Acanthoctenus Keyserling, 1877
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4920.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:89E38EAD-A8D2-4ED9-A7D0-8C388A785E61 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4497849 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F73887DC-E926-9669-43F7-F8E8FAC8AA5B |
treatment provided by |
Plazi (2021-01-27 11:11:13, last updated 2024-11-29 12:37:58) |
scientific name |
Acanthoctenus Keyserling, 1877 |
status |
|
Genus Acanthoctenus Keyserling, 1877 View in CoL View at ENA
Acanthoctenus Keyserling, 1877: 693 View in CoL , plate 8, fig. 60. Type species Acanthoctenus spiniger Keyserling, 1877 View in CoL , designated by Simon (1892: 229).— Simon 1893: 430.—F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1897: 101.— Dahl, 1901b: 186.—F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1902: 354.— Tullgren 1905: 19.— Kraus 1955: 51.— Simon 1906: 288.— Strand 1909: 402.— Petrunkevitch 1925: 95.—Mello-Leit„o 1936: 181.— Reimoser 1939: 364.—Mello-Leit„o 1945: 256.— Soares & Soares 1946: 53.— Caporiacco 1947: 28, 1948: 684, 1955: 290.— Chickering 1960: 81.— Lehtinen 1967: 208.— Forster & Wilton 1973: 293.—Griswold 1993: 3.— Bosselaers 2002: 141.— Silva-Dávila 2003: 3.— Griswold et al. 2005: 17.— Polotow & Brescovit 2008: 706, 2012: 40, 2014: 334.— Ramirez 2014: 28.— Polotow et al. 2015: 134.— World Spider Catalog 2020.
Paracantheis Kraus, 1955: 51 . Type species Paracantheis virginea Kraus, 1955 by original designation.— Lehtinen 1967: 256 (Syn).— World Spider Catalog 2020.
Diagnosis. Acanthoctenus species resemble other Acanthocteninae as Nothroctenus and Viracucha by the presence of a cribellum and calamistrum ( Figs 5E, F View FIGURE 5 ; 6E View FIGURE 6 ), three retromarginal teeth on the chelicerae ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ; Polotow & Brescovit 2014: char. 64) and the distal pair of spines on tibia I distant from the apical margin of tibia ( Polotow & Brescovit 2014: char. 73). Males resemble those of Nothroctenus and Viracucha by the palp with swollen patella ( Polotow & Brescovit 2014: char. 1, fig. 5a), retrolateral cymbial process ( Fig. 8A View FIGURE 8 ; Polotow & Brescovit 2014: char. 16, fig. 5A; Silva-Dávila 2003: fig. 19c–d), and curved papal tibia ( Fig. 11C View FIGURE 11 ; Polotow & Brescovit 2014: fig. 5a). Males of Acanthoctenus can be distinguished from those genera by the short and cylindrical embolus ( Fig. 8B View FIGURE 8 ) and by the elongated and thin median apophysis with an apical hook ( Fig. 8B View FIGURE 8 ) whereas the males of Nothroctenus ( Silva-Dávila 2003: fig. 19c) and Viracucha ( Polotow & Brescovit 2014: fig. 5a) have embolus with a laminated base and median apophysis reduced or massive, respectively. Furthermore, males can be distinguished from Nothroctenus by the absence of a folded spermatic duct ( Fig. 11C View FIGURE 11 ), present in the latter ( Dias & Brescovit 2004: figs 7–8). Females resemble those of Nothroctenus ( Dias & Brescovit 2004: fig. 9) and Viracucha ( Lehtinen 1967: fig. 415) by the lack of lateral projections on the epigynum ( Fig. 9A View FIGURE 9 ; Polotow & Brescovit 2014: char. 52). Females of Acanthoctenus can be distinguished from Nothroctenus ( Lehtinen, 1967: fig. 417; Dias & Brescovit 2004: fig. 9) and Viracucha ( Lehtinen 1967: fig. 415) by their large atrium ( Figs. 13C View FIGURE 13 , 16C View FIGURE 16 ; Lehtinen, 1967: fig. 414), reduce or absent in the other genera, respectively, and from Nothroctenus by the shorter copulatory ducts ( Fig. 9B View FIGURE 9 ), elongated and convoluted in the latter ( Dias & Brescovit 2004: fig. 10).
Description. Small to medium-sized cribellate spiders. Total body length (males and females) 7.26–16.20. Carapace piriform, light brown with a wide longitudinal stripe of lighter coloration (from light brown to beige) from ocular area to the posterior border; thoracic groove longitudinal and located in the posterior third ( Figs 1A View FIGURE 1 , 3A View FIGURE 3 , 4 View FIGURE 4 A–B, 11A, 13A, 15A, 17A, 20A, 22A, 24A, 27A, 30A, 31A, 33A, 36A, 38A, 40A, 42A, 44A, 46A, 48A). Carapace profile higher at the ocular area ( Figs 1B View FIGURE 1 , 3B View FIGURE 3 ). Clypeus with long dark bristles ( Fig. 13B View FIGURE 13 , 15C View FIGURE 15 ). Ctenid eye pattern 2-4-2, with the anterior and posterior row recurved in dorsal view ( Figs 4B View FIGURE 4 , 5B View FIGURE 5 , 13B View FIGURE 13 ). Eyes round, except oval anterior lateral eyes, mounted over black mounds ( Figs 5B View FIGURE 5 , 13B View FIGURE 13 , 20C View FIGURE 20 ), with grade-shaped tapetum (barely shown in Fig. 22C View FIGURE 22 ). Anteriorly with a dark band with two lateral stripes of white setae extending from the anterior border of the carapace to the anterior median eyes ( Figs 1C View FIGURE 1 , 3C View FIGURE 3 , 13B View FIGURE 13 , 15C View FIGURE 15 , 20C View FIGURE 20 , 22C View FIGURE 22 , 24C View FIGURE 24 , 27C View FIGURE 27 , 30B View FIGURE 30 , 36C View FIGURE 36 , 38C View FIGURE 38 , 40C View FIGURE 40 , 42C View FIGURE 42 , 44C View FIGURE 44 , 46C View FIGURE 46 , 48C View FIGURE 48 ). Chelicerae with a large boss ( Fig. 40C View FIGURE 40 ), thickened setae next to the fang base ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ), three promarginal teeth, median largest, three retromarginal teeth, basal smaller, and without intermaginal denticles ( Figs 5A View FIGURE 5 , 22B View FIGURE 22 ). Chilum divided ( Fig. 15C View FIGURE 15 ). Long endites and labium short in relation to the size of the endites; light brown sternum, oval, not extending between legs IV ( Figs 11B View FIGURE 11 , 15B View FIGURE 15 , 17B View FIGURE 17 , 20B View FIGURE 20 , 22B View FIGURE 22 , 24B View FIGURE 24 , 27B View FIGURE 27 , 31B View FIGURE 31 , 33B View FIGURE 33 , 36B View FIGURE 36 , 38B View FIGURE 38 , 40B View FIGURE 40 , 42B View FIGURE 42 , 44B View FIGURE 44 , 46B View FIGURE 46 , 48B View FIGURE 48 ). Leg formula 1423 in males, female leg formula is variable and is described for each species. Shallow trochanteral notch ( Fig. 15B View FIGURE 15 ). Legs usually longer in males than females. Spination: ventral surfaces of tibia I-II with nine pairs of spines and metatarsus I-II with five pairs of spines, except A. remotus (tibia I with seven pairs, tibia II with six pairs and metatarsus I-II with three pairs of spines). All legs in males and females with a patch of tenant setae (claw tufts) arising from a movable plate (claw tuft plate) ( Fig. 6C View FIGURE 6 ). Third small tarsal claw present on each leg tarsus ( Fig. 6D View FIGURE 6 , arrow). Trichobothria bases with four transversal grooves on proximal hood ( Fig. 6A View FIGURE 6 ). Distal capsulated tarsal organ with a drop-shaped opening ( Fig. 6B View FIGURE 6 ). Calamistrum oval with several rows of setae ( Fig. 6E View FIGURE 6 ). Pedicel divided ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ). Opisthosoma oval with tufts of elongated white setae in two longitudinal rows ( Figs 1A View FIGURE 1 , 4B View FIGURE 4 , 5D View FIGURE 5 ). Cribellum divided into two fields of strobilate spigots that are clumped in short, longitudinal linear rows ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 E–F; Griswold et al. 2005: figs 97a, 115a), larger in females than males. Six spinnerets, ALS, and PLS two-segmented ( Fig. 7A, C View FIGURE 7 ), PMS one-segmented ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 ). The ALS has a bare margin, a two large MAP, and several PI spigots interspersed with tartipores ( Fig. 7A View FIGURE 7 ; Griswold et al. 2005: figs 115b, 116b, 117a). The PMS has a pair of mAP spigots with a tartipore in between and many small AC spigots interspersed with three large CY spigots; without paracribellar spigots ( Fig. 7B View FIGURE 7 ; Griswold et al. 2005: figs 115c–e, 116d, 117d). The PLS has several AC spigots and an apical anterior MS ( Fig. 7C View FIGURE 7 ; Griswold et al. 2005: figs 115d, 116c, 117b–c). The silks used for the construction of egg sacs and shelters are irregular ( Fig. 7 View FIGURE 7 D–F). Males lack epiandrous spigots. Male palp: patella swelled ( Fig. 11A, D View FIGURE 11 ); tibia curved with only one tibial projection (RTA) ( Figs 11C, D View FIGURE 11 , 12 View FIGURE 12 A–B); conical RTA; cymbium longer than tibia and with a basal retrolateral projection ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 ); subtegulum prolateral, partially visible behind embolus; tegulum suboval with a central hyaline area where the median apophysis emerges ( Figs 11C View FIGURE 11 , 12A View FIGURE 12 ); embolus emerging prolaterally, flexibly attached to the tegulum, cylindrical, with a larger base tapering distally ( Fig. 8A View FIGURE 8 ); median apophysis elongated and scoop-shaped, with a subtriangular distal projection ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 A–B); conductor apical and hyaline ( Figs 8 View FIGURE 8 A–B, 12B); some species with modified setae distally on the cymbium ( Fig. 8 View FIGURE 8 C–D). Female genitalia: epigynum divided into the median and lateral sectors ( Figs 9A View FIGURE 9 , 12C View FIGURE 12 ); median sector suboval, subpentagonal, or subrectangular, longitudinally elongated, extending or not into the atrium, partially covered by the lateral sectors ( Figs 9A View FIGURE 9 , 12C View FIGURE 12 , 14A View FIGURE 14 , 17C View FIGURE 17 ); lateral sectors large, anteriorly straight or curved, forming an angle between 30° and 90° with the median sector longitudinal axis, partially transparent, spermathecae visible through transparency ( Figs 14A View FIGURE 14 , 17C View FIGURE 17 , 18A View FIGURE 18 , 20D View FIGURE 20 ); copulatory opening small, connected to the lateral sector ( Figs 14A View FIGURE 14 , 16C View FIGURE 16 , 19A View FIGURE 19 , 21A View FIGURE 21 , 23C View FIGURE 23 ); copulatory ducts sinuous, first half bordered by the lateral sectors, strongly or slightly S-shaped (left side) ( Figs 12D View FIGURE 12 , 14B View FIGURE 14 , 16D View FIGURE 16 , 18B View FIGURE 18 21B View FIGURE 21 ); head of spermathecae quote-shaped, with apical glandular openings ( Figs 12D View FIGURE 12 , 14B View FIGURE 14 , 18B View FIGURE 18 , 21B View FIGURE 21 ); the base of spermathecae scalloped ( Figs 12D View FIGURE 12 , 14B View FIGURE 14 , 18B View FIGURE 18 , 21B View FIGURE 21 ); fertilization ducts short, tubular and sclerotized, emerging from the base of spermathecae ( Figs 9B View FIGURE 9 , 14B View FIGURE 14 , 21B View FIGURE 21 , 25B View FIGURE 25 ).
Distribution. Neotropical region, from Bolivia to Mexico, in tropical humid forest and mountains ( Fig. 10 View FIGURE 10 ).
Composition. Thirteen species: Acanthoctenus spiniger Keyserling, 1877 , Acanthoctenus spinipes Keyserling, 1877 , Acanthoctenus dumicola Simon, 1906 stat. res., Acanthoctenus gaujoni Simon, 1906 , Acanthoctenus plebejus Simon, 1906 , Acanthoctenus kollari ( Reimoser, 1939) , Acanthoctenus virginea ( Kraus, 1955) stat. res., comb. nov., Acanthoctenus remotus Chickering, 1960 , Acanthoctenus alux sp. nov., Acanthoctenus chickeringi sp. nov., Acanthoctenus lamarrei sp. nov., Acanthoctenus manauara sp. nov., and Acanthoctenus torotoro sp. nov.
Bosselaers, J. (2002) A cladistic analysis of Zoropsidae (Araneae), with description of a new genus. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 132 (2), 141 - 154.
Caporiacco, L. di (1947) Diagnosi preliminar de specie nuove di aracnidi della Guiana Brittanica raccolte dai Professori Beccari e Romiti. Monitore zoologico Italiano, 56, 20 - 34.
Caporiacco, L. di (1948) Arachnida of British Guiana collected in 1931 and 1936 by Professors Beccari and Romiti. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 118 (3), 607 - 747. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1096 - 3642.1948. tb 00402. x
Caporiacco, L. di (1955) Estudios sobre los aracnidos de Venezuela. 2 ª parte: Araneae. Acta Biologica Venezuelica, 1, 265 - 448.
Chickering, A. M. (1960) A new Acanthoctenus (Araneae: Acanthoctenidae) from Jamaica, W. I. Psyche, 67, 81 - 86. https: // doi. org / 10.1155 / 1960 / 26951
Dahl, F. (1901 b) Nachtrag zur Uebersicht der Zoropsiden. Sitzungs-Berichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freuden, Berlin, 1901, 244 - 255.
Dias, S. C. & Brescovit, A. D. (2004) Microhabitat selection and co-ocurrence of Pachistoplema rufonigrum Pocock (Araneae, Theraposidae) and Nothroctenus fuxico sp. nov. (Araneae, Ctenidae) in tank bromeliads from Serra de Itabaiana, Sergipe, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 21, 789 - 796. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0101 - 81752004000400011
Forster, R. R. & Wilton, C. L. (1973) The spiders of New Zealand. Part IV. Otago Museum Bulletin, 4, 1 - 309.
Griswold, C. E., Ramirez, M. J., Coddington, J. A. & Platnick, N. I. (2005) Atlas of phylogenetic data for entelegyne spiders (Araneae: Araneomorphae: Entelegynae) with comments on their phylogeny. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Supplement II, 56, 1 - 324.
Keyserling, E. G. (1877) Ueber amerikanische spinnenarten der Unterordnung Citigradae. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-K ˆ niglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 26, 609 - 708.
Kraus, O. (1955) Spinnen aus El Salvador (Arachnoidea, Araneae). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 493, 1 - 112.
Lehtinen, P. T. (1967) Classification of the Cribellate Spiders and some allied families: with notes on the evolution of the subor- der Araneomorpha. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 4, 199 - 468.
Petrunkevitch, A. (1925) Arachnida from Panama. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 27, 51 - 248.
Pickard-Cambridge, F. O. (1897) On cteniform spiders from the lower Amazons and other regions of North and South America, with a list of all known species of these groups hitherto recorded from the New World. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6 (19), 52 - 106. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222939708680507
Pickard-Cambridge, F. O. (1902) Arachnida - Araneida and Opiliones. Biologia Centrali-Americana, Zoology, 2, 313 - 424.
Polotow, D. & Brescovit, A. D. (2008) Revision of the Neotropical spider genus Gephyroctenus (Araneae: Ctenidae: Calocteninae). Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 25 (4), 705 - 715. https: // doi. org / 10.1590 / S 0101 - 81752008000400016
Polotow, D. & Brescovit, A. D. (2012) An update on tropical Ctenidae from Jamaica (Arachnida, Araneae). Zootaxa, 3481 (1), 39 - 46. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3481.1.3
Polotow, D. & Brescovit, A. D. (2014) Phylogenetic analysis of the tropical wolf spider subfamily Cteninae (Arachnida, Araneae, Ctenidae) Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 170, 333 - 361. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / zoj. 12101
Polotow, D., Carmichael, A. & Griswold, C. E. (2015) Total evidence analysis of the phylogenetic relationships of Lycosoidea spiders (Araneae, Entelegynae). Invertebrate Systematics, 29, 124 - 163. https: // doi. org / 10.1071 / IS 14041
Ramirez, M. J (2014) The morphology and phylogeny of dionychan spiders (Araneae: Araneomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 390, 1 - 374. https: // doi. org / 10.1206 / 821.1
Reimoser, E. (1939) Wissenshaftliche Ergebnisse der ˆ sterreichischen biologischen Expedition nach Costa Rica. Die Spinnenfauna. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 50, 328 - 386.
Silva-Davila, D. (2003) Higher-level relationships of the spider family Ctenidae (Araneae: Ctenoidea). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 247, 1 - 86. https: // doi. org / 10.1206 / 0003 - 0090 (2003) 274 % 3 C 0001: HLROTS % 3 E 2.0. CO; 2
Simon, E. (1892) Histoire naturelle des araignees. Vol. 1. Roret, Paris, 256 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 51973
Simon, E. (1893) Voyage de M. E. Simon au Venezuela (Decembre 1887 - Avril 1888). 21 e Memoire. Arachnides (1). Familles des Uloboridae, Zoropsidae, Dictynidae, Oecobiidae, Filistatidae, Sicariidae, Leptonetidae, Oonopidae, Dysderidae, Caponiidae, Prodidomidae, Drassidae, Palpimanidae et Zodariidae. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, 61 (4, for 1892), 423 - 462.
Simon, E. (1906) Etude sur les araignees de la section des cribellates. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de Belgique, 50, 284 - 308. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 19947
Soares, B. A. M. & Soares, H. E. M. (1946) Contribuic o ao estudo das aranhas do estado do Espirito Santo. Papeis Avulsos do Departamento de Zoologia, 7, 51 - 72.
Strand, E. (1909) Neue oder wenig bekannte neotropisch ctenifore spinnen des Berlier Museums. Zoologische Jahrbucher, Abteilung fur Systematik, Geographuie und Biologie der Tiere, 28, 401 - 428.
Tullgren, A. (1905) Araneida from the Swedish expedition through the Gran Chaco and the Cordilleras. Arkiv f ˆ r Zoologi, 2 (19), 1 - 81. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 4543
World Spider Catalog (2020) World Spider Catalog. Version 21.0. Natural History Museum Bern, Bern. Available from: http: // wsc. nmbe. ch (accessed 6 June 2020) https: // doi. org / 10.24436 / 2
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
SubFamily |
Acanthocteninae |
Acanthoctenus Keyserling, 1877
Arizala, Stephany, Labarque, Facundo Martín & Polotow, Daniele 2021 |
Paracantheis
Lehtinen, P. T. 1967: 256 |
Kraus, O. 1955: 51 |
Acanthoctenus
Polotow, D. & Carmichael, A. & Griswold, C. E. 2015: 134 |
Polotow, D. & Brescovit, A. D. 2014: 334 |
Ramirez, M. 2014: 28 |
Polotow, D. & Brescovit, A. D. 2012: 40 |
Polotow, D. & Brescovit, A. D. 2008: 706 |
Griswold, C. E. & Ramirez, M. J. & Coddington, J. A. & Platnick, N. I. 2005: 17 |
Silva-Davila, D. 2003: 3 |
Bosselaers, J. 2002: 141 |
Forster, R. R. & Wilton, C. L. 1973: 293 |
Lehtinen, P. T. 1967: 208 |
Chickering, A. M. 1960: 81 |
Kraus, O. 1955: 51 |
Caporiacco, L. di 1955: 290 |
Caporiacco, L. di 1948: 684 |
Caporiacco, L. di 1947: 28 |
Soares, B. A. M. & Soares, H. E. M. 1946: 53 |
Reimoser, E. 1939: 364 |
Petrunkevitch, A. 1925: 95 |
Strand, E. 1909: 402 |
Simon, E. 1906: 288 |
Tullgren, A. 1905: 19 |
Pickard-Cambridge, F. O. 1902: 354 |
Dahl, F. 1901: 186 |
Pickard-Cambridge, F. O. 1897: 101 |
Simon, E. 1893: 430 |
Simon, E. 1892: 229 |
Keyserling, E. G. 1877: 693 |