Hitobia poonaensis Sankaran & Caleb & Sebastian 2021, comb. nov.
Creators: name: Sankaran, Pradeep M.
name: Caleb, John T. D.
name: Sebastian, Pothalil A.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Arachnida
Araneae
Gnaphosidae
Hitobia
Hitobia poonaensis

description: Hitobia poonaensis (Tikader & Gajbe, 1976) comb. nov. (Figures 6–7)   
 Sergiolus poonaensis Tikader & Gajbe, 1976: 186, figs 1–5 (♂ ♀). Tikader 1982: 447, figs 343–348 (♂ ♀). Gajbe 2007: 475, figs 151–156 (♂ ♀).   
 Type material   
Holotype female from INDIA: Maharashtra: Pune (=Poona): Bund garden (18°32ʹ31.53ʹ’ N, 73°52ʹ53.76ʹ’ E; 547 m alt), B.K. Tikader leg., 9 April 1975, repository NZC-ZSI, Kolkata (no register number), examined. Paratype 3 females and allotype 10 males, same data as holotype, examined.  
 Justification of the transfer   
 Detailed examination of the types of S. poonaensis revealed that it lacks diagnostic features of Sergiolus (see previous paragraph on H. lamhetaghatensis), but has all of the diagnostic features of Hitobia as in the case of previous species (compare Figure 6 (b,d,f), 7 (d–e) with Kamura 1992, figs 11, 16, 20, 25). Additionally, the male pedipalp of this species possesses an apico-ventral process bearing tuft of setae similar to that illustrated for Hitobia procula Sankaran & Sebastian, 2018 (compare Figure 7 (a) with Sankaran and Sebastian 2018, fig. 2b–c). Based on these observations, we propose to transfer S. poonaensis to Hitobia.   
 Diagnosis   
 Males of H. poonaensis comb. nov. can be distinguished from the males of all known congeners by a prominent apico-ventral process of tibia bearing tuft of setae and a broad tegular apophysis (Figure 7 (a–b)). Females are closely related to the females of Hitobia monsta Yin, Peng, Gong & Kim, 1996 having similar shape of spermathecae and an inverted triangular epigynal hood, but can be distinguished from the latter by the position of the epigynal hood, which is medially placed in H. poonaensis, while it is placed near the posterior epigynal border in H. monsta (compare Figure 7 (d–e) with Song et al. 2004, fig. 88A–B).   
 Supplementary description   
 Male (allotype, Figure 6 (c–d)). Body length 6.13. Prosoma length 3.06, width 2.31. Opisthosoma length 3.07, width 2.27. Eye sizes and interdistances: ALE 0.13. AME 0.14. PLE 0.12.PME 0.11; AME–AME 0.06. AME–PME 0.16.PME–PLE 0.12. PME–PME 0.13. Length of chelicerae 0.80. Clypeus height at ALEs 0.10, at AMEs 0.12. Measurements of pedipalp and legs. Pedipalp (right) 2.47 [0.92, 0.38, 0.31, 0.86], I (right) 7.52 [2.30, 1.28, 1.64, 1.49, 0.81], II (right) 7.38 [2.21, 1.24, 1.67, 1.46, 0.80], III 7.15 [2.02, 1.08, 1.41, 1.69, 0.95], IV 8.91 [2.42, 1.22, 1.98, 2.32, 0.97]. Leg formula: 4123. Pedipalp (Figure 7 (a–c)): tibia disto-ventrally with a short, broad process bearing tuft of setae (Figure 7 (a)). Retrolateral tibial apophysis moderately long, flat, with inwardly directed pointed apex (Figure 7 (a–c)). Conductor short, widely triangular,arising apically from tegulum (Figure 7 (a–b)). Tegulum with a short, wide,pointed apico-prolateral membranous tegular process (Figure 7 (a)). Tegular apophysis short, wide, apico-retrolateral in origin, lying close to the base of conductor and embolus (Figure 7 (a–b)). Embolus short, spine-like, arising disto-prolaterally from tegulum (Figure 7 (a)).   
 Female (holotype, Figure 6 (a–b)). Body length 9.45. Prosoma length 4.49, width 3.28. Opisthosoma length 4.96, width 2.56. Eye sizes and interdistances: ALE 0.16. AME 0.17. PLE 0.16. PME 0.15; AME–AME 0.12. AME–PME 0.23. PME–PLE 0.19. PME–PME 0.18. Length of chelicerae 1.22.Clypeus height at ALEs 0.14,at AMEs 0.19.Measurements of palp and legs.Palp (right) 3.54 [1.21, 0.66, 0.55, 1.12], I – [2.89, –, –, –, –], II 8.74 [2.58, 1.64, 1.82, 1.77, 0.93], III (right) 8.80 [2.46, 1.48,1.61, 2.10,1.15], IV (right) 10.94 [3.12,1.68,2.31,2.72,1.11]. Epigyne (Figure 7 (d– e)): epigynal plate moderately sclerotised, with a wide antero-median hood, with crescent-like posterior epigynal margin (Figure 7 (d)). Copulatory openings small, lying distantly from each other. Spermathecae large sac-like. (Figure 7 (e)). Fertilisation ducts narrow, diverging.   
 Remarks   
The ZSI collection has three glass bottles for this species.First bottle labelled as ‘holotype’ (5049/ 18) contains one female specimen in fairly good condition, with broken legs, almost detached opisthosoma and intact epigyne. Second bottle labelled as ‘paratype’ (no register number) contains three female specimens in fairly good condition, with broken legs. The epigyne of one of these specimens was found removed, but not kept in the tube. Third bottle labelled as ‘allotype’ (no register number) contains 10 males in good condition, with broken legs. The same bottle has a small glass vial containing the dissected left pedipalp of one of the allotype males.
description: Published as part of Sankaran, Pradeep M., Caleb, John T. D. & Sebastian, Pothalil A., 2021, On the taxonomic validity of Indian ground spiders: IV. Genera Apodrassodes Vellard, 1924, Herpyllus Hentz, 1832 and Sergiolus Simon, 1892 (Araneae: Gnaphosidae), pp. 2839-2857 in Journal of Natural History 54 (43 - 44) on pages 2851-2852, DOI: 10.1080/00222933.2020.1871523, http://zenodo.org/record/5405189