Cyrtopholis gibbosa Franganillo 1936
Creators: name: Fabiano-Da-Silva, Willian
name: Guadanucci, José Paulo Leite
name: Lucas, Giraldo Alayón Garcia Sylvia Marlene
name: Dasilva, Marcio Bernardino
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Theraphosidae
Cyrtopholis
Cyrtopholis gibbosa

description: Cyrtopholis gibbosa Franganillo, 1936
(Figs 20–24)
Cyrtopholis gibbosus Franganillo, 1936b: 259.
Sphaerobothria gibbosus: (Franganillo, 1936), comb.: Bryant, 1940: 261.
Cyrtopholis gibbosus: Franganillo, 1936, comb.: Schmidt, 1993: 10.
Type-material: Lectotype female (IES 46 A, herein designated) from Manzanillo (20°30’S 77°09’W), province of Granma, Cuba. Six paralectotype females (IES 46 B–G), same data as lectotype.
Note: Bryant (1940) based his description on a juvenile female from San Blas, Cuba, transferred C. gibbosus to Sphaerobothria Karsch 1879. Schmidt 1993 examined the specimen, deposited in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambrigde, USA, and observed the presence of stridulatory setae on trochanter of palp and first leg, and proposed the transfer back to Cyrtopholis.
Diagnosis: Females of Cyrtopholis gibbosa can be distinguished from those of other species by the aspect of the spermathecae, with a lateral lobe on the receptacles (Fig. 24), C. plumosa also has a similar lateral branch, but it is proportionally twice as large as in C. gibbosa; in addition, C. plumosa does not have a large projection, like a hump on cephalothorax. Cephalothorax with a large projection, like a hump (Fig. 20), similar to C. regibbosa and C. bryantae. In C. regibbosa, the final portion of the cephalothorax projection is thinner (Rudloff, 1994, fig. 3), and C. bryantae, the spermathecal receptacles lack any subapical branching (Rudloff, 1995, fig. 18). Median and posterior sigilla rounded and far away from the margin (Fig. 21).
Redescription: Lectotype female (IES 46A). Color (in ethanol 70%): carapace dark yellow (Fig. 20). Abdomen dark yellow (Fig. 22), sternum and legs dark yellow. Total length, without chelicerae and spinnerets: 25.5. Carapace (Fig. 20): length 14.0, width 10.0, with straight fovea, (Fig. 20). Clypeus narrow 0.2. Eye tubercle (Fig. 23): length 1.5, width 2.5. Anterior and posterior eyes row recurved (Fig. 23). Eyes sizes: AME 0.45, ALE 0.40, PME 0.35, PLE 0.35. Basal segments of chelicerae with 11 teeth each. Labium (Fig. 21), length 3.0, width 3.5. Sternum rounded (Fig. 21), length 7.0, width 6.5. Sternal sigilla rounded anterior near the margin and median and posterior distant from margin, nearly central on the sternum (Fig. 21). Labium (Fig. 21) with 16 cuspules. Maxillae with 56–52 (left–right) cuspules. Spinulation of legs and palp. Tarsi without spines. Palp: femur: v0, p0–0–0–1, r0; patella: v0, p0, r0; tibia: v0–0–1, p0–1–2, r0–0–1. Leg I: femur: v0, p0, r0; patella: v0, p0, r0; tibia v0–0–1–0, p0–0–0–1, r0–0–0–1; metatarsus v0–0–0–1, p0, r0. Leg II: femur: v0, p0, r0; patella: v0, p0, r0; tibia v0–1–1–0, p0–0–1–0, r0; metatarsus v0–1–1–0–2, p0, r0–0–0–0–1. Leg III: femur: v0, p0, r0; patella: v0, p0, r0; tibia v0–1–1, p0–1–1, r0–1–0; metatarsus v0–1–1, p1–1–2 r0–0–1–3. Leg IV femur: v0, p0, r0; patella: v0, p0, r0; tibia: v0–0–1–1–0, p0–0–0–0–1, r0–1–1–0–0; metatarsus v0–1–2–1–1–2, p1–0–0–1–0–1, r0–0–1–0–0–1. Tarsal scopula: undivided on all tarsi and extended to metatarsi. Scopula on metatarsi: I and II 3/4, III 1/4 and IV absent. Spermathecae (Fig. 24) with two receptacles with strong subapical constriction without bases large with branch in middle of right receptacle (dorsal view) and conspicuous on left, stronger sclerotization on the dorsal and ventral. Abdomen (Fig. 22): urticating setae type I and type III present.
Males: not found.
Distribution: only known from the type–locality: Manzanillo, Granma, Cuba.
Cyrtopholis ischnoculiformis (Franganillo, 1926) species inquirenda
Cyclosternum ischnoculiforme Franganillo, 1926: 43.
Cyrtopholis implumis Franganillo, 1931: 285, syn.: Franganillo, 1931: 285.
Type-material: Holotype juvenile (IES 30) of Monte Cocuyo (2304’S 8207’W), Havana, Cuba.
Note: Franganillo mentioned three females collected under rocks, but only one juvenile specimen could be located. No stridulatory bristless could be observed and so the inclusion in Cyrtopholis is doubful and is here considered species inquirenda. Franganillo synonymized Cyrtopholis implumis with Cyrtopholis ischnoculiforme without justifying the taxonomic act. Bonnet (1956) cited this species as valid after publishing a catalog of spiders described until 1939, the author ignored the synonym proposed by Franganillo (1931) and cited Cyclosternum ischnoculiforme and Cyrtopholis implumis as distinct species. The type material of Cyrtopholis implumis is lost making impossible further conclusions of this synonym.
Cyrtopholis anacanta Franganillo, 1935 species inquirenda
Cyrtopholis anacantus Franganillo, 1935: 25
Type-material: not located.
Note: species described from Guantanamo (19°96’S 75°37’W). The description is very short and it does not mention whether the species was described based on male or female. He observed few stridulatory setae on the trochanter of first leg and about 20 setae on the trochanter of palp and, therefore, included the species in Cyrtopholis. Bonnet (1956) cited this species as valid after publishing a catalog of spiders described until 1939. The type–mate-rial could not be located in the different collections visited in Cuba and so it is considered a species inquirenda.
Cyrtopholis obsoleta (Franganillo, 1935) species inquirenda
Stichoplastus obsoletus Franganillo, 1935: 24.
Cyrtopholis obsoleta: Rudloff, 1997: 14.
Type-material: not located.
Note: Franganillo described the species based on a female. He refers to one baciliform setae on the trochanter of the palp and one on first leg. He redescribed the species in 1935. Bonnet (1945) cited this species as valid after publishing a catalog of spiders described until 1939. Rudloff (1997) transferred it to Cyrtopholis, based on personal communication from Schmidt, who studied the holotype of C. obsoleta and observed the presence of stridulatory setae on trochanter of palp and first leg. The holotype could not be located and the original description does not permit identification. Consequently, we consider Cyrotopholis obsoleta as species inquirenda.
Cyrtopholis respina Franganillo, 1935 nomen dubium
Cyrtopholis respinus Franganillo, 1935
Type-material: not located.
Note: C. respinus was first cited by Roewer (1942) in his Catalog of Araneae, who attributed the description of the species to Franganillo (1935). However, Franganillo (1935) only gave the description of C. anacanta, in addition to a brief mention of the species he described from Cuba: C. implumis, C. plumosa and C. debilis and identification key for these species, and the name C. respinus does not appear in this article. Moreover, the page where Roewer (1942) points in the catalog as the original description does not exist in Franganillo`s article. Bonnet (1945) cited Franganillo (1935) but did not consider Cyrtopholis respinus as a valid species, contradicting Roewer. The original description and type material was lost, and therefore the species is here considered as nomen dubium.
description: Published as part of Fabiano-Da-Silva, Willian, Guadanucci, José Paulo Leite, Lucas, Giraldo Alayón Garcia Sylvia Marlene & Dasilva, Marcio Bernardino, 2020, Taxonomy of the genus Cyrtopholis Simon, 1892 (Araneae, Mygalomorphae, Theraphosidae): Cuban species described by Pelegrín Franganillo Balboa, pp. 79-90 in Zootaxa 4779 (1) on pages 85-88, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4779.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/3831748