Records of the Westem Australian Muswm Supplement No. 52: 91-105 (1995). The Australasian spider family Periegopidae Simon, 1893 (Araneae: Sicarioidea) Raymond R. Forster McMasters Road, R.D.1 Dunedin, New Zealand Abstract - The subfamily Periegopinae (Simon, 1893), based on two species of Periegops Simon, is raised to family status. The type species, Periegops suterii (Urquhart) from New Zealand, is redescribed and the recently discovered Australian species, Periegops australia sp. nov., is established. A possible second species in New Zealand is noted. The phylogeny of the Periegopidae is discussed and the family is grouped with (Sicariidae Loxoscelidae), Plectreuridae, Scytodidae, Drymusidae, and Diguetidae to form the superfamily Sicarioidea. INTRODUCTION adult males and a third an adult female (the fourth The two closely related species which make up spider, probably another male, escaped the distinctive Australasian monogeneric family examination) suggests a mating scenario in which Periegopidae probably constitute the rarest and the males are attracted to the female, perhaps by most geographically restricted family taxon known pheromones. The capture of both male and female for our present day spiders bearing in mind that, specimens in pitfall traps as well as the paucity of although known from two widely separated silk glands, implies that these spiders do not countries, the actual area inhabited in each country construct a snare but are active hunters. Only the appears to be extremely limited. The similarity of two front pairs of legs are directed forward hence the two species is remarkable considering the relict it is unlikely that the spiders inhabit a permanent nature of the two populations which, for tunnel retreat as do the Segestriidae. contiguity, must date back to Gondwanaland. The ecological data available for the New The type species for the genus is the New Zealand species are extremely limited but suggest Zealand Periegops suterii, first recorded by that P. suterii is restricted to four or five small, Urquhart (1892b) from Banks Peninsula near isolated patches of forest on Banks Peninsula and a Christchurch in the South Island of New Zealand. small forest reserve in Christchurch City. This is all Despite the comprehensive and widespread that remains of the original extensive forest cover collecting programmes over most regions of New which, little more than one hundred years ago, Zealand in recent decades, the failure to find clothed most of the Peninsula. Fortunately most of Periegops suterii elsewhere strongly suggests that these forest remnants are now designated as this species is now restricted to a few hectares of Reserves but as none are more than a few hectares forest on Banks Peninsula near Christchurch and in area the future for the species is not hopeful. the much smaller Riccarton Bush Reserve in the The size and extent of the North Island population City of Christchurch. The recent discovery of a of Periegops is not yet known but the discovery of single female Periegops from the East Cape region only a single specimen despite extensive fieldwork of the North Island of New Zealand suggests the implies that it is rare. The failure to find Periegops presence of a second species which may be australia in other than a relatively small area of similarly restricted. southeastern Queensland suggests this species is As far as we know the recently discovered also restricted in distribution and it may well be Australian species, described below, is restricted to the sole representative of the family in Australia. two populations in southeastern Queensland. The fact that specimens of P. suterii were found Little is known of the life history of these spiders. on two separate occasions when spider taxonomy Most of the Australian specimens have been in New Zealand was in its infancy and very few collected from pitfall traps while the few New endemic species had been collected does suggest Zealand records have revealed little information that the species was much more abundant in earlier other than one note that an adult female spider historic times. The geological history of Banks was found within a thin silken tube under a log. Peninsula indicates a long period of isolation as an The recent discovery of four Periegops together offshore island subsequently linked to the under a log in Riccarton Bush, of which two were mainland by the building up of the Canterbury 92 R.R. Forster Plains. This isolation is further substantiated by the in this paper Bryant also suggested that a new surprising number of invertebrates endemic to the family be established for Periegops which, in her peninsula and so it is not surprising that the view, would also include Plectreurys and Digueta species should be restricted in distribution. but she took no direct action. In a second paper, Material is lodged in the Canterbury Museum, published in the same volume and recording more Otago Museum, and Queensland Museum (QM). recently collected material from the Canterbury Museum Collection, Bryant (1935b) described a male of P. suterii from Rhodes Bush on the Port TAXONOMIC HISTORY Hills. The specimen examined by Bryant (which, Despite its limited distribution and apparent until very recently, remained the only male known rarity, specimens of Periegops suterii were available for the type species) has unfortunately suffered for description by Urquhart in 1892. His badly from dehydration and mould but an intact description, under the name Segestria suterii, was palp was found in the vial. based on one female and two immature males Chamberlain (1948) appears to be the only New collected by the conchologist, Henry Suter, from Zealand worker to have examined these spiders Dyers Pass on the Port Hills near Christchurch. subsequent to Urquhart's original description. He Undoubtedly, Suter would have been looking for confirms the synonymy of the species described by land snails on the forest floor when he encountered Urquhart and Simon after examining a specimen these spiders. Shortly after Urquhart's paper labelled as Periegops suteri by Dalmas. It is not clear appeared, Simon (1893), who was unlikely to have where this specimen is located as Dalmas (1917), seen Urquhart's paper when he prepared his judging from his brief comments, only examined manuscript, recorded the same species under the the original female specimen described by Simon new generic and specific names Periegops hirsutus. and which is now held in the Museum Histoire Although Simon's generic diagnosis is based on a Naturelle, Paris. It is probable that, by mistake, female (he states 'male not known' in the generic Chamberlain is referring to the male specimen held description) the species description, printed as a in the Canterbury Museum examined by Bryant footnote on the next page, states that the specimen and labelled Periegops suteri. The elevation of the described as a new species was a male. However subfamily Periegopinae to family status has been a the descriptive information suggests that the matter of general agreement by most authors who specimen was actually a female and a subsequent have encountered the group. However no formal search of the Simon collection by Dalmas (1917) action has been taken to implement these opinions revealed only a single female specimen. No locality mainly because of the paucity of study material, data other than New Zealand was given for this but also because of the reluctance of authors to specimen but it is known that Simon had other establish a family taxon solely on one species. The material available for study at this time from Banks discovery of a probable second species in New Peninsula. It can, therefore, be reliably assumed Zealand and a further one in Australia, reinforced that his specimen came from the same locality as by revisions of Simon's other sicariid genera and Urquhart's Segestria suterii. their elevation to family rank by Gertsch (1958a, Simon, at this time, established the subfamily 1958b, 1958c, 1967, 1983) has now opened the way Periegopinae for his new genus Periegops and for the establishment of the higher taxon. placed the subfamily in the Sicariidae. He was With the establishment of the seventh family obviously puzzled about the correct placement of taxon from the original generic assemblage, the tis spider and commented that Periegops was one of revision of Simon's Sicariidae is completed. Until the most ambiguous spiders he knew and that, now, Periegops has been listed by cataloguers in while he was placing it within the Sicariidae, it either the Sicariidae (where Simon placed it) or the could well merit a family in its own right. Segestriidae (as suggested by Urquhart in his However, some time later Simon (1903) retained original description of suterii). It has also been subfamily status for Periegops and added two suggested that Periegops suterii may be a synonym genera, Digueta and Pertica, to the Periegopinae. In of Segestria saeva Walckenaer 1837 (Bonnet 1958, his Systema Aranearum, Petrunkevitch (1928) Roewer 1942, Dalmas 1917) but this association is removed these two genera from the Periegopinae very doubtful and certainly not strong enough to and so reinstated the subfamily to its original be acted upon. The descriptive information monogeneric status. Bryant (1935a) examined a associated with S.saeva is, in itself, too indefinite to female cephalothorax from the Urquhart collection support such an assertion and in view of suterii's (now housed in the Canterbury Museum), labelled restricted distribution and rarity, the probability of as Segestria suterii which is probably the type specimens being collected at this early date by specimen. She concluded that Simon's P. hirsutus random collecting seems unlikely. More probably, was a synonym of P. suteri (Urquhart) as had been the species described by Walckenaer belongs in one suggested earlier by Dalmas (1917). Interestingly, of the other two groups of relatively large six-eyed Spider family Periegopidae 93 haplogyne spiders of the families Segestriidae or but not meeting medially.