Corythalia drepanopsis Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Bayer, Steffen
name: Höfer, Hubert
name: Metzner, Heiko
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Salticidae
Corythalia
Corythalia drepanopsis

description: Corythalia drepanopsis sp. nov.   
Figs 1B, 13 A–C, 61F, 71G–I, 75J–L  
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 5A72BC0A-03CA-45B8-9280-259E5281325A  
 Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: Acre: Rio Branco, Reserva Humaitá, 9°45’00”S, 67°40’12”W, about 160 m a.s.l., secondary forest, H. Höfer, H. Metzner, A.D. Brescovit & A.B. Bonaldo leg. 10–13 Apr. 1996, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02860, final deposition IBSP 209866. Paratypes: 2 ♀ with the same data as for holotype: ♀ with sample number F-2 (leg IV, left missing, SMNK-ARA 02860); ♀ with sample no. F-3 (leg II, right missing, IBSP 209867).   
 Etymology. The specific name refers to the similarity of the females of this new species to those of C. drepane sp. nov. (Ancient Greek ending “-opsis” means “having the appearance of…”); adjective.   
 Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) oval, but only about 1.25 x longer than broad (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–I); secondary spermathecae (SS) approximately round, clearly smaller than primary spermathecae (PS), less than 3/4 the diameter of PS and connective ducts between SS and PS medially longitudinally not in contact with each other, but from distalmost to proximalmost section clearly diverging (Figs 13B, 75 J–L); copulatory ducts short, but recognisable (Figs 13B, 75 J–L).   
 Description. Male: unknown.   
 Female (measurements of holotype first, those of paratypes as range in parentheses; for spination pattern states of holotype first, those of paratypes in parentheses in the sequence of frequency): total length 5.9 (5.6–5.9), carapace length 2.2 (2.2–2.5), maximal carapace width 1.5 (1.5–1.6), width of eye rectangle 1.3 (1.3–1.5), opisthosoma length 2.9 (2.4–2.9), opisthosoma width 1.9 (1.6–1.9), fovea length 0.17 (0.17–0.21). EYES: AME 0.45 (0.45– 0.48), ALE 0.28 (0.28–0.32), PME 0.07 (0.07–0.08), PLE 0.23 (0.23–0.25), AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.03 (0.03–0.04), PME–PME 1.17 (1.17–1.26), PME–PLE 0.19 (0.19–0.22), ALE–PLE 0.53 (0.53–0.60), PLE–PLE 0.94 (0.94–1.04), clypeus height at AME 0.15 (0.15–0.19), clypeus height at ALE 0.44 (0.44–0.49). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1300 (1300, 1300{1400}), II 1300, III 1500 (1400, 1400), IV 0400 (0400, 0500); patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002 (2002, 2003) II 2002 {2003} (2003, 1003), III 2023 (2123, 1123), IV 1022 {1023} (1023, 0023); metatarsus I–II 2004, III 3033 (3034, 3034), IV 3124{3134} (4134, 3134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 (1.7–2.1) [0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.3 (0.3–0.4), 0.3 (0.3–0.4), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], I 3.3 (3.3–3.8) [1.0 (1.0–1.2), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.4], II 3.2 (3.2–3.6) [1.0 (1.0–1.2), 0.6, 0.6 (0.6–0.8), 0.6, 0.4], III 4.0 (4.0–4.3) [1.3 (1.3–1.5), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.8, 0.8, 0.5], IV 4.2 (4.2–4.7) [1.3 (1.3–1.5), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.9 (0.9–1.0), 0.9 (0.9–1.0), 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with oval epigynal windows (but only slightly elongated and anteriorly converging), anterior margins of W medially not reaching each other (anterior gap approximately as long as width of septum) (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–I); septum of W quite broad (Figs 1B, 13A) and anteriorly distinctly diverging. Epigynal field clearly broader than long; structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–I). Vulva with compact oval primary spermathecae (PS) with transversal (slightly diagonal) orientation (Figs 13B, 75 J–L); secondary spermathecae (SS) approximately round, with heads of spermathecae located posteriorly (Figs 13 B–C, 75J–L). Connective ducts between both spermathecae (DST) quite narrow, running diagonally from antero-lateral to postero-medial and meeting PS antero-medially. Copulatory ducts short and with transversal direction. Fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly on primary spermathecae, bent and directed laterally or slightly postero-laterally (Figs 13 B–C, 75J–L). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61F). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (at least not recognisable) and anteriormost band just slightly broader than central and recurved, central band may also slightly recurved (Fig. 61F).   
 Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. Female holotype with chalice-shaped anterior section of septum (Fig. 13A), not so in paratypes (Figs 1B, 71 H–I). Epigynal field in paratype F-3 (Fig. 71I) clearly more distinctly developed (darker) and slightly longer than in other females (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–H). In paratype F-2 primary spermathecae being visibile through cuticle of epigynal windows located slightly further anteriorly (Figs 1B, 71H) than in remaining female types (Figs 13A, 71G, 71I). In holotype (Figs 13B, 75J) and paratype F-2 (Fig. 75K) secondary spermathecae reaching further laterally than in paratype F-3 (Fig. 75L). Primary spermathecae in F-2 (Fig. 75K) are slightly smaller than in remaining females (Figs 13B, 75J, 75L). Connective ducts in holotype (Figs 13B, 75J) slightly longer than in paratypes (Figs 75 K–L).   
 Remarks. Regarding the very similar copulatory organs of female C. drepane sp. nov. it is well conceivable that this and the present species are closely related. It remains to be seen if males of C. drepanopsis sp. nov., which are still unknown, will corroborate this prediction of a close relationship in having as well very similar copulatory organs (palps) as those of C. drepane sp. nov.   
 Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Acre, Brazil.
description: Published as part of Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert & Metzner, Heiko, 2020, Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini), pp. 1-144 in Zootaxa 4806 (1) on pages 27-28, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/3927380