Ibotyporanga bariro Huber, 2020

Figs 26, 32C–D, 36D, 37

Ibotyporanga bariro Huber in Huber & Villarreal, 2020: 62, figs 176–177, 189–196, 1031, 1040 (♂ ♀).

Remarks

We have no new material of this Venezuelan species but include it here to provide an updated diagnosis, comparing it with the very similar Colombian I. walekeru sp. nov. and other similar species. In the original description, the carapace width of the holotype was erroneously given as 0.95; the correct measure is 0.75.

Diagnosis

Males are easily distinguished from most known congeners by shape of procursus (Fig. 37A–C; short and wide, curved towards dorsal, without dorsal branch, distally with wide transparent membrane); from the very similar I. walekeru sp. nov. by presence of many large fringes distally on procursus (only a few hair-like processes in I. walekeru; compare Fig. 32A–B with Fig. 32 C–D); from the superficially similar I. itatim sp. nov. by much shorter legs (male tibia 1 <1.1; in I. itatim >1.5), and by absence of dorsal process on palpal tarsus. Females externally possibly indistinguishable from I. walekeru, but internal genitalia with very short and indistinct pair of tubes (Fig. 36D; long and distinct in I. walekeru); I. piojo sp. nov. with more strongly curved epigynal pocket and with distinct internal tubes; I. itatim with deeper triangular epigynal pocket and distinct pair of internal lateral sacs.