Mesabolivar bico sp. n.

Figs 200–208, 241–242

Diagnosis. Distinguished from similar congeners (other species of the togatus group) by male cheliceral armature (Figs 204–205; one pair of long frontal apophyses in proximal position), and by epigynum with pair of processes and distinctive median pocket (very wide, in anterior position; Figs 206, 241); from the similar M. ceruleiventris (Mello-Leitão, 1916) (male unknown) by epigynal pocket ‘open’ towards anterior epigynal rim (compare Fig. 206 and Huber 2000: fig. 826), by shape and position of pore-plates in internal female genitalia (anteriorly wider apart, shorter; compare Fig. 208 and Huber 2000: fig. 827), and possibly by smaller size (body length ~3 vs. 4 mm; tibia 1 <9.0 vs. 9.3 mm in the holotype of M. ceruleiventris); from other similar species also by wide and short prolateral apophysis on male palpal procursus (Figs 202–203).

Etymology. The specific name refers to the beak-shaped (in lateral view) male cheliceral apophyses (Portuguese bico = beak); noun in apposition.

Type material. BRAZIL: Bahia: ♂ holotype, 1♀ paratype, MNRJ (14311), 3♂ 4♀ paratypes, ZFMK (Ar 19065), Parque Nacional do Pau Brasil, ‘site 2’ (outside park limits) (16°25.7’S, 39°21.1’W), ~ 60 m a.s.l., 1.x.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González, M. Alves Dias).

Other material examined. BRAZIL: Bahia: 2♂ 3♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 11-156), same data as types . 5♂ 7♀, ZFMK (Ar 19066), Parque Nacional do Pau Brasil, ‘site 1’ (16°28.2’S, 39°16.8’W), ~ 65 m a.s.l., 30.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González, M. Alves Dias) ; 2♂ 2♀ in pure ethanol, ZFMK (Br 11-148), same data .

Espírito Santo: 1♂, ZFMK (Ar 19067), Reserva Biológica Córrego do Veado, ‘site 1’ (18°22.1’S, 40°08.3’W), ~ 80 m a.s.l., 29.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González) . 2♂ 3♀, ZFMK (Ar 19068), Reserva Biológica Córrego do Veado, ‘site 2’ (18°21.7’S, 40°10.0’W), ~ 90 m a.s.l., 29.ix.2011 (B.A. Huber, A. Pérez-González).

Description. Male (holotype)

MEASUREMENTS. Total body length 2.9, carapace width 1.1. Distance PME-PME 140 µm, diameter PME 110 µm, distance PME-ALE 120 µm, distance AME-AME 30 µm, diameter AME 50 µm. Sternum width/length: 1.0/ 0.55. Leg 1: 51.6 (12.7 + 0.5 + 12.5 + 23.2 + 2.7), tibia 2: 8.3, tibia 3: 5.3, tibia 4: 7.9; tibia 1 L/d: 125. Femora 1– 4 width (at half length): 0.12, 0.13, 0.13, 0.12.

COLOR (in ethanol). Carapace ochre-yellow with very large brown median mark including ocular area; sternum ochre-orange; legs brown, tips of femora and tibiae lighter (yellowish), without dark rings; abdomen pale gray, dorsally and laterally densely covered with dark internal marks, ventrally with orange-brown area in front of gonopore.

BODY. Habitus similar to putative close relatives (e.g., M. caipora; cf. Fig. 145); ocular area raised; carapace with distinct median furrow; clypeus unmodified; sternum unmodified.

CHELICERAE. With one pair of curved frontal apophyses in proximal position (Figs 204–205).

PALPS. As in Figs 200–201; coxa with retrolateral apophysis; trochanter barely modified; femur with retrolateral apophysis proximally, distally strongly widening; tarsus with dorsal conical process; procursus proximally curved, distally with short and wide prolateral apophysis (Figs 202–203); genital bulb with large tapering process partly sclerotized.

LEGS. Without spines, without curved hairs, few vertical hairs; retrolateral trichobothrium on tibia 1 at 1.5%; prolateral trichobothrium present on tibia 1; tarsus 1 with ~40 pseudosegments, distally fairly distinct.

Male (variation). Tibia 1 in ten other males: 10.7–12.9 (mean 11.7). Males from Córrego do Veado with slightly less curved male cheliceral apophyses.

Female. In general similar to male. Tibia 1 in 12 females: 6.9–8.7 (mean 7.8). Epigynum as in Figs 206, 241; anterior plate with pair of processes and very large median pocket in anterior position; posterior plate simple and large. Internal genitalia as in Figs 208, 242, with pair of large pore-plates in lateral position, converging dorsally and anteriorly. Females from Córrego do Veado with slightly narrower epigynal pocket, but this is variable even within populations.

Natural history. The spiders were found in sheltered spaces very close to the ground.

Distribution. Known from two localities in Bahia and Espírito Santo states (Brazil) (Fig. 728).