Linothele jelskii (F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896)

(Figs 9; 18F, G)

Neodiplura jelskii F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896: 755, pl. 35, figs 5, 10, 11, 14.

Uruchus jelskii – Simon 1903: 964.

Linothele jelskii – Raven 1985: 74, 75.

TYPE MATERIAL. — Syntypes. Peru • 1 ♂, 1 imm. ♂; Kulczyński leg.; NHM BM1896.12 examined .

TYPE LOCALITY. — Peru, without exact location.

DISTRIBUTION. — Peru.

DIAGNOSIS. — The male of Linothele jelskii can be distinguished from males of other species of Linothele by its leg formula of 1423. It furthermore differs from the males of Linothele curvitarsis and L. sericata by its rigid apical segments of the PLS, from the male of L. quori by the absence of maculae and from males of L. fallax by the curved megaspine on distal tibia I and the apex of the MP being domed, rather than v-shaped (Fig. 9C, D).

DESCRIPTION

Male

CL = 9.9. CT = 14. MC = 42. Colouration in alcohol:prosoma, chelicerae, legs and pedipalps brown; opisthosoma with distinct dorsal pattern, consisting of an anterior line and chevrons (Fig. 18F); maculae absent. Clypeus: narrow. Leg formula: 1423. Preening-combs absent. Leg tarsi pseudo-segmented. Spinnerets: apical segments of the PLS rigid. Palpal organ: see Figure 9A, B. Megaspine and MP: [(IML*100)/MAD = 442], see Figure 9C, D.

Female

Unknown.

REMARKS

F. O. Pickard-Cambridge (1896) stated a leg formula of 4123 in the genus description of Neodiplura, but shows a leg formula of 1423 for the adult male syntype, which we hereby confirm. The tip of the only embolus still attached to the adult male type is damaged (Fig. 9A, B). The immature syntype of N. jelskii bears undivided scopula and has a narrow clypeus as the adult male syntype. A loose opisthosoma can be found in the vial (Fig. 18G), whereas another one has been pinned to the prosoma of the adult male, both showing a distinct dorsal pattern consisting of chevrons.

Bücherl et al. (1971) mentioned that they examined two females from Peru (without specified locality) of ‘ Uruchus costatus ’ from a vial labelled by Mello-Leitão. They stated the species has not been mentioned in any of Mello-Leitão’s works and consider the specimens conspecific with Uruchus jelskii . The specimens of U. costatus are supposed to have a wide clypeus (as wide as the “diameter of an anterior lateral eye”; Bücherl et al. [1971]), clearly distinguishing them from both examined specimens of N. jelskii . Hence, we doubt Bücherl et al. examined the types of N. jelskii and that the specimens they examined were truly conspecific with N. jelskii . We can verify the species has never been published, but also that no such material could be located in MNRJ collection by Silva- Moreira et al. (2010). From the short description alone, the specimens of U. costatus could be distinguished from Linothele gaujoni only by their type locality. We are confident the short notes Bücherl et al. (1971) provided on U. costatus were never intended to serve as a first description. We therefore do not consider the species to be formally described and therefore a nomen nudum.

NATURAL HISTORY

Unknown.