Research Article
Print
Research Article
A survey of Pireneitega from Tajikistan (Agelenidae, Coelotinae)
expand article infoXiaoqing Zhang, Yuri M. Marusik§
‡ Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, China
§ IBPN RAS (Magadan, Russia), University of the Free State (Bloemfontein, South Africa) and University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Open Access

Abstract

Five new species of Pireneitega species from Tajikistan are described: P. zonsteini sp. n. (♂♀), P. muratovi sp. n. (♀), P. tyurai sp. n. (♀), P. ramitensis sp. n. (♀) and P. kovblyuki sp. n. (♂). Pireneitega major (Kroneberg, 1875) is redescribed for the first time based on the lectotype designated here. DNA barcodes for the five new species are documented for future use and as proof of molecular differences between these species.

Keywords

Aranei , central Asia, description, new species, Paracoelotes, redescription, spider, taxonomy

Introduction

Coelotinae is the largest subfamily of Agelenidae with more than 650 species distributed in the Holarctic and southeast Asia (World Spider Catalog 2016). Pireneitega Kishida, 1955 with 30 species distributed across the Palaearctic (World Spider Catalog 2016, Zhang et al. 2016) is one of the most species-rich genera of the subfamily. It is relatively well studied in comparison to other species-rich (and non-monophyletic) genera Coelotes Blackwall, 1841 and Draconarius Ovtchinnikov, 1999. The species of Pireneitega found in Caucasus and Xinjiang were recently revised (Kovblyuk et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2016) but the genus remains poorly studied in Central Asia. Of three species known from central Asia (Mikhailov 2013: P. birulai (Ermolajev, 1927) (currently considered a junior synonym of P. luctuosa (L. Koch, 1878)), P. fedotovi (Charitonov, 1946) and P. major (Kroneberg, 1875)), P. fedotovi is known only from the original description and P. major only from two very short descriptions supplied with sketchy figures. A short trip by the junior author to Tajikistan revealed five new morphospecies of Pireneitega, each separated by distinct genetic gaps. The goal of this paper is to provide descriptions of the new species (including records of their molecular markers) and a redescription of P. major whose type locality lies in northern Tajikistan.

Material and methods

Specimens were examined and measured 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. Epigynes were cleared by boiling it in 10% KOH solution before taking photos of the dorsal view. All measurements are given in millimeters. Pireneitega major was photographed and drawn using an MBS-9 stereomicroscope with Pro-MicroScancamera. Leg measurements are given as: total length (femur, patella + tibia, metatarsus, tarsus).

Terminology used for copulatory organ characters in the text and figure legends follows Wang (2002) with some modifications.

Abbreviations used in the text and figure legends are:

A epigynal atrium

ALE anterior lateral eye

AME anterior median eye

AME-ALE distance between AME and ALE

AME-AME distance between AME and AME

ALE-PLE distance between ALE and PLE

CD copulatory ducts

CF cymbial furrow

CO conductor

d dorsal

E embolus

EB embolic base

ET epigynal teeth

FD fertilization ducts

Fe femur

H epigynal hood

MA median apophysis

Mt metatarsus

p prolateral

PA patellar apophysis

Pa patella

PLE posterior lateral eye

PME posterior median eye

PME-PLE distance between PME and PLE

PME-PME distance between PME and PME

R receptacle

r retrolateral

RTA retrolateral tibial apophysis

ST subtegulum

T tegulum

Ta tarsus

Ti tibia

v ventral

VTA ventral tibial apophysis

DNA barcodes were obtained for future use: a partial fragment of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) was amplified and sequenced for five new species using Primers LCO1490-oono (5’-CWACAAAYCATARRGATATTGG-3’) (Folmer et al. 1994; Miller et al. 2010) and HCO2198-zz (5’-TAAACTTCCAGGTGACCAAAAAATCA-3’) (Folmer et al. 1994; Zhao and Li 2016). For additional information on extraction, amplification, and sequencing procedures, see Zhao et al. (2013). All sequences were blasted in GenBank; accession numbers are provided in Table 1.

Voucher specimen information.

Species GenBank accession number Sequence length Collection localities
P. zonsteini sp. n. KY024475 642bp Env. of Dushanbe, Hissar Mt. Ridge 48th km of Varzob Hwy
P. muratovi sp. n. KY024477 642bp Env. of Dushanbe Hissar, Mt. Ridge 20th km of Varzob Hwy Gusgarf Vill.
P. tyurai sp. n. KY024478 642bp Khatlon Area Khovaling Distr., Obimazar River
P. ramitensis sp. n. KY024476 642bp Khatlon Area Hissar Mt. Range Ramit Reserve
P. kovblyuki sp. n. KY024474 642bp Tajikstan: Khatlon Area Dangara Distr Sanglogh

Holotypes and some paratypes will be deposited in the Zoological Museum of the Moscow State University (ZMMU). Most paratypes are deposited in the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IZCAS) in Beijing, China.

Taxonomy

Pireneitega Kishida, 1955

Pireneitega Kishida, 1955: 11. Type species Amaurobius roscidus L. Koch, 1868 (= P. segestriformis (Dufour, 1820)) from Germany.

Paracoelotes Brignoli, 1982: 347. Type species Coelotes armeniacus Brignoli, 1978 from Turkey.

Note

Pireneitega was long considered a nomen nudum (Yaginuma, in Brignoli 1983: p. 468). Kishida (1955), in a general survey of Agelenidae, considered Pireneitega to have been described by himself in 1928, although he had no publications that year. The genus "Pireneitega Kishida, 1928 [Genotype: roscida (Koch, 1868)]" was considered among the tribe Tegenariini Kishida, 1928 (Kishida 1955: p. 11). Although eye pattern was mentioned in the key to the genera of "Tegenariini", Kishida (1955) did not provide a formal description of the genus. Brignoli (1982) described Paracoelotes (type species Coelotes armeniacus Brignoli, 1978) from Turkey. Subsequently, Wang and Jäger (2007) revalidated Pireneitega with Paracoelotes as a junior synonym.

Diagnosis

The chelicerae in most species of Pireneitega (including the type species) have 3 promarginal and 3 retromarginal teeth; other coelotines have either 2 or 4 retromarginal teeth (Zhang et al. 2016). The females can be distinguished 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 absence of a dorsal “apophysis” on the conductor, the small RTA, and the distinct median apophysis (Fig. 1A–C); other coelotines usually have a broad dorsal apophysis on the conductor and a reduced or indistinct median apophysis.

Figure 1.

Male palp of Pireneitega zonsteini sp. n., holotype. A Prolateral B Ventral C Retrolateral. Scale bar 0.1 mm.

Figure 2.

Pireneitega zonsteini sp. n., female paratype and male holotype. A Epigyne, ventral B Vulva, dorsal C Male habitus, dorsal D Female habitus, dorsal E Female habitus, ventral. Scale bars equal for D, E.

Composition

Thirty species of Pireneitega are known from Spain to Sakhalin (World Spider Catalog 2016; Mikhailov 2013). One species, P. major, was known from Tajikistan before the current study.

Pireneitega zonsteini sp. n.

Figs 1, 2, 8

Type material

Holotype ♂ (ZMMU): Tajikstan, environs of Dushanbe, Hissar Mt. Range, 48th km of Varzob Hwy, S exposed slope with Juglans litter & under stones, 38°55'31"N, 68°48'18"E, 1530 m, 7.05.2015 (Y.M. Marusik, M. Saidov). Paratypes: 1♂1♀ (IZCAS), same data as holotype.

Etymology

The species is named after Sergei Zonstein (University of Tel-Aviv, Israel) a partner of the junior author in the expedition to Tajikistan; noun (name) in genitive case.

Diagnosis

The male can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. involuta (Wang et al., 1990) by having a broad conductor and thick patellar apophysis. From P. involuta it is distinguished by the blunt tip of the patellar apophysis (vs a tapering tip in P. involuta) (Fig. 1; Wang et al. 1990: figs 13–15). The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. fedotovi by having a nearly trapezoidal atrium, long copulatory ducts, and short receptacles. From P. fedotovi it can be distinguished by its short epigynal teeth, about 0.5 times as long as length of the atrium (vs long epigynal teeth in P. fedotovi, about as long as the length of the atrium) (Fig. 2; Charitonov 1946: fig. 4).

Description

Male (holotype): Total length 8.90. Carapace 4.40 long, 3.50 wide. Abdomen 4.50 long, 2.80 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.15, ALE 0.20, PME 0.15, PLE 0.20; AME-AME 0.07, AME-ALE 0.06, PME-PME 0.15, PME-PLE 0.18. Leg measurements: I: 12.95 (3.50, 4.30, 3.15, 2.00); II: 12.25 (3.25, 4.00, 3.00, 2.00); III: 10.40 (3.15, 3.00, 3.25, 1.00); IV: 16.00 (4.50, 5.00, 4.25, 2.25). Carapace greenish, the radial grooves indistinct, with black lateral margins. Abdomen blackish, with yellow herringbone pattern.

Spination in male

Pireneitega zonsteini sp. n. Spination in male

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 1r 3-3v 3-3v
II 3d 1p 1r 2p 3-3v 2p 3-3v
III 3d 2p 2r 1p 1r 1d 2p 2r 3-3v 2p 2r 3-3v
IV 3d 2p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 2p 2r 3-3v

Palp as in Fig. 1: patellar apophysis long, more than half length of tibia; tibia short, about 1/4 length of tarsus; VTA subequal to the tibial length, without pointed tip, extending beyond the tibia; RTA short, about 1/6 length of VTA; cymbial furrow long, more than half length of cymbium; conductor broad and with two spiraling loops; median apophysis broad and nearly triangular; embolus with broad base originating proximally on base of tegulum.

Female (paratype): Total length 10.0. Carapace 4.75 long, 3.65 wide. Abdomen 5.25 long, 3.45 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.20, ALE 0.25, PME 0.21, PLE 0.26; AME-AME 0.08, AME-ALE 0.05, PME-PME 0.17, PME-PLE 0.20. Leg measurements: I: 12.50 (3.75, 4.25, 2.75, 1.75); II: 11.75 (3.50, 4.00, 2.75, 1.50); III: 10.60 (3.00, 3.50, 2.60, 1.50); IV: 15.00 (4.25, 4.75, 4.00, 2.00). Carapace yellow. Abdomen black, with yellow spots and herringbone pattern.

Epigyne as in Fig. 2A–B: epigynal teeth narrow and relatively short (shorter than width of atrium); septum short with weakly sclerotized tip, about 0.3 times as long as wide; atrium with well delimited posterior margin, about 1.3 times longer than wide, about 4 times longer than septum, subequal to width of septum; copulatory opening hidden by anterior margin of atrium; receptacles long, about 2 times longer than wide, separated by 2.5 times their diameters; copulatory ducts with 3 parts, the basal part running from receptacle posteriorly (Bd), median part running anteriorly (Md), and terminal part (Td) running posteriorly and leading to copulatory opening; median part as wide as terminal and 2 times longer than basal part; median part 1.5 times longer than receptacle; median parts touching each other; hoods indistinct.

Spination in female

Pireneitega zonsteini sp. n. Spination in female

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 1r 3-3v 3-3v
II 3d 1p 1r 1p 3-3v 1p 3-3v
III 3d 1p 2r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 2p 2r 3-3v
IV 3d 1p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 1p 2r 3-3v

Distribution

Known only from the type locality (Fig. 8).

Pireneitega muratovi sp. n.

Figs 3, 8

Type material

Holotype ♀ (ZMMU): Tajikstan: env of Dushanbe, Hissar Mt. Ridge, 20th km of Varzob Hwy, Gusgarf [Gushharf] Vill., N exposed slope with Acer litter & cliffs, 38°44'22"N, 68°47'33"E, 1750 m, 8.05.2015, Y. M. Marusik. Paratype: 1♀ (IZCAS), same data as holotype.

Etymology

The species is named after Tajikistan zoologist Rustam Muratov (Dushanbe, Tajikistan) who was very helpful in organizing the expedition to Tajikistan; noun (name) in genitive case.

Diagnosis

The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. fedotovi, P. luniformis (Zhu & Wang, 1994), and P. major by having narrow epigynal teeth and an elongate oval atrium. It can be distinguished from P. fedotovi by the pointed tip of septum (vs blunt tip in P. fedotovi), from P. luniformis by the elongate oval receptacles (vs spiralled in P. luniformis), and from P. major by its short epigynal teeth, ca. 0.8 times as long as length of the atrium (vs long epigynal teeth in P. major, about as long as the length of the atrium) (Figs 3, 7; Charitonov 1946: fig. 4; Zhu and Wang 1994: figs 5–6).

Figure 3.

Pireneitega muratovi sp. n., female holotype. A Epigyne, ventral B Vulva, dorsal C Habitus, dorsal D Habitus, dorsal E Habitus, ventral view. Scale bars equal for C, D, E.

Description

Male: unknown.

Female (holotype): Total length 9.94. Carapace 4.49 long, 3.05 wide. Abdomen 5.45 long, 2.90 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.18, ALE 0.23, PME 0.24, PLE 0.30; AME-AME 0.10, AME-ALE 0.05, PME-PME 0.15, PME-PLE 0.10. Leg measurements: I: 11.25 (3.25, 4.00, 2.50, 1.50); II: 10.30 (3.00, 3.50, 2.50, 1.30); III: 9.70 (2.75, 3.00, 2.65, 1.30); IV: 13.75 (3.75, 4.25, 4.00, 1.75). Carapace yellow, the radial grooves indistinct. Abdomen whitish-yellow, with green herringbone pattern.

Epigyne as in Fig. 3A–B: epigynal teeth narrow, their length equal to width of the narrowest part of the atrium; septum with well delimited tip, ca. 0.5 times as long as wide; copulatory opening distinct; atrium with well delimited posterior margin, about 1.4 times longer than wide, ca. 2 times longer than and 0.7 times as wide as septum; receptacles long, about 2.5 times as long as wide, bases of receptacles separated by 2 diameters; copulatory ducts with 3 parts, median part as long as receptacles, and anterior part slightly wider than receptacles; hoods indistinct.

Spination

Pireneitega muratovi sp. n. Spination

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 1r 3-3v 1p 3-3v
II 3d 3p 2r 2p 3-3v 3-3v
III 3d 3p 2r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 1p 1r
IV 3d 1p 1r 1d 1p 1r 1d 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 5r 3-3v 2p 1r

Distribution

Known only from the type locality (Fig. 8).

Pireneitega tyurai sp. n.

Figs 4, 8

Type material

Holotype ♀ (ZMMU): Tajikstan: Khatlon Area, Khovaling Distr., Obimazar River, Sultan-Mazar, clay cliffs, 38°28'19"N, 70°04'01"E, 1854 m, 27.04.2015 (Y.M. Marusik). Paratypes: 4♀ (IZCAS), same data as holotype.

Etymology

The species is named after Sergei V. Tyura (Magadan, Russia) a friend of the junior author; noun (name) in genitive case.

Diagnosis

The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. tianchiensis (Wang et al., 1990) by having short receptacles and copulatory ducts. It can be distinguished from P. tianchiensis by the broad and long epigynal teeth, about 0.85 times as long as atrium (vs short and narrow epigynal teeth in P. tianchiensis, about 0.5 times as long as atrium) (Fig. 4A–B; Wang et al. 1990: figs 84–85).

Figure 4.

Pireneitega tyurai sp. n., female holotype. A Epigyne, ventral B Vulva, dorsal C Habitus, dorsal D Habitus, dorsal E Habitus, ventral. Scale bars equal for C, D, E.

Description

Male: unknown.

Female (holotype): Total length 5.15. Carapace 2.15 long, 1.75 wide. Abdomen 3.00 long, 2.00 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.10, ALE 0.13, PME 0.15, PLE 0.15; AME-AME 0.05, AME-ALE 0.10, PME-PME 0.02, PME-PLE 0.04. Leg measurements: I: 6.20 (1.90, 2.25, 1.25, 0.80); II: 5.10 (1.60, 1.75, 1.00, 0.75); III: 4.80 (1.50, 1.60, 1.00, 0.70); IV: 7.05 (2.05, 2.50, 1.50, 1.00). Carapace yellow, with black lateral margins. Abdomen blackish, with yellow herringbone pattern.

Epigyne as in Fig. 4A–B: epigynal teeth long (nearly as long as atrium); septum with weakly sclerotized tip, about 0.5 times as long as wide; atrium with weakly sclerotized posterior margin, about 0.7 times as long as wide, about 1.8 times longer than and 0.7 times as wide as septum; copulatory opening hidden; receptacles large, ca. 2 times longer than wide; copulatory ducts with two parts, terminal parts (Tp) not touching each other, about 0.5 length of receptacles, basal parts (Bp) shorter than width of receptacle; hoods indistinct.

Spination

Pireneitega tyurai sp. n. Spination

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 3-3v 3-3v
II 3d 1p 1r 1p 2p 3-3v 1p 3-3v
III 3d 1p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 2p 1r
IV 2d 1p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 2p 1r

Distribution

Known only from the type locality (Fig. 8).

Pireneitega ramitensis sp. n.

Figs 5, 8

Type material

Holotype ♀ (ZMMU): Tajikstan: Khatlon Area, Hissar Mt. Range, Ramit Reserve, 38°44'36"N, 69°18'30"E, 1324 m, 1.05.2015 (Y.M. Marusik). Paratypes: 4♀ (IZCAS), 2♀ (ZMMU), same data as holotype.

Etymology

The specific name is an adjective and refers to the type locality; adjective.

Diagnosis

The female can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. muratovi sp. n., P. fedotovi, P. luniformis and P. major, by having an elongate oval atrium, narrow epigynal teeth, and long copulatory ducts. It can be distinguished from P. muratovi sp. n. and P. luniformis by the narrow tip of the copulatory ducts (vs round tip in P. muratovi sp. n. and P. luniformis) and from P. fedotovi and P. major by the bent epigynal teeth (vs straight epigynal teeth in P. fedotovi and P. major) (Figs 3, 5, 7; Charitonov 1946: fig. 4; Zhu and Wang 1994: figs 5–6).

Figure 5.

Pireneitega ramitensis sp. n., female holotype. A Epigyne, ventral B Vulva, dorsal C Habitus, dorsal D Habitus, ventral E Habitus, ventral. Scale bars equal for C, D, E.

Description

Male: unknown.

Female (holotype): Total length 12.00. Carapace 4.50 long, 3.55 wide. Abdomen 7.50 long, 4.75 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.20, ALE 0.23, PME 0.25, PLE 0.20; AME-AME 0.10, AME-ALE 0.20, PME-PME 0.10, PME-PLE 0.23. Leg measurements: I: 14.05 (4.00, 4.75, 3.45, 1.85); II: 13.40 (3.90, 4.50, 3.25, 1.75); III: 13.00 (3.75, 4.25, 3.25, 1.75); IV: 16.55 (4.75, 5.40, 4.40, 2.00). Carapace yellowish, with brown lateral margins. Abdomen pale-yellow, with brown spots.

Epigyne as in Fig. 5A–B: epigynal teeth pale, hyaline, long and thin, about 0.9 times as long as receptacles; septum with weakly sclerotized tip, ca. 0.5 times as long as wide, nearly triangular; copulatory ducts distinct; atrium about 1.4 times longer than wide, with well delimited posterior margin, ca. 2.8 times longer than and about as wide as septum; receptacles large, about. 3 times longer than wide; receptacle bases separated by about 2 diameters; copulatory ducts with 3 parts, basal part about 2/3 of receptacle length, median part as long as receptacle, terminal part somewhat shorter than median part; hoods distinct.

Spination

Pireneitega ramitensis sp. n. Spination

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 1r 1p 3-3v 1p 3-3v
II 3d 2p 2r 2p 3-3v 2p 3-3v
III 3d 3p 2r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 2p 2r
IV 3d 2p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 2p 2r

Distribution

Known only from the type locality (Fig. 8).

Pireneitega kovblyuki sp. n.

Figs 6, 8

Type material

Holotype ♂ (ZMMU): Tajikstan, Khatlon Area, Dangara Distr., Sanglogh (=Sanglok) Mt. Range above Shar-Shar Pass, 38°17'56"N, 69°13'36"E, 1700–2060 m, 29.04.2015, (Y.M. Marusik). Paratypes: 3♂ (IZCAS), 2♂ (ZMMU), same data as holotype.

Etymology

The specific name is a patronym in honour of the well known arachnologist and friend of the junior author Mykola M. Kovblyuk (Simferopol, Ukraine); noun (name) in genitive case.

Diagnosis

The male can be distinguished from all other Pireneitega species except P. tianchiensis by having a hook-shaped conductor, and narrow cymbium. It can be distinguished from P. tianchiensis by the short cymbial furrow, ca. 1/10 length of cymbium (vs long cymbial furrow in P. tianchiensis, about 0.5 length of cymbium) (Fig. 6; Wang et al. 1990: figs 81–83).

Figure 6.

Male palp of Pireneitega kovblyuki sp. n., holotype. A Prolateral B Ventral C Retrolateral. Scale bar 0.1 mm.

Description

Male (holotype): Total length 7.90. Carapace 4.00 long, 3.00 wide. Abdomen 3.90 long, 2.65 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.15, ALE 0.20, PME 0.18, PLE 0.19; AME-AME 0.08, AME-ALE 0.07, PME-PME 0.13, PME-PLE 0.15. Leg measurements: I: 10.90 (3.25, 4.05, 2.00, 1.60); II: 9.85 (3.00, 3.50, 2.00, 1.35); III: 8.60 (2.75, 2.50, 2.10, 1.25); IV: 12.55 (3.70, 3.75, 3.50, 1.60). Carapace yellow, the radial grooves indistinct. Abdomen pale, with yellow herringbone pattern.

Palp as in Fig. 6A–C: patellar apophysis absent; tibia long, ca. 0.5 length of cymbium; VTA short and wide, about 1/3 length of tibia, without pointed tip; RTA short, about 1/5 length of VTA, poorly visible; cymbium long, its tip as long as or longer than genital bulb; conductor short, with hook-shaped, partially looped tip, tip located distally from tegulum; median apophysis broad and nearly triangular; embolus with broad, nearly tongue-shaped base, beginning at 6:30 o’clock position.

Spination

Pireneitega kovblyuki sp. n. Spination

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 1r 3-3v 3-3v
II 3d 3p 1r 1p 2p 3-3v 3p 3-3v
III 3d 2p 2r 1d1p 1r 1d 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 5r 3-3v 1p 1r
IV 3d 1p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 5r 3-3v 2p 1r

Female: Unknown.

Distribution

Known only from the type locality (Fig. 8).

Pireneitega major (Kroneberg, 1875)

Figs 7, 8

Coelotes major Kroneberg, 1875: 15, pl. 1, fig. 6 (♀); Charitonov, 1946: 20, fig. 5 (♀).

Paracoelotes major: Ovtchinnikov, 1988: 142 (transferred from Coelotes).

Misidentifications:

Coelotes major: Schenkel 1936: 284, fig. 97 (♀); Hu & Wu 1989: 180, fig. 150.1‒2 (♀).

Paracoelotes major: Song et al. 1999: 389, fig. 229Q‒R (♀).

Material examined

Lectotype ♀ (ZMMU) with label «Ta 3845 1♀ ZMMU [Зоомузей МГУ]» «Lectotypus» 2/VI; Аyчи дагана [Auchi dagana] Coelotes major Kroneberg, 1875», ca 39°35’N, 69°05’E. Paralectotype: 1♀ (ZMMU) with 2 labels «Ta1059, 1, Coelotes major» «Туркестанская Учёная Экспедиция Имераторскаго Общества Любителей Естествознанiя. Федченко [Turkestan Scientific Expedition of the Emperor’s Society of Devotees of Natural Sciences. Fedchenko]» and «Coelotes major n. sp. Ta, No.1059, Кокандское ханство, Федченко [Kokand Khanate, Fedchenko]».

Comments

The figures of P. major presented by Schenkel (1936), Hu and Wu (1989), and Song et al. (1999; copied from Hu and Wu 1989) are of a species other than P. major, the identity of which is currently unknown. All records of this unknown species are from Xinjiang, China.

Diagnosis

This species is easily distinguished from other species of Pireneitega found in Tajikistan by its larger size (carapace length >6 mm vs <4.75) and having 5 spines on tarsus IV (vs other species with 0‒4). The epigyne of P. major is most similar to that of P. muratovi sp. n. and P. ramitensis sp. n. It can be distinguished from P. muratovi sp. n. by its shorter receptacles with length/width ratio of 2.3 (vs 2.6 in P. muratovi), shape of copulatory ducts, and shorter teeth (cf. Figs 3A–B and 7A–B). Pireneitega major can be separated from P. ramitensis sp. n by its wider epigynal atrium and shorter, wider receptacles as well as by its shorter and wider copulatory ducts (cf. Figs 5A–B and 7A–B).

Figure 7.

Epigyne of Pireneitega major, lectotype. A Ventral B Dorsal.

Description

Male: unknown.

Female: Lectotype. Total length 16.7. Carapace 7.0 long, 5.0 wide, fovea 1.25 long. Leg measurements: I:19.75 (5.5, 2.5, 4.6, 4.65, 2.5); II: 18.6 (5.1, 2.5, 4.0, 4.5, 2.5); III: 17.2 (4.75, 2.2, 3.55, 4.6, 2.1); IV: 21.85 (5.75, 2.3, 5.0, 6.25, 2.55).

Spination

Pireneitega major (Kroneberg, 1875) Spination

Fe Pt Ti Mt Ta
I 3d 2p 2r 3-3v 3-3v 1vm
II 3d 3p 2r 2p 3-3v 1p 3-3v
III 3d 3p 2r 1p 1(0)r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 2p 1-1v
IV 3d 2p 1r 1p 1r 2p 2r 3-3v 5p 4r 3-3v 2p 3r

Paralectotype ♀. Total length: 11.0. Carapace 6.0 long, 4.0 wide. Epigyne 0.51 wide.

Epigyne as in Fig. 7: epigynal teeth pale, hyaline, long and thin; septum with weakly sclerotized tip, about 0.4 times as long as wide, subtriangular; atrium as long as wide; receptacles large, about 2.5 times longer than wide; receptacle bases separated by ca. 2 diameters; copulatory ducts with 2 parts, basal part as long as receptacle, terminal part somewhat shorter receptacle.

Comments

Known from the type series females only. Exact locality is known for the lectotype only: Auchi lies on the northern macroslope of the Turkestan Mt Range (Fig. 8).

Figure 8.

Localities of Pireneitega species from Tajikistan. 1 P. zonsteini sp. n. 2 P. muratovi sp. n. 3 P. tyurai sp. n. 4 P. ramitensis sp. n. 5 P. kovblyuki sp. n. 6 P. major.

Acknowledgements

We thank Sergei Zonstein (Tel-Aviv, Israel; a partner of the junior author in the expedition to Tajikistan), Rustam Muratov and Murod Saidov (Dushanbe, Tajikistan) for field assistance and helping to organize the expedition; Kirill G. Mikhailov (Moscow, Russia) for allowing us to study the type material of P. major; Seppo Koponen (Turku, Finland) for providing museum facilities in Turku; and Zhe Zhao (Beijing, China) for helping to provide the molecular data. English of the final draft was kindly checked by Robert Bennett (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada). This study was supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China to Guo Zheng (NSFC-31172121,31372224,31672315).

References

  • Brignoli PM (1982) On a few spiders from China (Araneae). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 5: 344–351.
  • Brignoli PM (1983) A catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. Manchester University Press 468: 1–755.
  • Charitonov DE (1946) New forms of spiders of the USSR. Izvestiya Yestestvenno-Nauchnogo Instituta pri Molotovskom Gosudarstvennom Universitete imeni M. Gor’kogo 12: 19–32. [In Russian]
  • Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Bilogy and Biotechnology 3(5): 294–299.
  • Hu JL, Wu WG (1989) Spider from agricultural regions of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China. Shandong University Publishing House, Jinan, 435 pp.
  • Kishida K (1955) A synopsis of spider family Agelenidae. Acta Arachnologica (Tokyo) 14: 1–13. doi: 10.2476/asjaa.14.1
  • Kovbyluk MM, Kastrygina ZA, Marusik YM, Ponomarev AV (2013) The spider genus Pireneitega Kishida, 1955 in the Caucasus (Aranei: Agelenidae: Coelotinae). Arthropoda Selecta 22: 59–73.
  • Kroneberg A (1875) Araneae. In: Fedtschenko AP (Ed.) Puteshestvie v Tourkestan. Izvestiya Imperatorskogo Obshchestva Lyubitelei Yestestvoznaniya 19: 1–58. [In Russian]
  • Mikhailov KG (2013) The spiders (Arachnida: Aranei) of Russia and adjacent countries: a non-annotated checklist. Arthropoda Selecta, Supplement 3: 1–262.
  • Miller JA, Carmichael A, Ramirez MJ, Spagna JC, Haddad CR, Řezáč M, Johannesen J, Král J, Wang XP, Griswold CE (2010) Phylogeny of entelegyne spiders: affinities of the family Penestomidae (new rank), generic phylogeny of Eresidae, and asymmetric rates of change in spinning organ evolution (Araneae, Araneoidea, Entelegynae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55: 786–804. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.02.021
  • Ovtchinnikov SV (1988) [Materials on spider fauna of the superfamily Amaurobioidea of Kirghizia]. Entomologiceskie issledovanija v Kirgizii 19: 139–152. [In Russian]
  • Schenkel E (1936) Schwedisch-chinesische wissenschaftliche Expedition nach den norwestlichen Province Chinas. Arkiv för Zoologi 29(A1): 1–314.
  • Song DX, Zhu MS, Chen J (1999) The Spiders of China. Hebei University of Science and Techology Publishing House, Shijiazhuang, 640 pp.
  • Wang JF, Yin CM, Peng XJ, Xie LP (1990) New species of the spiders of the genus Coelotes from China (Araneae: Agelenidae). Spiders in China: One Hundred New and Newly Recorded Species of the Families Araneidae and Agelenidae. Hunan Normal University Press, 172–253.
  • Wang XP, Jäger P (2007) A revision of some spiders of the subfamily Coelotinae F. O. Pickard-Cambridge 1898 from China: transfers, synonymies, and new species (Arachnida, Araneae, Amaurobiidae). Senckenbergiana Biologica 87: 23–49.
  • World Spider Catalog (2016) World Spider Catalog. Natural History Museum Bern. http://wsc.nmbe.ch [accessed on October 10, 2016]
  • Zhang XQ, Zhao Z, Zheng G, Li S (2016) Nine new species of the spider genus Pireneitega Kishida, 1955 (Agelenidae, Coelotinae) from Xinjiang, China. ZooKeys 601: 49–74. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.601.7893
  • Zhao Z, Li S (2016) Papiliocoelotes gen. n., a new genus of Coelotinae (Araneae, Agelenidae) spiders from the Wuling Mountains, China. ZooKeys 585: 33–50. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.585.8007
  • Zhao Z, Su TJ, Chesters D, Wang SD, Ho SYW, Zhu CD, Chen XL, Zhang CT (2013) The mitochondrial genome of Elodia flavipalpis Aldrich (Diptera: Tachinidae) and the evolutionary timescale of tachinid flies. PLoS ONE 8: e61814.
  • Zhu CD, Wang JF (1994) Seven new species of the genus Coelotes from China (Araneae: Agelenidae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 19: 37–45.