented as C. spiralis   (see above). But also Chickering (1946) correctly identified C. spiralis   and examined material from Panama where both females and males were available from exactly the same locality. Thus he was the first to describe the female of C. spiralis   . In this context an irregularity should be addressed: Chickering (1946, p. 158, second paragraph from bottom and 162, second para- graph) lists one of these females as “ allotype ” and others as “ paratypes ”. These “type designations” are, of course, void according to the ICZN as this material does not belong to the material examined along with the first description by F.O. Pickard-Cambridge (1901). The material examined by Chickering (even though being of great importance) does not at all have type status.

Corythalia spiralis   is very similar to C. opima   . The main similarities between these two species are listed above (under remarks in the species description of C. opima   ). A lot of misidentifications of C. spiralis   as C. opima   (see above) were certainly the consequence of this great similarity. Hence, these two species are certainly closely related and might be united as representatives of the C. opima   species-group.

Distribution. Guatemala to Brazil.

NEW

University of Newcastle

MCZ

Museum of Comparative Zoology

LNK

Landessammlungen fuer Naturkunde

T

Tavera, Department of Geology and Geophysics

R

Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Chile

IBSP

Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Salticidae

Genus

Corythalia

Loc

Corythalia spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901 )

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

Sidusa spiralis F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 217

Banks, N. 1909: 221
Pickard-Cambridge, F. O. 1901: 217
1901