Santa Cruz

Magalhaes, Ivan L F, Brescovit, Antonio D & Santos, Adalberto J, 2017, Phylogeny of Sicariidae spiders (Araneae: Haplogynae), with a monograph on Neotropical Sicarius, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 179 (4), pp. 767-864 : 829-831

Santa Cruz : Cordillera, Lagunillas (63.68583,

19.64858, 1132 m), R . Pinto da Rocha et al., 4/XII/ 2010 ( MZSP 48990 ) .

Etymology: The name is an adjective referring to the country from where most of the records of this species come.

Diagnosis: Males, females and immatures can be recognized by the strong sclerotization around the most proximal femoral thorn ( Fig. 48A , sa). Males are further distinguished by the robust bulb with very short embolus ( Fig. 48 ). Females are distinguished by the finger-like, robust branches in the spermathecae, with rounded reservatories absent or very subtle, and with the glandular pores large and orange ( Fig. 49) (other species, except S. levii sp. nov., with light brown pores; see also colour photos in the interactive key provided as Supporting Information Appendix S1).

Description: Male holotype (Lagunillas, Santa Cruz , Bolivia, MZSP 48990). Coloration: carapace and chelicerae reddish brown, labium brown, endites reddish brown, sternum and legs orange brown, abdomen light brown. Total length 13.35. Carapace length 6.75, anterior width 2.47, thoracic region width 7. Eye diameters and interdistances: PME 0.23, ALE 0.23, PLE 0.25, PME – PLE 0.58, ALE – PLE 0.23. Clypeus height 1.17. Eye tubercles present. Macrosetae in lateral border of the carapace in multiple rows. Femora without prolateral black setae. Sternum length 2.98, width 3.32, cordiform. Femoral thorns: 4. Leg I: femur 9.4 long, patella 2.8, tibia 9.7, metatarsus 7.5, tarsus 4. II: fe 11.42, ti 11.42. III: fe 10.25, ti 9.5. IV: fe 9.7, pa 2.7, ti 8.9, mt 7.8, ta 3.9. Abdomen: length 6.2, width 5.8. Palp as in Figure 48A and B .

Female ( San Antonio de Parapetı , Santa Cruz , Bolivia, AMNH). As in male, except for the following. Total length 16.32. Carapace length 8.2, anterior width 3.29, thoracic region width 8.29. Eye diameters and interdistances: PME 0.23, ALE 0.23, PLE 0.25, PME – PLE 0.74, ALE – PLE 0.36. Clypeus height 1.58. Sternum length 3.4, width 3.5, cordiform. Femoral thorns: 4. Leg I: femur 9.6 long, patella 3.1, tibia 9.8, metatarsus 7.1, tarsus 4.1. II: fe 10.63, ti 10.38. III: fe 10, ti 9.3. IV: fe 9.5, pa 2.6, ti 8.9, mt 7.5, ta 4. Abdomen: length 7.86, width 7.95. Spermathecae branches: 8. Ventral branches absent. Spermathecae as in Figure 49A and B.

Variation: Males (N = 5): carapace length 6.48 – 7.69 (7.01), femoral thorns 4 – 5, femur II length 9.8 – 12.16 (11.08). Females (N = 5): carapace length 7.17 – 8.2 (7.58), femoral thorns 3 – 5, femur II length 8.5 – 10.63 (9.09), spermathecae branches 4 – 8. Males vary in the length of the embolus ( Fig. 48 ); females from Peru have a very subtle reservatory at the apex of the spermathecae. It might be that populations from Cusco represent a distinct species, but additional material is necessary to elucidate that. Subadult females have pre-spermathecae with short, triangular branches (asymmetric in some cases), with a tiny reservatory at the apex ( Fig. 49I, J).

Distribution: Dry forests in Bolivia, western Brazil, northern Paraguay and Cusco, Peru, ( Fig. 26B). This species occurs next to the Argentinean northern border, and thus its presence in this latter country is not unlikely.

Additional material examined: PERU. Cusco: Quispicanchis, [71.95075, 13.5311, 3419 m], C. Mart � ınez, 1973, 1 # (MACN-Ar 30216); same locality, [71.93333, 13.51667, 3419 m], Huacarpay , 15/III/ 2012, 1 # 1 $ 10 imm. ( UNSAAC) . BOLIVIA. Cochabamba: Campero, Marquilla, E. Aiquile [65.16667, 18.18333, 2200 m], 10/II/1976, 1 # 3 $ ( AMNH) ; Pe na ~ Colorado [64.86667, 18.16667, 1600 m], 13/II/1976, 3 $ ( AMNH) ; Charamoco [66.283, 17.6, 2438 m], J.A. Vellard, VII/1940, 1 $ (MACN-Ar 3697) (spermathecae in very bad state of conservation). Santa Cruz : Cordillera, Lagunillas (63.6775, 19.65167, 1132 m), R. Pinto-da-Rocha et al., 4/XII/2010, 1 imm. ( MZSP 48991 ) ; San Antonio de Parapeti [63.21667, 20.01667, 842 m], B. Malkin , 1991, 2 # 2 $ ( AMNH) ; Nuflo de Chavez , La Bola [61.58333, 17.38333, 264 m], P.A. Goloboff et al., 8/I/1991, 1 $ ( AMNH) . Chuquisaca: Hernando Siles, E. Monteagudo [63.95, 19.8, 1600 m], L.E. Pe na ~, 21 – 24/XII/1984, 1 $ ( AMNH) . BRAZIL. Mato Grosso do Sul: Corumba, Serra do Urucum [57.60047, 19.19924, 662 m], C. Lenko, 25 – 30/XI/1960, 1 # ( MZSP 8261 ) . PARAGUAY. Boquer on �: Filadelfia , 19 km N Filadelfia [60.05,

22.16667, 138 m], K.L. Anderson, 27/IX/1978, 1 imm. ( AMNH) ; 5/X/1978, 1 imm. ( AMNH) , 1 # 1 $ (AMNH); F. Jaggli, 1 # 1 $ ( IBSP 166121 ) .

ARGENTINEAN SPECIES

Sicarius taxonomy in Argentina is rather confusing, mainly because previous authors studying its species did not examine types and misidentified species. Mello-Leit ~ ao (1941) erroneously identified S. levii sp. nov. as S. terrosus , and was followed by subsequent authors ( Gerschman de Pikelin & Schiapelli, 1979; Binford et al., 2008, 2009). To make things worse, Gerschman de Pikelin & Schiapelli (1979) made a regional revision of the genus that only added to the confusion. They recognized the same three species we do, but, despite their efforts, could not examine any types apart from that of S. irregularis (Mello-Leit ao ~, 1941). Thus, they erroneously considered S. levii sp. nov. to be S. terrosus (as did Mello-Leit ~ ao, see S. terrosus in their fig. 1) and S. mapuche sp. nov. to be S. patagonicus (see palp SEM image in their plate 2); on the other hand, they correctly recognized S. rupestris . However, they clearly had trouble identifying females: we revised female specimens identified by them as ‘ S. patagonicus ’ and the vial contained both S. rupestris and S. mapuche sp. nov. As a consequence, the female they illustrated as S. patagonicus is not co-specific with the males they considered to be the same species (see their plate 2). Some subsequent authors apparently used their work to identify Argentinean specimens (e.g. Binford et al., 2008, 2009), spreading misidentifications.

We here describe two new species, Sicarius levii sp. nov. (Gerschman & Schiapelli’s ‘ terrosus ’) and Sicarius mapuche sp. nov. (Gerschman & Schiapelli’s ‘ patagonicus ’, in part). Sicarius rupestris is redescribed and material from the type locality is illustrated, but its resolution here is far from satisfactory as it seems clear that it might have to be split into at least two or three species in the future. However, we do not count on enough material to resolve this matter at present, as a very large collection of Sicarius from Argentina was lost in the fire at Instituto Butantan in 2010 before we could examine them, leaving us with scarce material.

Figures

Figure 48. Sicarius boliviensis sp. nov., male genitalia in prolateral view. A, holotype from Lagunillas, Santa Cruz, Bolivia (MZSP 48990). B, same, cymbium and bulb. C, Corumba, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil (MZSP 8261). D, Quispicanchi, Cusco, Peru (UNSAAC). Abbreviation: SA, sclerotized area. Scale bars = 0.1 mm (except A, 1 mm).