Phlogiellus Pocock 1897
Creators: name: Sivayyapram, Varat
name: Kunsete, Chawakorn
name: Songsangchote, Chaowalit
name: Thanoosing, Chawatat
name: Traiyasut, Prapun
name: Warrit, Natapot
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Theraphosidae
Phlogiellus

description: Phlogiellus Pocock, 1897
Phlogiellus Pocock, 1897: 595, pl. 25, fig. 1,
type species P. atriceps.
Yamia Kishida, 1920: 304, type species Y. watasei. Considered a nomen nudum by Raven, 1985, considered valid by Haupt & Schmidt, 2004; first synonymized by West et al., 2012: 33.
Neochilobrachys Hirst, 1909: 388, fig. 2, type species Selenocosmia (Neochilobrachys) subarmatus. First synonymized by Raven, 1985: 156.
Baccallbrapo Barrion and Litsinger, 1995: 21, fig. 5, type species Baccallbrapo bundokalbo. First synonymized by Raven, 2000: 570.
Diagnosis. Phlogiellus differs from all selenocosmiine genera except Orphnaecus in male embolus with basal lobe and the retrolateral keel to the tip. Phlogiellus differs from Orphnaecus in having a third claw at least on leg IV and possessing many similar bacilliform or needle form lyra setae (cf. few enlarged setae with stout base lyra; see West et al. 2012: fig. 51a). Phlogiellus shares similar morphologies with Selenocosmia, for example, equal stoutness of legs I and IV, prolateral maxilla without setal fringe above the lyra (if present), but differs in Selenocosmia having a lyra with short shaft lyra (see West et al. 2012: fig. 52a) and possessing longer leg I than IV. Phlogiellus also differs from Buripes, Chilobrachys, Poecilotheria, and Haplocosmia in these genera possessing a pallid setal fringe above lyra on prolateral maxilla (see West et al. 2012: figs 47, 49a, 50a); from Coremiocnemis and Psednocnemis, in these two genera having distinct intercheliceral pegs (see Raven 2005: fig. 6; West et al. 2012: figs 11, 14); from Selenotholus in this genus possessing recurved fovea; and from Lyrognathus in this genus with incrassate tibial IV.
Diagnostic combination. Third claw and tarsal weakness present at least on leg IV; tarsal weakness evident as transverse paler area or crack and bent tip of tarsi (Figs 2e, 6e, 10e); prolateral maxilla without pallid setal fringe above or below the maxillary suture regardless of whether a lyra, present or absent (Figs 2f, 6f, 10f, 14e); maxillary lyra present (see Nunn et al. 2016: figs 3d, 12d 16d, 20c, 22a, 33b, 36c, 40d, 41a) or absent (Figs 2f, 6f, 10f, 14e); if present, all lyra with similar shape, long-shaft needle form or bacilliform setae; chelicerae always possessing downward pointing black spiniform setae on ventral edge (Figs 2c, 6c, 10c, 14c); leg IV (males and females) usually slightly longer than I; male embolus with basal lobe and retrolateral keel to the tip (Figs 5b, 13b).
Description. Small to medium sized theraphosid spiders with reduction in number of spines, usually present on distal (ventral or also dorsal) metatarsi; fovea straight or procurved, narrower to wider than width of ocular tubercle; carapace with curved setae on all margins; labial cuspules vary from 160 to 320; maxillary lyra present or absent, if present all lyra setae similar in shape, long shafted spiniform; corresponding with opposed retrolateral cheliceral strikers (see Nunn et al. 2016: figs 3c, 12c, 17c, 20c, 22b, 33a, 40c, 42c); black spiniform setae always present on ventral edge of chelicerae (Figs 2c, 6c, 10c, 14c); tarsal weakness present, as paler area or cracked cuticle, at least on leg IV, or on all legs; 3rd claw at least on leg IV, or with III; tarsal scopa always divided on leg IV, can be divided with line of long setae, undivided, of undivided with row of setae in other legs. In males, intercheliceral tumescence and tibial apophysis absent; embolus with basal lobe and retrolateral keel to the tip; female spermathecae unilobed (except for P. brevipes), club shaped or tombstone shaped.
Remarks. Diagnostic characters of Phlogiellus using here are taken from Raven (1985), Haupt and Schmidt (2004), West et al. (2012), Nunn et al. (2016) as well as our examination. We recant the use of labial cuspule number as well as width and shape of fovea as diagnostic characters because these characters show high variation and are hard to measure objectively (See discussion). However, due to lack of morphological information in several species by Nunn et al. (2016), we cannot not make taxonomic changes on the species composition of Phlogiellus, except to describe two new species from Southeast Asia.
description: Published as part of Sivayyapram, Varat, Kunsete, Chawakorn, Songsangchote, Chaowalit, Thanoosing, Chawatat, Traiyasut, Prapun & Warrit, Natapot, 2020, Two new species of the Southeast Asian Dwarf tarantula genus Phlogiellus Pocock 1887 (Theraphosidae, Selenocosmiinae) and a discussion on the taxonomic problem of the genus, pp. 487-506 in Zootaxa 4859 (4) on page 489, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4859.4.2, http://zenodo.org/record/4537383