Hindumanes Logunov, 2004
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4350.2.7 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:00DC83AE-1754-4065-8BDC-F49B01EA2DDD |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5999271 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/5B3B3A3C-7167-3E53-FF3C-AB97FB5FF999 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Hindumanes Logunov, 2004 |
| status |
|
Hindumanes Logunov, 2004 View in CoL
Type species. Lyssomanes karnatakaensis Tikader & Biswas, 1978 .
Subfamily placement. Subfamily Lyssomaninae currently comprises three genera, Lyssomanes , Chinoscopus and Sumakuru , supported by the presence of a membraneous conductor in the male palp ( Wanless 1980: figs 2G, H; Maddison 2016: figs 6, 7; Galvis 2017: figs 7d–g). The presence of this structure ( Figs 5A–C, E View FIGURE 5 ) and the general conformation of the palpal bulb strongly support its placement in the subfamily Lyssomaninae .
Diagnosis. Hindumanes can be easily distinguished from most of the lyssomanine genera by the following characteristics: Carapace relatively high and oval (carapace low and virtually flat in Chinoscopus and elongate in Sumakuru ); the relative width of the eye field is small (it is much wider in the other genera, see Logunov 2004); AME directed anteriorly (in Sumakuru , they are tilted to the sides); ALE situated directly behind AME, almost on the optical axis of AME (ALE widely separated in Chinoscopus and most Lyssomanes ; in Sumakuru and some species of Lyssomanes , such as L. anchicaya Galiano, 1984 and L. elongates Galiano, 1980 , ALE are situated directly behind AME). Hindumanes is morphologically closer to Lyssomanes , by having similar body, presence of paired ventral spines on tibia and metatarsi of legs I & II, and similar palpal organization. It can be distinguished from Lyssomanes by the following combination of characters: ALE situated directly behind AME, almost in the optical axis of the AME (in most Lyssomanes , ALE widely separated behind AME) ( Figs 4A–B View FIGURE 4 ; see also Tikader & Biswas 1978: fig. 1; Logunov 2004: fig. 3); relative width of the eye field is narrower: the ratio of “carapace width at PME/PME–PME distance” is around 3:1 (the relative width of the eye field is much wider, see Logunov 2004); patellae I & II with a dorsal macrosetae distally and a dorsal spine on the patellae III & IV ( Lyssomanes has both lateral and dorsal spines on all patellae). The female of Hindumanes can be easily recognized from Lyssomanes by the distinctive female copulatory organ: large spermathecae with no glandular ducts (in true Lyssomanes , spermathecae are smaller, with well-developed glandular ducts) ( Figs 7A–B View FIGURE 7 ; see also Galiano 1980; Logunov & Marusik 2003; Logunov 2004, 2014).
The male palp of Hindumanes is characteristic of the Lyssomaninae and surprisingly similar to the palpal structure of most Lyssomanes . The structure of the palp can be characterized as follows: 1. Long palp with an elongated cymbium and well developed tutaculum ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ), femur and patella devoid of any apophyses; 2. Tibia with a distal process and a long retrolateral outgrowth in the distal mid-section ( Figs 5A–D View FIGURE 5 ). Different types of retrolateral tibial modifications have been found in some species of Lyssomanes , but most of them are brush-like formed by long and strong bristles ( Galiano 1980: figs 63, 89, 147; Logunov 2014: fig. 27); 3. Membraneous conductor is present ( Figs 5A–C, E View FIGURE 5 ), which is considered as a synapomorphy in Lyssomanine ( Wanless 1980); 4. Spermophore configuration almost similar to that of Lyssomanes ( Galiano 1980; Logunov 2014; Maddison 2016).
Description. Members of Hindumanes are green to yellowish-green, long-legged, medium-sized spiders (male = 5.57–6.13, female = 6.72–6.92). Sexes are alike in general body form, but dimorphism is evident in color markings. Females are uniformly green without distinct markings ( Figs 1C–D View FIGURE 1 ); male carapace yellowish-orange with light reddish-brown lateral markings, abdomen dorsally with paired longitudinal stripes, similar stripes ventrolaterally ( Figs 1A–B View FIGURE 1 , 2A, E View FIGURE 2 ); Female legs light green, tibia I with apical retrolateral black mottling; male legs with black longitudinal lines on the femur I and black bands on all tibiae ( Figs 1A–B View FIGURE 1 ). Carapace oval, covered with colorless setae, with well-defined longitudinal fovea ( Figs 1A View FIGURE 1 , 2A, C View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 4A–B View FIGURE 4 , 6A View FIGURE 6 ); cephalic region truncated anteriorly, moderately high, highest at PLE; thoracic region gently sloping backwards margin almost rounded with concave posterior margin ( Figs 2E View FIGURE 2 , 3D View FIGURE 3 , 6D View FIGURE 6 ). Eye field slightly raised, narrow, covered with lustrous appressed scales ( Figs 1A–D View FIGURE 1 , 2A, C, E View FIGURE 2 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 4A–B View FIGURE 4 , 6A View FIGURE 6 ). Eyes in four rows, anterior row widest, ALE positioned directly behind the first row, at the optical axis of AME; PME very small, closer to and situated at the optical axis of ALE; PLE almost same size as ALE; MOQ longer than wide and wider in front. Clypeus rather low, vertical and hairless. Chelicerae short, sub-vertical and parallel in females ( Figs 1D View FIGURE 1 , 3B–C View FIGURE 3 , 4A View FIGURE 4 , 6C View FIGURE 6 ); moderately long and slightly diverging in males ( Figs 1B View FIGURE 1 , 2A–D View FIGURE 2 , 4B View FIGURE 4 ); with two prolateral spines; promargin with three teeth, retromargin with five to six teeth ( Figs 4D–F View FIGURE 4 ). Endites sub-parallel, rectangular, elongate, anteriorly rounded with inconspicuous scopulae ( Figs 2B View FIGURE 2 , 3B View FIGURE 3 ). Labium almost rectangular, about as long as wide, almost half the length of endites ( Figs 2B View FIGURE 2 , 3B View FIGURE 3 ). Sternum sub-pentagonal, posteriorly narrowing, with a triangular projection between coxae III & IV ( Figs 2B View FIGURE 2 , 3B View FIGURE 3 ). Pedicel short. Abdomen elongate, ovoid, narrowing posteriorly. Spinnerets sub-equal in length, posterior spinnerets robust than others. Legs long, slender; legs with spines on all articles, except tarsi of all legs, patella I, II and metatarsus IV; tibia I & II with 4 pairs of ventral spines, metatarsi I & II with 3 pairs of ventral spines, patella I & II distally with a dorsal macrosetae and patellae III & IV with a dorsal spine; leg formula 1243. Female palpal articles light green, all articles with spines.
Male palp long, with spines on all articles, femur and patella without any apophysis; tibia with a distal tibial process and a long retrolateral tibial outgrowth joined to a stalk on the distal mid-section of tibia, slightly bent at the middle, the tip of which is flat and wide with uneven edges ( Figs 5A–D View FIGURE 5 ). Cymbium highly elongated, covered with long and medium-sized setae, basally with a pair of elongated dorsal spines, distally with one prolateral and retrolateral spine ( Figs 5A, C View FIGURE 5 ); tutaculum medium-sized, oval ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ); bulb almost ovoid, occupying almost two fifths of cymbium; tegulum in the disto-retrolateral part of bulb; subtegulum occupies one third of the bulb; the retrolateral descending loop of sperm duct closely arranged ( Fig. 5E View FIGURE 5 ); median apophysis long, wide, with an apical finger-like projection directed disto-prolaterally, with tip slightly bent downwards ( Fig. 5E View FIGURE 5 ); conductor clamshaped ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ); embolus base wide, the thin spermophore forming a twist in the embolus base before entering the embolus ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ), embolus thin and elongated, initially oriented distally in an upward angle, then bending distoretrolaterally with the pointed tip slightly bent forward ( Fig. 5E View FIGURE 5 ).
Epigyne simple and transparent; spermathecae large, longer than wide, with no glandular ducts, touching each other in H. karnatakaensis (see Logunov 2004: figs 1–2) or widely separated, as in H. wayanadensis sp. nov. ( Figs 7A–B View FIGURE 7 ); posterior outgrowth overhanging the epigastric furrow only in H. karnatakaensis (see Logunov 2004: figs 1–2); copulatory duct varies from moderately long to very short; fertilization duct small and acuminate, anterolaterally oriented, posterior to spermathecae ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 ; Logunov 2004: fig. 2).
Distribution. Known only from western India ( Fig. 9 View FIGURE 9 ).
Species included. Hindumanes karnatakaensis (type species) and H. wayanadensis sp. nov.
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.