Available online at www.worldscientificnews.com

WSN 55 (2016) 210-239 EISSN 2392-2192

Rice Land inhabiting Long Jawed Orb Weavers, Latreille, 1804 (Tetragnathidae: Araneae) of South 24-Parganas, West Bengal,

Debarshi Basu* and Dinendra Raychaudhuri** Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Faculty Centre of Integrated Rural Development and Management, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, Ramakrishna Mission Ashrama, Narendrapur, Kolkata – 700 103, India *,**E-mail address: [email protected] , [email protected]

ABSTRACT inhabiting rice land ecosystem demand serious consideration primarily due their predatory efficiency. In India, their role as a potential bio-control agent is yet to be evaluated. The coastal ecosystem in the Gangetic Delta at the southern part of West Bengal, India, exhibits a wide variety of predatory population because of climatic fluctuation, soil quality and several other factors. Orb-weaving spiders appear to be of special importance as they trap more than what they actually consume. The present study is aimed at unfolding the taxonomic diversity of Tetragnatha Latreille, 1804 (family Tetragnathidae, Menge, 1866) which is probably the mostly predominant group amongst orb-weavers found in rice fields of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, India. Of the seven tetragnathid species recorded from the study area, three, T. chauliodus (Thorell), T. boydi O. P. - Cambridge, and T. josephi Okuma are found to be new from the country. The referred species are therefore described and illustrated. Further a key to the species occurring in the area has also been provided.

Keywords: Spiders; Orb-weavers; Tetragnatha; South 24 Parganas; India

World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

1. INTRODUCTION

Predatory importance of spiders inhabiting cultivated fields is controversial. The results of some European studies indicate that the foliage-dwelling spiders of cultivated fields, because of their low population densities, are of minor importance as predators of insects. Other European studies show, that the ground-dwelling spiders of cultivated fields are concerning their abundance, a dominant predator group, that significance as control agents still is largely unknown up to the present. In rice fields (swamp ecosystems) in , receiving little or no pesticides, as well as in European and American swamp ecosystems, spiders may be an important predator group. In South spiders were used successfully as biological control agents against flies. (Nyffeler and Benz, 1987) It is unfortunate that in Indian context the role of spiders as a potential bio-control agent is yet to be evaluated properly. Except a few data generated in KeralaandTamil Nadu, India, (Sebastian and Chacko,1994) and some scattered information from a few parts of this country (Chelliah, Bentur and Prakasa Rao, 1989, Gupta and Pawar, 1982, Rajendra, 1987, Banerjiet al. 1993, Ganesh Kumar, 1994, Pathak and Saha, 1999), no significant report has reached us so far. Apart from the extensive study on the predatory spiders in tea ecosystem of Dooars (Roy, 2013), an area at the foot hill of Eastern Himalaya, no significant contribution is available from the eastern region of India, especially West Bengal. However, Satpathi (2004) did emphasise the predatory potential of spiders. Success of integrating spiders in the IPM programme in any crop system largely depends on the data generated on their diversity, distribution, ecology, biology, predatory efficiency and many more. The present study therefore, is aimed at unfolding the taxonomic diversity of spiders inhabiting riceland ecosystem with special reference to Gangetic Delta. It won’t be out of place to refer the contribution of Majumder (2007) who did bring out a pictorial handbook on the spiders of Suderbans, South 24- Parganas. Interestingly, the coastal ecosystem in the Gangetic Delta at the southern part of West Bengal exhibits a wide range of species population. Climatic fluctuation and variation in soil quality induce fascinating cultural practices in this belt resulting a tremendously diverse pest upsurge at different point of time. Further, it is observed that the diversity of spidersso far encountered in this shore of Bay of Bengal shows an affinity with those of and , which are at the other end of the Bay. Role of orb-weaving spiders should be thoroughly worked out particularly when members of this group build large webs at times. Expectedly such webs would trap more number of preys than what the spiders would actually consume.Typical orb weavers necessarily include members of the long-jawed orb weavers exclusively belonging to the family Tetragnathidae Menge, 1866, composed of 48 genera and 344 species till date. (World Spider Catalog, 2016). Significant contributors on Tetragnatha Latreille, 1804 are Okuma (1987, 1988), Barrion and Litsinger (1995), Gillespie (1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994), Gillespie et. al (1997), Gillespie (2002), Dimitrov and Hormigera (2009) and Jayakumarand Sankari (2010). Tetragnatha Latreille, 1804under the family Tetragnathidae Menge, 1866 especially comes under focus in our current endeavour though many others are of equal importance in the same context. Our effort so far helped record of seven speciesfromthe rice land ecosystem of South 24 Parganas, a district located at Gangetic Delta of West Bengal. Of

-211- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

those, T. chauliodus (Thorell) T. boydi, O. P. - Cambridge, 1898 and T. josephi Okuma, 1988, are found to be new records from India and accordingly described and suitably illustrated supplemented by digital images. They are found to construct large horizontal web spread over the entire section of paddy fields. It thus appears that TetragnathaLatreille,1804 may be aproficient candidate of biological control, not only by devouring the prey but also by trapping more no of prey insects in their web. Following discourse is on the of the Tetragnatha Latreillespecies recorded from the study area.

2. STUDY AREA: (vide map)

Site 1: Narendrapur

Site: 3 Sarisha Site 2: Arapanch

Site 6: Kakdwip Site : 5 NImpith

Site 7: Gosaba Site 4: Manasadwip

South 24 Parganas (22.1352° N, 88.4016° E), a district of West Bengal, belongs to the large delta of the Gangetic plain. Seven discrete areas, from six different blocks are selected as fields of study. Fields in different locations are identified in such a way that they represent the spider faunal diversity of the district as a whole. Of them, three study areas are located at three different regions of Sundarban, a heritage site recognised by UNESCO in (1997 for its mangrove vegetation where due to the proximity of Bay of Bengal, salinity and nutrient structure of soil vary to a considerable extent affecting the growth and distribution pattern of the agro-ecosystems. The study areas are as follows – 1. Narendrapur [NPUR] (Block - Sonarpur) (22.4391°N and 88.3968°E), 2. Arapanch [ARPH] (Block - Sonarpur) (22.4491°N and 88.3915°E), 3. Sarisha [SRSH] (Block - Diamond Harbour) (22.1987°N and 88.2023°E), 4. Manasadwip [MSDP] (Block - Sagar) (21.753° N and 88.106°E.), 5. Nimpith [NMPT]

-212- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

(Block - Jaynagar II) (22.1772°N and 88.4258°E), 6. Kakdwip [KKDP] (Block –Kakdwip) (21.8760°N and 88.1853°E), 7. Gosaba [GSBA] (Block - Gosaba) (22.1652°N and 88.8079°E)

Site 1: Narendrapur

Site 2: Arapanch

-213- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Site 3: Sarisha

Site 4: Manasadwip

-214- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Site 5: Nimpith

Site 6: Kakdwip

-215- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Site 7: Gosaba

2. 1. Time of study Field visits were carried out in every month of any calendar year during the crop seasons. It was continued form October, 2013 to November, 2015. The annual rainfall (average) in the district was 1796 mm. Temperature in the study areas varied from 10 °C to 35 °C during course of study.

3. MATERIALS & METHODS

For collection of spiders, sweep nets, bush beating and collection in inverted umbrella, hand picking techniques were used. Several pit fall traps were laid in the collection localities to trap ground dwelling spiders. Samples after collection [collector: D. Basu] were preserved in 70% alcohol and later transferred to glass vials filled with Audman’s fixative. Necessary labels were used to mark each of the samples. Data regarding locality, date of collection, collector’s name were noted in a note book in the field itself. The samples were studied under Sterozoom Binocular Microscopes Olympus SZX 10 and SZX 16. Line drawings were made with the aid of necessary accessories attached to the microscopes.Photographs were taken by a digital camera attached to the microscopes. All measurements are in millimetres, made with an eye piece graticule.

-216- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

3. 1. Abbreviations use TL: Total length, CL: cephalothorax length, CW: cephalothorax width, AL: abdominal length, AW: abdominal width,AME: Anterior median eye, ALE: Anterior lateral eye, PME: Posterior median eye, PLE: Posterior lateral eye.

3. 2. Deposition All materials are in the collection of Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, IRDM Faculty Centre, RKM Vivekananda University, Narendrapur.

4. TAXONOMY

Members of the family Tetragnathidae Menge, 1866 have long legs and body, except in the genus Dyschiriognatha, with rounded abdomen; eyes in two rows, may be parallel or convergent but lateral eyes never contiguous; chelicerae well-developed, long, often directed forward and diverging, with well-developed teeth; labium prominently rebordered; femora with a series of trichobothria dorsally close to base; auxilliary foot claws present except in Pachygnatha; and abdomen with or without pattern. Male pedipalp relatively simple, prominent and hairy; paracymbium emanates from base of tarsus. Epigynum reduced, epigastric fold strongly procurved and the genital orifice occur posterior behind tobranchialopercula. Two genera of Tetragnathids – Tetragnatha P.A. Latreille, 1804 and Dyschiriognatha Simon, 1893 – are very common in the Philippine ricefields and throughout South and Southeast Asia. (Barrion and Listinger, 1995)

Genus: Tetragnatha Latreille, 1804 Tetragnatha Latreille, 1804. Nouv. Dct. d’Hist. Nat. 24: 135.

Diagnosis: Body prominently long and narrow, several times longer than wide; carapace oval, widest near the middle, flattened above, with a conspicuous thoracic groove; two eye rows either parallel or convergent or divergent, lateral eyes never contiguous, each eye surrounded by a black ring; chelicerae well developed, especially in males, and margins of fang furrow provided with numerous teeth; in males a strong projecting clasping spur may or may not be bifid at its tip; maxillae parallel, long, and dilated at distal ends; abdomen at least twice as long as wide, in females often swollen at base; often base slightly bifid and overhangs cephalothorax; epigynal slit posterior to lung slits in the procurved epigastric furrow; spinnerets usually terminal or almost so; legs and palpi very long and thin, but proportions differ in various species. (Barrion and Listinger, 1995).

Type species: Tetragnatha striata L. Koch, 1862. Distribution: The genus is widespread throughout the world andcommon in wetland environments.

Key to species

1. Spinnerets situated at or near the middle of the abdomen; abdomen outwardly produced, nearly at 1/3 length following which produced narrowly and inwardly; posteriorrow of eyes

-217- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

produced, much narrower than the anterior row;pro and retro margins of the chelicerae with 7 and 6 teeth respectively; genital fold short, broad, apical marginincurved ………………………………………...... javana (Thorell, 1890)

- Spinnerets not situated at or near the middle of the abdomen;abdomen more or less parallel sided, neither outwardly produced, nor produced narrowly as well as inwardly; both rows of eyes of similar length…………………………...... 2

2. Genital fold long , incurved near base……...... 3

- Genital fold short, broadly U or V shaped ……...... 5

3. Pro and retromargins of chelicerae with 12 & 8 teeth respectively; posterior row of eyes wider than anterior row; fang 1/5 shorter than cheliceral length ………………………………………………...... chauliodus (Thorell, 1890)

- Pro and retromargins of chelicerae with 11 & 7 teeth respectively; both rows of eyes are of equal length…………………………………...... 4

4. Sternum distally acutely produced; cheliceral distal tip devoid of tooth; fang without tooth; posterior row of eyes nearly in a line while anterior row procurved; genital fold distally swollen; apical margin concave ...... maxillosa Thorell, 1895

- Sternum distally broadly produced; cheliceral tip with long, strong, incurved teeth; fang near base with a strong tooth; both rows of eye procurved; genital fold not so swollen, distally wide, apical margin straight……...... boydi O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1898

5. Genital fold twice wider than long, chelicerae broad, pro and retromarginswith7 & 8 teeth respectively; sternum cordate ……...... josephi Okuma, 1988

- Genital fold short and broad; sternum elongate, cylindrical...... 6

6. Chelicerae long, cylindrical, fang nearly as long as/longer than the chelicerae; pro and retromargins with 12 & 13 teeth respectively; sternum distally produced, basally constricted, apically bifid; outer margin of maxilla incurved near middle and outwardly directed ………………………………………...... hasselti Thorell, 1890

- Chelicerae broad and short, fang nearly half of cheliceral length; each of pro and retromarginswith 12 teeth; sternum bluntly produced, not basally constricted, outer margin of maxilla nearly straight...... …………ceylonica O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1869

Tetragnatha javana (Thorell, 1890) (Figs: 1-5, plate - 1: 36-39) Eucta javana Thorell, 1890. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova 28: 236.

Measurements (female): CL – 2.64, CW – 0.15, AL – 1.34, AW –0.20, TL – 3.98

-218- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Inter-ocular distance: AME – AME = 0.12, ALE – AME = 0.16, ALE – ALE = 0.72, PME – PME = 0.12, PLE – PME = 0.20, PLE – PLE = 0.56 , ALE – PLE = 0.20, AME – PME = 0.24

Legs: I 15.00 (6.0, 1.16, 6.50, 6.67, 1.34) II 12.92 (3.8, 0.85, 3.42, 4.00, 0.85) III 6.20 (2.00, 0.55, 1.40, 1.70, 0.60) IV 13.29 (4.72, 0.58, 3.43, 3.71, 0.85). Leg formula 1243.

Material Examined: 12♀♀, MSDP, 16.X. 2013, 10♀♀, GSBA, 10.X. 2013, 9♀♀, ARPH, 16.X.2013, 16♀♀, NPUR, 18.X. 2013, 14♀♀, KKDP, 17.XI.2013, 6♀♀, SRSH, 13. XI. 2013, 8♀♀, NMPT, 16.XI. 2013, 13♀♀, MSDP, 23.III. 2014, 22♀♀, GSBA, 08.III.2014, 11♀♀, ARPH, 22.III.2014, 24♀♀, NPUR, 28.II. 2014, 16♀♀, KKDP, 20.II.2014, 28♀♀, SRSH, 26.III.2014, 12♀♀, NMPT, 29.III.2014, 25♀♀, MSDP, 12.X. 2014, 28♀♀, GSBA, 16.X.2014, 8♀♀, ARPH, 23.X.2014, 19♀♀, NPUR, 28.II. 2014, 12♀♀, KKDP, 20.II.2014, 8♀♀, SRSH, 26.III.2014, 12♀♀, NMPT, 29.III.2014, 16♀♀, MSDP, 20.III. 2015, 16♀♀,GSBA, 22.III.2015, 6♀♀, ARPH, 18.III.2015, 8♀♀, NPUR, 17.III. 2015, 6♀♀, KKDP, 19.III.2015, 16♀♀, SRSH, 26.III.2015, 5♀♀, NMPT, 27.III.2015, 16♀♀, MSDP, 19.X. 2015, 16♀♀, GSBA, 22.X.2015, 6♀♀, ARPH, 16.X.2015, 8♀♀, NPUR, 05.X. 2015, 6♀♀, KKDP, 27.X.2015, 16♀♀, SRSH, 26.X.2015, 5♀♀, NMPT, 22.X.2015

Distribution: India: Bihar, Karnataka, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal; Africa to , Philippines, , , New Guinea, South & South – East Asia (Okuma, 1988; Biswas & Biswas, 1992; Barrion & Listinger, 1995; Sebastian & Peter, 2009; Sen et. al., 2009; Roy, 2013; World Spider Catalog, 2016).

Tetragnatha chauliodus (Thorell, 1890) (Fig. – 6-10, plate – 2: 40-44)

Limoxere chauliodus Thorell, 1890. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova. 30: 292

Measurements (female): CL - 3, CW – 2.16,AL – 7.84, AW – 2.23, TL – 10.84 Cephalothorax (Fig. 6, plate 2: 40) yellowish brown, elongate, oval, cephalic area parallel sided, raised, wider than long (Fig. 6, plate: 40), thoracic area wider, fovea deeply grooved, radii distinct.

Eyes 8, transparent, basally ringed with black, dissimilar, arranged in 2 procurved rows, posterior row nearly straight, anterolaterals smallest, posteromedian largest, ocular quad longer than wide, anteriorly narrowed.

Eye diameter: Inter-ocular distance: AME – AME = 0.16, ALE – AME = 0.24, ALE – ALE = 0.92, PME – PME = 0.32, PLE – PME = 0.24, PLE – PLE = 0.80, ALE – PLE = 0.16, AME – PME = 0.20. Clypeus height very small.

Chelicerae (Fig. 7, plate – 2: 41) yellow, long, promargin and retromargin with 11and 10 small teeth respectively, fangs dark brown, very long, stout, strongly curved, toothed at basal one third

-219- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Maxillae (Fig. 8, plate – 2: 42) yellow with apices paler, longer than wide, apically and laterally strongly scopulate, labium darkish-brown, basally broad, constricted,wider than long, apically with few dark brown hairs.

Sternum (Fig. 8, plate – 2: 42) cordate, yellowish brown with margins faintly dark, apically deeply concave, indented at each coxal base, tip produced, clothed with minute dark brown hairs.

Legs yellow in colour. Legs: I 25.32 (7.50, 1.16, 7.50, 7.83, 1.33) II 15.32 (5.00, 0.66, 4.33, 4.33, 1.0) III 7.43 (2.30, 0.53, 1.84, 2.07, 0.69) IV 16.15 (4.83, 0.83, 4.83, 4.66, 1.00). Leg formula 1423.

Abdomen (Fig.9, plate – 2: 40) grayish, decorated, long, cylindrical, laterally compressed, anteriorly broadened, gradually narrowed posteriorly beyond spinnerets.

Genital fold (Fig. 10, plate – 2: 44) swollen, distally wide, apical margin medially incurved.

Venter (plate – 2: 43) greyish, mid-longitudinally with a grey band extending to spinnerets.

Material Examined: 4♀♀, MSDP, 20.X.2015.

Distribution: India (new record) West Bengal; , , , , New Guinea, Philippines and Taiwan (Okuma, 1988; Barrion and Listinger, 1995; World Spider Catalog, 2016).

Tetragnatha maxillosa Thorell, 1895 (Figs: 11-15, plate – 3: 45-48) Tetragnatha maxillosa Thorell, 1895. Descr. Catal. Spid. Burma: 139.

Measurements (female): CL –2.0, CW –1.34, AL– 9.0, AW – 2.8, TL – 11.0

Inter-ocular distance: AME – AME = 0.26, ALE – AME = 0.20, ALE – ALE = 0.63, PME – PME = 0.23, PLE – PME = 0.20, PLE – PLE = 0.57, ALE – PLE = 0.11, AME – PME = 0.18

Legs: I26.66 (1.50, 8.50, 7.83, 1.00, 7.83) II15.65(5.00, 0.66, 4.16, 4.83, 1.0) III 8.70 (3.10, 0.70, 1.60, 2.50, 0.80) IV 15.15 (4.83, 0.66, 4.00, 4.66, 1.00). Leg formula 1243.

Material Examined: 5♀♀, MSDP, 16.X. 2013, 12♀♀, GSBA, 10.X. 2013, 14♀♀, ARPH, 16.X.2013, 18♀♀, NPUR, 18.X. 2013, 6♀♀, KKDP, 17.XI.2013, 14♀♀, SRSH, 13. XI. 2013, 2♀♀, NMPT, 16.XI. 2013,10♀♀, MSDP, 23.III.2014, 16♀♀,GSBA, 08.III.2014, 6♀♀, ARPH, 22.III.2014, 6♀♀, KKDP, 20.II.2014, 2♀♀, SRSH, 26.III.2014, 5♀♀, NMPT, 29.III.2014, 36♀♀, MSDP, 12.X. 2014, 40♀♀,GSBA, 16.X.2014, 18♀♀, ARPH, 23.X.2014, 10♀♀, NPUR, 28.II.2014, 15♀♀, KKDP, 20.II.2014, 9♀♀, SRSH, 26.III.2014, 15♀♀,GSBA, 22.III.2015, 12♀♀, ARPH, 18.III.2015, 11♀♀, NPUR, 17.III. 2015, 3♀♀, KKDP, 19.III.2015, 6♀♀, SRSH, 26.III.2015, 11♀♀, NMPT, 27.III.2015, 48♀♀, MSDP, 19.X.2015, 12♀♀, GSBA,

-220- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

22.X.2015, 10♀♀, ARPH, 16.X.2015, 12♀♀, NPUR, 05.X. 2015, 7♀♀, KKDP, 27.X.2015, 9♀♀, SRSH, 26.X.2015, 35♀♀, NMPT, 22.X.2015

Distribution: India:West Bengal, , , Myanmar, Thailand, Loas, Cambodia, , Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, , Taiwan, Japan, New Guinea, , New Hebrides, & South Korea (Okuma, 1988; Barrion & Listinger, 1995; Sen et. al., 2009; Roy, 2013; World Spider Catalog, 2016).

Tetragnatha boydi O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1898 (Figs: 16-20, plate – 4: 49-53) Tetragnatha boydi Cambridge, 1898. Proc. Zool. Soc. London: 389; Okuma, 1983, Esakia, (20): 70.

Measurements (female): CL – 2.40, CW – 1.80, AL –8.80, AW – 2.40, TL – 11.20.

Cephalothorax (Fig. 16, plate – 4: 49) brown, elongate, oval, cephalic area darkish, parallel sided, raised, longer than wide (Fig.16, plate – 4: 49), thoracic area wider, fovea deeply grooved, radii distinct.

Eyes 8, transparent, basally ringed with black, dissimilar, arranged in 2 procurvedrows, posterior row nearly straight, anterolaterals smallest, posteromedian largest, ocular quad longer than wide.

Eye diameter: AME – AME = 0.20, ALE – AME = 0.20, ALE – ALE = 0.45, PME – PME = 0.25, PLE – PME= 0.20, PLE – PLE = 0.40, ALE – PLE = 0.20, AME – PME = 0.25. Clypeus height very small.

Chelicerae (Fig. 17, plate – 4: 50) yellow, long, promargin and retromargin with 12and 10 small teeth respectively, fangs dark brown, very long, stout, strongly curved, toothed at basal one third .

Maxillae (Fig. 18, plate – 4: 51) yellow with apices paler,longer than wide, apically scopulate, labium darkish-brown, basally broad, wider than long, apically weakly scopulate.

Sternum (Fig. 18, plate – 4: 51) cordate, yellowish brown with margins dark, apically deeply concave, indented at each coxal base, tip produced, clothed with minute dark brown hairs.

Legs yellow in colour. Leg Measurements: I 20.99 (6.00, 1.00, 6.00, 6.66, 1.33) II 12.98 (4.16, 0.66, 3.50, 3.66, 1.00) III 6.82 (2.30, 0.53, 1.38, 2.00, 0.61) IV 12.98 (4.55, 0.66, 3.33, 3.44, 1.00). Leg formula12 = 43.

Abdomen (Fig. 19, plate – 4: 49) greyish, decorated, long, cylindrical, laterally compressed, anteriorly broadened, gradually narrowed posteriorly beyond spinnerets.

Genital fold (Fig. 20, plate – 4: 53) weekly swollen, distally wide, apical margin straight.

-221- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Venter (plate - 4: 52) yellow brown, mid-longitudinally with a grey band extending to spinnerets.

Material examined: 16♀♀, ARPH, 22.III.2014, 3♀♀, SRSH, 26.X.2015

Distribution: India (new record): West Bengal; Africa, to , to China & Nepal (Okuma, 1988; World Spider Catalog, 2016).

Tetragnatha josephi Okuma, 1988 (Figs: 21-25, plate 5: 54-57) Tetragnatha josephi Okuma, 1988, Esakia, (26): 76.

Measurements (female): CL –2.65, CW – 2.16, AL –6.12, AW – 2.00, TL – 8.77

Cephalothorax (Fig. 21, plate – 5: 54) pale yellow, cephalic area parallel sided, weekly raised, (Fig. 21, plate – 5: 54) thoracic area wider with fovea deeply distinct, thoracic radii indistinct.

Eyes 8, transparent, dissimilar, basally ringed with black, arranged in two rows, anterior row procurved and posterior row recurved, ocular quad rectangular, anteriorly narrowing, anterolaterals smallest, widely placed, tuberculate, posteromedians largest.

Eye diameter: AME – AME = 0.20, ALE – AME = 0.32, ALE – ALE = 0.96, PME – PME = 0.28, PLE – PME = 0.24, PLE – PLE = 0.36, ALE – PLE = 0.24, AME – PME = 0.20. Clypeus height very small.

Chelicerae (Fig. 22, plate – 5: 55) yellow, small, promargin and retromargin with 6 and 7 small teeth respectively, fangs dark brown, moderately long, curved.

Maxillae (Fig. 23 plate – 5: 56) yellow, longer, apically and laterally strongly scopulate. Labium yellow, weekly longer than wide, medially constricted, apically with few dark brown hairs.

Sternum (Fig. 23, plate – 5: 57) yellow, cordate, covered with short brown hairs, apical margin deeply concave, posteriorly blunt.

Legs yellow in colour. Leg Measurements: I 15.86 (4.44, 0.88, 4.44, 4.88, 1.22), II 9.98 (3.11, 0.66, 2.33, 3.00, 0.88), III 4.35(0.85, 0.53, 1.38, 1.15, 0.44), IV 8.48 (3.83, 0.33, 1.66, 2.0, 0.66). Leg formula 1243.

Abdomen (Fig. 24, plate – 5: 54) yellowish white, long, cylindrical, decorated, laterally compressed, medially weekly broadened. Venter yellowish white.

Genital fold (Fig. 25 plate – 5: 57) distinctly wider than long

Material Examined: 6♀♀, MSDP, 19.X.2015, 12♀♀, MSDP, 12.X.2014,

-222- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

Distribution: India (new record): West Bengal; Malaysia, Singapore (Okuma, 1988; World Spider Catalog, 2016).

Tetragnatha hasselti Thorell, 1890 (Figs: 26-30, plate – 6: 58-61) Tetragnatha hasselti Thorell, 1890, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 30: 217.

Measurements (female): CL – 4.00, CW – 2.05, AL – 9.60, AW – 2.20 , TL – 13.60

Inter-ocular distance: AME – AME = 0.30, ALE – AME = 0.40, ALE – ALE = 1.0 , PME – PME = 0.30 , PLE – PME = 0.40, PLE – PLE = 0.95, ALE – PLE = 0.15, AME – PME = 0.25

Legs: I 20.23 (6.00, 0.67, 6.00, 5.78, 1.78), II 13.34 (3.78, 0.67, 3.78, 3.78, 1.33), III 6.67 (2.44, 0.67, 1.33, 1.56, 0.67) IV 12.00 (4.44, 0.67, 2.67, 3.33, 0.89). Leg formula 1243.

Material Examined: 3♀♀, MSDP, 19.X.2015.

Distribution: India: West Bengal; Bangladesh to China, Celebes, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand (Okuma, 1988; Sen et. al., 2009; Roy, 2013; World Spider Catalog, 2016).

Tetragnatha ceylonica O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1869 (Figs: 31-35, plate - 7: 62-65) Tetragnatha ceylonica Cambridge, 1869. J. Linn. Soc. Zool. 10: 394.

Measurements (female): CL –2.64, CW -1.88, AL – 5.0, AW – 1.7, TL – 7.64

Inter-ocular distance: AME – AME = 0.16, ALE – AME = 0.52 , ALE – ALE = 1.16 , PME – PME = 0.32, PLE – PME = 0.44, PLE – PLE = 1.20, ALE – PLE = 0.20, AME – PME = 0.24

Legs: I 23.97 (6.85, 1.14, 6.85, 7.85, 1.28), II 13.55(4.14, 0.85, 3.71, 4.00, 0.85), III 5.69 (2.11, 0.47, 1.29, 1.41, 0.41) IV 12.23 (3.71, 0.42, 2.85, 4.00, 1.25). Leg formula 1243.

Material Examined: 5♀♀, MSDP, 23.III.2014, 6♀♀, NPUR, 28.II.2014, 4♀♀, 12.III.2015.

Distribution: India: West Bengal; Africa, Japan, , New Guinea, Seychelles to Philippines, South-East Asia, Taiwan, Thailand (Okuma, 1988; Barrion & Listinger, 1995; Sen et. al., 2009; World Spider Catalog, 2016)

Acknowledgements

Authors express deep sense of gratitude to Swami Atmapriyananda, Vice-Chancellor, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, for giving the opportunity to undertake the paper work. We are personally indebted to Dr. Sumana Saha, Dr. Tapan Kumar Roy and Dr. Sutirtha Sarkar, Research colleagues, IRDM Faculty Centre, Narendrapur, for preparing the manuscript. Sincere thanks are due to Dr. Manas Ghose, Dean and other staff members of Centre for Integrated Rural Development and Management, Narendrapur, for necessary support.

-223- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

References

[1] Anbalangan, G. & Narayanaswamy, P. 1999. Population fluctuation of spiders in the rice ecosystem of Tamil Nadu. Entomon, 24: 91. [2] Banerji, D.K., Nanda, P.K. & Sen, S.C. 1993. Seasonal abundance of some important spider groups in rice agro-ecosystem. Rec. Zool. Surv. India, 93: 275. [3] Barrion, A.T. & Litsinger, J.A. 1995. Riceland Spiders of South and Southeast Asia, 1: 509-513. [4] Chelliah, S., Bentur, J.S. & Prakasa Rao, P.S. 1989. Approaches in rice pest management – Achievement and opportunities. Oryza, 26: 12-26. [5] Dale, D. 1994. Insect pests of the rice plant: Their biology and ecology. In Biology and Management of Rice Insects, edited by Heinrichs, E.A. (ed.), 1994; Pub: Wiley Eastern Limited & New Age International Limited, 363. [6] Dimitrov, D. & Hormigera, G. 2009. Revision and cladistic analysis of the orb weaving spider genus Cytrognatha Keyserling, 1881 (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 317: 140 pp. [7] Ganesh Kumar, M. 1994. Prey predator interactions in the rice ecosystem with special reference to spiders. PhD Thesis, TNAU: 183 pp. [8] Gillespie, R.G. 1987. The mechanism of habitat selection in long-jawed orb-weaving spider (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). Arachnol, 15: 81-90. [9] Gillespie, R. G., Croom, H. B. and Palumbi, S. R. 1991. Mitochindrial DNA sequences coding for a portion of RNA of the small ribosomal subunits of and Tetragnatha hawaiiensis (Araneae, Tetragnathidae). J. Arachnol., 19: 210-214. [10] Gillespie, R. G., Croom, H. B. and Palumbi, S. R. 1994. Multiple origin of a spider radiation in .Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 91: 2290-2294. [11] Gillespie, R.G.2002. Hawaiian spiders of the genus Tetragnatha : IV new, small species in the spiny leg clade. The Journal of Arachnology, 30: 159-172. [12] Jayakumar, S. & Sankari, A. 2010. Spider population and their predatory efficiency in different rice establishment techniques in Aduthurai, Tamil Nadu. Journal of Biopesticides, 3(1 Special Issue): 20-27. [13] Majumder, S.C. 2007.Pictorial handbook on Spiders of Sunderbans, West Bengal. ZSI, Ko1kata, 1: 30-35. [14] Meera Gupta, P.R. & Pawar, A.D. 1986. Survey of the predatory spider fauna from rice agro-ecosystem. Ind. J. Plant Prot., 14: 19. [15] Nyffeler, M. & Benz, G.1987. Spiders in natural pest control – a review. Journal of Applied Entomology 103: 321-339. [16] Okuma, C. 1988. A revision of the genus Tetragnatha Latreille (Araneae, Tetragnathidae) of Asia. J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ., 77-86.

-224- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

[17] Pathak, S. & Saha, N.N. 1999. Spider fauna of rice ecosystem in Barak valley zone of Assam. Ind. J. Entomol, 2: 211. [18] Rajendra, R. 1987. Studies on the predatory spiders in rice ecosystem. Ph D Thesis, TNAU. 160 pp. [19] Roy, T.K. 2013. Spiders (Araneae: Arachnida) of Tea Ecosystem of Dooars, West Bengal. PhD Thesis, CU. 253 pp. [20] Satpathi, C.R. 2004. Predacious spiders of crop pests. Capital Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1: 88-96. [21] Schoenly, K.G., Justo, H.D., Barrion, A.T., Harris, M.K. & Bottrell, G.D.1998. Analysis of invertebrate biodiversity in Philippines farmers irrigated rice field. Environ. Entomol. 27: 1125-1136. [22] Sebastian, P.A. & Chacko, E. 1994. Studies on the predatory spiders of paddy field from Kuttanad. Proc 6th Kerala Sci Cong, 1: 377. [23] Sen, S. 2010. Spiders (Araneae: Arachnida) of Gorumara National Park, Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary and Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary. Ph D Thesis, CU. 229 pp.

( Received 02 September 2016; accepted 18 September 2016 )

-225- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-226- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-227- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-228- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-229- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-230- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-231- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-232- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-233- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-234- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-235- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-236- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-237- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-238- World Scientific News 55 (2016) 210-239

-239-