Euophrys dillicilis ( Simon, 1868 )

Logunov, Dmitri V., 2005, Saitis lusitanicus Simon, 1901 is a junior synonymn of ' Euophrys' difficilis (Simon, 1868) (Araneae: Salticidae), Newsletter of the British Arachnological Society 102, pp. 14-15 : 14

Euophrys dillicilis ( Simon, 1868) Figs. 1-5

Attus difficilis Simon 1868: 590 , in the MNHN; o syntype, examined).

Saitis lusitanicus Simon, 1901: 67 (Do; in the MNHN; examined). New Synonymy.

For a complete reference list see Platnick (2004) and Prószynski (2003).

Material examined: COUNTRY (?): 10 ( MNHN, 847; the lectotype of Attus difficilis ; designated here), "Cr. Sic. Dalm." [apparently Croatia, Sicily and Dalmatia; at least the two last names are mentioned in Simon (1937: p. 1252) and "Sidle" is mentioned in the original description ( Simon, 1868: p. 591)]. - PORTUGAL: 10 ( MNHN, 13676; the holotype of Saitis "Porto (Seg) " .

Comments: According to the original description of Attus difficilis ( Simon, 1868: p. 590-591), both sexes were described. However, I was only able to reexamine the single male syntype ( Figs. 1-3) kept in the MNHN. As Simon (1968, 1937) mentioned at least five different localities for this species, it means several/numerous specimens were available to him, but unfortunately it remains unclear whether all of them were indeed conspecific. Moreover, in his last work of 1937 (p. 1179), Simon stated clearly that the female of Euophrys difficilis was unknown (" ¥ inconnue"). This provides additional support for the idea that the original series of Attus difficilis may not have been conspecific. The only taxonomic Newsl. Br. arachnol. Soc. 102 information about the apparent female of Attus difficilis was provided by Simon (1868: p. 591) who wrote that the female is close to Attus erraticus (now in Pseudeuophrys ); however, Simon did not illustrate it. All the subsequent references to 'the female of this species seem to be erroneous. As recently shown by Metzner (1999: p. 53), the female assigned to E. difiicilis by Schenkel (1938) in reality belongs to 'Euophrys' semiglabrata, whereas the female referred to by Roewer (1954) as Pseudeuophrys difficilis is actually that of Saitis sengleti .

Therefore, it is highly likely that the male of Attus difficilis studied here is the only specimen still in existence which was actually examined by Simon. Thus, to stabilize the taxonomic status of Attus difficilis I have designated the re-examined male as the lectotype.

The male holotype of Saitis lusitanicus Simon, 1901 is identical to the lectotype of Attus difficilis (cf. Figs. 4-5 and 1-3) and therefore the former species name is synonymised with the latter.

With regards to a generic status of Attus difficilis , it should be noted that my former opinion regarding its assignment to Chalcoscirtus (see Logunov, 1998) should be disregarded. The males studied have the cheliceral retromargin with one tooth and the promargin with two close (almost fused) teeth, but the first legs of the male do not possess dense fringes of blackish, flattened hairs (the very common, even universal character in true EuophrySJ and also there is no long, thin tibial apophysis (always present in Euophry SJ. Thus, although Attus difficilis cannot be assigned to true Euophrys , it can be confirmed that it does not belong to Chalcoscirtus (the species is twice the size of the largest Chalcoscirtus species known to me and it does not have a shiny scutum; it has a different carapace shape; the clypeus is well-marked, etc.). However, at present I see no reason to consider Attus difficilis in the genus Pseudeuophrys . This idea was accepted by Metzner (1999) reasoning from the fact that Simon (1937: p. 1252) placed this species in the erratica species group, of which most members were subsequently assigned to Pseudeuophrys . A final solution concerning the correct generic assignment of ' Euophrys difficilis is postponed until more material, including females, has been collected.

Distribution: Though Simon (1868, 1937) mentioned at least five localities for this species, viz. France (Corsica), Italy (Naples, Sicily), Dalmatia and Greece, the exact origin of the lectotype remains unknown. I can only suspect that it may have been either Corsica or Sicily. Thus, to date the only reliable record of Attus difficilis is Portugal (Porto) where is has been reported under the name Saitis lusitanicus ( Simon, 1901; Cardoso, 2000).