Tetragnatha laboriosa Hentz, 1850

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: 3040-3047

publication ID

http://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2021.1890252

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/1D1887E9-AC2F-2A6C-FE05-FB0BFDD07511

treatment provided by

Marcus

scientific name

Tetragnatha laboriosa Hentz, 1850
status

 

Tetragnatha laboriosa Hentz, 1850  

( Figures 29–55 View Figures 29–38 View Figures 39–47 View Figures 48–55 , 82 View Figure 82 )

Type data

Tetragnatha laboriosa Hentz, 1850: 27   , pl. 4, fig. 3. (male syntype destroyed; male neotype designated by Levi (1981) from USA, Massachusetts, Middlesex, Holliston , in MCZ 21762 View Materials , 23.VI.1929, not examined)   .

Tetragnatha insulata Hogg, 1913: 41   , pl. 2, fig. 6 (males and females syntypes from Falkland Is., deposited in NHM 185–186, 01.III.1924, examined) syn. nov.

Tetragnatha bidens Mello-Leitão, 1943: 136   , figs 1–3 (male lectotype from Chile, Llanquihue , Maullin, deposited in MNRJ 2309 View Materials , examined) syn. nov.

Tetragnatha bidentata Roewer, 1951: 456   (replacement name for Tetragnatha bidens Mello-Leitão, 1943   , preoccupied by T. bidens F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1903   )

Diagnosis

The male chelicerae of T. laboriosa   are morphologically similar to that of T. jaculator   and T. elongata Walckenaer, 1841   . All three species share the following characters: absent AXu, very small or absent ‘t’, Gu present, protruding ‘sl’ slightly basalward projected, elongated and robust ‘T’ and long Gl much larger than other lower row teeth ( Figures 32–34 View Figures 29–38 , 48–49 View Figures 48–55 , 59–61 View Figures 56–65 , 74–75 View Figures 74–81 ; Okuma 1992, fig 6A, B; Castanheira et al. 2019, figs 5D–F, 7A). T. laboriosa   and T. elongata   differ from T. jaculator   by longer ‘a’, absence of ‘t’, tegulum not slanted and conductor tip posteriorly directed, ending in a curved tail ( Figures 32–34, 36, 37 View Figures 29–38 , 48, 52, 53 View Figures 48–55 ; Castanheira et al. 2019, figs 5D, E, H–J, 7A, C–E, 20B). It is set apart from T. elongata   by its shorter and thinner chelicerae (3.5x vs 4.4x longer than wide), ‘sl’ bulkier and ‘T’ less elongated and with a straight and narrower basis ( Figures 32, 33 View Figures 29–38 , 48 View Figures 48–55 ). The palps of T. laboriosa   differ from T. elongata   by its much narrower tibia (ca. 2x vs 5x longer than wide), elongated basally projected tail on conductor tip ( Figures 36, 37 View Figures 29–38 , 52, 53 View Figures 48–55 ) and paracymbium shorter, with a thin sclerotised base and globose knob ( Figures 38 View Figures 29–38 , 54 View Figures 48–55 ). Females are very similar to T. vermiformis   . Both species share short, cylindrical abdomen; similar small, bulging paturon with large gap between Gu and U2; very short genital fold and small internal genitalia without CS ( Figures 39–47 View Figures 39–47 ; Zhu and Zhang 2011, fig 133C–H; Castanheira et al. 2019, figs 18A–I, 19B). T. laboriosa   differ by the chelicerae bearing both AXu and AXl; Gu closer to fang basis, distalward projected, with wider basis; Gl distalward projected, with wider basis, and internal genitalia with both pairs of spermathecae tubular, comma-like, clearly apart and ending in rounded and wider tips ( Figures 42–44, 47 View Figures 39–47 , 50, 51 View Figures 48–55 ).

Description

Male: Carapace light brown and elongated, with slightly elevated anterior part ( Figures 29, 30 View Figures 29–38 ). Labium brown longer than wide ( Figure 31 View Figures 29–38 ). Sternum light brown with dusky edges ( Figure 31 View Figures 29–38 ). Eyes rows parallel and slightly procurved, ringed in black, AME and ALE set apart by twice its width, posterior row with eyes evenly separated, ALE and PLE almost touching ( Figure 29 View Figures 29–38 ). Legs light brown and very elongated, without spines ( Figures 29–31 View Figures 29–38 ). Chelicerae around 2.6x longer than wide and little over 2x shorter than carapace, moderately curved outwards, around 40° from body median line ( Figures 29, 32–35 View Figures 29–38 , 48, 49 View Figures 48–55 ), and with small carved apex; ‘a’ protruding, moderately thick, with less sclerotised base, projected distal- and outward, clearly bent from middle up to excavated tip and displaced a little outwards from the middle line of paturon ( Figures 32, 33, 38 View Figures 29–38 ). AXu and ‘t’ absent ( Figures 32, 33 View Figures 29–38 , 48 View Figures 48–55 ). Upper row with seven uneven teeth ( Figures 32, 33 View Figures 29–38 , 48 View Figures 48–55 ): Gu with large base, small, slightly bent upward, and apart from ‘sl’ by large gap; ‘sl’ thick, triangular, pointed and basalward projected; ‘T’ long, thin, and almost straight, with slightly large base and ‘rsu’ with four teeth evenly decreasing in size, with U7 much smaller, almost a denticle. AXl small, thin and slightly pointed distal and downward, almost adjoined to fang basis ( Figures 33, 34 View Figures 29–38 , 49 View Figures 48–55 ). Lower row with five teeth ( Figures 33, 34 View Figures 29–38 , 49 View Figures 48–55 ): Gl thick, projected distalward and much longer than remaining teeth, L2–L5 triangular, almost straight and with almost same size, with L2 a bit more sclerotised than others. Cheliceral fang bent inward, uniformly thick throughout its length and abruptly tapering from its proximal end closing between both teeth rows ( Figures 32–34 View Figures 29–38 , 48, 49 View Figures 48–55 ). Abdomen cylindrical, almost 2x longer than carapace, dorsally pale beige, completely covered by guanine crystals, scantier at middle line ( Figures 29–31 View Figures 29–38 ). Venter brown, with two guanine crystals line from base of book lungs towards spinnerets and a nude median portion ( Figure 31 View Figures 29–38 ). Palps with short and triangular tibia (ca. 2x longer than wide), followed by small cymbium, bearing large basis, slight constriction at middle, and distal third thin and slightly curved prolaterally, ending in roundish point ( Figures 36–38 View Figures 29–38 , 52 View Figures 48–55 ); tegulum oval, more than two times wider than high ( Figures 36 View Figures 29–38 , 52 View Figures 48–55 ); conductor anteriorly thicker, with small projection over the tegulum, which is twisted and tapering near midway, medially enfolding over the embolus with its thin anterior edge and projected as small lateral bulge near apex ( Figures 36, 37 View Figures 29–38 , 52, 53 View Figures 48–55 ); embolus thick, very sclerotised, originated at middle portion of bulb, near cymbium, with long levelled curve at initial portion, followed by strong upward curve in prolateral view, then long, almost straight, and very larger median portion, and with curved elongated bird-head tip, with long basalward projected tail ( Figures 36, 37 View Figures 29–38 , 52, 53 View Figures 48–55 ); paracymbium short, approximately 2.5x longer than wide, not slanted, clearly excavated at the basis, with roundish notch, translucent lobe as longer as wide, occupying only a little part of ventral side, and large and sclerotised wide knob, with flat apex ( Figures 38 View Figures 29–38 , 54 View Figures 48–55 ).

Total length 5.37. Carapace 2.69 long, 1.23 wide. Abdomen 3.50 long, 1.30 wide. Left chelicera 1.46 long, 0.44 wide. Leg formula I–II–IV–III. Leg I: femur 5.00, patella 0.82, tibia 5.16, metatarsus 5.20 and tarsus 0.93. Leg II: patella + tibia 3.69. Leg III: patella + tibia 1.45. Leg IV: patella + tibia 2.98.

Female: Carapace colour, endites, fovea, eyes, labium, sternum and legs as in male ( Figures 39–41 View Figures 39–47 ). Chelicerae with same colour as male, paturon around 2.4x longer than wide, 2x shorter than carapace and moderately curved outwards, around 40° from body median line, medially bulged on its upper side and straight on its lower side ( Figures 39, 42–45 View Figures 39–47 , 50, 51 View Figures 48–55 ). AXu rounded and very reduced ( Figures 42, 43 View Figures 39–47 , 50 View Figures 48–55 ). Upper row with six teeth ( Figures 42, 43 View Figures 39–47 , 50 View Figures 48–55 ): Gu very thick, projected distalward, with sclerotised tip and apart from U2 by a large gap, U3–U6 straight and decreasing in size. AXl extremely reduced to a small nub ( Figure 51 View Figures 48–55 ). Lower row with six teeth ( Figures 43, 44 View Figures 39–47 , 51 View Figures 48–55 ): Gl short and thick projected distalward, apart from L2 by moderate gap, L2–L6 slightly pointing distalward, and barely decreasing in size, with L2 thicker than others and more distalward projected. Cheliceral fang thick and uniformly tapering to its tip ( Figures 42–44 View Figures 39–47 , 50, 51 View Figures 48–55 ). Abdomen as in male but slightly larger midway. ( Figures 39–41 View Figures 39–47 ). Genital fold very short, 2.7x wider than long, almost in the same line as book-lungs, with straight tip ( Figure 46 View Figures 39–47 ). Internal genitalia composed of two smalls tubular spermathecae, clearly separated, comma-like, with wide tips, located on wide uterus externus at each side of fold edges, without CS ( Figure 47 View Figures 39–47 ).

Total length 7.81. Carapace 2.52 long, 1.48 wide. Abdomen 6.24 long, 2.48 wide. Left chelicera 1.11 long, 0.44 wide. Leg formula I–II–IV–III. Leg I: femur 5.30, patella 1.06, tibia 5.14, metatarsus 5.05 and tarsus 1.51. Leg II: patella + tibia 3.62. Leg III: patella + tibia 1.67. Leg IV: patella + tibia 3.54.

Variation

Males (n = 10): total length, 5.37–9.03; females (n = 16): total length, 7.81–11.46. Mello- Leitão’s type specimens and the male ones we examined from South America have slight differences in comparison to the specimens from the Caribbean ( Cuba and Dominican Republic), and illustrations of specimens from Central and North America (e.g. Levi 1981; Okuma 1992). The conductor of South American’s specimens have equal conformation, size and shape as specimens from Levi (1981, figs 6h, i, 19, 20, 127, 128) and Okuma (1992, fig. 11F), but have a thinner and more elongated basalward projected tail-like tip, differing from the shorter and so called ‘bird head tip’ from northern specimens. South American specimens are more similar to the type series of T. alba F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1903   , a junior synonym of T. laboriosa   , from Mexico (see F. O. Pickard-Cambridge 1903, fig. 15, 15a). Also, some Argentine specimens we analysed (e.g. MACN 5266) have differences in cheliceral teeth conformation. They have L2 as the longest tooth in the ventral row, while the holotype of T. bidentata   and Central and North American specimens have Gl instead. Notwithstanding those differences on palps and chelicerae, we consider that all of them represent the normal range of variation inside a species. So far, it is better to ascribe all of them to T. laboriosa   , until additional specimens are analysed and the intraspecific variation may be better assessed, especially because Levi (1981) pointed out and illustrated a range of variation common within this species in the specimens from North America.

Synonymy and notes

Hentz (1850) described T. laboriosa   based on a male from the United States ( USA), without precise location. Keyserling (1865) redescribed the male of this species and described for the first time its female, both from Baltimore/ USA. According to Levi (1981), all specimens from the USA were destroyed and he designated a neotype from Massachusetts deposited at MCZ. Furthermore, an extensive amount of papers acknowledged the presence of this species in North America: USA mainland (e.g. Emerton 1884, 1902; McCook 1894; Bryant 1908; Seeley 1928; Kaston 1948), Alaska (e.g. Banks 1900; Seeley 1928; Levi 1981) and Canada (e.g. Emerton 1919; Seeley 1928; Dondale et al. 2003; Paquin and Dupérré 2003).The species was also recorded from different localities in Central America: Mexico ( Seeley 1928; Levi 1981; Okuma 1992); Puerto Rico ( Banks 1901; Petrunkevitch 1930); Guatemala ( Okuma 1992); Costa Rica ( Okuma 1992) and Panama ( Seeley 1928; Chickering 1957c). Furthermore, Levi (1981) pointed out that this species is very common in North America and Okuma (1992) stated that T. laboriosa   is probably one of the most common species of the genus in the continent, alongside T. elongata   .

Tetragnatha insulata Hogg, 1932   was described from the Falkland Islands, based on a female and a male syntypes. On its original description, Hogg mainly focused on the female, which was first described and has its body and appendage reasonably described and measured, with the male being poorly described. The first author of this paper was able to analyse the type material of this species, observing the teeth conformation of the chelicerae of both sexes and male genitalia, acknowledging Hogg’s description. Males bear the long-tailed embolus tip and the small basalward projected ‘sl’ before the elongated ‘T’, while the females bear small chelicerae, with laterally bulged paturon without AXu or AXl and Gu–U2 and Gl–L2 as the largest teeth. Therefore, after comparing the syntypes of T. insulata   , with excellent illustrations of the neotype by Levi (1981) and a fair number of specimens for South America, we can confirm T. insulata   = T. laboriosa   syn. nov.

Additionally, Mello-Leitão (1943) described T. bidens   based on a male from Maullin, Chilean Patagonia. The holotype of this species is deposited at Museu Nacional/ Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (MNRJ 2309) and was saved from the tragic 2018 fire. Even though Mello-Leitão only mentions the more elongated ‘T’ on the description of this species, a curved and basalward projected ‘sl’ on the upper row of the chelicera is visible on his drawings (see Mello-Leitão 1943, p. 138, fig. 1). About the genitalia, he limited his description to a ‘complex bulb’, but his drawings also confirm the typical elongated tail of the conductor and embolus tips.

Habitat notes

According to information provided in many papers (e.g. Kaston 1948; Levi 1981; Dondale et al. 2003), this species is not associated to water bodies and build horizontal orb webs near the ground in open areas, above dry grass or crop fields. However, no specimens of this species were collected by the authors of the present study.

Distribution

From Alaska to Brazil, South of Argentina and Maullin, Chilean Patagonia ( Figure 82 View Figure 82 ).

Material examined

CUBA, Santiago de Cuba: Siboney, Reserva Ecológica Siboney-Jutici (19.9592661, −75.7077581), ♂, 16 GoogleMaps   .V GoogleMaps   .2001, G. Garces leg GoogleMaps   . ( IBSP 169938 View Materials ); La Redonda, Carretera Siboney (20.0141657, −75.7754266), ♂, ♀, 08 GoogleMaps   .XII GoogleMaps   .1999, J. L GoogleMaps   . Reyes leg. ( IBSP 169939 View Materials )   . DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, Azua: Pueblo Viejo, Casa 2 (18.4, −70.766667), ♂, ♀, 21   .VI   .2004, A. Sánchez leg   . ( IBSP 169944 View Materials )   . BRAZIL, Sergipe: Santo Amaro das Brotas (−10.788889, −37.053889), ♂, 3j, 08 GoogleMaps   .X GoogleMaps   .1978, MSS Carvalho leg. ( MZUSP 10556 View Materials )   ; São Paulo: Itú, Fazenda Pau D’Alho (−23.263889, −47.298889), ♂, 17–18 GoogleMaps   .IX GoogleMaps   .1960, P. Biasi leg GoogleMaps   . ( MZUSP 14755 View Materials )   ; Rio Grande do Sul: Santa Maria (−29.683889, −53.806944), ♂, ♀, 2j, 30 GoogleMaps   .I GoogleMaps   .1990, D. Linck leg GoogleMaps   . ( MCTP 43317 View Materials ex 5972); São Leopoldo (−29.76, −51.146944), 1 ♀, VI   .1965, C. Valle leg   . ( MZUSP 4430 View Materials ); Santo Ângelo , Cristo Rei (−28.1694424, −54.3902876), ♀, 21 GoogleMaps   .X GoogleMaps   .1967, P. Biasi leg GoogleMaps   . ( MZUSP 7185 View Materials ); São Francisco de Paula , Potreiro Velho (−29.447778, −50.583889), ♂, 20 GoogleMaps   .I GoogleMaps   .1994, A. A GoogleMaps   . Lise leg. ( MCTP 4513 View Materials ); Guaíba (−30.113889, −51.325), 2 ♂, III GoogleMaps   .1984, A. A GoogleMaps   . Lise leg. ( MCTP 43316 View Materials ex 12770)   . CHILE, no additional data, 6♂, 2♀ ( MNHN 12628 View Materials ); Valparaiso: Valparaíso (−33.0459502, −71.6307079), ♂, X GoogleMaps   .1970, M. Fritz leg GoogleMaps   . ( MACN 39802 View Materials ex 24656)   . PARAGUAY, Misiones: Yacyretá Island (−26.633333, −57.166667), ♀, X GoogleMaps   .1975, A. Martínez leg GoogleMaps   . ( MACN 24431 View Materials )   . ARGENTINA, Corrientes: Manantiales (−27.9249206, −58.1102847), 13♂, 26♀, 3j, IX GoogleMaps   .1960, Apóstol leg. ( MACN 5266 View Materials ); Neuquén: (−38.966667, −68.066667), 3♂, ♀, III GoogleMaps   .1942, Lieberman leg. ( MACN 1184 View Materials ); Estancia San Ramon, Ramon Chico, R   . Liniz (−38.7907243, −68.4429479), 3♂, 3♀, 3j, I GoogleMaps   . 1962, Hamylenko leg. ( MACN 24563 View Materials ); Neuquén , Lago Hermoso (−38.94367, −68.0929512), 2♂, ♀, 15 GoogleMaps   .I GoogleMaps   .1985, M. Ramírez leg GoogleMaps   . ( MACN 24651 View Materials ); Río Negro: El Bolsón, Región Patagonica (−41.966667, −71.533333), 2♂, 3j, XI GoogleMaps   .1962, M. Birabén leg GoogleMaps   . ( MACN 24473 View Materials ); Santa Cruz: (−49.1071416, −74.1425266), ♀ ( MACN 3140 View Materials ) GoogleMaps   .

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Arachnida

Order

Araneae

Family

Tetragnathidae

Genus

Tetragnatha

Loc

Tetragnatha laboriosa Hentz, 1850

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

Tetragnatha bidentata

Roewer CF 1951: 456
1951
Loc

Tetragnatha bidens Mello-Leitão, 1943: 136

Mello-Leitao CFD 1943: 136
1943
Loc

Tetragnatha insulata

Hogg HR 1913: 41
1913
Loc

Tetragnatha laboriosa

Hentz NM 1850: 27
1850