Corresponding author: Christopher K. Taylor (
Academic editor: A. Kury
The
Both genera are represented in museum collections by material from throughout both of the main islands of New Zealand (personal observations). However, accidents of history have resulted in the fauna of the South Island being more extensively investigated than that of the North Island, with the greater number of described species coming from the former. Only one species of
A third novel species from the North Island is of particular interest as it does not accord with either
Specimens were sourced from the collections of Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, New Zealand (MONZ) and the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France (MNHP). Photographs and measurements were taken using a Nikon SMZ1500 stereo microscope and the NIS-Elements D 4.00.03 programme, and a Leica DM2500 compound microscope. Coloration is described as in alcohol. Measurements are given in millimetres.
Neuter, named for the type locality of the type species.
As for type and only species.
♂. New Zealand,
1 ♀, as for holotype; 1 ♂, Cuvier Is, July, R. Forster.
From the Latin
♂. New Zealand,
Named for the type locality.
The genus
Another feature of
1 ♂, ‘Ile du Milieu, Filhol, 1875-75’ (MNHP no. 134).
1 ♂, same data as neotype; 3 ♂, New Zealand,
As described by
The original type specimen(s) of
Since the publication of
White’s (1849) original description of
1 ♂, New Zealand,
There is some variation in coloration between the two specimens available, most notably the presence of a medial stripe on the opisthosoma of one but not the other, with the former specimen also being overall lighter in coloration than the latter. It is possible that this difference may reflect differences in maturity between the two specimens, similar to what has been recorded for other
Long regarded as something of a mystery after its initial description by
The absence of a distinct dorsal keel on the glans of the penis clearly distinguishes
The presence of dimorphic males as described for other
The last author to provide a key to species of
1 | Lateral parts of opisthosoma with extensive light-coloured markings, either broadly light-coloured or with broad transverse stripes, contrasting with darker median; light coloured transverse stripe often covering most of metapeltidium and/or first opisthosomal segment | 2 |
– | Lateral parts of opisthosoma largely dark (longitudinal median stripe may be present; transverse stripes, if present, narrow and not covering most of lateral part of opisthosoma), no light transverse stripe over metapeltidium and first opisthosomal segment | 4 |
2 | Light-coloured lateral patches extending mediad as transverse stripes; articular membranes not brightly coloured | 3 |
– | Light-coloured patches restricted to lateral part of opisthosoma, not extending mediad as transverse stripes; articular membranes brightly coloured (white in alcohol) |
|
3 | Dorsal prosomal plate with numerous well-developed denticles in both anterior and medial propeltidial areas |
|
– | Dorsal prosomal plate with few denticles, and those low and rounded |
|
4 | Dorsal prosomal plate with denticles in anterior propeltidial area at least | 5 |
– | Dorsal prosomal plate completely unarmed | 7 |
5 | Glans of penis with well-developed dorsal keel | |
– | Glans of penis without distinct dorsal keel | 6 |
6 | Ocularium unarmed; opisthosoma with narrow light-coloured transverse stripes | |
– | Ocularium denticulate; opisthosoma without transverse stripes | |
7 | Length of pedipalp femur less than half width of prosoma; femora of legs with few denticles |
|
– | Length of pedipalp femur more than half width of prosoma; femora of legs entirely smooth |
|
Thanks are due to Phil Sirvid (MONZ) and Mark Judson (MNHP) for arranging the loans of specimens used in this study, and to James Cokendolpher and Nobuo Tsurusaki for critical comments on the manuscript. I am also grateful to Simon Pollard (Canterbury Museum) for providing photographs of