Diphya macrophthalma Nicolet, 1849
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1590/1678-4766e2017036 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ED8781-0F4C-FFE1-FED6-FC22FBDFF864 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Diphya macrophthalma Nicolet, 1849 |
status |
|
Diphya macrophthalma Nicolet, 1849 View in CoL
( Figs 1‒30, 33‒35 View Figs 1‒8 View Figs 9‒15 View Figs 16‒24 View Figs 25‒35 )
Diphya macrophthalma NICOLET, 1849:406 View in CoL (♀); SIMON, 1889:217; 1894:744;
TANIKAWA, 1995:106, f.17 (♀). Syntype ♀ examined after photographs provided by A.Tanikawa (for specimen details see TANIKAWA, 1995:106). Diphya crassipes NICOLET, 1849:406 View in CoL (♀). Diphya brevipes NICOLET, 1849:407 View in CoL (♂, ♀). Diphya longipes NICOLET, 1849:407 View in CoL (♂).
Material examined. CHILE: Los Rios Region, Osorno: ♂, N. P. PUyehUe, AnticUra Sector, ca. 40°39’13”S 72°15’45”W, edge of Nothofagus forest, anthropogenic meadow, 10.01.2014 (K. Eskov, R. Rakitov). Los Lagos Region: Llanquihue: ♀, N. P. Alerce Andino, boggy Phigerodendron forest, in Sphagnum , 5- 11.01.2014 (K. Eskov); Chiloé: 2♂, ♀, Chiloé Isl., Senda Darwin Biol. Station , boggy Baccharis matorral, in moss and sweeping, 30.01‒ 7.02.2014 ( R. Rakitov); ♀, same locality, dates and collector, Nothofagus-Podocarpus forest , in Sphagnum GoogleMaps .
Note. In the first half of 19th centUry two provinces, Osorno and Llanquihue, now belonging to different administrative regions were considered as parts of Valdivia Province, and therefore two of six specimens treated here were collected in “terra typica” and four other were collected in neighboring Chiloé Province.
Diagnosis. Male of D. macrophthalma well differs from other species occurring in southern South America by having straight tibial apophysis (bent in other species). Females of D. macrophthalma can be distinguished by lack of septum, longitudinal fovea and rectangular median plate (vs. septum present, fovea transversal if present, and round or inverted trapezoidal median plate (cf. TANIKAWA, 1995, figs 18, 20‒22).
Description. Male. Total length 2.75, carapace 1.38 long, 1.10 wide. Carapace yellowish with white median band and brownish sides of thoracic part ( Fig. 6 View Figs 1‒8 ). Eyes surrounded with wide black rings. Eyes very large except AME ( Figs 5‒6 View Figs 1‒8 ), which are aboUt 2 times smaller than others; black rings around AME and ALE touching each other, lateral eyes spaced by more that 1 diameter, posterior eye row wider than anterior one; PME spaced by less than 1 diameter. Clypeus yellow about 1.5 of AME diameter or 1 diameter of ALE. Chelicerae brown, darker near fangs, with 3 prolateral and 4 retrolateral teeth. Sternum brown with dark brown margins; labiUm and maxillae dark brown. Femora brown withoUt spots. Tibiae and metatarsi with grayish spots at top and middle part. Tibia-tarsi of legs I and II with row of stiff inflexible setae forming catching basket. Legs siZe, nUmber and position of macrosetae shown in Tabs I, II. Abdomen whitish, dorsum with folium composed by bright white spots and stripes and dark stripes and bands. Lateral sides of abdomen black with white longitudinal stripes near dorsum. Ventral side of abdomen yellowish with gray longitudinal band. Epigastrum with about 2 dozens of epiandrous fusules ( Fig. 34 View Figs 25‒35 ). Colulus with few setae ( Fig. 35 View Figs 25‒35 ).
Palp as in Figs 9‒15 View Figs 9‒15 , 16‒21 View Figs 16‒24 . FemUr as long as patella and tibia, about 4 times longer than wide; patella cylindrical, with long dorsal macrosetae about 2 times longer than patella; tibia subconical with wider distal part, with long cylindrical dorso-retrolateral apophysis (Da); distal part of tibia with 4 long macrosetae; cymbium with prolateral hollow (rounded cUt off) ( Figs 12 View Figs 9‒15 , 16 View Figs 16‒24 ); paracymbiUm complex with bilobate ventral part (Pv) and spine like dorsal part (Pd); ventral lobe of ventral part larger dorsal and bears five macrosetae; bUlb oval in lateral view; tegulum (Tg) ribbon like; conductor (Co) lamellar twisted aroUnd axis together with embolUs, embolus proper (Em) with wide accompanying membrane (Am) heavily sclerotized ventrally (Ev).
Female. Total length 4.28, carapace 1.8 long, 1.35 wide. Carapace like in male. Sternum brown with dark brown margins ( Fig. 3 View Figs 1‒8 ). Legs I and II like in males with prolateral row of stiff setae. Legs siZe, nUmber and position of macrosetae shown in Tabs III, IV.Abdomen white without distinct pattern, with median stripe lacking guanine spots; posterior part with almost indistinct dark lateral spots; venter with more distinct pattern, composed by 2 parallel dark stripes in the middle, and dark lateral bands laterally, number and size of guanine spots fewer than in dorsum.
Epigyne as in Figs 22‒30 View Figs 16‒24 View Figs 25‒35 , epigynal plate 1.4 wider than high, with well delimited by furrow (Ef) oval central plate (Pc) and marginal plate (Pm), marginal plate thin on lateral sides and wide in anterior part, anterior edges with kind of pockets (Ap) well distinct in macerated epigyne; central plate with square shape median plate (Mp) and small longitudinal fovea (Fo); anterior part of median plate with hollow and pit (Pi); anterior part of fovea with one copulatory opening (Oc); copulatory ducts (Cd) diverging posteriorly; receptacles with two chambers, large posterior (Rp) and smaller anterior (Ra). Anterior part of anterior chamber covered with accessory glands appeared as pit (Pi) with 1‒3 cilia (Gc).
Shape of fovea, pit and copulatory opening well visible in SEM photographs only. Holotype female and 3 examined females with mating plUg (Pl) inside fovea. SiZe of plug vary from small ( Fig. 25 View Figs 25‒35 ) to large ( Fig. 26 View Figs 25‒35 ).
Variations. White median stripe on carapace in one of three females almost indistinct. In all three males examined white stripe is distinct. Venter of abdomen vary from uniformly white to with distinct pattern as shown on Fig. 3 View Figs 1‒8 . SiZe variation: male, total length 2.53‒2.75, carapace 1.35‒1.43 long; female, total length 3.88-4.28, carapace 1.63-1.93 long. NICOLET (1845) indicated size of D. macrophthalma holotype as 1.5 lines which corresponds to 3.2 mm or 3.8 mm (depends if counted line as 1/12 th or 1/10 th of the inch), while SIMON (1889) mentioned that it is 4.5 mm long.
Distribution. So far it is known in four localities in Central Chile ( Fig. 36 View Fig ).
R |
Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Chile |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Diphya macrophthalma Nicolet, 1849
Marusik, Yuri M. & Omelko, Mikhail M. 2017 |
Diphya macrophthalma NICOLET, 1849:406
SIMON, E. 1894: 744 |
SIMON, E. 1889: 217 |
NICOLET, A. C. 1849: 406 |