Scotinella Banks 1911
Creators: name: Chamé-Vázquez, David
name: Jiménez, María-Luisa
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Phrurolithidae
Scotinella

description: Genus: Scotinella Banks, 1911
Type species. Scotinella pallida Banks, 1911
Diagnosis (after Dondale & Redner 1982; Penniman 1985). Femur of male palp with hooked ventral apophysis and retrolateral groove; strong retrolateral tibial apophysis (RTA) composed of two processes (bifid), the dorsal (dRTA) longer than the ventral (vRTA); tegulum rounded, usually without apophysis; embolus usually expanded at base, becoming slender, spiniform to filamentous distally (Dondale & Redner 1982: figs 262, 265; Penniman 1985: figs 18, 22, 30, 35). Epigyne with a single or paired copulatory openings in atrial depressions; copulatory ducts short to long, with species-specific pathway; spermathecae ovoid or round in outline, located posteriorly; bursae smaller and slenderer than spermathecae, arising at the junction of copulatory tubes with spermathecae (Dondale & Redner 1982: figs 263–264; Penniman 1985: fig. 17). Eight eyes in two rows, both straight. Opisthosoma of male (and sometimes female) with large dorsal scutum.
Current composition of Scotinella. S. britcheri (Petrunkevitch, 1910), S. brittoni (Gertsch, 1941), S. custeri Levi, 1951, S. deleta (Gertsch, 1941), S. divesta (Gertsch, 1941), S. divinula (Gertsch, 1941), S. dixiana Roddy, 1957, S. fratrella (Gertsch, 1935), S. madisonia Levi, 1951, S. manitou Levi, 1951, S. minnetonka (Chamberlin & Gertsch, 1930), S. pallida Banks, 1911, S. pelvicolens (Chamberlin & Gertsch, 1930), S. pugnata (Emerton, 1890), S. redempta (Gertsch, 1941), and S. sculleni (Gertsch, 1941).
Remarks. Zamani & Marusik (2020) delimited the genus Phrurolithus to include only those species whose males have a large unbranched retroventral tibial apophysis (referred to as RTA by Komnenov et al. 2016; Penniman 1985; Platnick 2019; Wang et al. 2015) and a small RTA. Although Zamani & Marusik (2020) did not provide diagnostic characteristics for female genitalia, P. festivus (C. L. Koch, 1835) and other Old World Phrurolithus species have additional slightly sclerotized receptacles located anteriorly, which are larger than spermathecae. These structures are referred to as secondary receptacles by Almquist (2006) and Zamani & Marusik (2020); as bursae by Penniman (1985) and Kamura (2021), and as anterior part of spermathecae by Komnenov et al. (2016). Nevertheless, such receptacles may not be homologous with Scotinella bursae (referred to as spermathecal organ by Dondale & Redner (1982)), because Penniman (1985) used the term in a broad sense to include those “blind sac-like or tubular structures” with different sizes in relation to the spermathecae, that “may arise near the copulatory openings, near the middle of copulatory tubes, or at the junction of the copulatory tubes with the spermathecae”.
We agree with the opinions of Kaston (1972), Penniman (1978), Dondale & Redner (1982), Penniman (1985), Wang et al. (2015), Platnick (2019), and Zamani & Marusik (2020) that the North American Phrurolithus are misplaced. Furthermore, the Mexican species currently placed in Phrurolithus do not correspond to Old World species in several features. For example, all Mexican Phrurolithus have a bifid RTA, hooked femoral apophysis, and the bulb lacking a tegular “knob” (referred to as a subterminal apophysis by Zamani & Marusik (2020), and as tegular apophysis by Almquist (2006) and Kamura (2021)), and the bursa (sensu Penniman 1985) is a small tubular protuberance at the junction of the copulatory ducts and spermathecae.
Based on similarities in the genitalic and somatic morphology of the Mexican Phrurolithus to the type species of Scotinella and other North American Scotinella (see diagnosis), the following species are transferred: Scotinella adjacens (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov., S. approximatus (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov., S. coahuilanus (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov., S. debilis (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov., S. diversus (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov., S. tamaulipanus (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov., and S. tepejicanus (Gertsch & Davis, 1940) comb. nov. Although the males of S. debilis comb. nov. and S. diversus comb. nov. remain unknown, Gertsch & Davis (1940) considered these two species congeneric with S. coahuilanus comb. nov., which has an endogyne similar to other Scotinella species (see Penniman 1985: 100, fig. 99). There are several American phrurolithids listed under Phrurolithus and Phruronellus, all of them likely misplaced. Moreover, we agree with the opinions of Kaston (1972) and Penniman (1985) that Scotinella is a senior synonym of Phruronellus; see also Roth (1985: 10; 1994: 83). However, reassessment of the types of all Phruronellus are particularly needed, because many details of the male and female copulatory organs are unknown.
description: Published as part of Chamé-Vázquez, David & Jiménez, María-Luisa, 2022, A new spider of the genus Scotinella Banks, 1911 (Araneae: Phrurolithidae) from Mexico and new combinations in Phrurolithidae, pp. 286-292 in Zootaxa 5099 (2) on pages 287-288, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5099.2.8, http://zenodo.org/record/6048590