Arthropoda Selecta 24(4): 477–481 © ARTHROPODA SELECTA, 2015 Taxonomic notes on dubious spider species (Arachnida: Araneae) from the Russian Far East Òàêñîíîìè÷åñêèå çàìåòêè î ñîìíèòåëüíûõ âèäàõ ïàóêîâ (Arachnida: Araneae) ñ Äàëüíåãî Âîñòîêà Ðîññèè Rainer Breitling Ðàéíåð Áðåéòëèíã Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M1 7DN, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] KEY WORDS: Araneae, revised status, nomen dubium, Far East Asia. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: Araneae, ревизованный статус, nomen dubium, дальневосточная Азия. ABSTRACT. The taxonomic status of six spider время не могут быть идентифицированы на основе species described by Grube [1861] and Strand [1907] оригинальных описаний, а ранее предложенные си- from the Russian Far East is re-examined. Asagena нонимии являются неубедительными; этим таксо- amurica Strand, 1907 is not a synonym of Steatoda нам возвращен статус nomen dubium. albomaculata (De Geer, 1778), but of Asagena phal- erata (Panzer, 1801) (syn.n.). Attus dimidiatus Grube, Introduction 1861 is not a synonym of Carrhotus xanthogramma (Latreille, 1819), but possibly unknown female of Men- Numerous spider species first described in the doza zebra (Logunov et Wesołowska, 1992); in the early years of arachnology have never been found absence of type material the name remains a nomen again following their initial discovery, and their iden- dubium. Attus fuscostriatus Grube, 1861 is probably a tity remains unclear. In most cases, this is due to senior synonym of Talavera ikedai Logunov et Kro- insufficient details and a lack of illustrations in the nestedt, 2003, but until conspecific material is found original descriptions. Often these species are listed as from the type locality, this identification will remain nomina dubia in the catalogues, i.e. “name[s] of un- uncertain. Micryphantes miniatus Grube, 1861, Linyph- known or doubtful application”, whose taxonomic ia albomaculata Grube, 1861, and Linyphia melano- identity cannot be determined [ICZN, 1999]. A closer pleuros Grube, 1861, currently cannot be identified examination of such taxa can be worthwhile and is based on their original descriptions, and previously facilitated by the recent availability of full texts of a suggested synonymies are unconvincing; these taxa are large part of the historical arachnological literature also relegated again to the status of nomen dubium. through the World Spider Catalog [2015]. A better understanding of these early arachnological records РЕЗЮМЕ. Критически проанализирован таксо- could have two major benefits. On the one hand, it номический статус шести видов пауков, описан- could enhance nomenclatural stability. Previously, the ных Грубе [Grube, 1861] и Страндом [Strand, 1907] discovery of forgotten senior synonyms regularly led с Русского Дальнего Востока. Asagena amurica to unfortunate changes in nomenclature, but the cur- Strand, 1907 является не синонимом Steatoda albo- rent version of the ICZN simplifies the suppression of maculata (De Geer, 1778), а Asagena phalerata (Pan- nomina oblita and the protection of established names. zer, 1801) (syn.n.). Attus dimidiatus Grube, 1861 не Thus, the sooner senior synonyms are detected, the является синонимом Carrhotus xanthogramma easier it is to take responsible action to protect a (Latreille, 1819), но вероятно представляет собой widely used name and avoid inconvenient changes неописанную самку Mendoza zebra (Logunov et We- later on. On the other hand, the analysis of historical sołowska, 1992); при отсутствии типового материа- spider records could potentially yield interesting fau- ла названия остается nomen dubium. Attus fuscostri- nistic insights by providing a snapshot impression of atus Grube, 1861 вероятно является старшим сино- common spiders in a region in earlier times and in нимом Talavera ikedai Logunov et Kronestedt, 2003, some cases clarifying the distributional patterns of но до тех пор, пока конспецифичный материал не species. Even though very small sample sizes, non- собран из типового локалитета, это определение standardized sampling protocols and usually extremely будет оставаться сомнительным. Micryphantes mini- vague collection data tend to limit the information atus Grube, 1861, Linyphia albomaculata Grube, 1861 content, a combination of historical records can still и Linyphia melanopleuros Grube, 1861 в настоящее be valuable (see, for instance, an analysis of the north- 478 R. Breitling ward spread of Argiope bruennichi (Scopoli, 1772) pattern, Marusik et al. [2015: p. 123] stated that “Strand through Europe in Sacher [2001]). compared his species with S. phalerata and S. japonica Independent of what motivates the examination of Bösenberg et Strand, 1906 [a probable synonym of S. nomina dubia, a careful study of the original descrip- albomaculata (De Geer, 1778)].” But Strand explicitly tions is necessary for it to be worthwhile. These de- said that Asagena amurica should differ from Asagena scriptions can be very short, but they are not intention- japonica (Dönitz et Strand) in its pattern (“Von Asage- ally obscure. On the contrary, in the absence of figures, na japonica Dön. et Strand durch andere Färbung… zu the early authors had to be particularly careful in high- unterscheiden” [Strand, 1907: S. 132]), which would lighting the diagnostic habitus characters in their writ- argue against a synonymy with S. albomaculata. This ings, if they wanted their species to be recognized by assessment is confirmed by the actual description of others. While this is unfamiliar to modern arachnolo- the pattern, which consists of: two short white trans- gists, who tend to neglect the description of (notorious- verse spots in a row, separated by about their length, at ly variable) habitus characters in favour of genitalic the basis of the anterior end of the prosoma; one long examination, a well written description can still sub- elliptical transverse spot on each side in the middle of stantially limit the range of possible identifications and the abdomen, separated by about twice their longer sometimes even allows an unambiguous identification diameter; and one white longitudinal spot at the begin- based on a surprisingly concise description. This paper ning of the posterior end of the abdomen (“An der illustrates the potential of this approach by re-examin- vorderen Abdachung über der Basis zwei weisse kurze ing six historical spider records from the Russian Far Querstriche, die in ihrer Länge unter einander getrennt East which were recently tentatively identified by und in Querreihe gestellt sind. Auf dem Rücken, etwa Marusik et al. [2015], who formally suggested new in der Mitte, jederseits ein etwa lang ellipsenförmiger synonymies for each of them. Querfleck, welche Flecke in dem doppelten ihres läng- sten Durchmessers getrennt sind. Am Anfang der hin- Material and methods teren Abdachung ein kleiner weisser Längsfleck.” [Strand, 1907: S. 134]). This pattern, obviously, has no In the absence of the type material of most of the similarity with that of S. albomaculata, but it matches species discussed here, the analysis is based on a care- that of a juvenile Asagena phalerata. Although Strand ful reading of the original descriptions, as well as zoo- explicitly distinguished A. amurica from A. phalerata, geographical considerations, i.e., the known distribu- examination of the type material confirms this interpre- tion of spider species around the type localities. Only tation. The holotype is bleached, and the prosoma and for Asagena amurica Strand, 1907, the holotype was opisthosoma are separated, but the material is other- available for re-examination at the Zoological Museum wise in excellent condition. In contrast to the implica- Hamburg (despite having been reported as lost earlier tion in Strand’s description, the specimen is juvenile [Rack, 1961]). (not a subadult female) and even smaller than indicated in the description (prosoma 0.66 mm, opisthosoma 0.87 mm). The pattern of the opisthosoma is still visi- Taxonomic survey ble and is in complete agreement with that of A. phal- erata, as is the overall morphology. Any minor differ- Asagena amurica Strand, 1907: p. 132 = Asagena ences discussed in the original description can easily phalerata (Panzer, 1801), syn.n. be explained by the juvenile state of the specimen. Type material. Holotype, 1 immature (Zoological Museum Ham- Published records of A. phalerata are known quite burg); “Blagowestschensk 1884. Cordes ded. 8.XI.1894” [the city of Blagoveshchensk is the administrative centre of the Amur Area close to the type locality, e.g., from Kyra Distr. in the of Russia]; re-examined. south of Transbaikalia [Logunov, Marusik 2004, cited Marusik et al. [2015] considered A. amurica a jun- in Danilov, 2008] and from Inner Mongolia and Jilin ior synonym of Steatoda albomaculata (De Geer, 1778), province in northern China [Song et al., 1999] are in based on an incomplete quotation from the original favour of the synonymy as well. description [Strand, 1907: S. 134], “Abdomen schwarz, schwach rötlich angeflogen, oben mit unter sich ziem- Attus dimidiatus Grube, 1861: p. 179, nomen dubi- lich entfernt stehenden, gewissermassen in Reihen an- um, status revised geordneten, feinen graulichen Pünktchen gezeichnet, Marusik et al. [2015] considered this species a sowie mit zwei parallelen oder ganz schwach nach synonym of Carrhotus xanthogramma (Latreille, 1819), hinten divergierenden Reihen...”, which they para- based on “pattern and size”. The original description of phrased as “=abdomen