Actinopus crassipes
Creators: name: Miglio, Laura Tavares
name: Pérez-Miles, Fernando
name: Bonaldo, Alexandre B.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Actinopodidae
Actinopus
Actinopus crassipes

description: Actinopus crassipes (Keyserling, 1891)
Figs 104–107, Map 6
Pachyloscelis crassipes Keyserling, 1891: 3, plate 1, fig. 1. (holotype ♀, Taquara, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, NHM, examined).
Pachyloscelis luteipes: Keyserling, 1891: 5. Actinopus luteipes F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896: 730; Mello-Leit„o, 1923: 22 Actinopus crassipes: F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896: 732; Strand, 1916: 81; Mello-Leit„o, 1923: 18, fig. 128; Bücherl, 1957: 384, fig. 5; Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1962: 72, plate II, fig. 3; Lucas & Bücherl, 1965: 89, fig. 1-18; Silva-Moreira et al., 2010: 7; World Spider Catalog, 2020.
Actinopus ceciliae Mello-Leitão, 1931: 11, fig. 1. (holotype ♂, Pedras Altas [Cacimbinhas], Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, MNRJ 4, not located); Silva-Moreira et al., 2010: 7.
Actinopus tarsalis: Mello-Leit „o, 1943: 149, misidentification. Actinopus niger Bücherl, Timotheo & Lucas, 1971: 121, fig. 2 (= A. ceciliae holotype); Platnick, 1997: 126.
Note. The spermathecae of the female holotype of A. crassipes, deposited in NHM, was examined only by photos provided by arachnologist Stuart Longhorn which show the spermathecae composed of two receptacles, each one divided in two lobes. The outer lobes are much higher than the internal lobes and pore distribution reaches 75% of the apical sector of each receptacle. No additional female specimen was found and, for this reason, no redescription of the female of this species is provided here. On the other hand, several males from Rio Grande do Sul can be identified as belonging to A. ceciliae. Characters that are consistent with the original description of A. ceciliae are the arrangement of the rastellum spines, disposition and size of the eyes, total mean body length, and the copulatory bulb with three keels and a twisted duct. Bücherl et al. (1971) overlooked the fact that the specimen labeled as A. niger by Mello-Leit„o was actually the type of A. ceciliae and that A. niger was just a manuscript name. However, these authors provided illustrations of that specimen, formally identifying it as A. niger, and, therefore, inadvertently validating that name (as correctly pointed out by Platnick, 1997). Moreira-Silva et al. (2010) considered that: “ Bücherl et al. (1971) synonymized the manuscript name with A. crassipes. So, Actinopus ceciliae = A. crassipes n. syn.!”.
We do not believe it is so simple. Bücherl et al. (1971) merely stated that the specimen “could be the male of A. crassipes ”, which is not a formal synonymy. Thus, evidence was provided only for the synonymy of A. niger Bücherl et al., 1971 with A. ceciliae Mello-Leit „o and the current synonymy of A. ceciliae with A. crassipes was an unjustified act by Moreira-Silva et al. (2010). Notwithstanding that, since there is still no material evidence to disprove this, A. ceciliae is maintained here as a junior synonym of A. crassipes. The redescription below was based on images of the holotype taken by J. Beccaloni (NHM).
Diagnosis. Males of A. crassipes resemble those of A. pusillus (Fig. 118 A–C), A. emas (Fig. 121 A–C) and A. paranensis (Fig. 115 A–C) by the leg metatarsi and tarsi being paler than other articles (Fig. 6 B). They resemble those of A. dubiomaculatus (Fig. 112 A–C) and A. laventana (Fig. 129 A–C) by the PA being continuous to the PI and resemble those of A. emas (Fig. 121 A–C) and A. bocaina (Fig. 124 A–C) by a tegular swelling above PA in prolateral view. Males resemble those of A. bocaina and A. laventana by the slender tegulum and A. dubiomaculatus by having a smooth scutum, covering a part of dorsal surface (Fig. 104 A). They differ from those of all other species of the group crassipes and resemble A. szumikae by presenting a distal serrated area below PAc restricted to the proximal region of embolus (Fig. 107 A–C); ventral leg pseudoscopulae occupying 25% of tarsi I, 50% of II; and 5% and 10% of distal ventral surface of metatarsi III and IV, respectively. They differ from those of A. szumikae (Ríos-Tamayo & Goloboff, 2018, fig. 34 D–F) by embolus with only two keels, and from A. ariasi (Ríos-Tamayo & Goloboff, 2018, fig. 12 D–F) by the PA being continuous to PI.
MALE (MCN 21999): Total length 7.79; Carapace, long 3.96; wide 4.22. Carapace anterior part rounded. Anterior eye row slightly procurved, posterior row recurved (Fig. 104 B). Few bristles between AME-clypeus and in interdistances PME–PME and PLE–PLE. Sternum with eight sigilla fused medially (Fig. 104 C). Rastellum subtriangular, with few spines apically (Fig. 104 E–F). Chelicerae with denticles along prolateral row and between megateeth on prolateral and retrolateral rows. Prolateral row decreasing in distal-proximal direction (Fig. 104 D). Patella and tibia III with distal crown of well-developed thorns, not interrupted in middle (Fig. 105 A–B). Patellae III and IV with spines on prolaterodorsal face (Fig. 105 A, C). Tibia IV without spines on dorsal surface (Fig. 105 D). Ventral pseudoscopulae occupy 25% of tarsi I, 50% of II and 100% of III and IV. Ventral pseudoscopulae occupying 5% of metatarsi I, 10%, respectively. Pseudoscopula of tarsi I and II, and metatarsi III and IV with setae spaced, forming diffuse group of bristles; on tarsi III and IV, compact. Carapace and chelicerae darkbrown; sternum pale brown; Coxae, trochantera, femora, patellae and tibia dark brown; Metatarsi and tarsi orangish (Fig. 6 B); abdomen dark-gray, with a smooth and bluish scutum, covering 50% of dorsal surface (Fig. 104 A). Eyes: Diameters: PME 0.10, PLE 0.16, ALE 0.33, AME 0.25; MOQ: Length 1, front width 0.77, back width 0.17; Interdistances: PME–PME 1.4, PLE–PME 0.11, AME–AME 0.22, ALE–AME 0.77, ALE–PLE 0.4, AME–PME 1. Ocular area: OAL 5.1, OAW 3.2, and IF 1.5. Body: Clypeus: 0.16; Fovea: 1.50; Labium: long 1; wide 1.20; Chelicerae: long 3.40; wide 1.50; Sternum: long 3.6; wide 3.1. Abdomen: long 5.5; wide 4.4. Legs: I: Fe 5.2/ Pa 2.3/ Ti 3.3/ Me 4.2/ Ta 2.8/ total 18.6. II: 5/ 2.3/ 3.2/ 4.4/ 2.8/ 17.8. III: 4/ 2.3/ 2.7/ 4.5/ 3.1/ 16.8. IV: 5/ 2.5/ 4.6/ 4.8/ 3.4/ 20.55. Spination: I—Fe v0, d0, p0, r0; Pa v0, d0, p0, r0; ti v1-5-5, d0, p0, r0; Me v0-0-2, d0, p1-1-1, r2-4- 4; ta v0-2-1, d0, p1-2-4, r2-8-6. II—Fe v0, d0, p0, r0; Pa v0, d0, p0, r0; ti v2-3-5, d0, p0, r0-4-4; Me v5-5-5, d0, p1-1-1, r0-0-1; ta v0-1-2, d0, p2-3-4, r4,6,6. III—Fe v0, d0, p0, r0; Pa v0, d7-13-25, p1-0-1, r0-0-2; ti v0-0-3, d1- 0-15, p0-1-2, r0-4-4; Me v2-8-7, d4-3-1, p0-1-2, r0-0-2; ta v0-0-1, d0, p2-2-5, r0-5-6; IV—Fe v0, d0, p0, r0; Pa v0-0-1, d7-19-8, p0-0-1, r0; ti v1-3-3, d0, p1-1-1, r0; Me v2-6-8, d0, p0-1-2, r0; ta v0, d0, p2-7-9, r1-6-10. Palp: BTA developed and placed medially on prolateral tegular surface. Embolus with three developed keels (PAc, PI and PS), demarcated in all three views. Serrated area distal to the PAc, covered by PAc on dorsal view but apparent on prolateral and retrolateral views. Serrated area restricted to proximal region of embolus. Tegulum thin, PA developed and continuous to PI (Fig. 107 A–C).
VARIATION
MALES (n=10): Eyes: Diameters: PME 0.11–0.22, PLE 0.16–0.33, ALE 0.27–0.33, AME 0.22–0.25; MOQ: Length 0.77–1, front width 0.55–0.77, back width 1.4– 1.8; Interdistances: PME–PME 1.1 – 1.5, PLE–PME 0.11–0.16, AME–AME 0.11–0.22, ALE–ALE 0.44–0.77, ALE–PLE 0.27–0.7, AME–PME 0.77–0.1. Ocular area: OAL 3.3–5.1, OAW 2.5–3.2, and IF 1.2–1.8. Body: Total length: 8.3–13.3; Carapace: long 3.4–5.4; wide 4.1–5.8; Clypeus: 0.11–0.22; Fovea: 1.1–1.8; Labium: long 0.88– 1.1; wide 0.8–1.2; Chelicerae: long 2.3–3.5; wide 1.3– 1.6; Sternum: long 3.2–3.6; wide 2.5–3.1. Abdomen: long 4.2–7.2; wide 3.4–5.5. Legs: I: Fe 4.5–5.2/ Pa 1.8–2.3/ Ti 2.8–3.4/ Me 3.2–4.2/ Ta 2.1–2.8/ total 14.4–17.9. II: 4.2– 5/ 1.8–2.3/ 2.7–3.3/ 3.4–4.4/ 2.1–2.8/ 14.2–17.8. III: 3-5/ 1.8–2.3/ 2–3.2/ 3.5–4.7/ 2.3–3.4/ 12.6–18.6. IV: 3.8–5.5/ 1.7–2.5/ 3.4–4.6/ 3.6–4.8/ 2.5–3.4/ 15–17.5.
Distribution. BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: S„o Franscisco de Paula, Torres, Canela, Porto Alegre, and Pelotas (Map 6).
Material Examined. BRAZIL. Rio Grande do Sul: São Francisco de Paula, Passo do Inferno, 1♂, 27.i.1999, C. Mansan leg. (MCN 30536); Potreiro Velho, 1♂, 22– 25.iv.1999, A. A. Lise leg. (MCTP 14481); Torres, 1♂, 13.ii.1972, A. A. Lise leg. (MCN 3496); 4♂, 20.ii.1974, T. de Lema and A. A. Lise leg. (MCN 1973); Canela, 1♂, 03.ii.1967, A. A. Lise leg. (MCN 544); Porto Alegre, 1♂, 05.ii.1969, A. A. Lise leg. (MCN 26); 19.iv.1985, A. A. Lise leg. (MCN 13269); 16.iv.1991, L. de A. Moura leg. (MCN 20983); 11.iii.1992, A. M. Fonseca leg. (MCTP 1598); 08.iv.1995, B. M. Unpierre leg. (MCTP 6866); 14.iii.1996, A. Silva leg. (MCN 27416); 19.iv.1996, L. Moura leg. (MCN 27640); 2♂, 01.v.1997, E. Caberlou leg. (MCTP 9637); (Jardim Botânico), 1♂, 07.iv.1986, A. D. Brescovit leg. (MCN 14544); 17.iii.1992, A. D. Brescovit leg. (MCN 21999); 04.iii.1994, A. D. Brescovit leg. (MCN 25200); 10.iv.1994, A. D. Brescovit leg. (MCN 25385); 31.iii.1999, D. Cognato leg. (MCN 30740); 28.iii.2001, R. Ott leg. (MCN 33763); 22.iii.2002, R. Araújo leg. (MCN 34332); (campus da Fundação Zoobotânica), 1♂, iii.1995, R. Beheregaray leg. (MCTP 6196); (Lomba do Pinheiro), 2♂, 12.iii.1978, A. G. Ferreira leg. (MCN 7813); (bairro do Lami), 1♂, 10.iii.1985, S. S. Chula leg. (MCN 13240); Pelotas, 15–16.iii.1996, L. Moura leg. (MCN 27476).
description: Published as part of Miglio, Laura Tavares, Pérez-Miles, Fernando & Bonaldo, Alexandre B., 2020, Taxonomic Revision of the Spider Genus Actinopus Perty, 1833 (Araneae, Mygalomorphae, Actinopodidae), pp. 1-256 in Megataxa 2 (1) on pages 116-120, DOI: 10.11646/megataxa.2.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5597237