Nomisia recepta
Creators: name: Chatzaki, M.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Gnaphosidae
Nomisia
Nomisia recepta

description: Nomisia recepta (Pavesi, 1880)   
Figs 40–46  
 Gnaphosa recepta Pavesi, 1880: p. 355 (holotype from Tunisia, Tozer, leg. A. Kerim, MSNG - examined).   
 Nomisia excerpta: Levy, 1995, p. 933, Figs 36– 40 ♂ from Tunisia (Kebilli, leg. Letourneux, MNHN, Ar. 3183 - examined). Misidentification.   
 N. recepta: Dalmas, 1921, p. 283, Figs 66, 86–87; Di Franco, 1986: p. 140, Figs 2–5.   
 Diagnosis: N. recepta is separated from its congeners by the less pronounced size of its embolus, its bifid crested end and the globular shape of the tibial apophysis (especially when viewed from ventral to retrolateral side). Females can be distinguished by the less closed epigynal margins at posterior end compared to N. excerpta and the spermathecae having almost the same size (width) as the introductory ducts. In comparison to N. ripariensis ’ females, N. recepta differs in the relative position of the introductory ducts, being wide apart instead of approaching at the anterior part.   
 Material examined: ITALY: Sicily: 1 ♂ (SMF 38620, det. U. Grimm); FRANCE: south part, Corsica: 3 ♀ (MNHN, AR3182); TUNISIA: Kebilli: 3 ♂♂ (AR3183, MNHN); ALGERIA: Wil. M’ Sila, El Melez (N.E. M’ Sila), 800 m alt, along dry river in steppe: 1 ♂ 1 ♀ (ptf, 01. III.88, leg. R. Bosmans); CYPRUS: Kourio: 1 ♀ (01. VIII.07 to 10.XI.07, leg. D. Kaltsas, NHMC).   
 Comments. Although not previously reported in the literature from Greece, one vial in Hadjissarantos’s collection was under the name N. recepta. Unfortunately the vial included a female from Crete, but without epigyne. Therefore the record could not be confirmed. Furthermore, because of the intensive samplings that the author has realized on the island of Crete without tracing this species, it seems improbable that the identification of Hadjissarantos was correct.   
 N. recepta is here illustrated and examined in detail in order to untangle the puzzle between this and the very similar species N. excerpta, also mixed up in the literature. The male of N. recepta was described by Pavesi (1880, p. 355) from Tunisia. Later Dalmas (1921, p. 283, Figs 66, 86–87) described the female and identified two distinct forms among the specimens he recorded, namely one from southern France, which he described as larger in size, with differences in the spinnerets and with different shape of epigynal margins (…” their epigyne is larger and more straight in front… ”) and one from north African countries (i.e. Algeria and Egypt). In males he did not observe any notable differences in the genital organs but noted that specimens from Tunisia and Sicily are clearly larger than those found in Algeria. Di Franco (1986: p. 140, Figs 2–5) and Baldacchino et al. (1993) recorded the species from Sicily (island of Salina) and Malta respectively and then Levy (1995, p. 933, Figs 36–40) commented on the species, adding the report of a misidentification by Dalmas for a specimen from Tunisia as N. recepta instead of N. excerpta, which was the correct identification according to him. He based this on the examination of the type of N. excerpta, although he had not seen the type of N. recepta. Unfortunately the opposite has happened here, as it was impossible to trace the type of N. excerpta. However, a close examination of the type of N. recepta and the specimen from Tunisia examined by Levy, leaves no doubt that they are identical. The same is true for another male specimen found at the collection of the Senckenberg museum from Sicily.   
 The drawings provided by Di Franco (1986) and Levy (1995) are identical in the details of both male and female genital organs. In relation to females there are no obvious differences between their drawings (Figs 4– 5 and 39–40 respectively) and the ones provided here which illustrate females from Corsica and Cyprus (Figs 40–43). However the details of male genital organs are far less denoted in their drawings (Figs 2–3 and 36–37 respectively) than in Figs 44–46 of the present paper, which might be due to a lack of high magnification microscopic view of the vouchers. If examined at high magnification, males of N. recepta are clearly separated from N. excerpta (and all its congeners) by the following characters: the embolus is bifid with a pointed crest at each part and densely granulated (Fig. 44); the median apophysis does not have two pointed edges (like in most cases of N. excerpta), probably because the superficial surface of the tegulum covers most of it; the tibial apophysis is more rounded and globular from ventral side making the whole apophysis look larger relative to the size of the bulb (Figs 45–46). Because the type and the vouchers examined by the author all bear the same characters without any apparent variation, it is here concluded that at least for the Central Mediterranean regions (Corsica, Malta, Sicily, Tunisia and Algeria) the presence of N. recepta cannot be doubted, contrary to N. excerpta which should be excluded from the catalogues of the above areas.   
 Distribution: Corsica, Malta, Sicily, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt (?), Cyprus (not Greece).
description: Published as part of Chatzaki, M., 2010, A revision of the genus Nomisia in Greece and neighboring regions with the description of two new species, pp. 1-22 in Zootaxa 2501 (1) on pages 15-20, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.2501.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5301813