A survey of five Pireneitega species (Agelenidae, Coelotinae) from China

Abstract Five species of Pireneitega spiders from China are surveyed, of which three are new to science: P. huashanensis Zhao & Li, sp. n. (♂♀), P. lushuiensis Zhao & Li, sp. n. (♂♀), P. xiyankouensis Zhao & Li, sp. n. (♂♀). Two known species are redescribed: P. liansui (Bao & Yin, 2004) and P. triglochinata (Zhu & Wang, 1991). The males of P. liansui and P. triglochinata (Zhu & Wang, 1991) are described for the first time. DNA barcodes for five species are documented for future use and as proof of molecular differences between species.


Introduction
Coelotinae is the largest subfamily of Agelenidae, with 25 genera and 676 valid species distributed in the Holarctic and southeast Asia (World Spider Catalog 2017). The genus Pireneitega Kishida, 1955 is one of the most species-rich genera of the subfamily.
Thirty-five valid Pireneitega species are distributed from Europe to East Asia (Zhang and Marusik 2016), and 20 were known from China before the current study (Li and Lin 2016;.
During the study of Pireneitega spiders from China, five interesting species were found. The goal of this paper is to provide descriptions of three new species and redescriptions of two poorly known species.

Material and methods
Specimens were examined with a Leica M205C stereomicroscope. Images were captured with an Olympus C7070 wide zoom digital camera (7.1 megapixels) mounted on an Olympus SZX12 dissecting microscope. Epigynes and male palps were examined after dissection from the spiders' bodies. The epigyne was cleared by boiling it in 10% KOH solution before taking photos of the vulva. All measurements were obtained using a Leica M205C stereomicroscope and are given in millimeters. Leg measurements are given as: Total length (femur, patella + tibia, meta tarsus, tarsus). Only structures (palp and legs) of the left side of the body are described and measured.
All specimens (including molecular vouchers) are deposited in the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IZCAS) in Beijing, China.

Diagnosis.
Females of Pireneitega can be distinguished from all other coelotine genera by the widely separated epigynal teeth, the large atrium with subparallel margins, and the broad copulatory ducts ( Fig. 2A-B); other coelotines usually have a small atrium and copulatory ducts. The males can be distinguished by the small RTA, the distinct median apophysis and the absence of a conductor dorsal apophy sis ( Fig. 1A-C); other coelotines usually have a broad conductor dorsal apophy sis and a reduced or indistinct median apophysis (Zhang and Marusik 2016 (Zhu & Wang, 1994) by having a tapering conductor tip and longer cymbial furrow. From P. luniformis, it can be distinguished by the elongate embolus base and the larger diameter of the conductor's loop, approximately six times the width of the conductor (vs the small embolus base and the small diameter of the conductor's loop in P. luniformis) ( Fig. 1; Zhu and Wang 1994: figs 7-8). The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. luniformis by having short copulatory ducts and long epigynal teeth, subequal to the length of the atrium. From P. luniformis, it can be distinguished by the longer septum (vs the short septum in P. luniformis) (Fig. 2;Zhu and Wang 1994: figs 5-6).
Remarks. The male of P. liansui is described for the first time. Diagnosis. The male can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. huashanensis and P. luniformis, by having a longer cymbial furrow and the arched tip of conductor. From P. huashanensis it can be distinguished by the thick tip of the patellar apophysis and the narrow and straight embolus base (vs the thin tip of the patellar apophysis and the elongate embolus base in P. huashanensis, and the tapering tip of the patellar apophysis, and the small and nearly triangular embolus base in P. luniformis) (Figs 1, 5;Zhu & Wang 1994: figs 7-8). The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. luniformis by having a blunt tip of the septum and a short receptacle. From P. luniformis it can be distinguished by long copulatory ducts, and the median part subequal to the length of receptacle (vs short copulatory ducts in P. luniformis) ( Fig. 6; Zhu & Wang 1994: figs 5-6).
Note. The DNA barcode of the male described here matches that of the female. In the original species description of Coelotes triglochinatus, the female holotype and male 'allotype' were not correctly matched (Wang and Jäger 2007). The male 'allotype' of C. triglochinatus might match the female of other Coelotinae species described from Mt. Emei. Currently, two Coelotinae species described from Mt. Emei are known only by females, they are Draconarius sichuanensis Wang & Jäger, 2007 and Platocoelotes imperfectus Wang & Jäger, 2007(World Spider Catalog 2017.  Etymology. The specific name refers to the type locality; adjective. Diagnosis. The male can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. involuta, P. liansui and P. triglochinata by having a broad conductor, the width of the conductor about 1/5 of loop diameter. From P. involuta it can be distinguished by the bifurcate tip of the patellar apophysis (vs a tapering tip in P. involuta and P. triglochinata). From P. liansui it can be distinguished by the short cymbial furrow, about 0.3 times the length of the cymbium (vs a long cymbial furrow in P. liansui, more than half the length of the cymbium) (Figs 3, 7, 9;Wang et al. 1990: figs 13-15, 18-19). The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. xinping Zhang, Zhu & Song, 2002 by having bent and narrow epigynal teeth, a broad atrium and sclerotized tip of the septum. From P. xinping it can be distinguished by a long receptacle, about four times longer than wide (vs a straight and short receptacle in P. xinping, about two times longer than wide) ( Fig. 10; Zhang et al. 2002: figs 7-8).