Porrhomma rosenhaueri
Creators: name: Růžička, Vlastimil
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2018
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Linyphiidae
Porrhomma
Porrhomma rosenhaueri

description: Porrhomma rosenhaueri (L. Koch, 1872)
Figs. 53A–F.
Linyphia rosenhaueri — L. Koch (1872): p. 128, Table I, Figs. 2–5 (descr. ♂ ♀); transferred by Simon (1884).
Porrhomma myops — Simon (1884): p. 358 (descr. ♀); new synonymy.
P. rosenhaueri — Simon (1884): p. 361, Fig. 135.
P. myops — Simon (1913): p. 368 (descr. ♂).
P. myops — Jackson (1913): p. 37, Pl. II, Figs. 17, 30 (♀, descr. ♂).
P. rosenhaueri — Fage (1931): p. 161, Fig. XVII (♂ ♀).
P. rosenhaueri — Dahl (1938): p. 126, Figs. 1a–c, 2–3, 4a, 9a (♂ ♀).
P. pygmaeum form myops — Miller & Kratochvíl (1940): p. 168; downgraded to a form.
P. rosenhaueri — Locket & Millidge (1953): p. 332, Figs. 199C, 200C, 202C (♂ ♀).
P. rosenhaueri — Tretzel (1956): p. 54, Figs. 5–6 (♂).
P. rosenhaueri — Wiehle (1956): p. 230, Figs. 375, 381–385 (♂ ♀).
P. pygmaeum myops — Thaler (1968): p. 371, Figs. 2g, 5c–e (♂ ♀); elevated to a subspecies.
P. myops — Bourne (1977b): p. 154, Figs. 1a–d, g, 4a, b, e, g (♂ ♀).
P. rosenhaueri — Thaler & Plachter (1983): p. 258, Figs. 19, 23–24 (♂ ♀).
P. rosenhaueri — Roberts (1987): p. 114, Figs. 57f, 59e (♂ ♀).
P. myops — Thaler (1991): p. 238, Fig. 640.2, 640.4 (♂ ♀).
P. rosenhaueri — Thaler (1991): p. 238, Figs. 641.2a–b, 641.4–5 (♂ ♀).
Material examined. CZECHIA: Branov, 29 May 1994 – 22 May 1995, 3 ♀, leg. V. Růžička et P. Antuš; 30 May 2000, 1 ♂ 3 ♀, 23 Jun 2000, 2 ♀, leg. V. Růžička. Blansko-Těchov, 31 May 1997 – 27 May 1998, 6 ♂ 5 ♀; Hřebečníky-Týřovice, 28 May 1994 – 21 May 1995, 1 Ƌ 2 ♀, leg. V. Růžička et P. Antuš. Velemín-Milešov, Milešovka Mt., 27 Jun 1993 – 22 Jul 1994, 1 ♀; Stachy-Popelná, Obří Zámek Hill, 6 Oct 1985 – 4 Oct 1986, 1 ♀; Moravian Karst, Blansko-Těchov, Kateřinská Cave, 20 May 1993 – 11 May 1994, 1 ♂; Blansko-Těchov, 20 May 1993, 2 ♀; Sobotín-Klepáčov, Břidličná Mt., 13 Jul 1993 – 22 Jul 1994, 1 ♀; Vranov, Ledové Sluje Caves, 24 Apr 1992 – 24 Nov 1992, 3 ♀; Svor, Klíč Mt., 19 Jun 2001, 2 ♀, leg. V. Růžička. Mladeč, Mladečské Caves, 2 Feb–22 Apr 2004, 1 ♂; Ústí nad Orlicí, Průvanová Cave, 8 Jan –6 Jun 2005, 1 ♂ 6 ♀; Cvikov-Naděje, Naděje Cave, 29 Nov 2006, 1 ♀; Dolní Újezd (Svitavy district), Na Cikovské Stráni Cave, 10 Mar 2004, 1 ♂ 3 ♀; Česká Třebová, V Dolech Cave, 24 Feb 2007, 5 Ƌ 11 ♀, leg. R. Mlejnek. Na Pomezí Cave, 29 Oct 1997, 6 ♀, leg. Z. Majkus. Bukovec (distr. Frýdek-Místek), Na Gírové Cave, 22 Mar 2013, 1 ♀, leg. O. Machač (IECA). SLOVAKIA: Borinka, Trojuholník Cave, 2 Apr 1998, 2 Ƌ 1 ♀. Slovak Paradise, Medvedia Cave, 16 Apr 1998, 1 Ƌ, leg. V. Košel (WSM). Veľká Lodina, Veľká Ružínska Cave, 8 Jul 1999, 1 ♀, leg. A. Mock; Pieniny Mts., Aksamitka Cave, 12 Mar –26 May 1998, 2 ♀, leg. A. Mock et Ľ. Kováč (WSM). GERMANY: Hamaneshöhle, 6 Mar 1964, 1 Ƌ 3 ♀, leg. B. von Broen. Kyffhäusergebirge Mts., Prinzenhöhle Cave, 21 Aug–26 Nov1968, 1 ♂, 28 Nov 1969, 1 ♂; Fuchsstollen, 11 Aug –8 Nov 1966, 1 Ƌ, 11 Apr –6 Jul 1967, 1 Ƌ, 16 Apr –21 Aug 1968, 1 Ƌ, 6 May –9 Aug 1969, 1 Ƌ, leg. M. Moritz (ZMB). RUSSIA: Lake Teletskoye, Altaiskiy Nature Reserve, near Artybash, 500–800 m a.s.l., 21 Jul 1990, 2 ♀, leg. S. Ovtchinnikov (CAT).
Diagnosis. A large group of species is characterised by embolus of middle length and S-shaped ascending parts of copulatory ducts: P. borgesi, P. cambridgei, P. convexum, P. errans, P. nekolai, P. oblitum, P. pygmaeum and P. rosenhaueri. P. rosenhaueri can be distinguished from all these species by the following combination of characters: CW = 0.60–0.78 mm, eyes reduced (PME–PME> 2.1), legs very long Mt I/CW = 1.20–1.80.
Description. ♀ (from Blansko-Těchov, Czechia, 31 May 1997 – 27 May 1998). Carapace pale, 0.68 mm wide, eyes reduced, PME absent (Fig. 53A). Abdomen pale. Fe I–II with one dorsal spine, Fe I with one prolateral spine. Ti I with one prolateral spine, Ti I–II with one retrolateral spine. Tm Mt I = 0.59, Mt I/CW = 1.22.
Ascending parts of the ducts are S-shaped. Spermathecae are formed behind the ascending part of the ducts (Figs. 53C–F).
Ƌ (together with female). Embolus of middle length with a narrow velum. AP has the form of a bird head (Fig. 53B).
Variation. Ƌ ♀. Carapace 0.60–0.78 mm wide, eyes reduced or absent, PME–PME> 2.1. Tm Mt I = 0.47–0.63, Mt I/CW = 1.20–1.80 (n = 30).
Comments. The species P. myops was described according to one female specimen collected in southern France, Aude, grotte d’Espezel (Simon 1884). The description is insufficient, without illustrations. Simon (1913) described a male. However, the material was collected in Spain, near Barcelona. The conspecifity with a female of P. myops is uncertain. Fage (1931): “Or la femelle type n’existe plus dans la collection Simon.” The type material is not present in the MNHN in Paris.
Syntypes of P. rosenhaueri should be in MNHN in Paris, however, the material is not available (Ch. Rollard, in litt.).
O. P.- Cambridge (1894: p. 107, Pl. II, Fig. 6) mentioned P. myops with this note: “A single specimen forwarded to me, together with specimens of oblongum, by Rev. O. Pickard-Cambridge, Oct. 1892.” P.-Cambridge provided no localization, no description, only the head region with reduced eyes was depicted. It can be any British microphthalmic species— rosenhaueri, campbelli, egeria, cambridgei. This figure can not be assigned to a specific species.
Bourne (1977a) measured the ratio of “maximum width of Fe I/length of Fe I” and documented slender legs of P. myops and P. rosenhaueri, in comparison with P. convexum and P. egeria. However, Thaler & Plachter (1983) expressed doubts about the material of P. rosenhaueri used by Bourne.
Segers (1988: p. 44, Fig. 2) published the record of P. myops in Belgium. The species is only mentioned in the French summary, the ventral view to vulva is depicted. However, Weiss (1997) noted, that it is a misidentification: “ P. microphthalmum mit stark reduzierten Augen: Segers, briefliche Mitteilung.” But the specimen has narrow side loops of vulva, it can not be a species from the microphthalmum -group.
I examined the material collected in caves in Germany and Slovakia, and in caves and scree slopes in Czechia. Specimens from Germany—compared to specimens collected in Czechia—were usually more depigmented, almost whitish, almost blind. However, specimens collected in Na Pomezí Cave in northern Moravia exhibited the same whitish appearance. In Central Bohemia, I documented two populations inhabiting deep layers in scree slopes: in the first, designated as P. myops, Mt I /CW = 1.34; in the second, designated as P. rosenhaueri, Mt I /CW = 1.62 (Růžička 2002). The distance between the two localities amounts only four kilometres.
In Europe, we meet with a species related to pygmaeum, characterised by reduced eyes, pale carapace more than 0.60 mm wide, Fe I–II with one dorsal spine (difference to P. cambridgei) and long and slender legs (difference to P. borgesi). Two names, viz. P. rosenhaeuri and P. myops, were used for this species. Individual populations differ in overall appearance, eye size, and leg length. However, I did not find exact differences in genitalia. Type material of P. rosenhaeuri and P. myops is not available. Therefore, I recommend to synomymise P. myops with P. rosenhaueri.
Ecology. Recorded on bare surface of stones inside open scree slopes in Austria (Thaler 1968), Germany (Weiss 1997) and Czechia (Buchar & Růžička 2002), also found in caves in France, Ireland (Locket & Millidge 1953), Great Britain (Harvey et al. 2002; Carter et al. 2010), Germany (Koch 1872), Czechia, Slovakia and other European countries.
Global distribution. Europe after Helsdingen (2017), modified. The earlier record in Poland is based on misidentification (Rozwalka in litt.), as well as the earlier record in Denmark (Gudik-Sørensen persn. com.). The occurrence in Hungary was mentioned by Loksa (1961). But Loksa (1970) described P. rosenhaueri hungaricum, which is in fact P. profundum; it was synonymised by Thaler & Plachter (1982). In Serbia (Deltshev et al. 2003), the record of Kratochvíl (1934) refers also to P. profundum; misidentification was recognized by Dahl (1938) and confirmed by Miller & Kratochvíl (1940). Old isolated records from Russia and Latvia can be also considered as doubtful (Mikhailov in litt.). However, I have available one recent record from Altai Mts. See Fig. 54.
description: Published as part of Růžička, Vlastimil, 2018, A review of the spider genus Porrhomma (Araneae, Linyphiidae), pp. 1-75 in Zootaxa 4481 (1) on pages 58-62, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4481.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/1454736