Novitates PUBLISHED by the AMERICAN MUSEUM of NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST at 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AMERICAN MUSEUM Novitates PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10024 Number 3162, 23 pp., 62 figures April 10, 1996 A Review of the Zelotine Ground Spider Genus Setaphis (Araneae, Gnaphosidae) NORMAN I. PLATNICK1 AND JOHN A. MURPHY2 ABSTRACT The genus Setaphis Simon has been thoroughly Sardinia, Z. caporiaccoi Roewer from North Af- misconstrued; most of the species currently as- rica, Z. spiribulbis Denis from Morocco, Z. con- signed to the genus are not congeneric with its type volutus Denis from Yemen, Z. gomerae Schmidt species. Numerous species that do belong to Se- from the Canary Islands, and Z. stylus Di Franco taphis have been described, but have been mis- from North Africa. Pavesi's synonymy ofS. suavis placed in other genera. Twenty taxa are transferred (Simon) with S. parvula (Lucas) is accepted; eleven to Setaphis: Camillina mollis (0. P.-Cambridge) other specific names are newly synonymized: S. from North Africa, C. simplex (Simon) from Tu- brachialis with S. carmeli, S. vivesi with S. alger- nisia, C. fuscipes (Simon) from Algeria and Tu- ica; S. lubrica, S. lutea, S. berlandi, S. convolutus, nisia, C. subtilis (Simon) from Oman, C. lubrica and S. oppenheimeri with S. subtilis; S. caporiaccoi (Simon) from India, C. algerica Dalmas from Al- and S. stylus with S. simplex; S. mandae with S. geria, C. browni Tucker and C. lutea Tucker from browni; and S. fibulata (Berland) with S. atlantica South Africa, C. berlandi Denis from Egypt, C. (Berland). Three new species are described: S. joc- villiersi Denis from Nigeria, C. vivesi Marinaro quei from the Ivory Coast, and S. walteri and S. from Algeria, Drassodes oppenheimeri Tikader and wunderlichi from the Canary Islands. The males Nodocion mandae (Tikader and Gajbe) from In- of S. villiersi, S. mollis, S. browni, and S. canar- dia, Zelotes carmeli (O. P.-Cambridge) from the iensis are described for the first time. Mediterranean region, Z. brachialis (Garneri) from I Curator, Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History; Adjunct Professor, Department of Biology, City College, City University of New York; Adjunct Professor, Department of Entomology, Cornell Uni- versity. 2Associate, Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History; 323 Hanworth Road, Hampton, Middlesex, TW12 3EJ England. Copyright K American Museum of Natural History 1996 ISSN 0003-0082 / Price $2.80 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 3162 INTRODUCTION The systematics of many groups of spiders part of Simon's group A (group B now con- is based on distressingly flimsy foundations. stitutes the genus Trachyzelotes Lohmander; As in most other groups of arthropods, nu- see Platnick and Murphy, 1984). merous species and genera were established Over intervening and ensuing years, Simon by 19th and early 20th century authors, who (1893b, 1908), Purcell (1908), Tucker (1923), generally worked in near (or total) isolation and Lawrence (1928a, 1928b) added some 15 from each other, and who relied almost ex- additional species, mostly from South Africa clusively on the published literature for in- and Namibia, to Setaphis. So far as we have formation on the taxa described by their col- been able to determine, not a single one of leagues. Such a system might have proved those southern African species actually be- feasible had those authors routinely supplied longs to Setaphis. Numerous species that do illustrations for each species described, but belong to the genus have been described, in- illustrations are generally lacking in literature cluding some from southern Africa, but they of that era. It is not surprising, under these have all been misplaced in other genera, in- circumstances, that the same taxon was often cluding Camillina Berland, Drassodes West- described more than once, or that the same ring, Echemus Simon, Liodrassus Chamber- name was used to refer to entirely different lin, and Zelotes. taxa. As in our earlier study on Trachyzelotes, We report here on one of the more egre- we have tried to identify and review here all gious examples of such confusion. The spi- the described members ofthis relatively clear- ders involved are easily recognizable; they are cut group. However, hundreds of zelotine zelotine gnaphosids (i.e., ground spiders pos- species have been described, from all over sessing a distinctive metatarsal preening the world, and no adequate illustrations have comb) with striking genitalic features in both ever been published for many ofthe available sexes. Males have a distal, coiled embolus names. It has not been possible for us to ex- (figs. 1, 2), and females have similarly coiled amine most ofthe relevant type material, and epigynal ducts (figs. 3, 4). In both sexes, these we therefore presume that additional names, genitalic features appear to be unambiguous- both older and younger, will eventually be ly synapomorphic for the group, within the found to apply to many of the taxa treated larger context of zelotines in general. here. It nevertheless seems worthwhile to So far as we are aware, the only generic present evidence regarding the identity and name available for these taxa is Setaphis geographic distribution of the taxa we have Simon (1893a). The type species of Setaphis been able to examine, and to point out that is Prosthesima suavis Simon (1878), based on almost all ofthe southern African species pre- specimens from France and Algeria. In the viously assigned to Setaphis must eventually original description of that species, Simon be transferred elsewhere. At this point, we do (1878: 78) indicated that he would have de- not know whether those species represent a scribed a new genus for it had not a Medi- monophyletic group oftheir own, or whether terranean species currently known as Zelotes there is another generic name available for carmeli (0. P.-Cambridge) seemed interme- them. diate between P. suavis and the more typical The history of the species here assigned to species now placed in Zelotes Gistel. After Setaphis provides ample reason to reject the the description of Setaphis, Simon retained views of some (mostly north European) Z. carmeli in the large genus Zelotes (as the workers on the limits of the genus Zelotes. only member ofone ofthe three species groups Roberts (1995: 110), for example, working he recognized, group C of Simon, 1914), al- only with the extremely limited fauna of ze- though he did note that Z. carmeli had lotines found in Britain and northern Europe, "grands rapports avec le genre Setaphis" argued that: (Simon, 1914: 180, footnote). As indicated The genus [Zelotes] has been divided by some workers below, we consider Z. carmeli to be a mem- to form several smaller genera. Whilst able to see the ber of Setaphis, thus restricting Zelotes to differences which suggest such subdivision, I am not 1 996 PLATNICK AND MURPHY: SETAPHIS 3 sure that they outweigh the similarities or that the BMNH Natural History Museum, London, changes are useful taxonomically, although they are P. Hillyard useful at a subgeneric level. CAS California Academy ofSciences, San But the question here is not a trivial one of Francisco, C. Griswold what rank to assign groups, but rather what CCD C. Deeleman-Reinhold, Ossen- the membership of those groups is to be. drecht, Netherlands Members of the clearly monophyletic group CDJ D. Jones, Waterlooville, England discussed below have been placed by some CGS G. Schmidt, Deutsch Evern, Ger- workers in Zelotes, by others in Camillina, many and by others (such as Denis) in both Zelotes CHE H. K. El-Hennawy, Cairo, Egypt and Camillina (to say nothing ofvarious mis- CJW J. Wunderlich, Straubenhardt, Ger- placements in several other genera). In ac- many tuality, these species belong to neither Zelotes CPA P. Ashmole, Edinburgh, Scotland nor Camillina. The misplacements have re- CRB R. Bosmans, Gent, Belgium sulted in a general failure, by previous au- CRS R. Snazell, Wareham, England thors, to recognize the species of Setaphis as HDO Hope Department of Entomology, members ofa single monophyletic group. In- Oxford University, I. Lansbury deed, in the most extreme case, they have led JAM J. A. Murphy to a single species being described as a mem- MHNG Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de ber of both Zelotes and Camillina (for ex- Geneve, B. Hauser ample, the synonyms of S. subtilis described MNHN Museum National d'Histoire Na- by Denis). The generic concept advocated by turelle, Paris, C. Rollard Roberts could represent a monophyletic group MRAC Musee Royal de l'Afrique Centrale, only if all zelotines, worldwide, were placed Tervuren, R. Jocque in the single genus Zelotes, including, for ex- NCA National Collection of Arachnida, ample, those species of Camillina that have Plant Protection Research Institute, never been considered members of Zelotes. Pretoria, A. Dippenaar-Schoeman Even under the far more reasonable generic NMB Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, concepts of other workers, Zelotes remains a A. Hainggi cumbersomely huge group within which to NMBL National Museum Bloemfontein, L. investigate species identities and relation- Lotz ships. Placing all zelotines in Zelotes would NMS Natur-Museum Senckenberg, M. only compound the difficulties. Grasshoff We thank M. U. Shadab of the American NMZ National Museum, Zimbabwe, M. Museum of Natural History for help with FitzPatrick illustrations, and each of the collectors and SAM South African Museum, V. White- curators listed below for supplying speci- head mens. We especially thank Tony Russell- UAF University of Agriculture, Faisala- Smith ofSittingbourne, England, for his most bad, Pakistan, M. Beg generous donations ofAfrican Setaphis spec- ZSI Zoological Survey of India, B. Bis- imens. Helpful comments on a draft of the was manuscript were supplied by F. Di Franco, R. Jocque, V. Ovtsharenko, and J. Wunder- Setaphis Simon lich. The format ofthe descriptions and stan- Setaphis Simon, 1 893a: 374 (type species by dard abbreviations of morphological terms original designation Prosthesima suavis Simon follow Platnick and Shadab (1975); all mea- [= S.