Tegenaria femoralis SIMON 1873
Creators: name: Bolzern, Angelo
name: Burckhardt, Daniel
name: Hänggi, Ambros
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2013
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Agelenidae
Tegenaria
Tegenaria femoralis

description: TEGENARIA FEMORALIS SIMON, 1873
(FIG. 21A–D)
Tegenaria femoralis Simon, 1873: 137–139, pl. I, fig. 17; Kraus, 1955: 378, 379, figs 16–19.
Types
Syntype. France: Corsica: ♂ (MNHN, 1978, 486), Simon.
Other material examined
France (3 ♂, 10 ♀); Italy (1 ♀).
Description
A short redescription was provided by Kraus (1955: 378–379, figs 16–19).
Measurements: Male (N = 1): CL 4.68, CW 3.81, STL 2.32, STW 2.16. Leg I (7.13, 1.89, 6.36, 7.69, 2.53), II (6.78, 1.87, 6.27, 7.29, 2.86), III (6.21, 1.69, 5.39, 7.04, 2.31), IV (6.98, -, -, -, -). Pedipalp (2.20, 0.78, 0.79, 2.21), bulbL 1.70. Female (N = 1): CL 4.28, CW 3.15, STL 2.11, STW 2.00. Leg I (5.41, 1.64, 5.71, 6.10, 2.49), II (5.00, 1.55, 4.79, 5.72, 2.21), III (4.84, 1.42, 4.23, 5.55, 1.99), IV (5.15, 1.55, 5.29, 7.03, 2.22). Pedipalp (1.87, 0.76, 1.19, 1.98). EPL 0.66, EPW 1.18, ATL 0.25, ATW 0.49. Eyes: PME 0.20–0.21, PLE 0.21– 0.22, AME 0.15–0.17, ALE 0.21–0.23. Eye distances: PME–PME 0.5 x PME or somewhat more, PME–AME 0.5–1 x PME, PME–PLE 0.5–1 x PME, PME–ALE 0.5–1 x PME, AME–AME <0.5 x AME, AME–ALE <0.5 x AME. CLY1 2–3 x AME, CLY2 1–1.5 x ALE.
Male palp: RTA with three branches, ventral branch lobe-like, reaching more than three quarters of tibia length, forming a distinct ridge, distally protruding, lateral and dorsal branch forming strongly sclerotized and protruding appendages. Filiform embolus length about 2–2.5 x CB, originating at 7 o’clock position, distal tip at 3 o’clock position. Conductor moderately hammerhead shaped with distal portion elongated and tapered, lateral margin completely folded. Terminal end bifid, ventral part short and cone-shaped, dorsal part plate-like. Connection of conductor to tegulum moderately sclerotized. MA originating at 4–5 o’clock position, strongly protruding, distally with hook-like sclerite. MA membranously connected to tegulum. Basal part of tegulum visible and undulated.
Epigyne and vulva: Epigynal median plate anteriomedially connected with strongly sclerotized epigynal plate. CO anteriorly of the median plate distinctly expressed as holes with strongly sclerotized anterior margin. Vulva consists of CBD, no distinct RC recognizable. First half (CD) of CBD only moderately sclerotized and convoluted around second half, which is strongly sclerotized. FD only represented by small, leaf-shaped appendages.
Other important characters: Cheliceral promargin with four, retromargin with four to five teeth. Colulus developed as trapezoidal plate with distal margin medially notched. Same pattern of distal spigots on PMS (in females) as described for the type species. PLS with distal segment as long as basal segment. Trichobothria on cymbium and palp tarsus present. Tarsal trichobothria seven to nine. Small teeth on paired claws of leg I 12–14. Leg spination: male palp (2–0–0–0, 2–0–0, 1–2–0–0 or 2–2–0–0), female palp (2–0–0–0, 2–0–0, 2–2–0–0), leg femora (2–2–2–0 or 2–3–2–0 or 2–3–3–0, 2–3–2–0, 2–2–2–0, 2–2–1–0 or 2–2–2–0), patellae (all 2–0–0), tibiae [0–0–0–2p or 0–0–0–2p+1, 0–2–0–1p+2 or 0–2–0–2+1p or 0–2–0–3p (very indistinct dorsal spines possible), 1–2–2–1+2p or 1–2–2–3p, 1–2–2–3p], metatarsi (0–0–0–3p+1, 0–1–0– 3p+1, 0–3–3–3p+1, 0–3–3–1+3p+1), tarsi (all 0).
Coloration: Carapace without a colour pattern (may be a result of alcohol preservation). Sternum with distinct pattern of pale median region and three pairs of symmetrical pale dots laterally, somewhat fused together. Legs only ventrally annulated, indistinct. ALS and basal segment of PLS moderately darkened, distal segment pale.
Distribution
Reported from Italy, including Corsica and Sardinia.
Discussion
Contrary to the information provided by Kraus (1955) and Platnick (2012), Simon (1873: 139) not only described the male but also the female of Teg. femoralis, although without any drawings. He mentioned several specimens in the original description (Simon, 1873: 139, fourth paragraph) but only one male could be found in the MNHN collection.
Kraus (1955) described two female specimens, which were significantly smaller than the other examined female specimens. He concluded that, because these specimens share the same morphology and differ only in size, they must belong to the same species. Brignoli (1979a: 41), in contrast, argued that this ‘forma nana’ is not conspecific with Teg. femoralis and constitutes an undescribed species. More material is required to solve this problem.
description: Published as part of Bolzern, Angelo, Burckhardt, Daniel & Hänggi, Ambros, 2013, Phylogeny and taxonomy of European funnel-web spiders of the Tegenaria-Malthonica complex (Araneae: Agelenidae) based upon morphological and molecular data, pp. 723-848 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society (Zool. J. Linn. Soc.) (Zool. J. Linn. Soc.) 168 (4) on pages 797-799, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12040, http://zenodo.org/record/5282985