Amauropelma beyersdorfi, Jager, 2012

Jäger, Peter, 2012, Asian species of the genera Anahita Karsch 1879, Ctenus Walckenaer 1805 and Amauropelma Raven, Stumkat & Gray 2001 (Arachnida: Araneae: Ctenidae), Zootaxa 3429 (1), pp. 1-63 : 43

Amauropelma Raven, Stumkat & Gray 2001

The genus Amauropelma was described from material collected from the East coast of Queensland. Raven et al. (2001) described sixteen new species, among them one blind species and one with strongly reduced eyes. Miller & Rahmadi (2012) described a cave-dwelling species from Java. Silva-Dávila (2003) mentioned the occurrence of Amauropelma species in Lombok ( Indonesia) without describing or illustrating it, and discussed differences between Asian and Australian representatives. Similar differences are also recognised in the present species from India and Laos. Anterior lateral eyes are situated closer to posterior lateral eyes than in Australian species (e.g., Figs 241 , 259 , Raven in litt.). Silva-Dávila (2003) noted that Amauropelma is a genus with strong variation in the ocular arrangement (eye rows separated, eye rows close together, eyes reduced, eyes absent). Adpressed trichobothria and tarsal rods, as described by Raven et al. (2001) for Australian species, were not observed in the present species. Prolateral cymbial processes are seen in all species described below, a retrolateral process exclusively in A. beyersdorfi spec. nov. Patellar apophyses show variation in terms of length and shape ( Raven et al. 2001, Silva-Dávila 2003, this study).

Amauropelma spp. have generally uniform copulatory organs ( Raven et al 2001, this paper). This is largely true for females with the bilobal structure of their epigynal plate [but see A. bluewater Raven & Stumkat 2001 , A. matakecil Miller & Rahmadi 2012 and A. fungifer ( Thorell 1890) comb. nov. for exceptional epigynal plate shapes]. Females may be not identifiable by their copulatory organs to species level, therefore females on their own are not considered in this study (except for type material). But also males show homogeneity, e.g. in the RTA (2 apices, position and general shape), if compared for instance with Ctenus species ( Gravely 1931, Tikader & Malhotra 1981, this paper). No relationships among the Asian species treated here can be recognised. Therefore, diagnoses refer in their differential parts exclusively to dissimilarities. Based on the diversity of this genus in Queensland and especially Laos, a much higher diversity than known today is assumed. All regions between Northwest India and Australia are suspected to hold more species, which either have not been collected or could not be identified due to the unrevised status of the family.

Figures

FIGURES 238–247. Amauropelma jagelkii spec. nov. from Nong Khiao, Luang Prabang, Laos (238–241 holotype male;

FIGURES 256–265. Amauropelma annegretae spec. nov. from Nam Khan, Luang Prabang, Laos (256–257, 259–260