Tetragnatha guatemalensis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889, O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889

de Souza Castanheira, Pedro & Baptista, Renner Luiz Cerqueira, 2021, Redescription of Tetragnatha guatemalensis, T. laboriosa and T. jaculator, with new synonymies of genus Tetragnatha (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) in the Neotropical Region, Journal of Natural History 54 (47 - 48), pp. 3031-3057: 3033-3040

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2021.1890252

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/1D1887E9-AC26-2A77-FE8F-FA68FE67744F

treatment provided by

Marcus

scientific name

Tetragnatha guatemalensis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889
status

 

Tetragnatha guatemalensis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889  

( Figures 1–28 View Figures 1–11 View Figures 12–20 View Figures 21–28 , 82 View Figure 82 )

Type data

Tetragnatha guatemalensis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889: 8   , pl. 2, figs 6, 7 [1 male lectotype and 1 female paralectotype from Laguna de los Coheteros (near Coban), Cahabon, Guatemala, in NHM, Sarg & Champion leg., not examined]   . F. O. Pickard-Cambridge 1903: 431, figs 12a–f, 13 (lectotype designation).

Tetragnatha parva Badcock, 1932: 14   (female holotype from Campo Grande , Paraguayan Chaco, Paraguay, in NHM, 02.IX.1926, examined) syn. nov.

Diagnosis

Males and females of T. guatemalensis   are similar to T. ceylonica O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1869   and T. gracilis (Bryant, 1923)   . Males share the following characters: ‘a’ median-sized and located in the middle line of paturon, presence of pointed ‘t’, small ‘T’, Gu absent; ‘sl’ short, placed away from the fang groove, not aligned to other teeth of the upper row but displaced to a position just below the fang; palps of both species with tibias with approximately same length, very long paracymbium, with slanted and pointed notch, extending well beyond the tip of the paracymbium proper, conductor with its apical third slanted in an almost right angle and its tip curved ( Figures 4–6, 8, 11 21, 22, 25, 27 View Figures 1–11 View Figures 12–20 View Figures 21–28 ; Zhu et al. 2003, fig. 58A–C, E; Dimitrov et al. 2008, fig. 3B, D, E). Tetragnatha guatemalensis   is set apart by ‘sl’ basalward projected (shared with T. ceylonica   ), smaller ‘T’, rsu with 5–7 teeth (only two in T. gracilis   ), conductor only wrapping around the embolus at the apical third (shared with T. ceylonica   ), larger paracymbium with more elongated and finger-like notch ( Figures 4–6, 8, 11 View Figures 1–11 , 21, 22, 25, 27 View Figures 21–28 ; Zhu et al. 2003, fig. 58A–C, E; Dimitrov et al. 2008, fig. 3B, D, E). Females of T. guatemalensis   share with T. ceylonica   and T. gracilis   small chelicerae, very short genital fold, two small ovoid or rounded spermathecae and one rounded CS ( Figures 12–19 View Figures 12–20 ; Zhu et al. 2003, fig. 57C–E, G; Dimitrov et al. 2008, fig. 4A–C). However, T. guatemalensis   can be easily distinguished by the absence of a swallow on the paturon (in comparison to T. ceylonica   ), a smaller gap between Gl and L2, presence of OC on fang, ovoid spermathecae (rounded in T. gracilis   ), and CS placed at the same level of the spermathecae (anteriorly placed at T. ceylonica   ) ( Figures 16, 17, 20 View Figures 12–20 , 23, 24 View Figures 21–28 ; Zhu et al. 2003, fig. 57C–E, G; Dimitrov et al. 2008, fig. 4A–C).

Description

Male: Carapace yellowish brown and elongated, with a slightly elevated anterior part ( Figures 1, 2 View Figures 1–11 ). Labium light brown and longer than wide ( Figure 3 View Figures 1–11 ). Sternum oval, light brown, with dusky contour ( Figure 3 View Figures 1–11 ). Eyes parallel and procurved, ringed in black and spaced apart, ALE and PLE almost touching ( Figure 1 View Figures 1–11 ). Legs yellowish brown and very elongated, legs I and II slightly darker ( Figures 1–3 View Figures 1–11 ). Chelicerae paturon yellowish brown, thick, approximately 3.8x longer than wide and almost as long as the carapace, moderately curved outwards, around 30° from the median line of the body ( Figures 1, 4–7 View Figures 1–11 , 21, 22 View Figures 21–28 ). ‘a’ short, thick, tubular, bending up and distalward, with a strong notch on its tip, and slightly displaced innerwards from the middle width of paturon ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 , 21 View Figures 21–28 ). AXu absent ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 , 21 View Figures 21–28 ). ‘t’ pointed and distalward projected ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 , 21 View Figures 21–28 ). Upper row with eight uneven teeth ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 , 21 View Figures 21–28 ): Gu absent; ‘sl’ thick, triangular and pointed, basalward projected, slightly displaced innerwards from the teeth row and placed just below the fang; ‘T’ thin, pointed, and very elongated, displaced outwards from the row of teeth itself; ‘rsu’ composed of six pointed teeth decreasing in size and apart by regular gaps. AXl reduced to a rounded nub ( Figures 5, 6 View Figures 1–11 , 22 View Figures 21–28 ). Lower row with nine teeth distalward projected, decreasing in size and apart by regular gaps, with Gl thicker and longer than others ( Figures 5, 6 View Figures 1–11 , 22 View Figures 21–28 ). Cheliceral fang as wide as its base, thick and uniformly tapering to its tip, closing on Gu, then curving to the middle line of both rows of teeth, a tiny hard to see outer cusp near fang basis ( Figures 4–6 View Figures 1–11 , 21, 22 View Figures 21–28 ). Abdomen cylindrical, slender, approximately 1.9x longer than the carapace, entirely pale beige, and covered by guanine crystals, with no lateral lines ( Figures 1–3 View Figures 1–11 ). Epiandrous plate small, wider than long, with a thick median division and composed of six spigots on each portion ( Figure 28 View Figures 21–28 ). Palps with an elongated cymbium, around 2x longer than the conical and not very elongated tibia ( Figures 8–10 View Figures 1–11 , 25 View Figures 21–28 ); tegulum spherical and slightly slanted, inflated and 1.9x wider than high ( Figures 8, 9 View Figures 1–11 , 25 View Figures 21–28 ); conductor elongated, double pleated, slanted and abruptly projected distalward on its last third, where it completely encloses the embolus and ends in a curved and rounded tip ( Figures 8–10 View Figures 1–11 , 25, 26 View Figures 21–28 ); embolus thick, filiform and slanted, ending in curved tip, its apical third completely enfolded by conductor ( Figures 8–10 View Figures 1–11 , 25, 26 View Figures 21–28 ); paracymbium extremely elongated, approximately 6.5 longer than wide, with reduced thin transparent lobe at median region of its outer border, a long knob dorsally curved and ending in a mesally constricted curved, finger-like, undivided notch ( Figures 11 View Figures 1–11 , 27 View Figures 21–28 ).

Total length 6.90. Carapace 2.36 long, 1.33 wide. Abdomen 4.48 long, 0.97 wide. Left chelicera 1.90 long, 0.56 wide. Leg formula I–II–IV–III. Leg I: femur 6.29, patella 0.72, tibia 6.19, metatarsus 7.12 and tarsus 1.49. Leg II: patella + tibia 4.29. Leg III: patella + tibia 1.75. Leg IV: patella + tibia 3.89.

Female: Carapace colour, endites, fovea, eyes, labium, sternum and legs as in male ( Figures 12–14 View Figures 12–20 ). Chelicerae paturon with the same colour as male, around 3x longer than wide, 2x shorter than the carapace, and placed around 35° from the median line of the body. Paturon slightly bulges at the middle portion of the upper region ( Figures 12 15–18 View Figures 12–20 , 23, 24 View Figures 21–28 ). AXu absent ( Figures 15, 16 View Figures 12–20 , 23 View Figures 21–28 ). Upper row with seven teeth distalward projected ( Figures 15, 16 View Figures 12–20 , 23 View Figures 21–28 ): Gu finger-like, thick with a quite large basis, located near the fang groove and apart from U2 by a moderate gap; U2 sclerotised, pointed and distalward projected, with almost the same size as U3 and located midway between Gu and U3; U3– U7 decreasing in size and apart by small gaps. AXl extremely reduced to a small nub ( Figures 16, 17 View Figures 12–20 , 24 View Figures 21–28 ). Lower row with eight teeth distalward projected ( Figures 16, 17 View Figures 12–20 , 24 View Figures 21–28 ): Gl, L2 and L3 thicker and more sclerotised than L4–L8. Gl with a wider basis and apart from L2 by a moderate gap. L2–L8 apart by small gaps. Cheliceral fang short and very thick, closing between both rows of teeth, serrated from midway to its tip, and bearing a small, thick and not protruding outer cusp, slightly displaced to lower face of fang ( Figures 15–17 View Figures 12–20 , 23, 24 View Figures 21–28 ). Abdomen as in male, but much higher and wider, around 3x longer than the carapace, with a clear hump at the anterior third and ending in a small and wide rounded tip reaching further than the spinnerets ( Figures 12–14 View Figures 12–20 ). Genital fold brown, not elongated, 5x wider than long, with a straight posterior rim ( Figure 19 View Figures 12–20 ). Internal genitalia composed of two pairs of large oval spermathecae, the posterior one larger than the anterior, both connected midway to a wide uterus externus, and a sclerotised reddish central membranous sac atop of a small stalk ( Figure 20 View Figures 12–20 ).

Total length 8.31. Carapace 2.15 long, 1.59 wide. Abdomen 6.34 long, 2.30 wide. Left chelicera 1.37 long, 0.48 wide. Leg formula I–IV–II–III. Leg I: femur 4.77, patella 0.94, tibia 4.73, metatarsus 5.30 and tarsus 1.92. Leg II: patella + tibia 3.35. Leg III: patella + tibia 1.45. Leg IV: patella + tibia 2.91.

Variation

Males (n = 6): total length, 6.23–8.44; females (n = 9): total length, 7.40–8.87. There is a small variation on the position and size of ‘a’. It may be placed almost at the middle line of the paturon or variably displaced innerwards. Also, its tip may be clearly carved or just with a small incision. ‘t’ may be small and triangular ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 ) or elongated and almost digitiform ( Figure 21 View Figures 21–28 ). The position of ‘T’ varies moderately, from closer to ‘a’ and ‘sl’ ( Figure 4 View Figures 1–11 ) to closer to ‘rsu’ ( Figure 21 View Figures 21–28 ). The number of lower teeth after L2 varies from six to eight (eight to ten considering the entire row). In specimens with lower number of teeth, a large gap may appear between L2 and remaining teeth ( Figure 22 View Figures 21–28 ). The OC in the male fang may be larger and quite perceptible, or almost disappears. The finger-like paracymbium notch may vary in length and sometimes have its tip clearly curved.

Synonymy and notes

Tetragnatha guatemalensis   was described based on males and females from Cahabon, Guatemala, without illustrations and it was not available during our visit to NHM collections. Fortunately, we could be guided by the redescription of this species by F. O. Pickard- Cambridge (1903, p. 431, fig. 12a–, 13), which was accompanied by good and comprehensive illustrations of male and female chelicerae and male palp of the syntypes. He also designated one male as the lectotype (calling it ‘type’ and the female ‘gynetype’), against Levi (1981, p. 296) who probably overlooked Cambridge’s previous designation. The species was later redescribed or described anew (as a synonym) many times (e.g. Seeley, 1928; Gertsch and Mulaik 1936; Chickering 1957c, 1959, 1962), but the specimens used in Levi (1981) and Okuma (1992), under their redescriptions of T. guatemalensis   , appear to be different from previous redescriptions and from our South American specimens, at least if we only consider the males. The palps seem very similar, with its conductor and embolus projecting upward and a finger-like notch on paracymbium. However, the chelicerae of male specimens illustrated in Levi (1981, fig. 52) and Okuma (1992, figs 9A, B) (and also from one specimen from Dominican Republic we examined) differ a lot from typical T. guatemalensis   : ‘t’ is absent; ‘T’ is also absent, as there is no tooth much larger than the others, and the corresponding tooth (possibly U2) is close to Gu; and Gl and L2 have their bases overlapping. The examination of a large series of additional North and Central American specimens and also the types of the five previous synonyms of T. guatemalensis   is needed in order to ascertain if those specimens belong to a different species or not.

Tetragnatha parva Badcock, 1932   was described based on a female specimen from Campo Grande, Paraguayan Chaco. Comparing the holotype ( NHM, examined) to T     . guatemalensis specimens from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, near Brazilian / Paraguayan border, we realised that both species perfectly match, as their chelicerae bear the same Gu, U 2 and U3, and also Gl, L 2 and L3, besides having the same short and flattened genital fold   . Therefore , we consider T     . parva to be a junior synonym of T. guatemalensis   syn. nov.

Regarding cheliceral morphology, we consider the first teeth on the upper row of T. guatemalensis   , T. ceylonica   and T. gracilis   as a ‘sl’, and not a Gu ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 , 21 View Figures 21–28 ; Zhu et al. 2003, fig. 58A–C; Dimitrov et al. 2008, fig. 3D, E). Gu is a guide tooth, usually placed just aside the fang and directed forward. In these three species, the first upper tooth, called ‘sl’ here, is displaced away from the fang groove and towards the lower side, being placed under the fang and sometimes not visible in inner view ( Figure 5 View Figures 1–11 ). Also, it is usually curved and downwards projected (except in T. gracilis   ) and placed at a level similar to ‘a’. A similar position and shape of ‘sl’ may be found in other species with Gu and ‘T’, as in T. elongata   , T. jaculator   and T. laboriosa   ( Figures 32, 33 View Figures 29–38 , 48 View Figures 48–55 , 59, 60 View Figures 56–65 , 74 View Figures 74–81 ; Castanheira et al. 2019, figs 5D, E, 7A). In T. jaculator   , the ‘sl’ is also displaced and located under the fang ( Figures 59, 60 View Figures 56–65 , 74 View Figures 74–81 ), but not in T. elongata   and T. laboriosa   . It is more parcimonious to consider Gu as absent in T. guatemalensis   , T. ceylonica   and T. gracilis   than a parallel evolution of ‘sl’ characteristics in all those species ( Figures 4, 5 View Figures 1–11 , 21 View Figures 21–28 , 32,33 View Figures 29–38 , 48 View Figures 48–55 , 59, 60 View Figures 56–65 , 74 View Figures 74–81 ; Zhu et al. 2003, fig. 58A–C; Dimitrov et al. 2008, fig. 3D,E).

Distribution

Besides the previous records for North America, Mexico, Guatemala, Cuba and Jamaica (see World Spider Catalog 2020), we now record this species from South America, with specimens from Paraguay and Brazil ( Figure 82 View Figure 82 ).

Material examined

BRAZIL. Rondônia: Candeias do Jamari, Usina Hidrelétrica de Samuel, Rio Jamari (−8.809722, −63.695556), ♂, XII GoogleMaps   .1988, Eq. Butantan leg GoogleMaps   . ( IBSP 6691 View Materials )   ; Tocantins: Palmas (−10.184444, −48.333611), ♀, I GoogleMaps   .2002, D. M GoogleMaps   . Cândido & M   . Costa leg. ( IBSP 240814 View Materials ex 40486); Serra do Lajeado (−10.2563882, −48.1022318), ♂, ♀, III GoogleMaps   .2003, G. Puorto leg GoogleMaps   . ( IBSP 224613 View Materials )   ; Mato Grosso do Sul: Jaraguari, Furnas de Dionísio (−20.141944, −54.398889), ♀, 14 GoogleMaps   . XI GoogleMaps   .2015, D. Araújo leg GoogleMaps   . ( IBSP 167046 View Materials ); Santa Rita do Rio Pardo (−21.302778, −52.830833), ♀, 27 GoogleMaps   .IV GoogleMaps   .2001, R. Bertani & E GoogleMaps   . K. Kashimata leg. ( IBSP 235086 View Materials ex 39482); Anaurilândia (−22.187778, −52.717778), ♂, 05–11 GoogleMaps   .III GoogleMaps   .2001, F. S GoogleMaps   . Cunha & J   . P. L. Guadanucci leg. ( IBSP 240809 View Materials ex 39358); Usina Hidrelétrica Engenheiro Sérgio Motta (−22.4783686, −52.9625009), 4♀, 12–19 GoogleMaps   .III GoogleMaps   .2001, F. S GoogleMaps   . Cunha & C   . A. R. Souza leg. ( IBSP 239868 View Materials ex 39500); Parque Nacional de Ilha Grande (−23.6912697, −53.9901574), ♀, 12 GoogleMaps   .VIII GoogleMaps   .1963, M. P GoogleMaps   . Bueno leg. ( IBSP 240807 View Materials ex 2685)   ; São Paulo: São Paulo, Reservatório Guarapiranga, Parque Ilha dos Eucaliptos (−23.550278, −46.633889), ♀, 07–13 GoogleMaps   .X GoogleMaps   .2003, I. Cizauskas & C GoogleMaps   . R. M. Garcia leg. ( IBSP 61343 View Materials ); Mogi das Cruzes, Manoel Ferreira , Biritiba- UÇu (−23.522778, −46.187778), 8♂, 12♀, V GoogleMaps   .2001, E. K GoogleMaps   . Kashimata & R   . Martins leg. ( IBSP 235083 View Materials ex 56320)   ; Santa Catarina: Florianópolis, Parque Municipal Lagoa do Peri (−27.596944, −48.548889), ♂, ♀, 29 GoogleMaps   .VIII GoogleMaps   .2014, R. P GoogleMaps   . Indicatti, R. Y. Lemos, J. L. Chavari leg. ( IBSP 214202 View Materials )   ; Rio Grande do Sul: Tapes (−30.672778, −51.395833), ♂, 1992, R GoogleMaps   . L GoogleMaps   . Oliveira Júnior leg. ( MCTP 6267 View Materials )   .

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Tetragnathidae

Genus

Tetragnatha

Loc

Tetragnatha guatemalensis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889

de Souza Castanheira, Pedro & Baptista, Renner Luiz Cerqueira 2021
2021
Loc

Tetragnatha parva

Badcock HD 1932: 14
1932
Loc

Tetragnatha guatemalensis O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1889: 8

Pickard-Cambridge FO 1903: 431
Pickard-Cambridge O 1889: 8
1889