Steriphopus Simon, 1887

Zonstein, Sergei, Marusik, Yuri M. & Ras, Feb, 2023, New data on the spider genus Steriphopus, with description of a new species from India (Araneae: Palpimanidae), Israel Journal of Entomology (Oxford, England) 52, pp. 41-50 : 42-45

Genus Steriphopus Simon, 1887

Pachypus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1873: 115 (preocc.).

Steriphopus Simon, 1887: 274 (nom. n.), Simon 1893: 404; Marusik & Zonstein 2018: 491.

Type species: Pachypus macleayi O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1873 , by monotypy.

Comments: The additional data allow to conclude that all known Steriphopus species differ from members of the related and similarly looking chedimine genera ( Sarascelis Simon, 1893 , Scelidocteus Simon, 1907 , Scelidomachus Pocock, 1899 , Sceliscelis Oketch & Li, 2020 , and Tibetima Lin & Li, 2020 ) in shape and structure of the carapace. Particularly, the carapace in Steriphopus , when viewed laterally, is dome-shaped, with the most elevated point of the postocular area forming a well-defined hump ( Figs 1, 2, 4, 11, 12; Saaristo 2010, fig. 24.2; Marusik & Zonstein 2018, figs 3, 6, 12, 13), while in other aforementioned genera, except some species of Sarascelis and Scelidocteus , the carapace hump, even if present, is not so clearly developed (cf. Lin & Li 2020, fig. 2E; Oketch et al. 2020, fig. 1C).

The anterior part of the carapace in Steriphopus is unevenly rounded and demonstrates the presence of anterolateral obtuse corners ( Figs 3, 11, 13; Saaristo 2010, fig. 24.1; Marusik & Zonstein 2018, figs 1–3), in contrast with their full aBsence in Sarascelis and Sceliscelis (cf. Jézéquel 1964, fig. 5a–c; Oketch et al. 2020, figs 1A–B, 2A–B). Nevertheless, in Steriphopus these corners are considerably less pronounced than in Scelidocteus and Scelidomachus (cf. Zonstein et al. 2018, figs 1, 5; Oketch et al. 2020, figs 3A, 4A).

In all known species of Steriphopus , the cuticle of the carapace is moderately rugose, as well as in other mentioned chedimine genera, except for the currently monotypic Sceliscelis , where the cuticle is densely and roughly granular ( Oketch et al. 2020, figs 1A, 2A). Finally, the form of the thoracic fovea in Steriphopus spp. clearly differs from that in other mentioned genera. Unlike in Sarascelis , Scelidocteus , Scelidomachus and Tibetima with narrow slit-like, or anchor-shaped, or bipartite fovea, this structure in Steriphopus is rather Ω­shaped ( Figs 3, 13; Saaristo 2010, fig. 24.1; Marusik & Zonstein 2018, figs 2, 3 cf. Zonstein & Marusik 2013 fig. 5; Zonstein et al. 2018, figs 1, 4; Lin & Li 2020, fig. 2B; Oketch et al. 2020, figs 3A, 4A). Although in Steriphopus the thoracic fovea somewhat resemble the fovea in Sceliscelis , which, at least in females, are clearly longer (cf. Oketch et al. 2020, fig. 2A).

The endogyne in Steriphopus is distinguishable due to the presence of the paired globular structures which are connected with the accessory glands by long, thin and bent or coiled stalks vs. much shorter curved or sinuous stalks in the majority of other comparable genera ( Jézéquel 1964, figs 1, 3, 6, 8, 10; Oketch et al. 2020, figs 2D, 3D–E; regarding Scelidomachus and Tibetima , these are known only from males). Although this difference was previously demonstrated only for a single species of Steriphopus ( Figs 9, 10; Marusik & Zonstein 2018, figs 19–23, 25), it seems to be also true for two other congeners, considered herein ( Figs 8, 19), i. e. for the majority of species included in this genus.

Composition and distribution: Thus, Steriphopus includes four species at present: S. macleayi (O. Pickard-Cambridge) ( Sri Lanka), S. crassipalpis Thorell ( Myanmar), S. lacertosus Simon ( Seychelles) and S. benjamini n. sp. ( India).