identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03D88781FF9DC15E66ABF8AC65A84EFF.text	03D88781FF9DC15E66ABF8AC65A84EFF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia C. L. Koch 1850	<div><p>Genus Corythalia C.L. Koch, 1850</p> <p>Corythalia C.L. Koch, 1850: 67 [type species: Euophrys latipes C.L. Koch, 1846, transferred to Corythalia by C.L. Koch (1850)]; Simon 1901: 652, 654–655, 657; Chickering 1946: 125; Crane 1948: 3; Kraus 1955: 62; Galiano 1962: 15; Zhang &amp; Maddison 2012: 30; Zhang &amp; Maddison 2015: 15.</p> <p>Dynamius Simon, 1888: 204 [type species: Jotus opimus Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1885, transferred to Dynamius by Simon (1888)]; Simon 1901: 652, 654–655, 657 (synonymy, transfer of Dynamius opimus to Corythalia).</p> <p>Escambia Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1896: 41 [type species: Escambia conspecta Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1896]; Simon 1901: 652, 655, 657 (synonymy, transfer of Escambia conspecta to Corythalia).</p> <p>Makthalia Badcock, 1932: 45 [type species: Makthalia cincta Badcock, 1932]; Mello-Leitão 1939: 84 (synonymy, formal transfer of Makthalia cincta to Corythalia).</p> <p>Taeoma Mello-Leitão, 1939: 89 [type species: Taeoma circumflexa Mello-Leitão, 1939]; Galiano 1962: 15 (synonymy, transfer of Taeoma circumflexa and Taeoma barbipes Mello-Leitão, 1939 to Corythalia).</p> <p>Dinattus Bryant, 1943: 482 [type species: Dinattus heros Bryant, 1943]; Zhang &amp; Maddison 2015: 15 (synonymy, formal transfer of all Dinattus species to Corythalia).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Corythalia is distinguished from all other salticid genera by the following characters in combination: cheliceral fangs very short (in resting position tips of the two claws at most reaching each other, but not crossing as in most other salticid genera), retromargin of cheliceral furrow with one very small and slim (tiny) tooth (Figs 2A, 3A), promargin either with one tooth or, more rarely, with two teeth located very close together or even connected with each other, all teeth very small and slim (often even tiny). Anterior surface of cheliceral base medio-distally with small lobe with several hairs (Figs 2 A–B, 3A–B). Males with long, dark fringe of hairs on tibiae and metatarsi of walking legs III, often similarly well developed on legs I–II (Figs 3 D–E, 59G, 60I). Embolus coiled, at least at its disc-shaped base (Fig. 1A). Tegulum proximally extending beyond proximal margin of cymbium and partly covering palpal tibia, generally in form of a proximal lobe (at retrolateral section) (Fig. 1A). Male palpal tibia ventrally usually with bump (Fig. 1A). Distal haematodocha developed (Fig. 64F). Epigyne with epigynal windows, separated by a longitudinal septum (Figs 1 B–C). In general, vulva with primary and secondary spermatheca (the former mostly larger than the latter), both connected by a narrow and long duct, often longer than diameter of primary spermatheca (Fig. 1D). In dorsal view carapace anteriorly not broader than centrally (Fig. 3D). Anterior lateral eyes in frontal view clearly located further dorsally than anterior median eyes (Fig. 3B). Opisthosoma dark brown with at least one light, usually broad, transverse band (Fig. 3D), only rarely narrow and/or interrupted medially. Most species with three light transverse bands on abdomen. Carapace at proximo-lateral margins mostly with broad bands of light scale hairs (Fig. 3D). RTA mostly with dorsal serration (Fig. 1A).</p> <p>Description. Medium-sized jumping spiders. Body length of males 3.5–8.6 mm, of females 4.0– 10.5 mm. Width of anterior part of carapace slightly narrower than widest section of carapace. Posterior median eyes slightly closer to posterior lateral eyes than to anterior lateral eyes (Fig. 3C). In lateral view dorsal margin of carapace running parallel to the longitudinal axis of body in central third, decreasing abruptly behind and decreasing rather smoothly in front (Fig. 3C). Anterior median eyes and anterior lateral eyes relatively small in comparison to many other salticid genera, not occupying complete carapace width in frontal view. Clypeus below anterior median eyes comparatively low. Chelicerae short and weak, basal article about 1.5 times longer than broad. Cheliceral furrow with one tooth or, more rarely, two teeth (if two, than both located very closely together) anteriorly and one posteriorly, all teeth very slim and small (Figs 2 A–B, 3A). Cheliceral base dorso-medio-proximally with lobe carrying several long hairs that are sometimes slightly curved. Labium approximately as long as wide (Figs 3F, 4A) or in- significantly longer than broad. Gnathocoxae (endites) about 1.5 times longer than wide, diverging distally and in males with broad, short, pointed “corner” laterally, almost at predistal section (Figs 3A, 4A). Females without such a “corner” or at best minimally indicated (Fig. 3F). Sternum shield-shaped, about 1.5 times longer than broad (Figs 4 B–C). Palps in males (Fig. 4D) and females without claw. Tarsi of legs distally with two inhomogeneous tarsal claws, prolateral tarsal claws with more teeth (10–15 in forelegs; 15–20 in hind legs) than retrolateral ones (5–10 in forelegs; 10–15 in hind legs). Legs as in most salticids, rather short (metatarsus I about 0.3–0.5x carapace length), those of males slightly longer than those of females. LEG FORMULA: 3412, 4312, 3421 or 4321. SPINATION OF PALP AND LEGS: variable within each species and among the species; some patterns, however, very conservative. Mostly, no species-specific spination pattern recognisable. At the following positions spines are always absent: all articles of palps, tarsi, ventral surfaces of all femora and all patellae. Ventral spines on tibiae and metatarsi mostly paired. Conservative patterns: spination on metatarsus III mostly 3134, on patellae I–II mostly 1000, on patellae III– IV mostly 1010. Males with long, dark fringe of hairs on tibiae and metatarsi of leg pairs I–III [especially ventrally, slightly less developed dorsally; fringe hairs most distinctly developed on leg pair III, in some species missing at leg pairs I–II (Fig. 3E), or in a few species also appearing on leg pair IV, but less distinct (Fig. 59G)]. COLOURA- TION: chelicerae brown to dark red-brown. Sternum generally yellowish-brown, slightly darker on lateral margins. Carapace brown, red-brown or dark brown, eye region even darker than further proximal sections, often with light scales, the latter often in small patches, more densely arranged (Figs 3B, 3D). Proximal sections of lateral margins with broad bands of dense, light scales (Fig. 3D). Coxae, trochanteres and sternum generally lighter brown (often even beige or yellowish) than carapace and legs. Palp yellowish light brown or light red-brown, except for palpal tibia and tarsus, which are darker; palpal patella and distal 2/3 of femur in males with many light scales (Figs 3B, 5). Legs from yellowish-beige and light brown to dark brown; generally coxae (incl. trochanteres), patellae (at least III and IV) and distal parts of tibiae (sometimes also distal parts of metatarsi), as well as tarsi, lighter than remaining articles (Figs 3D, 4B); mentioned articles in males often only slightly lighter. However, several species have (almost) unicoloured brown to dark brown legs, or at least only the proximalmost articles (coxae and trochanteres) and tarsi III &amp; IV lighter. Opisthosoma dorsally brown to dark brown with at least one transversal light band (build partly by pigmentation and partly by light scales); lateral, posterior and anterior surfaces often also with light colouration (light bordering) (Figs 3D, 59F, 60D, 62D, 62I, 63B, 63D, 63F), ventrally with distinctly lighter basic colouration than dorsally, mostly grey-brown to beige (Fig. 4B). General dorsal colouration of opisthosoma: brown to dark brown with three light transverse bands; anteriormost of such broadest, but often not as light as central one, being second broadest and often containing dark chevron-like patch centrally; posteriormost band clearly narrowest and sometimes centrally interrupted. Anterior lateral spinnerets 2–2.5x longer than broad and slightly conical, posterior median and posterior lateral spinnerets distinctly more slender (3.5–5x longer than broad) and approximately cylindrical, about as long as anterior lateral spinnerets (Fig. 4E). COPULATORY ORGANS: Male palp with elongated tegulum, proximally with distinct lobe (generally in retrolateral section). Embolus coiled (at least at the embolus base section), mostly moderately long (Fig. 1A), sometimes rather short (Figs 17A, 20A, 20C, 21A) and rarely long and filiform (Figs 52 A–B, 53A–B, 54A–B). Embolus base and arising point of embolus prolatero- or centro-distally on tegulum. Regular, meaning, explicit conductor missing. Rarely membranous structure (with partial function of a conductor?) in direct longitudinal conjunction with embolus (Figs 50 A–B, 67E–H), termed embolic lamina by most authors working on Salticidae. Distal and basal haematodocha present (Fig. 64F). Subtegulum mostly not easily recognisable in ventral view. Cymbium (rarely only slightly) broader than palpal tibia and patella and dorsally with (not very dense) scopula at distal 1/6 to distal 1/3 (Figs 4D, 4F, 68A, 69D, 70D). Length and density of scopula with hardly any variation among different species (at least not distinguishable from intraspecific variation). RTA mostly moderately long and generally serrated dorsally (Fig. 1A), its base in retrolateral view in a few species quite broad. Female epigyne mostly with distinct epigynal windows (e.g. Figs 1 B–C, 6C, 8A, 71, 72). Primary spermathecae mostly visible through epigynal cuticula. Vulva generally with primary and secondary spermatheca, connective duct between these two, fertilisation duct and copulatory duct (e.g. Figs 1D, 30D, 75, 77). Spermathecal heads usually arising from secondary spermathecae.</p> <p>Biology. According to Crane (1948) feeding behaviour of Corythalia specimens is typical salticid-like, which means leaping on the prey. Most specimens of Corythalia were captured in pitfall traps, by visually screening the ground, sieving leaf litter or in tree eclectors. The genus is therefore supposed to comprise mainly litter inhabiting and ground active spiders. The very short cheliceral fangs suggest a prey spectrum of rather small arthropods with weak cuticle, e.g. springtails (Collembola), psocids (Psocoptera) and other small soil or bark-dwelling animals. Several Corythalia species seem to be specialised on ants as prey (G. Ruiz, pers. comm.).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF9DC15E66ABF8AC65A84EFF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF9EC15A66ABFA7863F44E9F.text	03D88781FF9EC15A66ABFA7863F44E9F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia latipes C. L. Koch 1846	<div><p>Corythalia latipes C.L. Koch, 1846</p> <p>Figs 2A, 5, 6 A–E, 57A, 61A, 64A, 68A, 71A, 75A</p> <p>Euophrys latipes C.L. Koch, 1846: 224, fig. 1269 (description and illustration of ♂, dorsal view). Holotype ♂ from BRAZIL, “ Salticus latipes Perty ”, K. Sammlung München (= Munich), ZSM, however, neither found in ZSM (S. Friedrich &amp; J. Spelda, pers. comm.) nor in NHMNB, ZMB, SMF, NHMW, NHM, OUMNH, MNHN and NMBE, where its deposition was also likely, thus considered lost. The following male is here designated as the Neotype: ♂ from BRAZIL: Bahia: Jussa- ri, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-39.525&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-15.15" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -39.525/lat -15.15)">Fazenda Teimoso</a>, ca. 15°09’S, 39°31’30”W, about 250 m a.s.l.; M.F. Dias leg. 21 Nov. 1998, IBSP 35165, examined.</p> <p>Corythalia latipes— C.L. Koch 1850: 67 (transfer from Euophrys, Corythalia originally as subgenus of Euophrys, elevated to genus rank by subsequent authors, e.g. Simon (1901)).</p> <p>Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Bahia: Jussari (same recording event as for neotype, see above): 1 ♀ (F-1), IBSP 35165 - II. Ilhéus, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-39.016666&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-14.95" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -39.016666/lat -14.95)">Olivença</a>, ca. 14°57’S, 39°01’W, about 50 m a.s.l. (mata-pitfall): 1 ♀ (F-2), M.F. Dias leg. 25 June 1998, IBSP 35916. Mata de São João, Fazenda Camurujipe, ca. 12°32’S, 38°20’W, about 120 m a.s.l. (<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-38.333332&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-12.533334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -38.333332/lat -12.533334)">Am</a>: 239): 1 ♀ (F-3), C. Machado leg. 2006, IBSP 85440. Lafaiete Coutinho, ca. 13°40’S, 40°13’W, about 600 m a.s.l. (<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-40.216667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-13.666667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -40.216667/lat -13.666667)">Am</a>: 401): 1 ♀ (F-4), J. Romão leg. VII.2006 – VII.2007, IBSP 140454.</p> <p>Remarks. The present neotype designation (see above) is based on ICZN § 75.3 and justified as the following qualifying conditions (according to ICZN § 75.3.1–7) are given: the description and the illustration in Koch (1846) definitely allow assignment to the same genus to which other species belong, which have (after 1846) been treated as members of Corythalia since a long time. For example, C. valida (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901), C. grata (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901), C. electa (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901), C. metallica (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1894) or C. bicincta (Petrunkevitch, 1925) have been found to have a quite similar colouration, habitus and somatical characters as C. latipes and were assigned to Corythalia by different authors experienced in salticid taxonomy. Thus, we follow Simon (1901), who regarded the representatives of the genera Dynamius (note: some of the above mentioned species were listed in this genus at that point of time. Additionally that genus held other species, e.g. D. opimus, sharing the main somatic characters with C. latipes, but differing in colouration of the opisthosoma) and (at least a large part of) the representatives of Escambia as being congeneric with C. latipes. He consequently listed the respective species from that time on under Corythalia [the oldest genus name available, after elevation to genus rank by Simon (1901)]. All characters described and illustrated by Koch (1846) for C. latipes are in concordance with the revised diagnosis for the genus Corythalia herein. As marginal note it may be added: the white scales along the margins of the proximal half of the carapace, which are present in most Corythalia species, are not recognisable in Koch’s drawing (see Fig. 5), however, they were described by Koch (1846) in the text of the description. Even though the identity of C. latipes as a representative of the genus Corythalia is free of doubt, the identity/definition of the distinct/particular species C. latipes (in comparison to other Corythalia species) is definitely puzzling without an objective reference, meaning an adult male specimen showing all diagnostic characters to discriminate C. latipes from other Corythalia species. In this context the specific structures of the male copulatory organ (i.e. the male palp) are indispensable. As C. latipes is the type species of Corythalia, it is even more comprehensible that its species identity has to be resolved. The original holotype is lost: Stefan Friedrich and Jörg Spelda have intensively searched the collections of the ZSM (even the entomological collections) and could not find it. After intensive search, neither could the curators of the arachnid collections of the natural history museums NHMNB, ZMB, NHMW, NHM, MNHN, OUMNH and NMBE. In most of these institutions the entomological collections (dry and ethanol) were also searched for. The deposition of the original holotype in one of the institutions mentioned above seemed likely, since parts of either the collection of C.L. Koch or that of J. A. M. Perty are hold there. The Corythalia male examined herein and designated as the neotype had been collected in Bahia in Brazil (see above). Its colouration pattern and the main somatic charcters correspond well to the illustration and description in Koch (1846) for C. latipes: body length: 2 2/3´´´ “lignes”/”Linien”, means 6.02 mm if Parisian “ligne” was used (which is more likely) or 5.40 mm if Bavarian “Linie” was used. Carapace dark red-brown, eye region even darker black-brown, behind and between posterior eyes with some patches of light scales, proximal margins of carapace with bands of light (white) scales; chelicerae red-brown, cheliceral fangs short (Koch 1846). Opisthosoma: dorsally with two large, light beige, procurve lunulate patches in posterior two thirds (within them some fine dark areas) and one narrower light beige, trifurcate patch in anteriormost section (also with darker areas within) (Koch 1846). These latter aspects only in parts correspond to the present neotype, but it is possible that the specimen Koch had once examined was dried and its opisthosoma shrunken. Legs I and II strong and broad, all legs quite dark red-brown, all legs with long fringe hairs, longest and most conspicuously developed in leg pair III; leg pair III longer than pairs I and II and minimally shorter than leg pair IV; leg tarsi yellow. Palps with similar basic colouration as legs, but with whitish hairs densely arranged on patellae and distal sections of femora (Koch 1846).</p> <p>Upon arrival in Nuremberg, where C.L. Koch was working at the time around 1846, the specimen must have been labelled as “ Salticus latipes Perty ” and must have been taken from the collection of Josef Anton Maximilian Perty containing mainly material from South America deposited at the Natural History Museum Munich (ZSM), as Koch (1846) states (see above). A jumping spider species Salticus latipes, however, was never described and published by J. A. M. Perty. It is possible that Perty originally intented to do so, but did not find the time or thought that Koch was more qualified to describe a Brazilian salticid. There is no detailed type locality for the former holotype of C. latipes given in Koch (1846); it is likely that is was once collected in the province of Bahia in Brazil: Perty (1833) described many Brazilian arachnids and, in the context of this study, he certainly collected/gathered a lot more arachnid species/specimens than those actually treated in his study. As type locality for several of “his” species, he listed the state of Bahia in Brazil. It is also most likely that the material was collected near the coast in Bahia, because in the 19 th century regions close to the coast were more often visited by researchers, due to an earlier peopling and a better infrastructure in contrast to higher life risk in the interior.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (actual tubular section) at its distal and subdistal section very narrow (only ¼ the width of central section, Figs 6A, 64A) and as long or slightly longer than width of tegulum; width of embolus base-circle about 2/3 the width of tegulum; RTA in retrolateral view with distinct dorsal serration, reaching far proximally (about 2/3 of the entire length of RTA is covered by the serration, Figs 6B, 68A). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) not continuous because build by the (converging) lateral margin of epigynal window from lateral and slightly further posteriorly by the anteriorly extremely diverging margin of the septum of epigynal windows (SW) reaching far transversally lateral (more than half of the width of W); EW more than 1.25x longer than broad but less than 1.3x (Figs 6C, 71A); W more than 7x broader than SW, but less than 8x; secondary spermathecae very small (diameter only about ¼ the diameter of primary spermathecae, just slightly broader than spermathecal heads) (Figs 6D, 75A).</p> <p>Description. Male (neotype): total length 6.1, carapace length 3.0, maximal carapace width 2.1, width of eye rectangle 1.8, opisthosoma length 2.6, opisthosoma width 1.8, fovea length 0.22. EYES: AME 0.59, ALE 0.36, PME 0.11, PLE 0.31, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.56, PME–PLE 0.26, ALE–PLE 0.72, PLE–PLE 1.27, clypeus height at AME 0.27, clypeus height at ALE 0.67. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2004, II 3014, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 4134, IV 4234{4144}. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.5 [0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.9], I 5.5 [1.8, 0.9, 1.2, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.5 [1.8, 0.9 1.2, 1.0, 0.6] III 6.6 [2.1, 1.0, 1.4, 1.5, 0.6], IV 6.7 [2.0, 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 or 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus moderately long, hose-like (distalmost section much narrower, almost filiform) and arising point approximately at medio-proximal section of embolus base (Fig. 6A); embolus base circle about 2/3 the width of tegulum (T). T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying slightly more than retrolateral half of tegulum (Figs 6A, 64A), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe not clearly distinguished from residual tegulum, but</p> <p>T retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending (Figs 6A, 64A). Cymbium in ventral view (Figs 6A, 64A) distally conically converging and at distalmost section broadly rounded, at distal 1/5 slightly lighter and with scopula (Fig. 68A). Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 6 A–B, 64A, 68A) and ventral tibial bump very small and rounded. RTA quite narrow in ventral view, dorsally with distinct serration (Figs 6B, 68A). CO- LOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Figs 5, 57A). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Figs 5, 57A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 57A).</p> <p>Female (measurements of all specimens as range): total length 5.7–7.1, carapace length 2.6–2.8, maximal carapace width 1.9–2.0, width of eye rectangle 1.6–1.7, opisthosoma length 2.6–3.6, opisthosoma width 1.9–2.6, fovea length 0.14–0.21. EYES: AME 0.52–0.53, ALE 0.32–0.33, PME 0.09, PLE 0.29–0.30, AME–AME 0.04, AME– ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.44–1.51, PME–PLE 0.24–0.25, ALE–PLE 0.65–0.72, PLE–PLE 1.23–1.27, clypeus height at AME 0.26–0.27, clypeus height at ALE 0.60–0.62. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II–III 1600 (1600), IV 1600 (1600{1500}); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2002 (2002), II 3003 (3003), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I 2014 (2024), II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 4144 (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.2–2.3 [0.8–0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.7], I 4.2 [1.4, 0.7, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5], II 4.1–4.3 [1.4–1.5, 0.7, 0.8–0.9, 0.7, 0.5], III 5.2 [1.7, 0.8, 1.1, 1.1, 0.5], IV 5.1–5.4 [1.6–1.7, 0.7, 1.1–1.2, 1.2, 0.5–0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 3412 (4321). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with oval epigynal windows (W), septum (SW) relatively narrow (Figs 6C, 71A). Epigyne surrounded by an only narrow epigynal field being broader than long. Primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling large part of W (almost up to proximal 2/3, Figs 6C, 71A). Vulva with almost round primary spermathecae being distinctly larger than (quite tiny) secondary spermathecae. Head of spermatheca directed posteriorly on secondary spermatheca (Figs 6 D–E, 75A). Connective ducts narrow, meeting primary spermathecae ventro-medially (Figs 6 D–E, 75A). Fertilisation ducts arising antero-centrally on primary spermathecae, being bent laterally. Copulatory ducts well recognisable and quite long (Figs 6D, 75A). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61A). Legs brown to red-brown with hardly lighter sections recognisable (Fig. 61A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 61A).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. In some females connective ducts are less strongly diverging anteriorly, in others even more.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from Bahia (Brazil).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF9EC15A66ABFA7863F44E9F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF9AC14766ABF8E763BF481C.text	03D88781FF9AC14766ABF8E763BF481C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia conferta Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia conferta sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 7 A–E, 57B, 61B, 64B–D, 68B, 71B, 75B–E urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: BFA805CE-BDA0-48D6-A096-99E87A92F934</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀ (F-2), BRAZIL: São Paulo: São Paulo: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-46.731113&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-23.563889" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -46.731113/lat -23.563889)">Campus da Universidade</a> de São Paulo, about 780 m a.s.l., 23°33’50”S, 46°43’52”W, D.F. Candiani leg. 14 May 2003, Am. 94, Cordão Jardim, IBSP 131451. Paratypes: 1 ♂ (M-1), 1 ♀ (F-1) with exactly the same data as holotype, IBSP 131451 -I (ex. 131451); 2 ♂ (M-2, -7), 4 ♀ (F-3–4, -13–14) with the same data as holotype, except for R.P. Indicatti leg. 19 May 2003 / D.F. Candiani leg. 20 May 2003 (and different Am.-numbers: Am. 08/ Am. 23), IBSP 131475 / 131461; (Instituto Butantan, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-46.7175&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-23.56889" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -46.7175/lat -23.56889)">Laboratório de Artrópodos</a>, about 750 m a.s.l., 23°34’08”S, 46°43’03”W): 1 ♀ (F-12), A.D. Brescovit leg. 29 May 2002, IBSP 34886; 1 ♂ (M-13) with the same data, except leg. 10 Sep. 2002, IBSP 37109; (Vila Butantan—URB - USP): 2 ♂ (M-11/M-8), 1 ♀ (F-15), F.S. Cunha leg. 06 Feb. 2001, IBSP 33508 /33518; 2 ♂ (M-9–10), 1 ♀ (F-16), M.S. Sebastião leg. 06 Nov. 2001, IBSP 33503; 1 ♂ (M-12), 2 ♀ (F-17), R. P. Indicatti leg. 07 Feb. 2001, IBSP 33502. BRAZIL: São Paulo: Porto Primavera, Usina Hidrelétrica Sérgio Motta: 2 ♂ (M-3–4), 1 ♀ (F-5), Equipe IBSP leg. 2001, IBSP 53033 - I (ex IBSP 53033); 2 ♀ (F-10–11), IBSP 53142 - I (ex IBSP 53142). BRAZIL: Mato Grosso do Sul: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.716667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-22.2" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.716667/lat -22.2)">Anaurilândia</a>, about 300 m a.s.l., ca. 22°12’S, 52°43’W: 1 ♂ (M-6), 2 ♀ (F-7–9), F.S. Cunha &amp; C. R. Souza leg. 05–11 Mar. 2001, IBSP 53374.</p> <p>Additional material examined. BRAZIL: São Paulo: São Paulo: Parque da Previdência (URB - PREV): 1 ♂, 4 ♀, 1 p. s.a. ♀, R. P. Indicatti leg. 05 Nov. 1999, IBSP 33489. <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-49.633335&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-22.216667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -49.633335/lat -22.216667)">Garça</a>, about 600–700 m a.s.l., ca. 22°13’S, 49°38’W: 1 ♂ (M-5), 1 ♀ (F-6), A. Nogueira leg. IX.2006, IBSP 123107. Ribeirão Preto: 1 ♂, E. Nascimento et al. leg. 2003– 2005, IBSP 58181; 1 ♂ with the same data, except: Manta de Santa Tereza, I. Cizauskas leg. 06 Nov 2006, IBSP 85597. Caucaia do Alto, Reserva do Morro Grande: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Equipe Biota leg. 13–28 June 2002, IBSP 37180. São Caetano do Sul, Parque Chico Mendes: 3 ♂, 4 ♀, A. Macedo leg. 2004, IBSP 75139. Campinas: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, A.J. Santos leg. X.1998, IBSP 42989. Tupã: 2 ♂, G. R. S. Ruiz leg. 16 Sep. 2006 &amp; 05 Oct. 2004, IBSP 151791 /151787. Mato Grosso do Sul: Mundo Novo, Bairro Tapajós: 1 ♂, 4 ♀, D. Araujo et al. leg. IV–VI.2008, IBSP 143642; 1 ♂, 9 ♀, with the same data, except Bairro Berneck, IBSP 143698. Anaurilândia: 1 ♂, 7 ♀, 1 s.a. ♀, F.S. Cunha &amp; C. R. Souza leg. 12–19 Mar. 2001, IBSP 53320. Santa Rita do Rio Pardo: 1 ♀, R. Bertani &amp; K. Kashimata leg. 24 Apr. 2001, IBSP 53255. Ivinhema: 2 ♂, D. Araujo leg. 2012, IBSP 168295. Brasilândia, Usina Hidrelétrica Sérgio Motta: 2 ♀, D.F. Candiani &amp; C.A. R. Souza leg. 17–24 July 2000, IBSP 31244; (Fazenda Cizalpina): 2 ♂, D.F. Candiani &amp; C.A. R. Souza leg. 2000, IBSP 35236 /35241.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the dense arrangement of light scale hairs on the clypeus of the type specimens of this species, which were collected just a few years ago and thus are in very good condition (Latin adjective “conferta” meaning “densely arranged”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (actual tubular section) quite narrow (at central section at most 1/2 the width of RTA [ventral view] at central section, Figs 7A, 64 B–D) and at most 2/3 as long as width of tegulum; width of embolus base-circle slightly larger than 1/2 and clearly less than 2/3 the width of tegulum; tip (distal section) of retrolateral half of tegulum reaching (slightly) further distally than distal margin of embolus base (Figs 7A, 64 B–D). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) continuous; septum of epigynal windows (SW) not continuous; W only slightly longer than broad (less than 1.15x) (Figs 7C, 71B); in dorsal view (Figs 7D, 75 B–E) secondary (SS) and primary spermtheca (PS) (almost) in touch with each other, connective duct (DST) between SS and PS relatively short (at most as long as diameter of PS); SS small (diameter at least 1/3 the diameter of primary spermathecae, but clearly less than 1/2). Heads of spermatheca visible in dorsal view. Arising point of fertilisation duct (FD) antero-medially on PS (Figs 7D, 75 B–E).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of paratype M-1 first, those of all other male paratypes as range in parentheses): total length 5.5 (4.7–5.6), carapace length 2.6 (2.0–2.7), maximal carapace width 1.7 (1.4–1.8), width of eye rectangle 1.5 (1.3–1.5), opisthosoma length 2.3 (1.8–2.5), opisthosoma width 1.7 (1.2–1.7), fovea length 0.16 (0.10–0.22). EYES: AME 0.49 (0.38–0.49), ALE 0.31 (0.23–0.31), PME 0.08 (0.07–0.10), PLE 0.27 (0.25–0.27), AME–AME 0.04 (0.03–0.04), AME–ALE 0.04 (0.04–0.05), PME–PME 1.28 (1.16–1.30), PME–PLE 0.21 (0.19– 0.23), ALE–PLE 0.57 (0.53–0.58), PLE–PLE 1.07 (0.92–1.08), clypeus height at AME 0.28 (0.15–0.28), clypeus height at ALE 0.58 (0.49–0.58). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400 (1400, 1500, 1600), II 1600 (1600, 1500), III 2600 {1600} (1600), IV 1600 (1600, 0600); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2005 (2004, 2003), II 3005 (2004, 2005), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I 2004 (2004), II 2014 (2014, 2004), III 3134 (3134), IV 4144 (4144, 4143, 4134). MEA- SUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.9 (1.5–2.1) [0.7 (0.5–0.7), 0.3 (0.3–0.4), 0.2 (0.2–0.3), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)], I 4.1 (3.0–4.2) [1.3 (1.1–1.4), 0.7 (0.5–0.7), 0.9 (0.6–1.0), 0.7 (0.5–0.7), 0.5 (0.3–0.5)], II 4.2 (3.0–4.4) [1.4 (1.1– 1.4), 0.7 (0.5–0.7), 0.9 (0.6–1.0), 0.7 (0.5–0.8), 0.5 (0.3–0.5)], III 5.2 (3.8–5.6) [1.8 (1.2–1.9), 0.8 (0.6–0.8), 1.0 (0.8–1.2), 1.0 (0.8–1.1), 0.6 (0.4–0.6)], IV 5.0 (3.7–5.2) [1.6 (1.2–1.7), 0.7 (0.5–0.7), 1.1 (0.8–1.1), 1.1 (0.8–1.1), 0.5 (0.4–0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus moderately long, narrow hose-like and arising point at medio-proximal section of embolus base (Figs 7A, 64 B–D); embolus base circle about half as broad as tegulum or slightly broader or narrower (Figs 7A, 64 B–D). Tegulum narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying retrolateral 2/3 of tegulum (Figs 7A, 64 B–D), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) clearly distinguished from residual tegulum, prolateral margin of PTL in some specimens with blunt, but rather flat lobe (Fig. 7A). Cymbium in ventral view (Figs 7A, 64 B–D) distally conically converging and at distalmost section broadly rounded; at distal 1/4 slightly lighter and with scopula (Fig. 68B). Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 7 A–B, 64D, 68B) and ventral tibial bump medium sized and slightly conical. RTA dorsally with serration (Figs 7 A–B, 64D, 68B). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 57B), light scale hairs densely arranged, especially frontally (however material examined still quite freshly recorded and in good condition). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57B). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 57B).</p> <p>Female (measurements of holotype first, those of all female paratypes as range in parentheses): total length 6.5 (5.2–6.7), carapace length 2.6 (2.1–2.9), maximal carapace width 1.8 (1.5–1.9), width of eye rectangle 1.6 (1.4– 1.8), opisthosoma length 3.3 (2.3–3.8), opisthosoma width 2.3 (1.6–2.7), fovea length 0.22 (0.16–0.24). EYES: AME 0.50 (0.42–0.51), ALE 0.30 (0.27–0.31), PME 0.10 (0.08–0.10), PLE 0.26 (0.23–0.27), AME–AME 0.05 (0.03–0.05), AME–ALE 0.06 (0.03–0.06), PME–PME 1.27 (1.18–1.41), PME–PLE 0.21 (0.19–0.24), ALE–PLE 0.58 (0.52–0.59), PLE–PLE 1.13 (0.93–1.15), clypeus height at AME 0.27 (0.21–0.28), clypeus height at ALE 0.55 (0.50–0.59). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400 (1400, 1500), II 1400 {1500} (1400, 1500), III 1500 (1500), IV 0500 (0500); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III 1010 (1010), IV 0010 (1010, 0010); tibia I 2003 {2002} (2003, 1003), II 2003 {2002} (2003, 3003), III 3133{2133} (3033, 3133, 2033, 1023), IV 1032 {2132} (2033, 3033, 3133, 1033); metatarsus I–II 2004 (2004), III 3134 (3134), IV 4044 (4044, 4134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.1 (1.6–2.1) [0.7 (0.6–0.7), 0.4 (0.3–0.4), 0.4 (0.2–0.4), 0.6 (0.5–0.6)], I 3.8 (3.3–4.1) [1.2 (1.1–1.3), 0.7 (0.6–0.8), 0.8 (0.7–0.8), 0.7 (0.5–0.7), 0.4 (0.4–0.5)], II 3.9 (3.4–4.1) [1.3 (1.2–1.3), 0.7 (0.6–0.8), 0.8 (0.7–0.8), 0.7 (0.5–0.7), 0.4 (0.4–0.5)], III 4.6 (3.8– 4.9) [1.5 (1.3–1.5), 0.8 (0.6–0.8), 0.9 (0.7–1.0), 0.9 (0.7–1.0), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], IV 4.8 (4.1–5.0) [1.5 (1.3–1.5), 0.7 (0.6–0.7), 1.0 (0.8–1.2), 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 0.5 (0.4–0.5)]. LEG FORMULA: 4321. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with stout oval (almost round) epigynal windows, septum uncontinuous (Figs 7C, 71B) and proximally relatively broad. Epigynal field broader than long. Primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling large part of W (almost up to proximal 2/3, Figs 7C, 71B). Vulva with diagonally orientated oval (almost round) primary spermathecae being distinctly larger than secondary spermathecae. Head of spermatheca directed postero-laterally on secondary spermatheca (Figs 7 D–E, 75B). Connective ducts narrow, quite short and meeting primary spermathecae medially (Figs 7D, 75 B–C). FD arising antero-medially on PS, being bent laterally. Copulatory ducts only partly (sometimes even hardly) recognisable as covered by connective ducts (Figs 7 D–E, 75B–D). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61B), light scale hairs quite densely arranged, especially at clypeus (however material examined still quite freshly recorded and in good condition). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61B). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 61B).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. In a few males (Figs 64 C–D) T broader than in others. In some males E slightly longer than usually (Fig. 64D) or slightly stronger curved distally (Figs 64 B–C). PTL in some males with prolateral lobe absent (Figs 64B, D). Rarely T just minimally narrower than cymbium (Fig. 64C). In females an even higher degree of intraspecific variation is recognisable: few females with DST longer than usually and anteriorly surrounding SS (Fig. 75D), or DST covering medial 1/5 of SS (Fig. 75B). Orientation of PS in some females almost longitudinal (Fig. 75C) or almost transversal (Fig. 75D) instead of diagonal as usual. In one specimen SS located further posteriorly (Fig. 75E) than usually (However, this might have teratological reasons in this particular case). Direction of head of spermatheca in some females antero-lateral (Fig. 75C).</p> <p>Remarks. This seems to be a widely distributed and common species. It resembles C. noda and C. concinna sp. nov. in having an uncontinuous SW, almost round W, SS that are clearly smaller than PS and relatively short DST. These species thus might be close relatives of C. conferta sp. nov. In C. drepane sp. nov. at least the males are similar to C. conferta sp. nov. in having moderately long emboli, PTL with prolateral lobe (even though in the latter species not always) and medium sized RTA. Being aware that recovering relationships between species requires a phylogenetic approach (e.g. molecular phylogenetic methods or morphological cladistic methods), we find that similarities in such complex and specialised organs like the copulatory organs are also strong indicators of a close relationship (Bayer 2012; Bayer &amp; Schönhofer 2013; Copley et al. 2009).</p> <p>Distribution. Brazil (south-eastern part).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF9AC14766ABF8E763BF481C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF86C14066ABFE84651E48AC.text	03D88781FF86C14066ABFE84651E48AC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia concinna Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia concinna sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 3C, 8 A–C, 61C, 71C, 75F</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 1EDC38A6-F0F7-4CD9-AC71-E345BB37CD70</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.97&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-3.25" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.97/lat -3.25)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus, Ilha da Marchantaria, 3°15’S, 59°58’12”W, várzea, H. Höfer leg. 13 Dec.1987, circular pitfall trap I/2 (INPA).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the good condition of the female holotype, which clearly shows the basic and general colouration pattern of Corythalia (Latin “concinna” means “proper”, “fit”, “nice”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) approximately round (or at least minimally longer than broad); septum of epigynal windows (SW) uncontinuous (small gap between anterior and posterior half, the latter almost twice as broad as the former, Figs 8A, 71C); distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow longer than half the length of W; primary spermathecae (PS) transverse oval with slight diagonal shift ([transversal] length at least 1.15x longer than [longitudinal] width, Figs 8B, 75F); connective ducts between both spermathecae (DST) meeting PS medially to postero-medially and fertilisation duct (FD) arising medially on PS (Figs 8B, 75F).</p> <p>Description. Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female: total length 5.7, carapace length 2.4, maximal carapace width 1.8, width of eye rectangle 1.6, opisthosoma length 2.5, opisthosoma width 1.6, fovea length 0.14. EYES: AME 0.50, ALE 0.30, PME 0.07, PLE 0.26, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.36, PME–PLE 0.23, ALE–PLE 0.62, PLE–PLE 1.11, clypeus height at AME 0.16, clypeus height at ALE 0.50. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III 1010, IV 0010 {1010}; tibia I 2002, II 3003, III 3123, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III 3134, IV 4033 {4044}. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.1 [0.8, 0.4, 0.3, 0.6], I 3.9 [1.2, 0.7, 0.8, 0.7, 0.5], II 4.0 [1.3, 0.7, 0.8, 0.7, 0.5], III 4.8 [1.6, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 0.6], IV 5.1 [1.6, 0.7, 1.1, 1.1, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 4321. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with (approximately) round W; septum uncontinuous (small gap between anterior and posterior half), posterior half of septum almost twice as broad as anterior half (Figs 8A, 71C). Epigynal field absent (or at least not recognisable); structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle (Figs 8A, 71C). Vulva with approximately oval primary spermathecae directed transversally (slightly shifted diagonally) (Figs 8B, 75F); secondary spermathecae (SS) approximately round with heads of spermathecae located posteriorly. DST medially longitudinally in contact with each other, distal section clearly broader than very proximal section, meeting PS medially to postero-medially. Copula-</p> <p>tory ducts short and with antero-lateral direction. Fertilisation ducts arising medially on primary spermathecae, bent laterally (Figs 8 B–C, 75F). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Figs 3C, 61C). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61C). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band inconspicuous (Fig. 61C).</p> <p>Remarks. In having an uncontinuous septum of epigynal windows, this new species is similar to C. noda and C. conferta sp. nov. Hence, these two species might be close relatives of C. concinna sp. nov.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Central Amazonia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF86C14066ABFE84651E48AC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF81C14166ABFDF462A54B18.text	03D88781FF81C14166ABFDF462A54B18.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia noda (Chamberlin 1916)	<div><p>Corythalia noda (Chamberlin, 1916)</p> <p>Figs 9 A–C, 61D, 71D, 75G</p> <p>Wala noda Chamberlin, 1916: 296, pl. 25, fig. 2 (description &amp; illustration of ♀). Holotype ♀ from PERU: Cuzco: Torontoy, about 2450 m a.s.l., Prof. H.W. Foote leg. 22 July 1911, during the Yale Peruvian Expedition, former collection- or samplenumber 306, MCZ 15880. Paratype ♀ with the same data as for holotype, except sample-number 307, MCZ 15881, all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia noda — Richman 1989: 295 (Transfer from Wala and Hentzia, following Roewer, to Corythalia).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) continuous; septum of epigynal windows (SW) not continuous; posterior margin of epigyne (PMoE) reaching beyond epigastric furrow (Figs 9A, 71D); secondary spermatheca (SS) slightly longer than broad; connective duct (DST) between SS and primary spermatheca (PS) longer than diameter of PS; copulatory ducts (CD) well recognisable, hardly covered by DST (Figs 9 B–C, 75G).</p> <p>Description. Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female: total length 6.1, carapace length 2.3–2.4, maximal carapace width 1.7, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 3.1, opisthosoma width 2.1, fovea length 0.23. EYES: AME 0.40, ALE 0.25, PME 0.07, PLE 0.19, AME–AME 0.05, AME–ALE 0.06, PME–PME 1.17, PME–PLE 0.21, ALE–PLE 0.55, PLE–PLE 0.99, clypeus height at AME 0.16, clypeus height at ALE 0.44. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1400{1200}), II 1400 (1500), III 1500 (1500), IV 0400 (0500); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III 1010 (1010), IV 1000 (1010); tibia I 2004 (2004), II 2003 (2004{2003}), III 2033 (1023), IV 1033 (0023); metatarsus I–II 2004, III 3134, IV 3044. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.1 [0.8, 0.4, 0.3, 0.6], I 4.0 [1.3, 0.8, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4], II 3.8 [1.3, 0.7, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4], III 4.5 [1.4, 0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5], IV 4.6 [1.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with stout oval W; septum uncontinuous (small gap between anterior and posterior half), posterior half of SW almost twice as broad as anterior half (Fig. 9A). Epigynal field absent (or at least not recognisable); structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle (Figs 9A, 71D). Vulva with approximately oval PS directed transversally, slightly diagonally (Figs 9B, 75G); SS elongated oval with heads of spermathecae located postero-laterally. DST longer than diameter of PS, distal section clearly broader than proximal section, meeting PS medially. Copulatory ducts clearly recognisable and with antero-lateral direction. Fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly (shifted medially) on primary spermathecae, bent laterally (Figs 9 B–C, 75G). COLOURATION (both females old, partly bleached and many of the hairs rubbed off): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61D). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61D). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (at least not recognisable) (Fig. 61D).</p> <p>Remarks. By having an uncontinuous septum of epigynal windows, this species is similar to C. concinna sp. nov. and C. conferta sp. nov. Hence, these two species might be close relatives of C. noda.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality Cuzco (Peru).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF81C14166ABFDF462A54B18	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF80C14266ABFD9865BF4D5F.text	03D88781FF80C14266ABFD9865BF4D5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia insularis Ruiz, Brescovit & Freitas 2007	<div><p>Corythalia insularis Ruiz, Brescovit &amp; Freitas, 2007</p> <p>Figs 10 A–B</p> <p>Corythalia insularis Ruiz, Brescovit &amp; Freitas 2007: 772, figs 10–11 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Holotype ♂ from BRA- ZIL: Pernambuco: Fernando de Noronha Archipelago: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-32.416668&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-3.8333333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -32.416668/lat -3.8333333)">Fernando de Noronha Island</a>, 03°50’S, 32°25’W; G.C.C. Freitas leg. 07–19 Apr. 2006, IBSP 70339, destroyed during the fire in IBSP 2010, thus not examined.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite short [length at most 2/3 the width of tegulum (T), Fig. 10A], without any apophyses and directed +/- distally (tip at most minimally bent prolatero-distally); width of embolus base-circle (about 1/2 the width of tegulum (at most slightly more) (Fig. 10A). RTA quite narrow (in ventral view at central section hardly broader than E at central section) and longer than E (Fig. 10A). Proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) not distinctly separated/distinguished but T rather retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending and proximal section of T definitely without prolateral lobe (Fig. 10A).</p> <p>Description. Male [all aspects reproduced from Ruiz et al. (2007)]: total length 3.45, carapace length 1.8, maximal carapace width 1.25, width of eye rectangle 1.15. Cheliceral furrow with 1 retromarginal teeth. Measurements of legs: femur I 0.95, II 0.95, III 1.10, IV 1.05; patella + tibia I 0.95, II 0.95, III 1.05, IV 1.05; metatarsus + tarsus I 0.75, II 0.80, III 1.05, IV 1.10. LEG FORMULA: 4&amp;321 (legs III &amp; IV with exactly the same length). Long fringe hairs on tibia III present. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus quite short, hose-like and arising point at medio-proximal section of embolus base (Fig. 10A); embolus base circle about half as broad as tegulum or slightly broader (Fig. 10A). Tegulum narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying slightly more than retrolateral 1/2 of tegulum (Fig. 10A), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) hardly distinguished from residual tegulum, but T almost only blunt-rounded conically converging retrolatero-proximally (Fig. 10A). Cymbium in ventral view (Fig. 10A) distally conically converging, most likely with scopula at distal section even though not recognisable in any of the illustrations (Figs 10 A–B). Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 10 A–B), ventral tibial bump not recognisable (not illustrated as being flat and inconspicuous?). RTA dorsally with distinct serration (Fig. 10B) reaching far proximally.</p> <p>Remarks. as this species exhibits a similar male copulatory organ as C. latipes, C. conferta sp. nov. and C. drepane sp. nov. it is likely that it is closely related to these species. Consequently it is likely that its colouration is very similar to these species. The conservative aspects (see genus description) are certainly given in this species. The following aspects can be recognised in the similar species mentioned above: carapace dark red-brown. Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing.</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The male holotype was destroyed during the fire disaster at the Instituto Butantan, São Paulo. Hence, it could not be re-examined for the present study. Other material of this species does not exist at the collections of the IBSP (A.D. Brescovit, pers. comm.). We therefor based our species description, revised diagnosis, etc. on the illustrations and descriptions in Ruiz et al. (2007).</p> <p>Based on the male copulatory organs, C. insularis is similar to C. latipes, C. conferta sp. nov. and C. drepane sp. nov. These species thus might be close relatives to the present species.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality Fernando de Noronha Island, Brazil).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF80C14266ABFD9865BF4D5F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF83C14E66ABFB5862094A5C.text	03D88781FF83C14E66ABFB5862094A5C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia drepane Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia drepane sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 3F, 11 A–E, 12A–D, 57C, 61E, 64E–F, 68C, 71E–F, 75H–I urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6C498447-6E51-4B16-A134-E054C1D620CF</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.975002&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-2.9250002" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.975002/lat -2.9250002)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus: Reserva Ducke, 02°55’30”S, 59°58’30”W, non-inun- dated primary forest, C. Martius leg. 01 Feb. 1994, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02324, final deposition INPA. Paratypes: 2 ♂, 5 ♀ with the same data as for holotype, except date of sampling and collection numbers: 1 ♂, H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 28 Sep. 1992, sample no. E4, SMNK-ARA 13424; 1 ♂, C. Martius leg. 04 Apr. 1994, inter- im deposition SMNK-ARA 02326, final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 30 Sep. 1991, sample no. BE II/1 (arboreal funnel trap, SMNK-ARA 02321; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 24 Nov. 1993, interim deposition SMNK- ARA 02322, final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 28 Dec. 1993, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02323, final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 04 Apr. 1994, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02325, final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, C. Martius leg. 23 Feb. 1994, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02327, final deposition INPA. 1 ♀, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-60.172497&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-3.014" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -60.172497/lat -3.014)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus: NW of Manaus: Igapó Tarumã-Mirim, 3°00’50.4”S, 60°10’20.99”W, H. Höfer leg. 25 Feb. 1987, SMNK-ARA 13423.</p> <p>Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus: Tarumã-Mirim, casa de ribeirinho: 1 ♂, H. Höfer leg. 06 Nov. 1987, SMNK 15327. Road AM-010 km 30, Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, polyculture plantation: 1 ♀, H. Höfer leg. 13 June 2001 in Winkler sample, SMNK-ARA 17125.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the sickle-shaped embolus of the male holotype (ancient Greek “drepane” means “sickle”); noun in apposition.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) at its arising point at most 2.5x broader than at its subdistal section (Figs 11A, 64E) and distally directed (disto-) prolaterally; width of embolus base-circle more than half the width of tegulum (T) but less than 2/3; proximal lobus of tegulum (PTL) with distinct, stout prolateral projection/lobe (Figs 11A, 64 E–F); RTA approximately straight (in retrolateral view, Figs 11B, 12B, 68C). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: septum of epigynal windows anteriorly not or just insignificantly diverging (Figs 11C, 71 E–F); approximately round secondary spermathecae larger than 3/4 the diameter of primary spermathecae; at least distal 1/3 of connective ducts between secondary and primary spermathecae medially longitudinally in contact with each other (Figs 11D, 75 H–I).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of holotype first, those of all paratypes as range in parentheses): total length 4.9 (4.9–5.6), carapace length 2.5 (2.5–2.6), maximal carapace width 1.7 (1.7–1.8), width of eye rectangle 1.6, opisthosoma length 2.2 (2.2–2.5), opisthosoma width 1.7 (1.7–1.8), fovea length 0.20 (0.17–0.20). EYES: AME 0.53 (0.53–0.54), ALE 0.34, PME 0.09 (0.08–0.09), PLE 0.30 (0.29–0.30), AME–AME 0.04 (0.03–0.04), AME– ALE 0.06 (0.03–0.06), PME–PME 1.34 (1.28–1.34), PME–PLE 0.19 (0.19–0.21), ALE–PLE 0.60 (0.58–0.60), PLE–PLE 1.11 (1.08–1.11), clypeus height at AME 0.21 (0.20–0.25), clypeus height at ALE 0.54 (0.54–0.60). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500{1400}), II 1600 (1600{1500}), III–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005 (2005, 2003) II 3005 (3500, 3004{3003}), III 3134{3133} (3133, 3133{3123}), IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014 (2014, 2014{2004}), III 3144 (3134, 3134), IV 4144 (4144, 3144{4144}). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0 (2.0– 2.1) [0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.3, 0.3, 0.7], I 4.0 (4.0–4.2) [1.3, 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.9, 0.7, 0.4 (0.4–0.5)], II 4.0 (4.0–4.3) [1.4 (1.3–1.4), 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.8 (0.8–0.9), 0.7, 0.4 (0.4–0.5)], III 5.2 (5.2–5.3) [1.8 (1.7–1.8), 0.8, 1.0 (1.0–1.1), 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], IV 5.2 (4.9–5.2) [1.7 (1.6–1.7), 0.7, 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 1.1, 0.6 (0.5–0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 4&amp;32&amp;1 (3421, 342&amp;1, leg numbers connected by “&amp;” with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) longer than half the width of tegulum, relatively slender and sickle-shaped, its distal section pointing disto-prolaterally (Figs 11A, 12A, 64E), arising point of E at medio- to prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB) (Figs 11A, 12A, 64E); EB centrally often with flat hump (Fig. 11A), embolus base circle more than half as broad as tegulum (T) but less than 2/3 (Figs 11A, 12A, 64E). T slightly narrower than cymbium, sperm duct doublestacked S-shaped, occupying about retrolateral 2/3 of T (Figs 11A, 12A, 64 E–F), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) distinctly developed, covering more than half the length of palpal tibia (Figs 11A, 12A, 64 E–F). Cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded, at distal 1/4 slightly lighter and with scopula (Fig. 68C). Palpal tibia short to medium-sized, slightly broader than long (Figs 11 A–B, 12A–B, 64E, 68C), ventral tibial bump not distinctly developed but recognisable (Figs 11A, 12A, 64E). RTA in ventral view relatively slim, with dorsal serration and distal knob (Figs 11A, 12A, 64E), in retrolateral view also relatively slim and ventrodistally with rounded projection and dorso-distally with several teeth (Figs 11B, 12B, 68C). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown (Fig. 57C). Legs (dark) brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57C). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 57C).</p> <p>Female (measurements of all paratypes as range; for spination pattern most frequent states first, less frequent ones in parentheses in the sequence of frequency): total length 5.5–6.5, carapace length 2.4–2.6, maximal carapace width 1.8–2.1, width of eye rectangle 1.6–1.8, opisthosoma length 2.6–3.0, opisthosoma width 2.0–2.2, fovea length 0.19–0.20. EYES: AME 0.53–0.55, ALE 0.34–0.36, PME 0.08–0.09, PLE 0.27–0.28, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04–0.05, PME–PME 1.37–1.53, PME–PLE 0.21–0.26, ALE–PLE 0.63–0.68, PLE–PLE 1.11–1.21, clypeus height at AME 0.22–0.30, clypeus height at ALE 0.54–0.63. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400, II–III 1500, IV 0500 (0500, 0400); patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002 (2004, 3004), II 2003 (2002, 3004), III 3133 (2123, 2023), IV 2023 (2023{2022}, 3033); metatarsus I 2004, II 2004 (2004{2014}), III 3134, IV 4044 (4044{4034}, 4134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0–2.2 [0.7–0.8, 0.4, 0.3–0.4, 0.6], I 3.7–4.2 [1.2–1.3, 0.7–0.8, 0.8–0.9, 0.6–0.7, 0.4–0.5], II 3.6–4.1 [1.2–1.3, 0.7–0.8, 0.7–0.9, 0.6–0.7, 0.4], III 4.8–5.3 [1.7, 0.7–0.8, 0.9–1.1, 1.0–1.1, 0.5–0.6], IV 4.9–5.3 [1.6–1.7, 0.7–0.8, 1.0–1.1, 1.1–1.2, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4312 (4&amp;312; legs IV &amp; III with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigynal windows (W) elongated, but not distinctly, anterior margins of W medially not reaching each other (anterior gap) (Figs 11C, 71F); septum of W anteriorly not diverging and not reaching anterior margins of W (gap approximately as long as width of septum); fine margin completely enclosing both W (Figs 11C, 12C, 71 E–F). Epigynal field well recognisable and broader than long. Primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling W up to about proximal 1/2, in lateral extension, however, clearly not reaching lateral margin of W (Figs 11C, 71 E–F). Copulatory ducts of vulva short, running from medial copulatory openings (slightly antero-) laterally to secondary spermathecae (SS) (Figs 11D, 12D, 75 H–I); connective duct quite narrow, arising anteriorly in retrolateral section of SS and meeting primary spermathecae medially to postero-medially; heads of spermathecae centrally at posterior section of SS (Figs 11 D–E, 75I); primary spermathecae (PS) not distinctly larger than SS and roughly round; fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly at medial half of primary spermathecae and running (slightly postero-) laterally (Figs 11 D–E, 75H–I). COLOURATION: as in male (see above), but darker, e.g carapace darker red brown (Fig. 61E), legs almost completely red brown, except for coxae, which are light yellowish red brown and patellae, which are light red brown (Fig. 61E). In some specimens central transversal band on opisthosoma being curved (recurv).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Among the male types not very high: prolateral projection at proximal tegulum lobe in one paratype (Fig. 12A), slightly less distinct than in holotype (Figs 11A, 64E). Tegulum in holotype rather compact (Figs 11A, 64E), whereas in paratypes (Figs 12A, 64F) tegulum slightly more elongated and appearing slightly slimmer. In retrolateral view dorso-distal teeth on RTA being slightly more distinctly developed in paratype [E4] (Fig. 12B) than in holotype (Fig. 11B) and other paratype.</p> <p>In female paratypes copulatory organs also show rather low variation. In specimen SMNK-ARA 02321 (Fig. 71E) epigynal windows minimally more elongated than in remaining specimens (Figs 11C, 12C, 71F). Epigynal field slightly longer in SMNK-ARA 02321 (Fig. 71E) than in other specimens (Figs 11C, 12C, 71F). In specimen SMNK-ARA 02321 (Fig. 75H) distance over both secondary spermathecae (in comparison to distance over both primary spermathecae) slightly longer than in remaining paratypes (Figs 11D, 12D, 75I). In female paratype SMNK- ARA 02322 (Fig. 12D) primary spermathecae minimally more transversally elongated than in other females.</p> <p>Remarks. The species is similar to C. conferta sp. nov., C. antepagmenti sp. nov., C. insularis and C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov., as far as the males are concerned. All share a similar embolus, embolus base (except for C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov.), sperm duct course and general shape of tegulum. Females are neither similar to C. antepagmenti sp. nov. nor to C. conferta sp. nov., however, very similar to C. drepanopsis sp. nov., whose conspecific males are still unknown. From C. insularis and C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov., on the other hand, the females are still unknown. All this impedes a prediction on possible relationships.</p> <p>Distribution. Known from Central Amazonia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF83C14E66ABFB5862094A5C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF8FC14F66ABFC4462B44EB3.text	03D88781FF8FC14F66ABFC4462B44EB3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia drepanopsis Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia drepanopsis sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 1B, 13 A–C, 61F, 71G–I, 75J–L</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 5A72BC0A-03CA-45B8-9280-259E5281325A</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: Acre: Rio Branco, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.67&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-9.75" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.67/lat -9.75)">Reserva Humaitá</a>, 9°45’00”S, 67°40’12”W, about 160 m a.s.l., secondary forest, H. Höfer, H. Metzner, A.D. Brescovit &amp; A.B. Bonaldo leg. 10–13 Apr. 1996, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02860, final deposition IBSP 209866. Paratypes: 2 ♀ with the same data as for holotype: ♀ with sample number F-2 (leg IV, left missing, SMNK-ARA 02860); ♀ with sample no. F-3 (leg II, right missing, IBSP 209867).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the similarity of the females of this new species to those of C. drepane sp. nov. (Ancient Greek ending “-opsis” means “having the appearance of…”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) oval, but only about 1.25 x longer than broad (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–I); secondary spermathecae (SS) approximately round, clearly smaller than primary spermathecae (PS), less than 3/4 the diameter of PS and connective ducts between SS and PS medially longitudinally not in contact with each other, but from distalmost to proximalmost section clearly diverging (Figs 13B, 75 J–L); copulatory ducts short, but recognisable (Figs 13B, 75 J–L).</p> <p>Description. Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female (measurements of holotype first, those of paratypes as range in parentheses; for spination pattern states of holotype first, those of paratypes in parentheses in the sequence of frequency): total length 5.9 (5.6–5.9), carapace length 2.2 (2.2–2.5), maximal carapace width 1.5 (1.5–1.6), width of eye rectangle 1.3 (1.3–1.5), opisthosoma length 2.9 (2.4–2.9), opisthosoma width 1.9 (1.6–1.9), fovea length 0.17 (0.17–0.21). EYES: AME 0.45 (0.45– 0.48), ALE 0.28 (0.28–0.32), PME 0.07 (0.07–0.08), PLE 0.23 (0.23–0.25), AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.03 (0.03–0.04), PME–PME 1.17 (1.17–1.26), PME–PLE 0.19 (0.19–0.22), ALE–PLE 0.53 (0.53–0.60), PLE–PLE 0.94 (0.94–1.04), clypeus height at AME 0.15 (0.15–0.19), clypeus height at ALE 0.44 (0.44–0.49). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1300 (1300, 1300{1400}), II 1300, III 1500 (1400, 1400), IV 0400 (0400, 0500); patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002 (2002, 2003) II 2002 {2003} (2003, 1003), III 2023 (2123, 1123), IV 1022 {1023} (1023, 0023); metatarsus I–II 2004, III 3033 (3034, 3034), IV 3124{3134} (4134, 3134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 (1.7–2.1) [0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.3 (0.3–0.4), 0.3 (0.3–0.4), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], I 3.3 (3.3–3.8) [1.0 (1.0–1.2), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.4], II 3.2 (3.2–3.6) [1.0 (1.0–1.2), 0.6, 0.6 (0.6–0.8), 0.6, 0.4], III 4.0 (4.0–4.3) [1.3 (1.3–1.5), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.8, 0.8, 0.5], IV 4.2 (4.2–4.7) [1.3 (1.3–1.5), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 0.9 (0.9–1.0), 0.9 (0.9–1.0), 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with oval epigynal windows (but only slightly elongated and anteriorly converging), anterior margins of W medially not reaching each other (anterior gap approximately as long as width of septum) (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–I); septum of W quite broad (Figs 1B, 13A) and anteriorly distinctly diverging. Epigynal field clearly broader than long; structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–I). Vulva with compact oval primary spermathecae (PS) with transversal (slightly diagonal) orientation (Figs 13B, 75 J–L); secondary spermathecae (SS) approximately round, with heads of spermathecae located posteriorly (Figs 13 B–C, 75J–L). Connective ducts between both spermathecae (DST) quite narrow, running diagonally from antero-lateral to postero-medial and meeting PS antero-medially. Copulatory ducts short and with transversal direction. Fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly on primary spermathecae, bent and directed laterally or slightly postero-laterally (Figs 13 B–C, 75J–L). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61F). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (at least not recognisable) and anteriormost band just slightly broader than central and recurved, central band may also slightly recurved (Fig. 61F).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. Female holotype with chalice-shaped anterior section of septum (Fig. 13A), not so in paratypes (Figs 1B, 71 H–I). Epigynal field in paratype F-3 (Fig. 71I) clearly more distinctly developed (darker) and slightly longer than in other females (Figs 1B, 13A, 71 G–H). In paratype F-2 primary spermathecae being visibile through cuticle of epigynal windows located slightly further anteriorly (Figs 1B, 71H) than in remaining female types (Figs 13A, 71G, 71I). In holotype (Figs 13B, 75J) and paratype F-2 (Fig. 75K) secondary spermathecae reaching further laterally than in paratype F-3 (Fig. 75L). Primary spermathecae in F-2 (Fig. 75K) are slightly smaller than in remaining females (Figs 13B, 75J, 75L). Connective ducts in holotype (Figs 13B, 75J) slightly longer than in paratypes (Figs 75 K–L).</p> <p>Remarks. Regarding the very similar copulatory organs of female C. drepane sp. nov. it is well conceivable that this and the present species are closely related. It remains to be seen if males of C. drepanopsis sp. nov., which are still unknown, will corroborate this prediction of a close relationship in having as well very similar copulatory organs (palps) as those of C. drepane sp. nov.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Acre, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF8FC14F66ABFC4462B44EB3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF89C14A66ABFF6C62B44C78.text	03D88781FF89C14A66ABFF6C62B44C78.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia antepagmenti Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia antepagmenti sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 14 A–F, 57D, 61G, 64G, 68D, 72A–B, 76A–B urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: F072C066-BEBB-4813-8679-580B6D5ED3E3</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: Acre: Xapuri: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-68.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-10.6" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -68.5/lat -10.6)">Com. de Pimenteira</a>, 10°36’00”S, 68°30’00”W, about 150 m a.s.l., secondary forest, A.D. Brescovit, A.B. Bonaldo, H. Höfer &amp; H. Metzner leg. 06 Apr. 1996, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02853, final deposition IBSP 209864. Paratypes: 1 ♂, 2 ♀ with the same data as for holotype: ♂ (bad condition; IBSP 209865), 2 ♀ (one in bad condition SMNK-ARA 13420; the second in very bad condition—only pieces SMNK-ARA 13419).</p> <p>Additional (doubtful) material examined. BRAZIL: Acre: Xapuri: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-68.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-10.6" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -68.5/lat -10.6)">Com. de Pimenteira</a>, 10°36’00”S, 68°30’00”W, about 250 m a.s.l., secondary forest: 1 s.a. ♂, 2 juveniles, all in very bad condition, A.D. Brescovit, A.B. Bonaldo, H. Höfer &amp; H. Metzner leg. 06 Apr. 1996, SMNK-ARA 13421.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the marginal area of the epigynal windows of the female holotype resembling a spectacle frame (Latin “antepagmenti” means “of the frame/of the framework”); noun in genitive case.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: RTA in retrolateral view with distinct bend in central section, distal part directed ventrally (in almost 90° bend) (Figs 14B, 68D); spermduct very broad and large (occupying large part of tegulum; except for the prolateral fourth); embolus (E) distally pointed and embolus base (EB) without prolateral extension. Width of EB circle clearly less than half as the width of tegulum (Figs 14A, 64G). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) approximately round (or broader than long, meaning minimally transversal oval); distance between posterior margin of W and epigastric furrow less than one diameter of W, but more than 1/2 (Figs 14C, 72 A–B); septum of W continuous. Spermathecal heads located latero-ventrally on secondary spermathecae (SS), thus only visible in frontal view (Fig. 14E). Arising point of fertilisation duct (FD) medially but shifted far posteriorly [very close to the meeting point of connective duct (DST) with primary spermatheca (PS)] (Figs 14D, 76 A–B).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 4.8, carapace length 2.4, maximal carapace width 1.7, width of eye rectangle 1.5, opisthosoma length 1.8, opisthosoma width 1.3, fovea length 0.16. EYES: AME 0.49, ALE 0.29, PME 0.07, PLE 0.25, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.27, PME–PLE 0.18, ALE–PLE 0.60, PLE–PLE 1.03, clypeus height at AME 0.24, clypeus height at ALE 0.51. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–II 1500, III–IV -; patella I 1000, II–IV -; tibia I–II 2005, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I -, II 2014, III -, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp - [-, 0.3, 0.2, 0.7], I - [1.3, 0.7, 0.8, -, -], II - [1.3, -, 0.8, 0.6, 0.5], III - [-, -, 0.8, -, -], IV -. LEG FORMULA: -. COPULATORY OR- GAN: embolus quite short, moderately narrow, with small and flat but pointed apophysis retrolatero-centrally, tip of embolus pointed, arising point at proximo-central section of embolus base (Fig. 14A, 64G); embolus base slightly more than 1/3 the width of tegulum. Tegulum as broad as cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, very broad, occupying largest part of tegulum (except of the prolateral 1/5 to 1/4); proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) broad and approximately rounded proximally and with prolateral bump (Figs 14A, 64G). Cymbium in ventral view (Figs 14A, 64G) distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded to egg-tip-shaped. Palpal tibia very short, clearly broader than long (Figs 14 A–B, 64G), ventral tibial bump absent. RTA relatively broad and long, distinctly bent ventrally and without serration (Figs 14 A–B, 64G, 68D). COLOURATION (male paratype in bad condition, thus aspects listed here have to be read “with care”; as this species, however, is similar to C. drepane sp. nov., C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov., C. conferta sp. nov. and others, it is likely that its colouration corresponds to these mentioned species): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 57D). Legs dark red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57D). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing and not recognisable, respectively (Fig. 57D).</p> <p>Female (measurements of holotype first, those of paralectotypes as range in parentheses): total length 5.2 (5.2–5.6), carapace length 2.5 (2.5–2.6), maximal carapace width 1.9, width of eye rectangle 1.6 (1.6–1.7), opisthosoma length 2.1 (2.1–3.1), opisthosoma width 1.5 (1.1–1.5), fovea length 0.14 (0.13–0.14). EYES: AME 0.53 (0.51–0.54), ALE 0.32 (0.28–0.32), PME 0.09 (0.08–0.09), PLE 0.27 (0.26–0.27), AME–AME 0.02, AME–ALE 0.05 (0.04–0.05), PME–PME 1.49 (-), PME–PLE 0.24 (0.18–0.24), ALE–PLE 0.68 (0.57–0.68), PLE–PLE 1.22 (1.15–1.22), clypeus height at AME 0.27 (0.22–0.27), clypeus height at ALE 0.62 (0.54–0.62). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400 (1400, 1500), II–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003 (2003, 3003), II 3004 (3003), III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004 (2014), II 2014 (2024), III 3134, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.1 (2.1–2.3) [0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.4, 0.4, 0.6 (0.6–0.7)], I 4.1 (3.8–4.1) [1.3 (1.2–1.3), 0.7, 0.9 (0.8–0.9), 0.7 (0.6–0.7), 0.5 (0.4–0.5)], II 4.2 (4.0–4.2) [1.3, 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.8 (0.8–0.9), 0.7, 0.5], III 5.1 (4.4–5.1) [1.7 (1.4–1.7), 0.8 (0.7–0.8), 1.1 (0.9– 1.1), 1.0 (0.9–1.0), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], IV 5.3 (4.7–5.3) [1.7 (1.5–1.7), 0.8 (0.7–0.8), 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 1.1 (1.0–1.1), 0.6 (0.5–0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 (-). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with approximately round W (or minimally broader than long); septum of W relatively narrow (Figs 14C, 72 A–B) and continuous. Epigynal field clearly broader than long; structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle (Figs 14C, 72 A–B); primary spermathecae (PS) filling almost entire W. Vulva with large, slightly diagonal oval PS (Figs 14D, 76 A–B); secondary spermathecae (SS) approximately round (see frontal view, Fig. 14E) with heads of spermathecae located latero-ventrally (Fig. 14 E–F). Connective ducts between both spermathecae (DST) narrow, quite short and medially longitudinally in contact with each other, distal section minimally broader than proximal section, meeting PS medially (Figs 14D, 14F, 76 A–B). Copulatory duct very short and neither in dorsal nor in frontal view clearly recognisable, with anterior direction (Fig. 14F). Fertilisation ducts (FD) narrow arising medially on primary spermathecae, but shifted far posteriorly [very close to the meeting point of connective duct (DST) with primary spermatheca (PS)]; FD bent and directed laterally to postero-laterally (Figs 14 D–F). COLOURATION (female holotype not in very good condition, but basic colouration more or less recognisable): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark redbrown (Fig. 61G). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (at least not recognisable as opisthosoma shrunken and at this section with deep fold) (Fig. 61G).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. Female holotype with approximately round epigynal windows (W) and relatively dark and well developed epigynal field (EF) (Figs 14C, 72B) whereas in paratype SMNK-ARA 13420 W slightly broader than long (Fig. 72A) and thus even more resembling a glasses (spectacle) frame, and EF not as conspicuous as in holotype. Secondary spermathecae in holotype (Figs 14D, 76A) reaching slightly further anteriorly than in paratype 13420 (Fig. 76B). Additionally, primary spermathecae (PS) slightly more elongated in holotype (Figs 14D, 76A) than in paratype 13420 (Fig. 76B), having PS almost as long as broad.</p> <p>Remarks. The present new species is quite similar to C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov., C. drepane sp. nov., C. insularis and C. conferta sp. nov. as far as the males are concerned. All share a similar embolus, embolus base (apart from prolateral extension being only present in C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov.), sperm duct course and general shape of tegulum with PTL distinct and (at least sometimes) with prolateral lobe. A close relationship between these species seems likely. As far as the females are concerned C. antepagmenti sp. nov. is similar to C. conferta sp. nov. and C. concinna sp. nov. From the latter species the male is unknown which impedes a statement on relationship.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Acre, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF89C14A66ABFF6C62B44C78	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF8BC17466ABFA3865A249B0.text	03D88781FF8BC17466ABFA3865A249B0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia ricti Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia ricti Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 15 A–B, 57E, 64H, 68E</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 1212C70E-84A1-48E6-8872-0083D3A425E9</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, GUYANA: East Berbice-Corentyne: Canje-Ikuruwa River, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-57.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=5.7" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -57.5/lat 5.7)">Forest Savanna</a>, ca. 57°30’W, 05°42’N, about 25 m a.s.l.; George Bentley leg. Aug.–Dec. 1961, AMNH-IZC 00327077.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the RTA of the holotype which resembles an open mouth (of a monstrous fantasy creature) with several pointed teeth (Latin “rictus/rictum” means “widely open mouth”); noun in genitive case.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: embolus base (EB) with prolateral extension in form of an elongated bulge; width of EB circle clearly more than half the width of tegulum, almost 2/3; embolus (E) distally pointed and with prolateral direction (Figs 15A, 64H). RTA in retrolateral view with distinct bend, distal part directed disto-ventrally and being clearly shorter and narrower than proximal part (Figs 15B, 68E), RTA in ventral view subdistally with broad and deep incision exhibiting several teeth (Figs 15A, 64H).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 6.3, carapace length 3.0, maximal carapace width 2.0, width of eye rectangle 1.8, opisthosoma length 2.5, opisthosoma width 1.7, fovea length 0.23. EYES: AME 0.58, ALE 0.35, PME 0.09, PLE 0.30, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.52, PME–PLE 0.26, ALE–PLE 0.68, PLE–PLE 1.24, clypeus height at AME 0.28, clypeus height at ALE 0.66. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 3005, II 3004{3015}, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024 {2025}, III 3134, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4 [0.8, 0.4, 0.2, 1.0], I 4.5 [1.4, 0.8, 1.0, 0.8, 0.5], II 4.6 [1.5, 0.8, 1.0, 0.8, 0.5], III 5.4 [1.8, 0.8, 1.1, 1.2, 0.5], IV 5.4 [1.7, 0.7, 1.2, 1.2, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 3&amp;421 (legs III &amp; IV with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite short, pointed and distal section directed prolaterally; E about as long as 1/2 the width of tegulum (T) (Figs 15A, 64H). Embolus base (EB) broad (EB circle almost as broad as 2/3 the width of T), located centro-distally at T; T relatively short, but proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) distinct and with small prolateral lobe; T with double stacked S-shaped spermduct visible in retrolateral 1/2 to 2/3 (Figs 15A, 64H). Cymbium relatively short and broad, distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded to egg-tip-shaped. Palpal tibia short (length about 2/3 the width), with indistinct and flat ventral tibial bump (Figs 15 A–B, 64H, 68E). RTA quite broad, subdistally with broad and deep incision exhibiting several teeth (Figs 15A, 64H), in retrolateral view even broader and with distinct bend, distal part directed disto-ventrally and being clearly shorter and narrower than proximal part (Figs 15B, 68E). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 57E). Legs almost completely unicoloured dark brown to red-brown, except for tarsi and coxae &amp; trochanteres being lighter (Fig. 57E). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 57E).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The short, relatively narrow, distally pointed embolus with prolateral direction and the relatively broad and short tegulum with a distinct proximal lobe exhibiting a prolateral lobe are similar to C. antepagmenti sp. nov. and C. drepane sp. nov., so we expect a quite close relationship between these two species and C. ricti Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in East Berbice-Corentyne, Guyana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF8BC17466ABFA3865A249B0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFB5C17666ABFEF0628E4DC4.text	03D88781FFB5C17666ABFEF0628E4DC4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia parva (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia parva (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 16 A–F, 57F, 61H, 64I, 68F, 72C, 76C</p> <p>Dynamius parvus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 340, pl. 25, fig. 14, pl. 26, fig. 8 (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from Brazil; G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 639; MCZ 22546; Paralectotypes (4 ♂, one of which with individual number M-3, 1 ♀, 13– 15 juveniles, here designated) with the same data as for lectotype; MCZ 22546, all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia parva — Petrunkevitch 1911: 617 (Transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: embolus (E) distally truncated and only slightly reaching beyond distal margin of embolus base (EB), shorter than width of tegulum (T) and at its arising point at most 2x broader than subdistally (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I); arising point of E prolatero-proximally on EB; width of EB circle&gt; 1/3 the width of T, but &lt;1/2; T with distinct proximal tegulum lobe almost centro-proximally; not in retrolateral half or 2/3 as in most other Corythalia species) (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows small and approximately round; distance from posterior margin of epigynal windows to epigastric furrow slightly more than 2x diameter of epigynal window (Figs 16D, 72C); secondary spermathecae (as chambered structures) absent, however, copulatory duct section close to the spermathecal heads clearly broader than remaining sections of copulatory duct (Figs 16E, 76C).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotype M- 3 in parentheses): total length 6.1 (7.2), carapace length 2.7 (3.2), maximal carapace width 2.1 (2.4), width of eye rectangle 1.8 (1.9), opisthosoma length 2.7 (3.1), opisthosoma width 2.1 (2.3), fovea length 0.19 (0.23). EYES: AME 0.55 (0.58), ALE 0.34 (0.37), PME 0.10, PLE 0.28 (0.31), AME–AME 0.05, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.50 (1.60), PME–PLE 0.27 (0.28), ALE–PLE 0.76 (0.73), PLE–PLE 1.27 (1.33), clypeus height at AME 0.26 (0.37), clypeus height at ALE 0.61 (0.72). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 3005 (2005), II 3004 (3005), III 3134, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4 (2.6) [0.9 (1.0), 0.4, 0.3, 0.8 (0.9)], I 6.7 (7.5) [2.0 (2.3), 1.1 (1.2), 1.5 (1.7), 1.4 (1.5), 0.7 (0.8)], II 5.9 (6.9) [1.8 (2.2), 1.0 (1.0), 1.3 (1.5), 1.2 (1.4), 0.6 (0.7)], III 6.2 (6.9) [2.0 (2.3), 1.0 (1.1), 1.3 (1.4), 1.3 (1.4), 0.6 (0.7)], IV 6.1 (6.7) [1.9 (2.1), 0.9, 1.2 (1.4), 1.4 (1.5), 0.7 (0.8)]. LEG FORMULA: 1342 (12&amp;34; in paralectotype legs II &amp; III with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite short, tip truncated, arising point at prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB) (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I); EB less than half as broad as tegulum (T) (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I). T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped (in both male type specimens not recognisable in ventral view); proximal tegulum lobe located more or less centro-proximally (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I). Cymbium in ventral view (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I) distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded to epp-tip-shaped. Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 16 A–C, 64I, 68F) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite inconspicuous but recognisable and rounded, with straight ventral direction (Figs 16 A–C). RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with slight serration (Figs 16A, 16C, 64I), in retrolateral view serration not even recognisable (Figs 16B, 68F). COLOURATION (consider that all type specimens are quite bleached): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 57F). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing or at least not recognisable (Fig. 57F).</p> <p>Female: total length 6.9, carapace length 3.3, maximal carapace width 2.3, width of eye rectangle 1.9, opisthosoma length 3.0, opisthosoma width 2.3, fovea length 0.26. EYES: AME 0.54, ALE 0.33, PME 0.10, PLE 0.29, AME–AME 0.06, AME–ALE 0.11, PME–PME 1.65, PME–PLE 0.29, ALE–PLE 0.72, PLE–PLE 1.50, clypeus height at AME 0.32, clypeus height at ALE 0.70. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–II 1500, III 1600 {1500}, IV 0600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002, II 3003, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III–IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8 [1.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.8], I 5.2 [1.7, 1.0, 1.1, 0.8, 0.6], II 5.4 [1.8, 1.0, 1.1, 0.9, 0.6], III 6.7 [2.3, 1.2, 1.2, 1.3, 0.7], IV 6.5 [2.1, 1.0, 1.3, 1.4, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with round and small epigynal windows (W) being distinctly closer located to anterior margin of epigyne than to epigastric furrow; septum of W very short and very broad (Figs 16D, 72C). Epigynal field broader than long (Figs 16D, 72C). Thickened parts of copulatory organs visible through cuticle of W, even primary spermathecae (PS) visible through cuticle further posterior (Figs 16D, 72C). Vulva with round PS; secondary spermathecae as such absent, but copulatory duct at initial section widened and antero-laterally in connection with heads of spermathecae, the latter relatively large (Figs 16 E–F, 76C). Copulatory ducts initially with antero-medial direction. Connective ducts (or better: copulatory ducts from distal end of widened section to primary spermathecae) narrow and proximally curved. Fertilisation ducts narrow, arising sub-antero-centrally on primary spermathecae, bent laterally (Figs 16 E–F, 76C). COLOURA- TION (female type specimen bleached and not in the best condition): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61H). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61H). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing or at least not recognisable (Fig. 61H).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Concerning the structure of embolus (E) there are slight differences between the male type specimens: in lectotype tip of E slightly diagonal truncated (Figs 16A, 64I), in paralectotype M-3 more transversally truncated (Fig. 16C), additionally embolus minimally longer in M-3. Tegulum (T) in lectotype prolaterally in upper proximal half with flat bulge. Proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) in lectotype broader and with conspicuous prolatero-proximal direction (Figs 16A, 64I), in M-3 PTL with at most minimal prolatero-proximal direction (almost straight proximal) (Fig. 16C) and distally more clearly rounded. In lectotype cymbium broader and longer and palpal tibia broader (in comparision to tegulum size) than in paralectotype M-3.</p> <p>Remarks. Conspecificity of the female paralectotype with the male lectotype and the male paralectotypes is not certain. In Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901) there is no specified recorded locality given. Brazil is very huge and it is not certain (but possible) that males and the female were once found at the same spot.</p> <p>At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2015) the type series of Dynamius parvus (MCZ 22546) contained two more males that were not conspecific with the remaining five males. The two differing males must have been erroneously put there at some time. G. Bodner (during an examination in Mar. 2000; written on one of the labels) also recognized that. In the course of the present study they have been recognized as the types of D. fimbriatus as they match the respective drawings in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901)! Consequently, they have been transferred to the vial with the original label of D. fimbriatus (MCZ 21310).</p> <p>We are not able to make any predictions on possible relationships of C. parva. It shows characters that are hardly shared by any other Corythalia species: arising point of embolus (E) in prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB), consequently, short E only slightly reaching beyond distal margin of EB; tip of E truncated; basic shape of tegulm (including PTL). Females are also unique, having small, round epigynal windows conspicuously far distant from epigastric furrow and lacking secondary spermathecae.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from an unspecified locality in Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFB5C17666ABFEF0628E4DC4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFB7C17766ABFAEC651E4ED7.text	03D88781FFB7C17766ABFAEC651E4ED7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia protensa Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia protensa sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 3A, 17 A–B, 57G, 64J–K, 68G</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: F0335FEA-6B07-40EC-A5A0-418452D4EC6D</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.975002&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-2.9305556" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.975002/lat -2.9305556)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus, Reserva Ducke, ca. 2°55’50”S, 59°58’30”W, noninundated primary forest; H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 05 Oct. 1992, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02496, final deposition INPA. Paratype: ♂, with exactly the same data as for holotype, SMNK-ARA 02496.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the retrolateral tibial apophysis of the male holotype resembling a hand with a long index finger stretched out (Latin “protensa” means “stretched out”, “sprawled out”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) with very broad proximal section (more than 8x broader than subdistal section), short (approximately as long as width of embolus base) and distally pointed (Figs 17A, 64 J–K); RTA in retrolateral view very broad and distinctly digitate at ventro-distal section (digitate section with less than 1/5 the width of central section, Figs 17B, 68G); tegulum (T) (retrolatero-) proximally with distinct projecting lobe (PTL), the latter with flat and blunt bulge prolaterally (Figs 17A, 64 J–K).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 4.7, carapace length 2.1, maximal carapace width 1.6, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 2.2, opisthosoma width 1.4, fovea length 0.13. EYES: AME 0.44, ALE 0.24, PME 0.07, PLE 0.20, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.09, PME–PLE 0.19, ALE–PLE 0.55, PLE–PLE 0.93, clypeus height at AME 0.17, clypeus height at ALE 0.47. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, III 2600, IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005 {2004}, II 3004{3003}, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024 {2013}, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASURE- MENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.6 [0.6, 0.3, 0.1, 0.6], I 3.4 [1.1, 0.6, 0.7, 0.6, 0.4], II 3.5 [1.1, 0.7, 0.7, 0.6, 0.4], III 4.0 [1.4, 0.6, 0.8, 0.8, 0.4], IV 4.2 [1.3, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4321. COPULATORY OR- GAN: embolus (E) short, basal section very broad, its arising point centro-proximally at embolus base (EB); EB not exactly round, EB circle less than half as broad as tegulum (T) (Figs 17A, 64 J–K). T slightly narrower than cymbium and proximally of EB with flat triangular lobe directed distally, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped with quite wide loops (distal loop even slightly wider than proximal), occupying retrolateral 2/3 of T (Figs 17A, 64 J–K). Cymbium distally in ventral (Figs 17A, 64 J–K) and lateral view (Figs 17B, 68G) slightly truncated. Palpal tibia very short, clearly broader than long (Figs 17 A–B, 64J–K, 68G) and ventral tibial bump conical and not very conspicuous (Figs 17A, 64 J–K). RTA broad, slightly directed ventrally and with conspicuous digitate protrusion ventro-distally (Figs 17B, 68G) and in dorso-distal section with rounded, finely serrated lobe. COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark brown to dark red-brown (Fig. 57G). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description un- der general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 57G).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Flat, triangular lobe proximally of embolus base more distinctly developed in holotype (Figs 17A, 64J). Retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe slightly broader in paratype (Fig. 64K). Flat and blunt bulge prolaterally on proximal tegulum lobe in paratype (Fig. 64K) larger than in holotype (Figs 17A, 64J).</p> <p>Remarks. This species shows hardly similarities to any other Corythalia species. The shape of tegulum is a little bit reminiscent of that of C. drepane sp. nov. However, most other characters are clearly different, e.g. embolus, RTA or spermduct-course.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Central Amazonia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFB7C17766ABFAEC651E4ED7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFB1C17266ABFF6C63F64E4C.text	03D88781FFB1C17266ABFF6C63F64E4C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia placata (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia placata (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 18 A–E, 57H, 61I, 64L, 68H, 72D, 76D</p> <p>Dynamius placatus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 339, pl. 25, fig. 11 &amp; 11a–c, pl. 26, fig. 2, partim, pl. 25, figs 11a–c misidentified (= Corythalia waleckii) (remaining figs: description &amp; illustration of ♀). Lectotype ♀ (here designated) from Lesser Antilles: Trinidad and Tobago: Trinidad; Walter Elias Broadway leg. 1888–1894; G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Collection No. 658; MCZ 22679; paralectotype ♀ &amp; 4 juveniles /p.s.a. ♀ (here designated; remark: it is uncertain if the juveniles and p.s.a. ♀ are conspecific with the two mature female types!) with the same data as for lectotype; MCZ 22679-I/-II; the following paralectotypes with the same data as for lectotype were definitely misidentified: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, both here identified as C. waleckii, MCZ 22679-III, all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia placata — Petrunkevitch 1911: 618 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia). Proszynski 1976: 153, f. 192 [after Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901): pl. 25, fig. 11b], misidentified; = C. waleckii).</p> <p>Additional material examined. LESSER ANTILLES: TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.666667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.5/lat 10.666667)">Trinidad</a>: Port of Spain: Port of Spain, ca. 10°40’N, 61°30’W, about 50–150 m a.s.l.: 1 ♂ paralectotype of Dynamius blandus, misidentified, Walter Elias Broadway leg. 1888–1894, G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Collection No. 651, MCZ 20545- II (ex MCZ 20545).</p> <p>Additional doubtful material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande, taken within a radius of 2 kilometers of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Rancho Grande</a>, ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1100 m, lower cloud forest; leg. 1945–1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical</a> research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; formerly with Cat No. 461202 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY: 1 ♂ with label saying “P16, male, drawn, meas., holotype ”, found within a large jar holding C. xanthopa specimens examined and identified by Crane around 1948, AMNH-IZC 00327948.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: embolus (E) short, distally pointed and at distal half with dorsal apophysis being only partly covered by E and thus in ventral view still visible as elongated lobe-like structure prolaterally of the prolateral margin of E (Figs 18A, 64L). Proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) relatively short and covering palpal tibia only at distal 1/4 (Figs 18A, 64L). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) (more or less) round; distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow slightly more than 0.4x and less than 0.5x diameter of W; epigynal field missing (Figs 18C, 72D); copulatory ducts extremely short, copulatory openings more or less directly leading into secondary spermathecae (SS); primary spermathecae (PS) including fertilisation ducts (FD) located anterior of SS; FD arising posteriorly on PS (Figs 18 D–E, 76D).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 4.6, carapace length 2.3, maximal carapace width 1.6, width of eye rectangle 1.4, opisthosoma length 1.9, opisthosoma width 1.4, fovea length 0.14. EYES: AME 0.47, ALE 0.31, PME 0.09, PLE 0.24, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.03, PME–PME 1.26, PME–PLE 0.19, ALE–PLE 0.54, PLE–PLE 1.05, clypeus height at AME 0.18, clypeus height at ALE 0.46. Cheliceral furrow with 2 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (promarginal teeth both exremely small and very close together). SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–IV 1500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3024, III 2133, IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2014, III–IV 3134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 [0.6, 0.3, 0.2, 0.6], I 3.7 [1.2, 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4], II 3.7 [1.2, 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4], III 4.9 [1.5, 0.7, 1.1, 1.1, 0.5], IV 4.8 [1.4, 0.6, 1.1, 1.2, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 341&amp;2 (legs I &amp; II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite short, narrow, tip pointed, at distal half with dorsal apophysis and arising point at centro-proximal section of embolus base (EB) (Figs 18A, 64L); EB circle slightly less than half as broad as tegulum (T); T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked Sshaped, occupying more than retrolateral 1/2 of tegulum; proximal tegulum lobe not distinctly distinguished, short and proximally more or less rounded (Figs 18A, 64L). Cymbium in ventral view (Figs 18A, 64L) distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded. Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 18 A–B, 64L, 68H) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view rather inconspicuous and flat conical, with slightly distal direction (Figs 18 A–B). RTA medium-sized, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with inconspicuous serration (Figs 18A, 64L), in retrolateral view serration not even recognisable (Figs 18B, 68H). COLOURATION (male not in good condition, opisthosoma cuticle separated from subcuticle, most of the hairs rubbed-off): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 57H). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being (only slightly) lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57H). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, no statement possible about chevron-like patch in central band (Fig. 57H).</p> <p>Female: total length 4.0, carapace length 1.9, maximal carapace width 1.4, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 1.9, opisthosoma width 1.3, fovea length 0.10. EYES: AME 0.39, ALE 0.26, PME 0.08, PLE 0.21, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.09, PME–PLE 0.17, ALE–PLE 0.51, PLE–PLE 0.91, clypeus height at AME 0.14, clypeus height at ALE 0.36. Cheliceral furrow with 2 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (promarginal teeth both tiny and very close together). SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1300 {1400}, II–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I–II 1003, III 2123, IV 2124 {2133}; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 [0.6, 0.3, 0.3, 0.5], I 2.8 [0.9, 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3], II 2.8 [0.9, 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.3], III 3.9 [1.3, 0.5, 0.9, 0.8, 0.4], IV 3.8 [1.2, 0.5, 0.8, 0.9, 0.4]. LEG FOR- MULA: 342&amp;1 (legs I &amp; II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with round epigynal windows (W); septum of W relatively broad (almost 1/3 as broad as diameter of W) (Figs 18C, 72D); distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow slightly more than 0.4x and less than 0.5x diameter of W; epigynal field missing (Figs 18C, 72D). Vulva exhibiting a totally inverted system: transversal drop-shaped primary spermathe-</p> <p>cae (PS) located anteriorly with arising point of fertilisation ducts (FD) posteriorly (Figs 18 D–E, 76D); secondary spermathecae (SS) located posteriorly with extremely short copulatory ducts meeting SS from postero-medially, heads of spermathecae located anteriorly at SS (Figs 18 D–E, 76D). Connective ducts between PS and SS very narrow and short, arising posteriorly at SS, running a curve and then running (slightly latero-) anteriorly, meeting PS latero-posteriorly. FD narrow and bent laterally (Figs 18 D–E, 76D). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 61I). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 61I). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present, additionally with white patch centrally in brown section between central and posterior light band (Fig. 61I).</p> <p>Remarks. The female specimen MCZ 22679 is here designated as the lectotype. The type series is polytypic in including misidentified specimens of C. waleckii (see above). Several drawings (Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901, pl. 25, Figs 11 a–c) of a palp of a male specimen the authors considered conspecific with the female mentioned above and below have clearly turned out to belong to a male of C. waleckii. The epigyne of the female lectotype clearly corresponds to the respective drawing in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901, pl. 25, Fig. 11). So there is a clear reference to the type of epigyne the authors considered specific for the new species they wanted to introduce and was, in fact, new, meaning not already known to science at that point of time (around 1900).</p> <p>The small male paralectotype of Dynamius blandus listed with the type material of C. blanda (see below) was here recognised as definitely being misidentified. Due to the small body length and the dentition of the promargin of the cheliceral base (two very small and narrow teeth, instead of one in the other species originally found in the same vial [C. waleckii, C. blanda]) it is very likely that this male is conspecific to the female lectotype of C. placata. However, it should be considered that conspecificity is not 100% certain as the collecting events in Trinidad by W.E. Broadway yielded several species and may not originate from one and the same spot. Consequently, it cannot be excluded that this male belongs to an additional different species (other than C. blanda, C. waleckii and C. placata; e.g. still not described or still only known by females). Independently of the new identification in the course of the present examinations the mentioned male keeps its paralectotype status (of Dynamius blandus). Though it was here separated from the original (type) series, the original collection number is still integrated in the new collection number and it was clearly mentioned that it was taken from the mentioned type series/collection number and actually still belongs there but for organisational reasons and for reasons of better handling it was separated.</p> <p>The type series of Dynamius placatus (MCZ 22679) contained two (identifiable) species and some juvenile specimens. For organisational reasons and for reasons of better handling it was split into several subseries (see above). One female and one male were identified as C. waleckii. The juveniles cannot be identified to species. However, we find it more likely that they belong to either C. waleckii or to C. blanda than to C. placata because the dentition of the retromargin of the cheliceral furrow corresponds to the first mentioned species.</p> <p>The male from Venezuela (AMNH-IZC 00327948; formerly Crane-collection) corresponds to the male MCZ 20545-II, apart from a few very fine differences (might rather be of intraspecific nature). Due to these fine differences and to the fact that the matching of the male MCZ 20545-II with the female lectotype of C. placata is not for 100% certain we listed the male from AMNH under doubtful material. As a male with the (field-?/ sample-?) no. P16 was not listed in Crane (1948) in the material list of C. xanthopa we wonder for which description this male might have been used and even more for which illustration it might have been the template/sample. Certainly an illustration of a somatic structure, otherwise the completely different structure of the palp must have attracted her attetion. This male is definitely not the holotype of C. xanthopa and as there is no clear reference of this male to a specimen listed (or illustrated with its palp) in Crane (1948) the type denotation on the label is definitely void according to the ICZN.At least parts of the Crane collection were not well organised by her (or collaborators?), hence, such kind of confusion is not surprising. To this see also the remarks under the species descriptions of C. fulgipedia, C. chalcea and C. xanthopa, below.</p> <p>We are not able to make any assumptions on possible relationships of C. placata. It shows characters that are not shared by any other Corythalia species: i.e. totally inverted system of the vulva, etc. (see above).</p> <p>Distribution. Trinidad and possibly Venezuela.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFB1C17266ABFF6C63F64E4C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFB2C17C66ABFF6C651E4B59.text	03D88781FFB2C17C66ABFF6C651E4B59.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia gasnieri Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia gasnieri sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 19 A–B, 57I, 65A, 68I</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 3C6B1838-302F-4C40-AA3C-D3FDEABFEACB</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.975002&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-2.9305556" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.975002/lat -2.9305556)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus, Reserva Ducke, ca. 2°55’50”S, 59°58’30”W, non-in- undated primary forest, H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 28 Sep. 1992, in a funnel trap on a tree trunk in approximately 2 m height above ground, field number BE I/1, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02507, final deposition INPA.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name is a patronym in honour of the Brazilian project partner, arachnologist and cocollector of the holotype, Thierry Gasnier; noun (name) in genitive case.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) subdistally slightly fusiformly broadened; tip of E prolatero-distally with very small and fine candle-flame-like protrusion (Figs 19A, 65A); in retrolateral view E centrally at distal half abruptly converging with distalmost fourth of E having only less than 1/3 the width of the central section (Figs 19B, 68I); Tegulum (T) broader than cymbium (even though minimally).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 4.5, carapace length 2.0, maximal carapace width 1.4, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 2.0, opisthosoma width 1.5, fovea length 0.11. EYES: AME 0.42, ALE 0.26, PME 0.05, PLE 0.23, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.12, PME–PLE 0.21, ALE–PLE 0.55, PLE–PLE 0.88, clypeus height at AME 0.18, clypeus height at ALE 0.45. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–III 1500, IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I–II 2001, III–IV 2123; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III–IV 3134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.6 [0.6, 0.2, 0.2, 0.6], I 3.1 [1.0, 0.5, 0.7, 0.5, 0.4], II 3.0 [1.0, 0.5, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4], III 4.1 [1.3, 0.6, 0.8, 0.9, 0.5], IV 4.0 [1.3, 0.5, 0.8, 0.9, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 3412. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) medium-sized, hose-shaped, subdistally slightly fusiformly broadened and tip prolatero-distally with very small and fine candle flame-like protrusion (Figs 19A, 65A); E in retrolateral view pre-subdistally abruptly converging, with distal section distinctly narrower (Figs 19B, 68I); E arising at centro- to prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB); EB circle half as broad as tegulum (T) or slightly more; T compact, minimally broader than cymbium and without</p> <p>clearly distinguished prolateral tegulum lobe but T rather blunt-rounded conically converging retrolatero-proximally (Figs 19A, 65A); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying retrolateral 2/3 of T (Figs 19A, 65A). Cymbium distally blunt conically converging and distally rounded (Figs 19A, 65A). Palpal tibia about as broad as long (Figs 19 A–B, 65A, 68I) and ventral tibial bump not far reaching ventrally (Figs 19B, 68I). RTA quite slim and with dorsal serration (Figs 19 A–B, 65A, 68I) covering about distal 2/5 of RTA (Figs 19B, 68I). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark brown to dark red-brown (Fig. 57G). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 57G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, but as many hairs are rubbed-off and cuticle has separated from subcuticle it is impossible to make a statement on the existence of a chevron-like patch in central band (Fig. 57G).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. It is difficult to predict possible relationships of C. gasnieri sp. nov. In our opinion there are no Corythalia species showing very similar characters as far as the male copulatory organ is concerned.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Central Amazonia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFB2C17C66ABFF6C651E4B59	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFBDC17E66ABFD6A658E4BCC.text	03D88781FFBDC17E66ABFD6A658E4BCC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia fimbriata (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia fimbriata (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 4F, 20 A–D, 58A, 65B, 68J</p> <p>Dynamius fimbriatus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 340, pl. 25, fig. 10, pl. 26, fig. 12 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from Brazil: Bahia: Chapada, meaning Parque Nacional da Chapada Diamantina, in Peckham &amp; Peck- ham (1901) still listed as Chapoda; G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 661 (obtained from H. H. Smith Coll.); MCZ 21310; 1 ♂ paralectotype (here designated) with exactly the same data as for lectotype; MCZ 21310, all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia fimbriata — Petrunkevitch 1911: 616 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) very short [just about 1/2 the width of tegulum (T)] and base of E (EB) very small (width of EB circle at most 1/3 the width of T); E without special structures and continuously converging from central to (approximately) pointed distal section (Figs 20A, 20C &amp; 65B); T retrolatero-proximally with distinct projecting lobe.</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotype in parentheses): total length 7.0 (6.2), carapace length 3.4 (3.1), maximal carapace width 2.5 (2.2), width of eye rectangle 1.9 (1.7), opisthosoma length 3.4 (2.9), opisthosoma width 2.3 (1.9), fovea length 0.31 (0.22). EYES: AME 0.56 (0.51), ALE 0.34 (0.32), PME 0.13 (0.10), PLE 0.32 (0.28), AME–AME 0.06 (0.05), AME–ALE 0.11 (0.08), PME–PME 1.68 (1.48), PME– PLE 0.28 (0.27), ALE–PLE 0.77 (0.73), PLE–PLE 1.43 (1.25), clypeus height at AME 0.38 (0.33), clypeus height at ALE 0.73 (0.69). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. Cymbium scopula consisting of light hairs in this species minimally more dense and conspicuous (Figs 3F, 38F) than in other Corythalia species. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, III 1500, IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2004, II 3006 (2004), III 3134 (3133), IV 3134; metatarsus I 2024 (2014), II 2024, III 3134 (4134), IV 4134 (4134{5144}). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.6 (2.3) [1.0 (0.9), 0.4, 0.3 (0.2), 0.9 (0.8)], I 5.9 (5.3) [2.0 (1.8), 1.1 (0.9), 1.2 (1.1), 1.0 (0.9), 0.6.], II 6.3 (5.5) [2.1 (1.8), 1.2 (1.0), 1.3 (1.1), 1.1 (1.0), 0.6], III 7.6 (6.7) [2.4 (2.2), 1.2 (1.1.), 1.6 (1.4), 1.6 (1.4), 0.8 (0.6)], IV 7.1 (6.3) [2.2 (1.9), 1.1 (1.0), 1.4 (1.3), 1.6 (1.4), 0.8 (0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) very short [just slightly longer than 1/2 the width of tegulum (T)], sickle-shaped, arising centro- to prolatero-proximal at embolus base (EB); EB small (width of EB circle at most 1/3 the width of T) (Figs 20A, 20C &amp; 65B). T slightly narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying slightly more than retrolateral 1/2 of tegulum (Figs 20A, 20C &amp; 65B). Cymbium (CY) in ventral view conically converging distally, distalmost section still broadly rounded (Figs 20A, 20C &amp; 65B). Palpal tibia moderately short (in comparision to most other Corythalia species), just slightly broader than long (Figs 20 A–D &amp; 65B, 68J) and ventral tibial bump conical, distally pointed and directed distally (Figs 20A, 20C &amp; 65B). RTA in ventral view quite slim, in retrolateral view with slightly ventral direction (not straight distal direction) and at distal section blunt converging, in contrast to ventral view dorsal serration in retetrolateral view not recognisable (Figs 20B, 20D &amp; 68J). Scopula, like in all Corythalia species, only at distal section of dorsal CY (in C. fimbriata distal 1/4) and not distinctly dense. CY at distal 1/4 lighter than further proximally (Figs 4F, 68J). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58A). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 58A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band at most very inconspicuously recognisable (Fig. 58A).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Lectotype male with minimally shorter embolus than paralectotype and homogeneous distal tegulum margin (Figs 20A, 65B). In paralectotype retrolatero-distal part of tegulum slightly bulging out distally (Fig. 20C). Central loop of sperm duct in lectotype slightly narrower than in paralectotype. RTA in retrolateral view in lectotype (Figs 20B, 68J) slightly more directed ventrally and cymbium in retrolateral view distally slightly truncated whereas in paralectotype (Fig. 20D) RTA is slightly less directed ventrally and cymbium distally rather rounded.</p> <p>Remarks. At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2015) the male lectotype and the male paralectotype were found among the types of Dynamius parvus (MCZ 22546). They must have been erroneously put there. G. Bodner (Mar. 2000) already recognized that these two males differed from the 5 remaining males (meaning those indeed belonging to D. parvus) which match the original figures in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901) for D. parvus. The two males described above, however, definitely match the drawings for D. fimbriatus in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901) ! Hence, they were separated from the series with the types of D. parvus, but with clear statement from which vial they were taken. The above mentioned explains that after our request the types of D. fimbriatus were not found by L. Leibensperger, the curator of MCZ.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Chapada Diamantina, Bahia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFBDC17E66ABFD6A658E4BCC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFBFC17866ABFCD462D04BF0.text	03D88781FFBFC17866ABFCD462D04BF0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia argentinensis Galiano 1962	<div><p>Corythalia argentinensis Galiano, 1962</p> <p>Figs 21 A–D, 58B, 62A, 65C, 68K, 72E, 76E</p> <p>Corythalia argentinensis Galiano 1962: 18, figs 3–8 (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Holotype ♂ from ARGENTINA: Misiones: Departamento San Antonio, Ref. Piñalitos; [Exe.] Schiapelli-De Carlo leg. XI. 1954; MACN 5071; Paratypes (3 ♂, 6 ♀), most of them with the same data as for lectotype, except some of them from Dto. Santa María and partly with slightly differing collecting dates; MACN 5072–5076 &amp; 4894, type not available as loan because of complicated export regulations of the state Argentina, thus not examined; however many photographical images of the holotype ♂ and of one ♀ paratype were kindly provided by Cristian J. Grismado with the permission of Martín Ramírez.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: embolus (E) extremely short [clearly less than 1/4 the width of tegulum (T)]; width of embolus base (EB) circle distinctly less than 1/4 the width of T; E distally pointed and hardly reaching beyond distal margin of embolus base (Figs 18A, 18C, 36G); T broad and bulbous, proximally conically converging, but section covering palpal tibia still very broad and proximally rounded (Figs 21A, 65C); ventral tibial bump absent or tiny, in retrolateral view ventral margin of T reaching distinctly further ventrally than ventral margin of palpal tibia (Figs 21B, 68K). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: epigynal windows (W) approximately oval, primary spermathecae (PS) visible through cuticle reaching far beyond posterior margin of W almost up to epigastric furrow (Figs 21C, 72E); secondary spermathecae (as chambered structures) absent, however, initial copulatory duct (CD) section close to the heads of spermathecae (HS) slightly broader than remaining sections of copulatory duct; HS quite conspicuous and arising laterally at the initial section of CD (Figs 21D, 76E).</p> <p>Description. Male [all aspects reproduced from Galiano (1962)]: carapace length 2.36, maximal carapace width 1.76, width of eye rectangle 1.43, opisthosoma length 2.33. EYES: AME 0.44, PME–PLE 0.19. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. MEASUREMENT OF PALP: palp 2.01 [0.71, 0.34, 0.21, 0.75]. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) extremely short; width of embolus base (EB) circle clearly less than 1/4 the width of tegulum (T); E distally pointed and hardly reaching beyond distal margin of embolus base (Figs 21A, 65C); T minimally narrower than cymbium, but very bulbous, proximally without distinct proximal tegulum lobe but very blunt conically converging with section covering palpal tibia still very broad and proximally rounded; sperm duct (though not completely recognisable) seems to be double-stacked S-shaped, occupying almost retrolateral 3/4 of tegulum (Figs 21A, 65C). Cymbium in ventral view (Figs 21A, 65C) distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded. Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 21 A–B, 65C, 68K) and ventral tibial bump (VTB) missing (in retrolateral view a tiny protrusion is visible which might be a vestigial VTB (Figs 21B, 68K). RTA quite narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with slight serration covering almost entire RTA (Figs 21A, 65C), in retrolateral view serration somewhat better recognisable (21B, 68K). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58B), light scale hairs densely arranged, especially frontally. Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for coxae and trochanteres and tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 58B). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 58B).</p> <p>Female [all aspects reproduced from Galiano (1962)]: carapace length 2.59, maximal carapace width 1.76, width of eye rectangle 1.54, opisthosoma length 3.0. EYES: AME 0.44, PME–PLE 0.19. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W quite narrow (Figs 21C, 72E). Epigynal field just slightly broader than long (Figs 21C, 72E). Vulva with approximately round and relatively large primary spermathecae (PS), almost touching each other medially (Figs 21D, 76E); secondary spermathecae as such absent, but copulatory duct at initial section strongly curved, slightly widened and laterally in connection with heads of spermathecae (HS), the latter quite conspicuous (Figs 21D, 76E). Copulatory ducts initially with antero-lateral direction and very light and filmy. Main sections of the copulatory ducts (after meeting the HS) narrow and proximally curved, at distal 2/3 slightly curved. Fertilisation ducts narrow, arising antero-centrally on primary spermathecae, bent laterally (Figs 21D, 76E). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 62A), light scale hairs quite densely arranged, especially at clypeus. Legs brown to red-brown, except for coxae and trochanteres and tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 62A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 62A).</p> <p>Remarks. Concerning the female sex the species C. verhaaghi sp. nov. is quite similar to C. argentinensis in general appearance of epigyne/vulva, in having very light and filmy copulatory ducts (CD) [initial section of CD as far as C. argentinensis is concerned, because of lack of secondary spermathecae (SS)!], relatively short connective ducts (main sections of CD, respectively), large primary spermathecae, very small SS (if at all present) with heads of SS arising laterally on the latter. It is possible that C. verhaaghi sp. nov. is closely related to C. argentinensis. It is diffcult to make predictions on possible relationships of C. argentinensis as far as the males are concerned. The male of this species shows quite unique characters (extremely small embolus and embolus base, bulbous tegulum, etc.). The male of C. fimbriata is at least moderately similar to C. argentinensis in having a very small embolus and a quite bulbous tegulum (T), however, T clearly shows a proximal lobe in C. fimbriata. Consequently, a relationship to C. fimbriata can neither be excluded nor unambiguously inferred from that information.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Misiones, Argentina.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFBFC17866ABFCD462D04BF0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFB9C17966ABFCB062814C20.text	03D88781FFB9C17966ABFCB062814C20.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia verhaaghi Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia verhaaghi sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 22 A–C, 62B, 72F, 76F</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: BD7B5694-90EA-4471-9BB3-C7319035A810</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: Ceará: 10 km SW of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-39.366665&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-7.366667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -39.366665/lat -7.366667)">Barbalha</a>, 7°22’S, 39°22’W, 600 m a.s.l., relict area of Caatinga-forest, dry brook, on tree trunk, M. Verhaagh leg. 23 Jan. 1995, SMNK-ARA 13414.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name is a patronym in honour of the collector of the holotype, our dear colleague Manfred Verhaagh, who always shows greatest dedication to tropical ecology and entomology.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the combination of the following characters: anterior margins of epigynal windows (W) not continuous: extended and strongly diverging anterior margins of septum of W ending clearly before meeting the converging anterior sections of lateral margins of W; extremely converging extensions of both lateral margins antero-medially regularly transversely connected (Figs 22A, 72F); septum of epigynal windows narrow (about 1/10 the width of W) (Figs 22A, 72F). Heads of spermathecae more or less round and almost as large as secondary spermathecae (SS); connective duct between primary spermathecae (PS) and SS very narrow, just slightly curved and shorter than diameter of PS (Figs 22B, 76F).</p> <p>Description. Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female: total length 4.2, carapace length 2.0, maximal carapace width 1.5, width of eye rectangle 1.3, opisthosoma length 2.2, opisthosoma width 1.7, fovea length 0.14. EYES: AME 0.44, ALE 0.29, PME 0.07, PLE 0.23, AME–AME 0.02, AME–ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.21, PME–PLE 0.21, ALE–PLE 0.56, PLE–PLE 1.04, clypeus height at AME 0.22, clypeus height at ALE 0.46. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3003, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2004, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.7 [0.6, 0.3, 0.3, 0.5], I 3.1 [1.0, 0.6, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3], II 3.2 [1.1, 0.6, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3], III 3.9 [1.3, 0.6, 0.8, 0.7, 0.5], IV 3.9 [1.2, 0.6, 0.8, 0.8, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4&amp;321 (legs III &amp; IV with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with more or less oval epigynal windows (W) [however, anterior margin of W uncontinuous, with distinct longitudinal gap as extended, extremely converging lateral margins of W are situated clearly further anterior than strongly diverging extended margins of septum of W (SW)]; anterior margins of both W antero-medially connected; SW narrow (Figs 22A, 72F). Epigynal field clearly broader than long (Figs 22A, 72F). Vulva with large and round primary spermathecae (PS), touching each other medially (Figs 22B, 76F); secondary spermathecae (SS) distinctly small (diameter of SS clearly less than 1/4 the diameter of PS), carrying almost round and only slightly smaller heads of spermathecae laterally to slightly postero-laterally (Figs 22 B–C, 76F). Copulatory ducts with antero-lateral direction, very light and filmy, thus difficult to recognise in photographic image (Fig. 76F). Connective ducts very narrow, from posterior to anterior direction diverging, not long and only slightly curved. Fertilisation ducts distinctly narrow, arising antero-centrally on PS, bent and directed laterally (Figs 22 B–C, 76F). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 62B), light scale hairs quite densely arranged, especially at clypeus (however material examined still quite freshly recorded and in good condition). Legs dark red brown, except for coxae, distal sections of tibiae and metatarsi, patellae III–IV and tarsi II–IV being light brown (Fig. 62B). Opisthosoma (unfortunately posteriorly cuticle slightly separated from subcuticle) like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 62B).</p> <p>Remarks. This species is quite similar to C. argentinensis in general appearance of the epigyne and the vulva: very light and filmy copulatory ducts, comparatively short connective ducts and also very small secondary spermathecae (SS) and lacking SS respectively. All this possibly indicates close relationship between these two species.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Ceará, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFB9C17966ABFCB062814C20	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFB8C16466ABFA8061C94FE0.text	03D88781FFB8C16466ABFA8061C94FE0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia luctuosa Caporiacco 1954	<div><p>Corythalia luctuosa Caporiacco, 1954</p> <p>Figs 1A, 4B, 4D, 23 A–E, 24A–C, 58C, 62C, 65D, 68L, 72G, 76G</p> <p>Corythalia luctuosa Caporiacco 1954: 177, figs 66–66a (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ and paralectotype ♂ from FRENCH GUIANA: Saint-Laurent-du Maroni: Charvein, ca. 05°34’N, 53°54’W, about 20 m a.s.l.; R. Benoist leg. 1914–1916, MZLS 655 (lectotype), MNHN [Col. No. unknown] (paralectotype, lost after Ruiz &amp; Brescovit (2008) and after request at MNHN (C. Rollard, pers. comm.), lectotype examined; Ruiz &amp; Brescovit 2008: 491, figs 22–23.</p> <p>Additional material examined. FRENCH GUIANA: St. Laurent du Maroni: Fracas, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-53.412003&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.6006" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -53.412003/lat 4.6006)">La Trinité Nature Reserve</a> (westernmost section), 4°36’2.16”N, 53°24’43.2”W, about 150 m a.s.l., primary forest: 1 ♂, L-2, specimen with smaller opisthosoma &amp; 1 ♀ (sample number: FR-973-00005), C. Courtial, A. Canard, B. Leroy &amp; F. Ysnel leg. Dec. 2010, by beating shrubs &amp; trees, SMNK-ARA 14035; 1 ♂ (L-1, specimen with larger opisthosoma) with exactly the same data as above, GCBUR. BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus: Road AM-010 km 30, Amazônia Ocidental, polyculture plantations: 1 ♀, H. Höfer leg. 06 June 2001, Winkler sample, SMNK-ARA 17126.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) subdistally almost as broad as proximally; E slightly longer than width of tegulum, without special structures and distally blunt (Figs 1A, 23A, 23C, 23E, 65D); diameter of embolus base (EB) circle approximately 2/3 the width of tegulum (T); RTA moderately long (slightly longer than palpal tibia) and with dorsal serration (Figs 1A, 23A, 23C, 23E, 65D). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigyne with main structures of vulva visible through cuticle of the former in the following way: beneath area of anterior margin of epigyne copulatory ducts (CD), secondary spermathecae (SS) and connective ducts (between the two types of spermathecae) (DST) building up loops being reminiscent of the handle of scissors (Figs 24A, 72G); epigynal windows (W) more or less oval with anterior margins uncontinuous (Figs 24A, 72G). Diameter of SS not broader than width of central section of copulatory duct, with head of spermatheca located antero-laterally; primary spermatheca longer than broad and longitudinally drop-shaped (Figs 24B, 76G).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of both other males as range in parentheses): total length 4.7 (5.6–6.0), carapace length 2.3 (2.5–2.6), maximal carapace width 1.7 (1.7–1.9), width of eye rectangle 1.6 (1.7), opisthosoma length 2.2 (2.4–2.7), opisthosoma width 1.5 (1.8–2.0), fovea length 0.28 (0.20). EYES: AME 0.51 (0.53), ALE 0.35 (0.33–0.34), PME 0.08 (0.08–0.09), PLE 0.29 (0.30–0.31), AME–AME 0.03 (0.04– 0.05), AME–ALE 0.06 (0.05), PME–PME 1.34 (1.44–1.45), PME–PLE 0.20 (0.22), ALE–PLE 0.59 (0.66–0.67), PLE–PLE 1.09 (1.14–1.23), clypeus height at AME 0.21 (0.33–0.35), clypeus height at ALE 0.51 (0.52–0.56). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600 (1500, 1500), II–III 1600 (1600, 1600), IV 1600 (0600, 0600{1600}); patella I–II 1000 (1000, 1000), III–IV 1010 (1010, 1010); tibia I 3003 (2003, 2400), II 3003 (2400, 3004{3003}), III–IV 3133 (3133, 3133); metatarsus I 2014 (2014, 2024), II 2024 (2024, 2024), III 3134 (3134, 3134), IV 4144 (3144, 4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0 (1.9) [0.7 (0.7), 0.3 (0.3), 0.3 (0.2), 0.7 (0.7)], I 3.9 (4.2–4.3) [1.3 (1.3–1.4), 0.7 (0.7), 0.8 (0.9–1.0), 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.4 (0.5)], II 4.1 (4.4–4.5) [1.3 (1.4–1.5), 0.7 (0.7), 0.9 (1.0), 0.8 (0.8), 0.4 (0.5)], III 5.4 (5.8–6.0) [1.8 (1.9–2.0), 0.7 (0.8), 1.2 (1.3), 1.2 (1.2–1.3), 0.5 (0.6)], IV 4.7 (5.1) [1.5 (1.6), 0.6 (0.6–0.7), 1.1 (1.1), 1.1 (1.2), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 3421 (3421). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) moderately long, hose-like and arising point at centro-proximal to prolateral section of embolus base (EB) (Figs 1A, 23A, 23C, 23E, 65D); EB circle about 2/3 as broad as tegulum (Figs 1A, 23A, 23C, 23E, 65D). Tegulum (T) slightly narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying almost 3/4 of T from retrolateral (Figs 1A, 23A, 23C, 23E, 65D), retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) may not clearly distinguished from residual tegulum, but still recognisable as such. Cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section truncated (Fig. 23C) or broadly rounded (Figs 1A, 23A, 23E, 65D), in lateral view (Figs 4D, 23B, 23D, 68L) slightly truncated or rounded, at distal 1/4 slightly lighter and with scopula (Figs 4D, 68L). Palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 4D, 23 A–E, 65D, 68L) and ventral tibial bump short to mediumsized and conical. RTA quite narrow, moderately long and dorsally with serration (Figs 1A, 23A, 23E, 65D). CO- LOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58C). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 58C). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 58C).</p> <p>Female: total length 6.7, carapace length 2.8, maximal carapace width 1.9, width of eye rectangle 1.7, opisthosoma length 3.0, opisthosoma width 2.2, fovea length 0.19. EYES: AME 0.55, ALE 0.36, PME 0.09, PLE 0.30, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.53, PME–PLE 0.23, ALE–PLE 0.73, PLE–PLE 1.28, clypeus height at AME 0.33, clypeus height at ALE 0.64. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3004, III 3123, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014 {2004}, II 2014, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0 [0.7, 0.4, 0.3, 0.6], I 4.2 [1.4, 0.7, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5], II 4.1 [1.4, 0.7, 0.8, 0.7, 0.5], III 5.5 [1.8, 0.9, 1.1, 1.2, 0.5], IV 5.0 [1.5, 0.7, 1.1, 1.2, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 3412. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with more or less oval epigynal windows (W), anterior margins of W uncontinuous with distinct gap in longitudinal direction; septum of W moderately broad (Figs 24A, 72G); beneath area of anterior margin of epigyne copulatory ducts (CD), secondary spermathecae (SS) and connective ducts (DST) between primary spermathecae (PS) and SS building up loops reminiscent of the handle of scissors; epigynal field slightly broader than long; PS visible through cuticle of W filling almost entire W (Figs 24A, 72G). Vulva with elongated, approximately drop-shaped PS being distinctly larger than SS. Head of spermatheca directed antero-laterally on SS (Figs 24 B–C, 76G). DST narrow, meeting PS medially to postero-medially (Figs 24B, 76G). Fertilisation ducts arising antero-centrally (slightly shifted antero-medially) on PS, being bent laterally and covering area of copulatory openings (Figs 24 B–C, 76G). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 62C), light scale hairs quite densely arranged, especially at clypeus (however material examined still quite freshly recorded and in good condition). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 62C). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 62C).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. In male L-2 (Fig. 23C) RTA with narrower angle to longitudinal axis of cymbium than in male L-1 (Figs 1A, 23E) and lectotype (Figs 23A, 65D). Additionally, L-2 (Figs 23 C–D) and lectotype (Figs 23 A–B, 65D, 68L) with slightly broader tegulum (in relation to width of cymbium) and slightly shorter palpal tibia (in relation to length of cymbium) than L-1 (Figs 1A, 4D, 23E). Lectotype with arising point of embolus prolaterally (Figs 23A, 65D), in L-1 and L-2 centro-proximally or at most slightly shifted prolaterally (Figs 1A, 23C, 23E).</p> <p>Remarks. In the present study we describe the female of this species for the first time. It was matched with the males because it was found at exactly the same locality (spot) where the males were found. Additionally, its somatic characters and general colouration correspond well to those of the males.</p> <p>Corythalia luctuosa shows a few similarities to C. gasnieri sp. nov. These species share a hose-shaped embolus, a moderately long and serrated RTA and (in part of the specimens) a similar tegulum (bulbous; being almost as broad as cymbium or minimally broader). However, it is difficult to say if these few similarities indicate a closer relationship.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from St. Laurent du Maroni in French Guiana and Cental Amazonia in Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFB8C16466ABFA8061C94FE0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFA5C16766ABF8C065AC4BA8.text	03D88781FFA5C16766ABF8C065AC4BA8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia cincta (Badcock 1932)	<div><p>Corythalia cincta (Badcock, 1932)</p> <p>Figs 25 A–D, 58D, 65E–F, 69A</p> <p>Makthalia cincta Badcock 1932: 45, fig. 37 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Holotype ♂ from PARAGUAY: Departamento Presidente Hayes: Paraguayan Chaco, Makthlawaiya (former <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-58.383335&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-23.5" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -58.383335/lat -23.5)">Anglican Mission Station</a>), ca. 23°30’S, 58°23’W, about 100 m a.s.l., in woods, G.S. Carter leg. 08 Apr. 1927, NHM 1932 ·9·2·45, examined.</p> <p>Corythalia cincta— Mello-Leitão 1939: 84 (transfer from Makthalia).</p> <p>Taeoma barbipes Mello-Leitão 1939: 90, figs 82–83 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). [Holotype ♂ from PARAGUAY: Depar- tamento Presidente Hayes: “ Monte Sociedad ”, today known as Benjamin Aceval, near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-57.6&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-25.016666" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -57.6/lat -25.016666)">Villa Hayes</a>, ca. 25°01’S, 57°36’W, about 80 m a.s.l. Dr Carl Ternetz leg. 1895, NHMB 1217 a, examined]. Syn. nov.</p> <p>Corythalia barbipes— Galiano 1962: 16, figs 1–2 (transfer from Taeoma; description &amp; illustration of ♂); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 203 (description and illustration of ♂).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) retrolaterally at central section with short, pointed apophysis, subdistally at least slightly broadened and tip truncated or with small incision (Figs 25A, 25C, 65 E–F); embolus base (EB) prolaterally not regularly rounded but with several small tooth-like extensions; tegulum very bulbous and broader than cymbium (CY); RTA with relatively large angle to longitundinal axis of cymbium (about 55°, Figs 25A, 25C, 65 E–F).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of holotype first, those of holotype of Taeoma barbipes in parentheses): total length 6.3 (7.7), carapace length 2.9 (3.6), maximal carapace width 2.2 (2.7), width of eye rectangle 1.7 (2.2), opisthosoma length 2.6 (3.2), opisthosoma width 2.1 (2.4), fovea length 0.23 (-). EYES: AME 0.54 (-), ALE 0.35 (0.36), PME 0.10 (0.11), PLE 0.28 (0.31), AME–AME 0.04 (-), AME–ALE 0.07 (-), PME–PME 1.44 (-), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.34), ALE–PLE 0.72 (0.82), PLE–PLE 1.25 (-), clypeus height at AME 0.32 (-), clypeus height at ALE 0.68 (0.74). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II 1500 (1600), III–IV 1600 (1600); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2015 (2015), II 3025 (3015), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I–II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 4144 (4044). MEA- SUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8 (3.0) [0.9 (1.1), 0.4 (0.4), 0.4 (0.4), 1.1 (1.1)], I 4.9 (6.3) [1.6 (2.2), 0.9 (1.1), 1.0 (1.3), 0.9 (1.1), 0.5 (0.6)], II 4.9 (6.3) [1.6 (2.2), 0.9 (1.1), 1.0 (1.3), 0.9 (1.1), 0.5 (0.6)], III 5.7 (7.4) [1.8 (2.4), 0.9 (1.2), 1.2 (1.5), 1.2 (1.6), 0.6 (0.7)], IV 5.8 (7.3) [1.9 (2.4), 0.9 (1.0), 1.1 (1.5), 1.3 (1.7), 0.6 (0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 432&amp;1 (342&amp;1) (leg numbers connected by “&amp;” with exactly the same length). COPULA- TORY ORGAN: embolus base (EB) large, EB circle more than half as broad as tegulum (T) (even though T already very broad and bulbous), located disto-centrally on T with slight shift prolaterally (Figs 25A, 25C, 65 E–F); embolus (E) quite broad and long (slightly longer than width of T) and more or less hose-shaped with some longitudinal ridges (Figs 25A, 25C, 65 E–F). T slightly broader than cymbium; sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying almost retrolateral 3/4 of T; proximal tegulum lobe not very long (covering distal 1/2 of palpal tibia); Cymbium in ventral view in distal section conically converging and at tip broadly rounded (Figs 25A, 25C, 65 E–F). Palpal tibia very short (about 1.4x broader than long, Figs 25 A–D, 65E–F, 69A), ventral tibial bump medium sized and conical. RTA medium-sized (clearly longer than half the width of tegulum, Figs 25A, 25C, 65 E–F), dorsally clearly serrated and with broad angle (about 55°) to longitudinal axis of cymbium. In retrolateral view RTA moderately broad and dorso-distal serration distinct (Figs 25B, 25D, 69A). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58D). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 58D). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central present (Fig. 58D).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Embolus (E) in holotype of Taeoma barbipes (HT-b) (Figs 25C, 65F) in distal section slightly narrower and broadened section subdistally not as distinct as in holotype of C. cincta (HT-c) (Figs 25A, 65E). Moreover, in HT-b (Figs 25C, 65F) tegulum (T) slightly longer, prolateral section of embolus base (EB) with tooth-like extensions more distinct and ventral tibial bump (VTB) with distal direction, in HT-c (Figs 25A, 65E) T slightly shorter, tooth-like extensions on EB less distinct and VTB with prolatero-distal direction. RTA in retrolateral view in HT-b with distinct and long dorso-distal teeth and ventro-distal tip (Fig. 25D), in HT-c teeth and ventro-distal tip shorter and less distinct (Figs 25B, 69A).</p> <p>Remarks. At arrival of the type material of Taeoma barbipes at SMNK (Apr. 2017) an additional specimen, a female, labeled as “Paratypoid” (also with coll. no. 1217a) was found. In the original publication Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 90) only described and illustrated a male. Consequently, this female does not belong to the type series, even though it is possible that it once (before Mello-Leitão’s examinations) was held in the same vial as the male. It is here identified as Corythalia cf. conferta sp. nov.. Hence, the male, that was erroneously labeled “ Lectotype ” (by Lothar H.E.W. Forcart) is the only valid type specimen and has to be regarded as the holotype.</p> <p>There is strong inconsistency in the composition of the two type series of the species Taeoma circumflexa (Mello-Leitão, 1939) with the collection number 1216a and Taeoma barbipes (Mello-Leitão, 1939) [coll.-no. 1217a]. For detailed information on that and for preferred resolution to solve this see remarks under the species description of C. circumflexa.</p> <p>The male holotype of Taeoma barbipes was examined and recognised being conspecific with the male holotype of Makthalia cincta. Both nominal species were later transferred to Corythalia. The synonymy is justified as the male palps, the structures with highest diagnostic significance, correspond exactly in both types of these two nominal species (Figs 25 A–D, 65E–F) (apart from the few slight differences recognised as intraspecific variation, see above). The main somatic characters, of course, also correspond in both type specimens.</p> <p>Corythalia cincta is unique in having a very bulbous tegulum (T), a quite long and strong embolus (E) with several special structures and a RTA strongly diverging from longitudinal axis of cymbium (angle about 55°). In C. scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov. the E is also very long (even longer) and strong, the RTA also quite strongly diverging but the T is clearly narrower, base of E is broader and different and special structures at E are missing. Thus it remains unclear if these two species are closely related but it is possible.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from Departamento Presidente Hayes, Paraguay.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFA5C16766ABF8C065AC4BA8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFA6C16166ABFD0265AC4E28.text	03D88781FFA6C16166ABFD0265AC4E28.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia circumflexa (Mello-Leitao 1939)	<div><p>Corythalia circumflexa (Mello-Leitão, 1939)</p> <p>Figs 26 A–C, 62D, 72H, 76H</p> <p>Taeoma circumflexa Mello-Leitão 1939: 90, fig. 81 (description of subadult ♂ &amp; illustration of ♀). Lectotype ♀ (here desig- nated) from Paraguay: Departamento Presidente Hayes: ”Monte Sociedad”, today known as Benjamin Aceval, near <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-57.6&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-25.016666" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -57.6/lat -25.016666)">Villa Hayes</a>, ca. 25°01’S, 57°36’W, about 80 m a.s.l. Dr Carl Ternetz leg. 1895, NHMB 1216 a-II (ex. NHMB 1200 a); Paralectotype s.a. ♂ (here designated) from Venezuela: Falcon: highly likely Distr. of Acosta, Area between Auraurima and San Juan de Los Cayos, roughly ca. 11°00’N, 68°34’ (+/- 20 km) W, about 90 m a.s.l., Dr Hans Gottfried Kugler leg. 1925–1934, NHMB 1216 a; all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia circumflexa — Galiano 1962: 15 (transfer from Taeoma, description of subadult male). Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: anterior margin of epigynal window (W) (AMW) continuous; postero-medial margins of W with steep increase to antero-medial direction leaving a large and very broad, roughly trapezoid area posteriorly up to the posterior margin of epigyne (Figs 26A, 72H). Vulva with large arch-like structures anteriorly; short copulatory ducts meeting secondary spermathecae (SS) from lateral direction; connective ducts between primary spermathecae (PS) and SS arising from SS at anterior section and running a long transversal section before turning posteriorly to meet PS (Figs 26B, 76H).</p> <p>Description. Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female: total length 9.2, carapace length 4.2, maximal carapace width 3.0, width of eye rectangle 2.3, opisthosoma length 4.3, opisthosoma width 3.2, fovea length 0.31. EYES: AME 0.70, ALE 0.42, PME 0.12, PLE 0.37, AME–AME 0.09, AME–ALE 0.12, PME–PME 2.03, PME–PLE 0.42, ALE–PLE 0.99, PLE–PLE 1.88, clypeus height at AME 0.39, clypeus height at ALE 0.83. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I -, II 3004, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I -, II 2024, III 3134, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.4 [1.2, 0.6, 0.5, 1.1], I - [2.2, 1.3, -, -, -.], II 6.5 [2.2, 1.3, 1.3, 1.1, 0.6], III 7.6 [2.5, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 0.7], IV 8.1 [2.5, 1.3, 1.6, 1.9, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 43??. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with elongated oval epigynal windows with continuous anterior margin; septum also continuous and moderately broad (Figs 26A, 72H); postero-medial margins of W with steep increase to antero-medial direction, distance from posterior margin of W to epigastric furrow quite long (about half the width of W), all this resulting in a large and very broad, roughly trapezoid area posteriorly up to the posterior margin of epigyne (Figs 26A, 72H); epigynal field (EF) surrounding epigyne very narrowly, EF broader than long (Figs 26A, 72H); only about 1/3 of primary spermathecae (PS) visible through cuticle of W, rest of PS visible in the large trapezoid area at posterior section of epigyne (Figs 26A, 72H). Vulva with round PS being distinctly larger than secondary spermathecae. Vulva with large arch-like structures anteriorly (the latter do not seem to have a functional meaning [anymore?] but only enhancing rigidity of the entire copulatory organ); short copulatory ducts meeting secondary spermathecae (SS) from lateral direction (Figs 26 B–C, 76H); head of spermatheca directed posteriorly on secondary spermatheca (SS) (Figs 26 B–C, 76H); connective ducts not distinctly narrow and with one main section running transversally and one running longitudinally after a distinct curve (90°), meeting PS ventro-medially (Figs 26 B–C, 76H). Fertilisation duct arising centro-anteriorly on PS, being bent laterally (Figs 26 B–C, 76H). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 62D). Legs brown to light red-brown, except for some articles being (slightly) lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 62D). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 62D).</p> <p>Remarks. (A) At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2017) the female lectotype was labelled C. cincta (Badcock, 1932) and was in vial NHMB 1200a. It is here transferred to the syntype series of Taeoma circumflexa and subsequently designated as the lectotype of T. circumflexa. For detailed reasoning see remark (C) below!</p> <p>(B) At arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2017) the paralectotype male was the only specimen in the vial NHMB 1216a holding the type series of Taeoma circumflexa. According to the original publication (Mello-Leitão 1939, p. 90, Fig. 81) there should be a female specimen in this type series, too. A female with an epigyne that clearly corresponds to the illustration of the epigyne of T. circumflexa in Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 90, Fig. 81) was found in the vial NHMB 1200a (identified as C. cincta). Consequently, this female is here included in the syntype series of T. circumflexa and subsequently designated as the lectotype. Hence, the subadult male in the present vial is designated as the paralectotype of T. circumflexa. For detailed reasoning see remark (C) below!</p> <p>(C) At the time when the requested material of Corythalia from the NHMB Basel arrived at the SMNK (Apr. 2017) inconsistency in the composition of the two type series of the species Taeoma circumflexa (Mello-Leitão, 1939) with the collection number 1216a and Taeoma barbipes (Mello-Leitão, 1939) [coll.-no. 1217a] was recognised. Note: Taeoma was recognised as junior synonym of Corythalia by Galiano (1962). For both species the original publication listed a different number and/or composition of specimens as were in fact found in the respective vial. The vial of T. circumflexa [1216a; with the data: Venezuela, Falcon Prov., Dr H.G. Kugler leg., deposited 1934] only held one subadult (thus immature) male. In Mello-Leitão (1939, Fig. 81), however, a female is illustrated and also mentioned in the description. In the case of the species T. barbipes according to Mello-Leitão (1939) only a male/ males (the number of males examined by the author does not get clear from the original publication!) should exist, no female(s) was/were mentioned. Nevertheless, the type series was found split into two vials [both with the same collection number 1217a]. The first vial still contained the original label written by C. Ternetz and held an adult male [Paraguay, Monte Sociedad, Dr C. Ternetz leg. 1895]. Note: another label in that vial with the notation “ Lectotypus ” was added by Lothar H.E.W. Forcart (A. Hänggi, pers. comm.). This male exactly corresponds to the illustrations in Mello-Leitão (1939) and Galiano (1962) for the species C. barbipes. The second vial held a relatively small female (body length 5.8 mm) and a label saying “1217a - Paratypoid”, which was certainly also added by Forcart. According to the original publication there is no female mentioned for C. barbipes (see above). In addition, Forcart never published any study treating the genus Corythalia. Consequently, the “ lectotype ” and “ paratype ” designations are definitely void according to the ICZN. As there was only one single male found in the type vial, this male has to be regarded as the holotype of Taeoma (currently Corythalia) barbipes. The inconsistency of both these type series (Taeoma barbipes and T. circumflexa) is certainly caused by the carelessness of Mello-Leitão himself. In his publication he sometimes listed (a) specimen(s) of one sex on top of the paragraph of the species description only with a size measurement and further below he listed (a) specimen(s) of the opposite sex with other descriptive aspects and an illustration: for Evarcha (currently Corythalia) tropica, e.g., he listed a female with the size of 7 mm on top, but below he only described and illustrated a male (the type vial contains only one male)!</p> <p>In addition to these two above mentioned type series a vial with a female identified as C. cincta (Badcock, 1932) by Mello-Leitão with the coll.-no. 1200a was requested and arrived at the SMNK at the same day. It held a relatively large female with the body length of about 9.0 mm [according to the original label: Paraguay, Dr C. Ternetz leg. 1895]. Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 84) listed C. cincta but did neither mention the sex of the specimen he examined nor the locality, where it was found. After our examinations it is now obvious that he once examined this female and the female in the second vial of 1217a (see above). One of them was scheduled for being used as a female syntype of Taeoma circumflexa. Mello- Leitão’s identification of C. cincta was certainly based on the fact that the type locality of C. cincta is only about 185 km north/northwest of Monte Sociedad, where C. Ternetz collected his spider material from Paraguay (in fact, the holotype of C. barbipes, the large female in vial 1200a and with highest likelihood also the female of the second vial of 1217a). Definite identification of females of C. cincta is not possible, because to date this species is only known by males. In the course of the present study the exact correspondence of the epigyne of this large female [1200a] to the illustration in Fig. 81 in Mello-Leitão (1939) for T. circumflexa has been recognised. The size description in Mello-Leitão (1939) for C. circumflexa, however, much more corresponds to a smaller female (most likely that in the extra vial [second vial] of 1217a?).</p> <p>The best way to solve this inconsistency and the only way to avoid taxonomical/nomenclatorial changes is the following:</p> <p>According to the structure of its epigyne the female identified as C. cincta [1200a] by Mello-Leitão is clearly assignable to Fig. 81 in Mello-Leitão (1939) (epigyne of Taeoma circumflexa). Consequently, a definite reference of this specimen to the species name C. circumflexa is given. So this female is here added to the (syn-) type series of C. circumflexa [1216a] and subsequently designated as the lectotype (the subadult male does not show any diagnostic characters to discriminate this species from other Corythalia species anyway). The type locality of the lectotype female of C. circumflexa is thus Monte Sociedad in Paraguay, only the paralectotype locality remains Falcon Province, Venezuela. Hence, it is very unlikely that the subadult male paralectotype and the female lectotype are conspecific. The description of the female of C. circumflexa in Mello-Leitão (1939, p. 90) rather fits to a smaller female (most likely that of the extra vial [second vial] 1217a?). In any case, this insufficient description does only have little descriptive relevance and definitely no valuable diagnostic information and relevance anyway.</p> <p>For organisational reasons the female in 1217a [which should not exist according to Mello-Leitão (1939)] is now transferred to the (meanwhile empty) vial 1200a. It is here identified as Corythalia cf. conferta sp. nov.</p> <p>(D) It is possible (and well imaginable) that with the examination of more material from the above mentioned region in Paraguay the lectotype female of C. circumflexa will turn out as conspecific with C. cincta. The size-dimensions are well corresponding and particularly the type locality is the same as for the holotype of Taeoma (currently Corythalia) barbipes (even though it is also possible that the two specimens were not in the same vial before Mello-Leitão had examined them; however, it is as well possible that Mello-Leitão separated them in the course of examination).</p> <p>(E) C. circumflexa (if indeed an explicit species and not a junior synonym of C. cincta, see remark above) shows characters roughly similar to C. scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov. Similarities: copulatory openings quite far lateral at epigyne, arch-like structures anteriorly in vulva. It is, anyway, difficult to say if these two species are closely related.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from Departamento Presidente Hayes, Paraguay.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFA6C16166ABFD0265AC4E28	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFA3C16C66ABFF6C63E54CE4.text	03D88781FFA3C16C66ABFF6C63E54CE4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia scutellaris Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 27 A–E, 58E, 62F, 65G, 69B, 72I, 76I urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 0A7D9EE9-19AB-4041-88E3-C80C78A9AF31</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂ (M-2), ECUADOR (most likely from one of the provinces Guayas, Los Ríos or El Oro); collected in Hamburg harbour (Germany) with a banana fruit import, G. Schmidt leg., deposited at SMF 07 July 2004, Ref. No. 319, SMF (collection number not yet given). Paratypes: ♂ [M-1], 2 ♀ [F-1–2] with exactly the same data as for holotype, SMF (collection number not yet given).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the prolateral section of the embolus base of the male type specimens of this species (Latin subject “scutella” means “little flat plate” or “little very flat bowl”); (derived) adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) S-shaped, long [longer than width of tegulum (T)] and distally minimally bifurcated (very flat incision recognisable); embolus base (EB) proximo-prolaterally clearly distinguished from prolateral part of T and thus resembling a flat, small plate (Figs 27A, 65G); E in retrolateral view (Figs 27B, 69B) with very broad proximal section (broader than 3/4 the width of T in retrolateral view). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigynal windows (W) large, all functional structures of the vulva visible beneath the cuticle of W; W with gap postero-laterally (Figs 27C, 72I). Vulva anteriorly with arch-like structures; secondary spermathecae (SS) large [longer than and almost as broad as primary spermathecae (PS)] and kidney-shaped; copulatory ducts very short and in dorsal view (at least largely) covered by posterior sections of SS (Figs 27C, 72I).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of holotype first, those of paratype male in parentheses): total length 7.8 (6.8), carapace length 4.3 (3.3), maximal carapace width 3.1 (2.6), width of eye rectangle 2.3 (2.0), opisthosoma length 3.2 (2.9), opisthosoma width 2.3 (2.3), fovea length 0.31 (0.28). EYES: AME 0.75 (0.66), ALE 0.45 (0.38), PME 0.15 (0.12), PLE 0.41 (0.34), AME–AME 0.06 (0.05), AME–ALE 0.08 (0.06), PME–PME 2.04 (1.82), PME–PLE 0.38 (0.34), ALE–PLE 0.95 (0.88), PLE–PLE 1.82 (1.65), clypeus height at AME 0.41 (0.32), clypeus height at ALE 0.94 (0.81). Cheliceral furrow with 2 (one of them even smaller and both very close together) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (1 promarginal tooth &amp; 1 retromarginal tooth in paratype male). SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–IV 1600 (1600); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2005 (2005{2004}) II 3025 (3025), III 3133 (3133), IV 3133 (3133{3134}); metatarsus I 2014 (2014), II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134{4134}), IV 4134 (4134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.7 (3.0) [1.4 (1.1), 0.5 (0.5), 0.4 (0.3), 1.4 (1.1)], I 7.6 (6.3) [2.5 (2.1), 1.4 (1.2), 1.6 (1.3), 1.3 (1.1), 0.8 (0.6)], II 7.8 (6.5) [2.6 (2.2), 1.4 (1.2), 1.6 (1.3), 1.4 (1.2), 0.8 (0.6)], III 9.6 (8.2) [3.0 (2.6), 1.4 (1.2), 2.1 (1.8), 2.2 (1.9), 0.9 (0.7)], IV 9.2 (7.9) [2.8 (2.4), 1.3 (1.2), 2.0 (1.7), 2.3 (2.0), 0.8 (0.6)]. LEG FOR- MULA: 3421 (3421). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite long, S-shaped, with several longitudinal ridges, distal tip minimally bifurcated and distal section with straight distal direction; embolus base (EB) centrally sometimes with (very) flat hump(s) and proximo-prolaterally clearly distinguished from prolateral part of tegulum (T); EB circle conspicuous, clearly broader than 3/4 the width of T (Figs 27A, 65G); T narrower than cymbium and with distinct retrolatero-proximal lobe (PTL), PTL covering slightly more than half the length of palpal tibia; spermduct double stacked S-shaped, filling retrolateral 2/3 of T (Figs 27A, 65G); cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia shorter than broad, ventral apophysis of palpal tibia distinctly developed, roughly conically and distally abruptly converging (Figs 27A, 65G); RTA in ventral view (Figs 27A, 65G) moderately slim and with dorsal serration. The latter much better recognisable in retrolateral view (Figs 27B, 69B); in retrolateral view RTA quite broad (Figs 27B, 69B). COLOURATION (both male types not in very good condition): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58E). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV (Fig. 58E). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevronlike patch in central band, which is inconspicuous and smaller than in many other Corythalia species (Fig. 58E).</p> <p>Female (measurements of both paratypes as range): total length 8.1–8.2, carapace length 3.7–4.4, maximal carapace width 2.7–3.1, width of eye rectangle 2.2–2.4, opisthosoma length 2.8–3.4, opisthosoma width 2.1–2.5, fovea length 0.27–0.28. EYES: AME 0.69–0.75, ALE 0.43–0.47, PME 0.11–0.14, PLE 0.37–0.40, AME–AME 0.05–0.06, AME–ALE 0.07–0.09, PME–PME 1.94–2.14, PME–PLE 0.39–0.42, ALE–PLE 0.87–0.91, PLE–PLE 1.73–1.93, clypeus height at AME 0.33–0.45, clypeus height at ALE 0.71–0.96. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal [including 1 tiny (even smaller than other) additional tooth] and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II–III 1600 (1600), IV 0600 (0600); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2005 (2005), II 3025 (3015), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I–II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 4134 (4134). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.2–3.6 [1.2–1.3, 0.5–0.6, 0.4–0.5, 1.1–1.2], I 6.2–7.1 [2.1–2.3, 1.2–1.4, 1.2–1.4, 1.1–1.3, 0.6–0.7], II 6.3– 7.2 [2.2–2.4, 1.2–1.4, 1.2–1.4, 1.1–1.3, 0.6–0.7], III</p> <p>7.5–8.5 [2.4–2.7, 1.2–1.3, 1.5–1.8, 1.6–1.9, 0.8–0.8], IV 7.8 – 8.9 [2.5–2.8, 1.1–1.2, 1.6–1.9, 1.9–2.2, 0.7–0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 (4321). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigynal windows (W) elongated, with gap postero-laterally and section between gap and anterior half being narrower (meaning antero-lateral margins bulging out laterally); anterior margins of W continuous (Figs 27C, 72I); septum of W continuous and moderately narrow; posterior margin of epigyne reaching beyond epigastric furrow; characterisation of epigynal field not possible as all type specimens must have been preserved in too strong ethanol (&gt; 85%) or must have been fallen dry for a significant time span. Hence, the opisthosomata are all shrunken and were extremely difficult to prepare, meaning only the stronger sclerotised sections of the actual epigyne could be dissected, however, unfortunately not the sections further laterally and anteriorly. Arch-like structures at anterior section of vulva reaching further laterally than remaining structures of vulva; copulatory ducts very short and not or hardly visible in dorsal view, meeting secondary spermathecae (SS) ventro-posteriorly; SS kidney-shaped and with longitudinal orientation; heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly at SS (Figs 27 D–E, 76I); connective ducts (DST) between primary spermathecae (PS) and SS arising medio-anteriorly of SS; DST initially and in proximal 2/3 with diagonal converging direction, the distalmost forth running almost longitudinally, DST meeting PS medially; PS not much broader than SS and definitely not as long as SS; fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly at PS and running laterally (Figs 27 D–E, 76I). COLOURA- TION (both female types not in very good condition): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 62F). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV (Fig. 62F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for chevron-like patch in central band, which is smaller than usually recognised in many Corythalia species (Fig. 62F).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Variation in males not noteworthy except for embolus base (EB) proximo-prolaterally in paratype male even slightly more clearly distinguished from prolateral part of T. Females: antero-lateral margins less clearly bulging out laterally in paratype F-2 (Fig. 72I) than in F-1 (Fig. 27C). Gap between arch-like structures at anterior section of vulva and anterior margins of secondary spermathecae (SS) distinctly broader in paratype female F-1 (Fig. 27D). In paratype F-2 stabilizing structures in the area of copulatory openings recognisable (Fig. 76I, latero-posteriorly of SS), not so in F-1 (Fig. 27D).</p> <p>Remarks. The present new species is in part similar to C. cincta, C. circumflexa and to the species of the C. waleckii species-group (see below). Corythalia cincta shares a quite long and strong embolus with longitudinal ridges and a similar tip and a RTA strongly diverging from longitudinal axis of cymbium (angle about 50–55°). Other structures, however, are different. Females of C. circumflexa are as well in parts similar to C. scutellaris Bayer, sp. nov. in having copulatory openings situated quite far lateral at epigyne and arch-like structures anteriorly in vulva. However, primary and secondary spermathecae are clearly different and connective ducts are clearly shorter. Concerning the structure of the male copulatory organ this new species shares some similarities with male representatives of the C. waleckii species-group: elongated, strong, (at least slightly) S-shaped and distally (at least inconspicuously but always recognisable) bifurcated embolus. On the other hand, the RTA is clearly more diverging from cymbium longitudinal axis and the embolus base is proximo-prolaterally clearly distinguished from the prolateral part of the tegulum. Consequently, a closer relationship between this new species and C. cincta, C. circumflexa and the species belonging to the C. waleckii species-group can neither be inferred from that information nor be excluded.</p> <p>Distribution. (South-eastern part of) Ecuador.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFA3C16C66ABFF6C63E54CE4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFADC16E66ABF9CC636D4F17.text	03D88781FFADC16E66ABF9CC636D4F17.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia dakryodes Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia dakryodes Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 1 D–E, 28A–C, 62E, 73A–B, 77A</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 03E68831-AF2C-4BE2-80CF-130F855A5819</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, COLOMBIA [most likely the locality within Colombia is the following: Departa- mento del Magdalena: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-74.21667&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.983334" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -74.21667/lat 10.983334)">Zona Bananera</a>: S of Ciénaga, roughly 74°13’W, 10°59’N within an area of 30 km southextension and 5 km west- and 5 km east-extension (in the southern section 10 km east-extension), roughly 20–50 m a.s.l.]; collected in Hamburg Harbour (Germany) with banana transportation, G. Schmidt leg. 13 June 1952, G. Schmidt det. as C. dimidiata Simon, deposited 1972, SMF 25804. Paratype ♀ with the same data as holotype, SMF 25804 (put in separate vial in the course of the present study).</p> <p>Additional material. COLOMBIA: Departamento del Magdalena: Santa Marta, Rodadero: 1 ♀, Borys Mal- kin leg. 23–31 May 1968, AMNH-IZC 00327104. ECUADOR: Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas: Santo Domingo de los <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-79.166664&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-0.25" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -79.166664/lat -0.25)">Colorados</a>, about 550 m, ca. 0°15’S, 79°10’W: 1 ♀, W. Weyrauch (with highest likelihood) leg., SMF (col- lection number not yet given).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the tear-like (drop-like) secondary spermathecae of the female holotype (Ancient Greek “dakryodes” means “like tears”, “like drops”); term in apposition.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigynal windows (W) elongated oval; very small gap antero-laterally between lateral margin and anterior margin of W (the latter extremely diverging anteriorly and then running even postero-laterally) (Figs 28A, 73 A–B); secondary spermathecae (SS) elongated drop-shaped (Figs 1D, 28B, 77A); primary spermathecae (PS) as long as broad and not extending beyond posterior margins of epigynal windows; final section of copulatory duct (before meeting SS) running latero-posteriorly; connective ducts at final sections (before meeting PS) with loop-like windings (Figs 1 D–E, 28B–C, 77A).</p> <p>Description. Male unknown.</p> <p>Female (measurements of holotype first, those of paratype in parentheses): total length 8.3 (8.4), carapace length 3.9, maximal carapace width 3.1 (3.2), width of eye rectangle 2.3 (2.4), opisthosoma length 3.6, opisthosoma width 2.4 (2.5), fovea length 0.28 (0.33). EYES: AME 0.66 (0.70), ALE 0.39 (0.40), PME 0.14 (0.11), PLE 0.37 (0.38), AME–AME 0.07 (0.10), AME–ALE 0.12 (0.18), PME–PME 2.10 (2.21), PME–PLE 0.40 (0.44), ALE–PLE 1.05 (1.04), PLE–PLE 1.86 (1.97), clypeus height at AME 0.37 (0.36), clypeus height at ALE 0.88 (0.86). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, III 1500 (1600), IV 0600 (1600); patella I 1000, II 1000 (1000{1010}), III–IV 1010; tibia I 2015, II 3025, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3044 (3134), IV 5054 (4044). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.3 (3.5) [1.4 (1.3), 0.5 (0.6), 0.4 (0.5), 1.0 (1.1)], I 6.2 (6.8) [2.1 (2.2), 1.2 (1.3), 1.3 (1.4), 1.0 (1.2), 0.6 (0.7)], II 6.3 (6.7) [2.1 (2.2), 1.3, 1.2 (1.3), 1.1 (1.2), 0.6 (0.7)], III 7.5 (8.1) [2.3 (2.6), 1.3 (1.4.), 1.4 (1.5), 1.6, 0.9 (1.0)], IV 7.9 (8.3) [2.5, 1.2, 1.6 (1.8), 1.7 (1.8), 0.9 (1.0)]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 (4312). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with oval elongated epigynal windows (W) with very small gap antero-laterally between anterior and lateral margin of W (Figs 28A, 73 A–B); W so to speak with double anterior margin; septum very narrow; epigynal field clearly broader than long, surrounding epigyne just narrowly (Figs 28A, 73 A–B); structures of vulva visible through epigynal cuticle, primary spermathecae (PS) filling more than posterior half of W (Figs 28A, 73 A–B). Vulva with large spherical PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) elongated tear-drop-shaped, with heads of spermathecae located posteriorly (Figs 1 D–E, 28B–C, 77A); connective ducts between both spermathecae running diagonally (with a moderate bent) from antero-lateral to postero-medial, with a small loop-like winding finally, before meeting PS (postero-) medially; copulatory duct with an arcuate course from copulatory opening antero-medially to SS (Figs 1 D–E, 28B–C, 77A); fertilisation ducts arising centro-anteriorly on primary spermathecae, initially running medio-anteriorly, then bent and directed transversal laterally (Figs 1 D–E, 28B–C, 77A). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 62E). Legs quite light yellowish brown to red-brown (Fig. 62E). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, except for anterior transversal band missing, chevron-like patch in central band relatively light red-brown, but recognisable as such (Fig. 62E).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. Female holotype (Figs 28A, 73A) with slightly longer epigynal windows than in paratype (Fig. 73B); posterior half of epigyne in paratype slightly broader than anterior half (Fig. 73B), in holotype anterior and posterior halves equal in width (Figs 28A, 73A). Primary spermathecae in holotype (Figs 28 A–B, 73A, 77A) in relation to the width of epigynal windows slightly larger than in paratype (Figs 1D, 73B). In paratype secondary spermathecae (SS) slightly less elongated and connective ducts subdistally with clearly less distinct loop (Fig. 1D), whereas in holotype SS being more elongated and connective duct finally with conspicuous loop (Figs 28B, 77A).</p> <p>Remarks. The two female types were collected by G. Schmidt 1952 at the harbour in Hamburg. Several years later G. Schmidt identified them as C. dimidiata Simon, 1901. As Schmidt traced the origin of the charge (of banana fruits) as ‘Colombia’, he must have checked the catalogues on spider literature of species known at that time, i.e. Roewer (1954a, b) and Bonnet (1956). In these publications the land/island/region/continent of distribution is listed for each species. Schmidt might have found that C. dimidiata was the only species listed for Colombia except C. electa, which could be excluded from the further identification process because of the different dorsal colouration of the females. Note: at that time the females of C. electa were still misinterpreted; in the present study we found that the female paralectotypes were definitely misidentified, and, in fact, are C. spiralis (see under C. electa below). Corythalia dimidiata, however, is a nomen nudum, which is definitely not identifiable and recognisable (see under ‘ nomina nuda ’ below).</p> <p>The locality in Colombia from where the type specimens originated is most likely within the Zona Bananera south of Ciénaga (see material list above) as by far the most Colombian bananas that are exported abroad are planted in that region.</p> <p>As long as the conspecific male of C. dakryodes Bayer, sp. nov. remains undiscovered, it is difficult to predict possible relationships of this species. The species belonging to the C. waleckii species group (C. waleckii, C. electa, C. tropica, C. fulgipedia, C. longiducta sp. nov. and others) might be closely related as they have the following characters in common: elongated drop- or kidney-shaped secondary spermathecae, quite long connective ducts, more or less round primary spermathecae and elongated epigynal windows. However, in this new species the distal sections of the copulatory ducts are running latero-posteriorly, because of the very far anterior situated copulatory openings. At least this aspect would rather argue against a close relationship with the species of the C. waleckii species group.</p> <p>Distribution. Colombia, Ecuador.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFADC16E66ABF9CC636D4F17	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFAFC16866ABF9AC63E94AA4.text	03D88781FFAFC16866ABF9AC63E94AA4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia sellata Simon 1901	<div><p>Corythalia sellata Simon, 1901, stat. nov.</p> <p>Figs 29 A–B</p> <p>Corythalia sellata Simon 1901: 649, plate with figs 768–777, I &amp; J, which is equivalent to figs 776–777 (illustration of ♂; description missing!), either there was no type kept, as in the arachnid collection of the MNHN no specimen of this species exists (C. Rollard, pers. comm.) or Simon borrowed the specimen from another collection and returned it without any indication that it was a type; thus type not existing or not traceable anymore; Petrunkevitch 1911: 618; Lutz 1915: 104; Roewer 1954b: 1104 (listing with confused page numbers); Bonnet 1956: 1239 (establishment under status nomen nudum, here rejected); Platnick 2001 (nomen nudum); World Spider Catalog (2020) (nomen nudum).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the (slightly) S-shaped embolus (E), the embolus base (EB) located centrally at the distal section of tegulum (T), meaning EB not reaching the prolateral margin of tegulum and RTA with distinct dorsal serration (Fig. 29A; as reproduction of Simon (1901: fig. 777).</p> <p>Description. Male: spination of legs: according to the illustration in Simon (1901, Fig. 776, here reproduced in Fig. 29B), leg III would not exhibit any spines on patella, 8 short spines were laterally on tibia (in Simon (1901: fig. 776) not mentioned if retro- or prolateral view of leg III; spines arranged very close to each other) and 2 long spines laterally on metatarsus. However, it should be considered that Simon might have overseen spines or misinterpreted structures as the material he had once examined might have been in bad condition.</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. (A) The World Spider Catalog (2020) lists this species as a nomen nudum, which probably goes back to the respective assessment of this species in Bonnet (1956). However, this is not correct (or nowadays not longer correct) for the following reasons: the only information on this species is based on two illustrations in Simon (1901, Figs 776–777), reproduced herein (Figs 29 A–B). Assignment of this species to Corythalia as defined herein is highly probable. The palp shows characters that are in concordance with the basic features for Corythalia. The male’s third leg was illustrated from patella on and clearly showed that tibia and metatarsus were covered with long and densely arranged fringe hairs, which is typical for Corythalia males. According to Article § 12.2.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) scientific names proposed before 1931 can be made available without a description in words if there is an ‘indication’. Such an indication can be—among other things—(an) illustration(s) of the taxon being named, which is the case here. Consequently, C. sellata Simon, 1901 is considered an available species name and, moreover, a valid species (species diagnosis according to the illustration of the male palp in Simon [1901] is possible, see above).</p> <p>(B) The World Spider Catalog (2020) currently lists this species name with the incorrect year ‘1903’ as publication date for the first description: this listing goes back to an erroneous indication in the spider catalog of Roewer (1954a, b) on which (among others) the World Spider Catalog is based. Roewer (1954b, page 1104) erroneously confounded the figure numbers with the page number(s), but did not list this species name as a nomen nudum. The correct page number is 649, not 776 &amp; 777. Simon’s work “Histoire Naturelle des Araignees” is an extensive study dealing with all spider families and was published in many parts with different publication dates. Platnick (2001), who established the online resource “World Spider Catalog” must have recognised that in Roewer (1954b) the page numbers 776 &amp; 777 were listed and thus changed the publication date for the species C. sellata to 1903. If the page numbers were true, the treatment (in this case the illustrations) of C. sellata would indeed have belonged to the part which was published in 1903 (Simon 1903; in the World Spider Catalog (2020) sub Simon 1903 a) (where other genera of Salticidae were treated, but not Corythalia !). However, as mentioned above, the page numbers in Roewer (1954b) are based on a confusion. Apparently Platnick (2001) listed C. sellata as nomen nudum because of the listing in the spider catalog of Bonnet (1956, p. 1239). This catalog is also widely distributed and very often cited and therein C. sellata is definitely listed as nomen nudum.</p> <p>(C) Actually, for C. sellata a designation of a neotype would be highly desirable as it is virtually impossible to trace the specimen Simon (1901) once had examined—if it still exists, which is rather unlikely. However, the un- clear locality (see below) of the specimen examined by Simon (1901) and thus the unclear distributional information in general certainly complicate such a designation.</p> <p>(D) The leg spination (see description above)—if correctly observed by Simon, which is highly question-able—would be different from all other Corythalia species examined herein. Some of the 8 lateral spines on tibia might have been artificially observed as they were possibly confused with bunches of fringe hairs or supposed under fringe hairs, but were actually not present. The spines on dorsal and ventral surfaces were either completely missing (overseen by Simon? Or indeed absent?) or (for Simon) indistinguishable from the long fringe hairs on tibia &amp; metatarsus. Additionally, it is unclear if Simon examined this (these) male specimen(s) at his laboratory in Paris. It is also possible, that he was somewhere abroad and did not have access to good optical equipment. These aspects leave great doubts if Simon correctly characterised the spination of leg III.</p> <p>(E) Assumed that the illustration of the male palp in Simon (1901) (reproduced in Fig. 29A) is reliable, C. sellata is similar to the species of the C. waleckii species group (C. waleckii, C. electa, C. metallica, C. fulgipedia, C. foelixi Bayer, sp. nov. and others) (see below) according to the elongated, strong, (at least slightly) S-shaped embolus and the basic shape of tegulum and of RTA. Consequently, it is possible that C. sellata is closely related to these species.</p> <p>Distribution. As Simon (1901) did not mention any dates about collectors or locality of the material he once had examined and also did not provide distributional information on C. sellata, it is hardly possible to infer a possible distribution area. Petrunkevitch (1911) stated Antilles as distribution area, however, this information is not confident! Lutz (1915) doubted this statement as he supposed that Petrunkevitch listed this locality just because in Simon (1901) C. sellata was listed close to Corythalia [originally sub Habrocestum] locuples and C. major, both reported from Hispaniola. But Lutz (1915) did not know about any registered and reliable records of C. sellata from the Antilles, which are, in fact, absent until today.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFAFC16866ABF9AC63E94AA4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFA9C16B66ABFC0C65D34A38.text	03D88781FFA9C16B66ABFC0C65D34A38.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia waleckii (Taczanowski 1871)	<div><p>Corythalia waleckii (Taczanowski, 1871)</p> <p>Figs 30 A–E, 58F, 62G, 65H, 69C, 73C, 77B</p> <p>Attus waleckii Taczanowski 1871: 89 (description of ♂). Syntypes, 2 ♂ from French Guiana: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.583332&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=5.2833333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.583332/lat 5.2833333)">Cayenne</a>: Îles du Salut, ca. 5°17’N, 52°35’W, about 5–50 m a.s.l., Konstanty Roman Jelski leg. 1865–1869, Władysław Taczanowski det., MIZ 225794–225795, examined.</p> <p>Dynamius placatus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 339, pl. XXV, figs 11, 11a–c, pl. XXVI, fig. 2, partim, pl. XXV, figs 11a–c [not fig. 11!] misidentified (figs 11a–c: illustration of ♂ of C. waleckii).</p> <p>Corythalia waleckii— Mello-Leitão 1948: 189 (transfer from Attus to Corythalia).</p> <p>Corythalia walecki— Platnick (2001) (unjustified emendation of the species name).</p> <p>Additional material examined. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Trinidad: Port of Spain: Port of Spain, ca. 10°40’N, 61°30’W, about 50–150 m a.s.l.: 5 ♂ and 1 ♀ paralectotypes of Dynamius blandus (today Corythalia blanda), misidentified, W.E. Broadway leg. 1888–1894, G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Collection No. 651, MCZ 20545- III (ex MCZ 20545); 1 ♂ and 1 ♀ paralectotypes of Dynamius placatus (today Corythalia placata), misidentified, W.E. Broadway leg. 1888–1894, G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Collection No. 658, MCZ 22679- III (ex MCZ 22679). VENEZUELA: Estado Vargas: Macuto, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-66.88333&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.6" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -66.88333/lat 10.6)">Camuri Chico</a>, ca. 10°36’N, 66°53’W, about 130 m a.s.l.: 4 ♂, 1 ♀, likely collected by Padre Cornelius Vogl 1925–1940, ex Collection C.F. Roewer RII/9741 SMF (collection number not yet given); 1 ♀ with the same data, except Padre Cornelius Vogl leg. 1925–1940 (definitely), ex Collection C.F. Roewer RII/10121, SMF (collection number not yet given).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite long [longer than 1.2x width of tegulum (T)], strong, S-shaped and distally (inconspicuously, but recognisable) evenly bifurcated (Figs 30A, 65H); distal section of E directed distally, E (pre-) subdistally widened; embolus base (EB) circle slightly broader than 2/3 the width of T (Figs 30A, 65H). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective duct between primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS) narrow (width &lt;1/5 the diameter of PS,&gt; 1/7) and quite long (&gt; 1.2x diameter of PS, &lt;1.5x); SS with mainly longitudinal orientation, with heads of spermathcae arising posteriorly; copulatory ducts moderately long (shorter than width of SS); width of secondary spermathecae (SS) just slightly more than 1/2 the diameter of primary spermathecae (PS) (Figs 30D, 77B). Lateral margins of epigynal windows (W) mostly not evenly rounded, but with several small gaps (Figs 30C, 73C).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of both syntype males as range first, those of additional males as range parentheses): total length 6.8–7.2 (5.8–6.2), carapace length 3.4–3.7 (2.9–3.6), maximal carapace width 2.6–2.8 (2.2–2.6), width of eye rectangle 2.1–2.1 (1.9–1.9), opisthosoma length 3.2–3.4 (2.5–2.8), opisthosoma width 2.2– 2.5 (2.0–2.2), fovea length 0.27–0.30 (0.23–0.23). EYES: AME 0.66–0.67 (0.55), ALE 0.38–0.39 (0.33), PME 0.10–0.11 (0.11), PLE 0.35–0.35 (0.30), AME–AME 0.04–0.06 (0.04), AME–ALE 0.07–0.08 (0.05), PME–PME 1.77–1.83 (1.67), PME–PLE 0.33–0.34 (0.28), ALE–PLE 0.82–0.86 (0.63), PLE–PLE 1.56–1.62 (1.49), clypeus height at AME 0.30–0.33 (0.26), clypeus height at ALE 0.75–0.75 (0.66). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (in all males). SPINATION (spination patterns of syntypes first, if differing, all states separated by comma; spination patterns of additional males in parentheses): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1600, 1600), II–IV 1600 (1600); patella I 1000 (1000), II 1000 (1010), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2025 (2025), II 3024, 2014 (3015), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I 2024, 2014 (2014), II 2024, 2014 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 3134, 4044 (3144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.0–3.2 (2.7) [1.1–1.2 (1.0), 0.5–0.5 (0.4), 0.3–0.3 (0.2), 1.1–1.2 (1.1)], I 6.3–6.4 (4.8) [2.1–2.2 (1.5), 1.1–1.2 (0.9), 1.3–1.3 (1.0–1.2), 1.1–1.2 (0.9), 0.6–0.6 (0.5)], II 6.5–6.6 (4.7) [2.2–2.2 (1.5), 1.1–1.2 (0.9–1.0), 1.3–1.4 (1.0–1.2), 1.2–1.2 (0.8), 0.6–0.7 (0.5–0.6)], III 7.9–8.0 (6.1) [2.5–2.5 (1.8), 1.3–1.3 (1.1), 1.5–1.5 (1.2), 1.8–1.8 (1.4–1.8), 0.8–0.9 (0.6–0.7)], IV 7.9–7.9 (6.1) [2.3–2.4 (1.7–2.3), 1.2–1.2 (1.1), 1.6–1.7 (1.3–1.7), 1.8–1.9 (1.4–1.6), 0.8–0.9 (0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 3421, 4321 (4321). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite long [longer than 1.2x width of tegulum (T)], moderately broad, Sshaped and distally evenly bifurcated (even though slightly) (Figs 30A, 65H); embolus base (EB) circle more than 2/3 as broad as T; T slightly narrower than cymbium (Figs 30A, 65H); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about retrolateral 3/4 of T; proximal tegulum lobe may distinguished from remaining T-section, may not (if so, T retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending); cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded (even though in male syntypes cymbium distally slightly shrunken); palpal tibia quite short, broader than long (Figs 30 A–B, 65H, 69C) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view conical and distally rounded; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with serration (Figs 30A, 65H), in retrolateral view serration more clearly recognisable (30B, 69C). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58F). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description, except for distal sections of tibiae and metatarsi) (Fig. 58F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 58F).</p> <p>Female (all females as range): total length 7.0–9.6, carapace length 3.5–3.8, maximal carapace width 2.3–2.8, width of eye rectangle 2.0–2.2, opisthosoma length 2.8–5.1, opisthosoma width 1.2–3.7, fovea length 0.22–0.29. EYES: AME 0.63–0.66, ALE 0.39–0.42, PME 0.12–0.16, PLE 0.33–0.37, AME–AME 0.05–0.06,AME–ALE 0.06– 0.09, PME–PME 1.72–1.91, PME–PLE 0.29–0.36, ALE–PLE 0.85–0.93, PLE–PLE 1.51–1.74, clypeus height at AME 0.29–0.40, clypeus height at ALE 0.71–0.84. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns ordered by frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, 1400, II–III 1500, IV 0600, 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005, 2002, 2003, II 2005, 3024, 2002, 1002, III 3133, 2133, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, 2024, II 2024, 2014, III 3134, IV 4134, 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8–3.6 [1.0–1.2, 0.6–0.7, 0.4–0.6, 0.8–1.1], I 5.5–6.5 [1.8–2.1, 1.0–1.3, 1.1–1.3, 1.0–1.1, 0.6–0.7], II 5.4–6.3 [1.8–2.1, 1.0–1.2, 1.1–1.3, 1.0–1.1, 0.5–0.6], III 6.3–7.4 [2.0–2.4, 1.1–1.2, 1.2–1.5, 1.3–1.6, 0.7–0.8], IV 6.6–7.5 [2.1–2.3, 1.0–1.1, 1.4–1.6, 1.4–1.7, 0.7–0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with elongated and more or less oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W very narrow and anteriorly diverging (Figs 30C, 73C); strongly converging lateral margins of W reaching clearly further anteriorly than anteriormost parts of margins of septum; epigynal field slightly broader than long; primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling almost up to proximal 2/3 of W from posterior (Figs 30C, 73C). Vulva with large and round PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) elongated drop-shaped to kidney-shaped with longitudinal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly (Figs 30 D–E, 77B); copulatory ducts moderately long and with antero-lateral direction; connective ducts between SS and PS narrow and almost straight, meeting primary spermathecae medially to anteromedially or ventro-antero-medially; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising centro-anteriorly (slightly shifted medially) on PS, bent laterally (Figs 30 D–E, 77B). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 62G). Legs red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description, except for distal sections of tibiae and metatarsi) (Fig. 62G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present, but sometimes inconspicuous (Fig. 62G).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. In males comparatively low: in many males both processes of the bifurcated embolus tip are slightly longer than in syntype in Figs 30A &amp; 65H. Typical S-shape of embolus is minimally less distinct in several males. Proximal tegulum lobe is recognisable as such in some males but in others tegulum converging broad rounded conically in retrolatero-proximal direction. Females: lateral margins of epigynal windows not always with as many gaps as in female in Fig. 30C, but sometimes only with few gaps (Fig. 73C) or without gaps. Course of copulatory ducts may be (almost) transversal.</p> <p>Remarks. According to the World Spider Catalog (2020), Mello-Leitão (1948) allegedly should have listed this species sub C. walecki (as emendation) and the World Spider Catalog (2020) still lists it under this diction. However, Mello-Leitão (1948) did list this species correctly as C. waleckii. The change to C. walecki by Platnick (2001) is not justified, because ‘Walecki’ is a common polish name and the Latin genitive case is thus ‘ waleckii’.</p> <p>The species C. waleckii seems to be common and widely distributed. Several species exhibit similar basic structures of the male and female copulatory organs. Thus all these species (listed on the following pages) may be combined as the C. waleckii species-group. Males of this species-group share the following characters: (At least moderately) elongated, strong, (at least slightly) S-shaped and distally (at least inconspicuously but always recognisable) bifurcated embolus and the basic shape of tegulum (not distinctly broad or bulbous but also not distinctly elongated). Females have the following basic characters in common: elongated drop- or kidney-shaped secondary spermathecae, quite long and generally narrow connective ducts, more or less round primary spermathecae and (at least slightly) elongated (mostly oval) epigynal windows. In our opinion it is likely that these species sharing similar characters with fine gradual differences are close relatives.</p> <p>Distribution. French Guiana, Guyana [according to Mello-Leitão (1948)], Trinidad, Venezuela.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFA9C16B66ABFC0C65D34A38	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFAAC11466ABFC7865194F84.text	03D88781FFAAC11466ABFC7865194F84.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia tropica (Mello-Leitao 1939)	<div><p>Corythalia tropica (Mello-Leitão, 1939)</p> <p>Figs 31 A–B, 58G, 65I, 69D</p> <p>Evarcha tropica Mello-Leitão 1939: 85, figs 74–75 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Holotype ♂ from Venezuela: Falcon: very likely Distr. of Acosta, area between Auraurima and San Juan de Los Cayos, roughly ca. 11°00’N, 68°34’ (+/- 20 km) W, about 90 m a.s.l., Dr Hans Gottfried Kugler leg. 1925–1934, NHMB 1202 a, examined.</p> <p>Corythalia tropica— Galiano 1962: 16, figs 9–10 (transfer from Evarcha; description &amp; illustration of ♂); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 200 (illustration of ♂).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [at most slightly longer than width of tegulum (T); ≤ 1.1x width of T], strong, just minimally S-shaped and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 31A, 65I); distal section of E directed prolatero-distally, E (pre-) subdistally widened, but only at prolateral section; embolus base (EB) circle broader than 1/2 but (slightly) narrower than 2/3 the width of T (Figs 31A, 65I).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 7.3, carapace length 3.8, maximal carapace width 2.7, width of eye rectangle 2.2, opisthosoma length 3.3, opisthosoma width 2.4, fovea length 0.30. EYES: AME 0.69, ALE 0.46, PME 0.11, PLE 0.40, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.06, PME–PME 1.91, PME–PLE 0.31, ALE–PLE 0.88, PLE–PLE 1.64, clypeus height at AME 0.43, clypeus height at ALE 0.90. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2026, II 3025, III 3133, IV 3134; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8 [1.1, 0.5, 0.3, 0.9], I 6.5 [2.1, 1.1, 1.4, 1.2, 0.7], II 6.6 [2.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.2, 0.7], III 7.9 [2.5, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8, 0.7], IV 7.7 [2.4, 1.0, 1.6, 1.9, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) moderately long (longer than width of tegulum (T), but at most 1.1x), moderately broad, minimally S-shaped and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 31A, 65I); embolus base (EB) circle clearly more than 1/2 but slightly less than 2/3 as broad as T; T somewhat narrower than cymbium (Figs 31A, 65I); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about retrolateral 3/4 of T; proximal tegulum lobe not distinguished from remaining T-section, but T retrolateroproximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia quite short, broader than long (Figs 31 A–B, 65I, 69C) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view conical and distally rounded; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with conspicuous serration (Figs 31A, 65I), in retrolateral view serration also clearly recognisable (Figs 31B, 69C). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58G). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 58G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present but inconspicuous (however, cuticle of opisthosoma already slightly separated from sub-cuticle) (Fig. 58G).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. It is highly probable that the district of Acosta is the type locality of this species as H.G. Kugler, who collected the type specimen, also collected Foraminifera exactly from that region (Cushman &amp; Renz 1941).</p> <p>Corythalia tropica is distinctly similar to C. waleckii. These two species are distinguished by just fine differences that may could be regarded as intraspecific variation. However, as long as there is no additional material of C. tropica available (showing variation encountering the variation spectrum of C. waleckii) we regard the fine differences (see diagnosis above) as specific and thus C. tropica as valid species and not as junior synonym of C. waleckii. Moreover, the female of C. tropica is still unknown so the potential differences in female copulatory organs cannot be considered. According to the distinct similarity, we suppose C. waleckii to be the closest relative of C. tropica.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality Falcon, Venezuela.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFAAC11466ABFC7865194F84	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFD5C11766ABF92C63504D34.text	03D88781FFD5C11766ABF92C63504D34.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia foelixi Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia foelixi Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 3D, 4E, 32 A–E, 58H, 62H, 65J–K, 69E, 73D, 77C urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: ADBAFB12-79CA-4175-9EFD-424797650C1B</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, FRENCH GUIANA: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.0333333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.683334/lat 4.0333333)">Cayenne</a>: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.0333333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.683334/lat 4.0333333)">Nouragues Ecological Research Station</a>: Camp Saut- Pararé (region of Bita), 4°02’N, 52°41’W, about 70 m a.s.l., primary forest, Cyril Courtial leg. 11 Dec. 2013, sample number: FR-973-00200, SMNK-ARA 14033. Paratype: ♂, with the same data as for holotype, except Cyril Courtial, Alain Canard, Boris Leroy &amp; Vincent Vedel leg. 06 Dec. 2013 by hand, sample number FR-973-00365, GCBUR.</p> <p>Additional material examined. FRENCH GUIANA: Cayenne: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.0833335" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.683334/lat 4.0833335)">Nouragues Ecological Research Station</a>: Camp Inselberg (region of Bita), about 150 m a.s.l., 4°05’N, 52°41’W, primary forest: 1 ♀, Cyril Courtial leg. 06 Dec. 2013, by beating shrubs &amp; trees, sample number: FR-973-00266, SMNK-ARA 14034. GUYANA: East Ber-</p> <p>bice-Corentyne: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-57.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=5.7" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -57.5/lat 5.7)">Canje-Ikuruwa River</a>, Forest Savanna, 05°42’N (5.7°), 57°30’W (-57.5°), about 25 m a.s.l.: 1 ♀, George Bentley leg. Aug.–Dec. 1961, AMNH-IZC 00327077.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name is a patronym in honour of Dr Rainer Foelix, well known arachologist, who achieved numerous new insights in functional morphological and physiological aspects in arachnological research. He is always willing to support colleagues and friends in the field of arachnology; term (name) in genitive case.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) long [at least 1.1–1.15x longer than width of tegulum (T)], strong, clearly S-shaped and distally not typically bifurcated, but rather with broad conical prolateral extension and clearly longer slightly curved and light retrolateral extension (Figs 32A, 65 J–K); distal section of E directed distally, embolus base (EB) circle 2/3 (or slightly more) the width of T (Figs 32A, 65 J–K).</p> <p>Females (if indeed conspecific with male types, see remark below) distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective ducts between primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS) narrow (width &lt;1/5 the diameter of PS,&gt; 1/7), quite long (&gt; 1.2x diameter of PS, &lt;1.5x), hardly curved and from posterior to anterior direction clearly diverging with a broad V-shape; SS with mainly longitudinal orientation, with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly; copulatory ducts (CD) quite long (longer than width of SS), final section of CD (before meeting SS) running latero-posteriorly (Figs 32 D–E, 77C); SS very broad, almost 3/4 the diameter of primary spermathecae (PS) (Figs 32 D–E, 77C). Lateral margins of epigynal windows (W) with large and distinct gap (Figs 32C, 73D).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of holotype first, those of paratype in parentheses): total length 6.8 (6.6), carapace length 3.4 (3.3), maximal carapace width 2.4 (2.3), width of eye rectangle 1.9 (1.9) opisthosoma length 3.0 (2.9), opisthosoma width 2.2 (2.1), fovea length 0.24 (0.25). EYES: AME 0.68 (0.65), ALE 0.39 (0.39), PME 0.12 (0.11), PLE 0.34 (0.33), AME–AME 0.05 (0.05), AME–ALE 0.09 (0.09), PME–PME 1.64 (1.61), PME–PLE 0.32 (0.31), ALE–PLE 0.83 (0.82), PLE–PLE 1.43 (1.41), clypeus height at AME 0.26 (0.25), clypeus height at ALE 0.69 (0.68). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II–IV 1600 (1600); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 2015 (2013{2014}), II 2015 (2024), III–IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I–II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 3144 (-). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.9 (2.7) [1.1 (1.0), 0.5 (0.4), 0.3 (0.3), 1.0 (1.0)], I 6.0 (5.6) [2.0 (1.9), 1.1 (1.0), 1.2 (1.1), 1.1 (1.0), 0.6 (0.6)], II 5.9 (5.8) [2.0 (1.9), 1.1 (1.1), 1.2 (1.1), 1.1 (1.1), 0.5 (0.6)], III 7.0 (6.8) [2.2 (2.2), 1.1 (1.1), 1.4 (1.3), 1.6 (1.5), 0.7 (0.7)], IV 7.2 (-) [2.2 (2.1), 1.0 (1.0), 1.5 (1.4), 1.8 (-), 0.7 (-)]. LEG FORMULA: 4312 (-). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) long (longer than 1.1x the width of tegulum (T), but at most 1.15x), moderately broad, clearly S-shaped and distally not typically bifurcated, but rather with broad conical prolateral extension and clearly longer, slightly curved and light retrolateral extension (Figs 32A, 65 J–K); embolus base (EB) circle 2/3 (or slightly more) the width of T; T as broad or at least almost as broad as cymbium (Figs 32A, 65 J–K); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about retrolateral 3/4 of T; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, distinguished from remaining T-section; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section broad rounded; palpal tibia very short, clearly broader than long (Figs 32 A–B, 65J–K, 69E) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite large and conspicuous, conical and distally rounded; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with conspicuous serration (Figs 32A, 65 J–K), in retrolateral view serration also clearly recognisable (Figs 32B, 69E). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58H). Legs dark brown to dark red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 58H). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present but sometimes inconspicuous (Fig. 58H).</p> <p>Female: total length 8.4, carapace length 3.6, maximal carapace width 2.6, width of eye rectangle 2.1, opisthosoma length 3.7, opisthosoma width 2.4, fovea length 0.32. EYES: AME 0.64, ALE 0.41, PME 0.10, PLE 0.36, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.85, PME–PLE 0.37, ALE–PLE 0.91, PLE–PLE 1.62, clypeus height at AME 0.30, clypeus height at ALE 0.78. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–III 1500, IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3014{2004}, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.2 [1.2, 0.6, 0.5, 0.9], I 6.0 [1.9, 1.1, 1.2, 1.1, 0.7], II 5.8 [1.9, 1.1, 1.1, 1.1, 0.6], III 6.8 [2.2, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 0.8], IV 7.3 [2.3, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with more or less oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W narrow and anteriorly extremely diverging and leading into anterior margins of W (Figs 32C, 73D); lateral margins of W with large and distinct gap, only initial posterior and initial anterior sec- tions recognisable (however, fine borders of dark-light-colouration-differences and well recognisable lateral margin of [entire] epigyne give impression of a regular lateral margin of W); epigynal field broader than long; primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling slightly more than proximal 1/2 of W from posterior (Figs 32C, 73D). Vulva with quite large and round PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) drop-shaped, but very broad, SS with longitudinal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly (Figs 32 D–E, 77C); copulatory ducts quite long and with anterior direction initially, then turning laterally and at final section, before meeting SS with postero-lateral direction; connective ducts between SS and PS narrow, more or less straight and from posterior to anterior direction clearly diverging with a broad v-shape, meeting primary spermathecae antero-medially; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising centro-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally (Figs 32 D–E, 77C). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 62H). Legs red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description, except for distal sections of tibiae and metatarsi; additionally proximal sections of femora lighter) (Fig. 62H). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevronlike patch in central band present, but sometimes inconspicuous (Fig. 62H).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. In holotype male tegulum slightly more elongated and retrolatero-proximal tegulum lobe (Figs 32A, 65J) more distinctly developed than in the paratype male (Fig. 65K). Additionally, angle between cymbium longitudinal axis and RTA in ventral view slightly larger in holotype than in paratype.</p> <p>Remarks. Conspecificity of the female specimens with the male type specimens is not for 100% certain. The recorded locality (camp Inselberg) of the female from French Guiana is about 7 km away from camp Saut-Pararé, where the male type specimens where found. Conspecificity of that female with the male type specimens is thus not 100% certain, but, anyway quite likely because of the near distance. Additionally, all somatic characters and the size-dimensions correspond well to each other, consequently, the female from French Guiana is matched with the male types. The second female from Guyana corresponds to the female from French Guiana in all characters.</p> <p>According to the typical basic characters shared with the other representatives of the C. waleckii species group this new species is highly likely closely related to these species.</p> <p>Distribution. French Guiana, Guyana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFD5C11766ABF92C63504D34	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFD6C11366ABFB8E62A94DE8.text	03D88781FFD6C11366ABFB8E62A94DE8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia fulgipedia Crane 1948	<div><p>Corythalia fulgipedia Crane, 1948, stat. nov.</p> <p>Figs 1C, 33 A–E, 34A–C, 58I, 62I, 65L, 69F, 73E–F, 77D–E</p> <p>Corythalia fulgipedia Crane 1948: 22, figs 9C–D, 10C–D (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Holotype ♂ from Venezuela: State of Aragua: near Maracay: roadside between Guamitas and Rancho Grande, ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 900 m, deciduous seasonal forest, leg. 30 June 1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe, Cat. No. 461193 Collections of the Department of Tropical Research, New York, today possibly AMNH. Paratype (1 ♀) with exactly the same data as for holotype, Cat No. 461184 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY, today possibly at AMNH; all type material could currently not be found by the curators of the AMNH (however, must not inevitably be lost), thus not examined, however, additional material of C. fulgipedia, once examined by Crane, was available and could be examined, see below; Galiano 1962: 16 (proposing synonymy with C. tropica; here rejected!).</p> <p>Material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Rancho Grande</a> (within a radius of 2 km), ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 900 m, deciduous seasonal forest: 2 ♂, leg. 10–17 Aug. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327814-1– 2; 1 ♂, leg. 24 July 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327822-1; 1 ♂, leg. 02 Sep. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327927; 1 ♂, reared, died July 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327930; 1 ♂, “measured”, leg. Sep. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327931; 1 ♀, measured, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327811; 1 ♀, measured, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327836; 1 ♀, leg. 12 July 1946, AMNH- IZC 00327926; 1 ♀, leg. early Aug. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327943; 1 ♀, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326918-F-7 (only epigyne left) [ex AMNH-IZC 00326918; with highest likelihood the specimen used as template for the illustrations in Figs 10 C–D in Crane (1948)] (all leg. 1945–1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; all 11 specimens from Venezuela with Cat No. 461201 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY). BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus, NW of Manaus, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-60.172497&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-3.014" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -60.172497/lat -3.014)">Igapó Tarumã-Mirim</a>, 03°00’50.4”S, 60°10’20.99”W,: 1 ♀, H. Höfer leg. 11 June 1987, by beating vegetation, INPA. FRENCH GUIANA: Cayenne: Cayenne, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.416668&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.7166667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.416668/lat 4.7166667)">Montagnes des Chevaux</a>, 17 m a.s.l., ca. 04°43’N, 52°25’W, forest: 1 ♀, Vincent Vedel leg. 09 Nov. 2010, sample number: FR-973-00337, GCBUR.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long (somewhat longer than width of tegulum (T),&gt;1.1x &lt;1.2x), moderately strong (width of E at central section about 2/3 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 33A, 65L), if at all, minimally S-shaped, with widened section retrolaterally at distal half (however sometimes only inconspicuous) and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 33A, 65L); distal section of E directed prolaterodistally; embolus base (EB) circle broad (3/4 the width of T, Figs 33A, 65L). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective ducts between primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS) narrow to extremely narrow (width between 1/10 and 1/5 the diameter of PS), very long (slightly more than 2x diameter of PS); SS with mainly longitudinal orientation, with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly; copulatory ducts (CD) moderately long (about as long as width of SS), final section of CD (before meeting SS) running transversal laterally (Figs 33 D–E, 34B–C, 77D–E); SS quite broad, (almost) 2/3 the diameter of primary spermathecae (PS) (Figs 33D, 34B, 77 D–E).</p> <p>Description. Male (all males examined as range): total length 4.6–6.1, carapace length 2.8–3.6, maximal carapace width 2.6–2.9, width of eye rectangle 2.0–2.2, opisthosoma length 3.1–3.6, opisthosoma width 2.2–2.7, fovea length 0.19–0.30. EYES: AME 0.55–0.66, ALE 0.33–0.39, PME 0.09–0.11, PLE 0.28–0.34, AME–AME 0.04–0.05, AME–ALE 0.06–0.07, PME–PME 1.75–1.84, PME–PLE 0.30–0.36, ALE–PLE 0.80–0.87, PLE–PLE 1.53–1.65, clypeus height at AME 0.30–0.34, clypeus height at ALE 0.74–0.77. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spinations patterns of the specimens listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, 1600, II–IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 2015, II 3015, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III–IV 3134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.8–2.2 [1.0–1.1, 0.5–0.6, 0.3–0.4, 1.0– 1.1], I 5.7–6.6 [1.9–2.2, 1.1–1.2, 1.2–1.4, 1.0–1.2, 0.5–0.6], II 5.7–6.6 [1.9–2.2, 1.1–1.2, 1.2–1.4, 1.0–1.2, 0.5–0.6], III 6.5–7.8 [2.3–2.5, 1.1–1.2, 1.3–1.6, 1.4–1.7, 0.7–0.8], IV 6.7–7.9 [2.2–2.5, 1.0–1.1, 1.3–1.7, 1.5–1.8, 0.7–0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 432&amp;1 (&amp;: legs with exactly the same size). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) moderately long [somewhat longer than width of tegulum (T),&gt; 1.1x &lt;1.2x) (T)], moderately wide (width of E at central section about 2/3 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 33A, 65L), if at all, minimally S-shaped, with widened section retrolaterally at distal half (however, sometimes only inconspicuous) and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 33A, 65L); embolus base (EB) circle broad (3/4 the width of T); T relatively massive and broad, but often still slightly narrower than cymbium (Figs 33A, 65L); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than retrolateral 3/4 of T; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, may distinguished from remaining T-section, may T retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section broad rounded; palpal tibia very short, clearly broader than long (Figs 33 A–B, 65L, 69F) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite large and conspicuous, conical and distally rounded; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with serration (Figs 33A, 65L), in retrolateral view serration hardly recognisable (Figs 33B, 69F). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 58I). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being slightly lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 58I). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 58I).</p> <p>Female (measurements of all females as range): total length 6.8–10.2, carapace length 3.2–4.0, maximal carapace width 2.2–2.9, width of eye rectangle 1.6–1.9, opisthosoma length 3.3–5.4, opisthosoma width 2.2–4.2, fovea length 0.24–0.31. EYES: AME 0.58–0.68, ALE 0.33–0.43, PME 0.10–0.12, PLE 0.32–0.38, AME–AME 0.04–0.06, AME–ALE 0.05–0.09, PME–PME 1.48–1.76, PME–PLE 0.33–0.44, ALE–PLE 0.80–0.91, PLE–PLE 1.44–1.88, clypeus height at AME 0.26–0.37, clypeus height at ALE 0.71–0.79. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns, if varying among the specimens, listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, 1500, III 1500, 1600, IV 0600, 0500, 0900; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2014, 2004, 2003, II 2014, 3014, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, 2024, 2004, 2003, II 2024, 3014, III 3134, IV 3144, 4044, 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4–3.1 [0.8–1.1, 0.5–0.6, 0.3–0.5, 0.8–1.0], I 5.3–6.1 [1.7–2.0, 1.0–1.2, 1.1–1.2, 0.9–1.1, 0.5–0.7], II 5.2–6.0 [1.7–2.0, 1.0–1.1, 1.0–1.2, 0.9–1.1, 0.5–0.6], III 6.2–7.3 [2.0–2.4, 1.0–1.2, 1.2–1.5, 1.3–1.6, 0.7–0.8], IV 6.4–7.7 [2.0–2.4, 1.0–1.2, 1.3–1.6, 1.4–1.7, 0.7–0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 4312, 4321. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with elongated and oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W narrow and anteriorly diverging (Figs 1C, 33C, 34A, 73 E–F); strongly converging lateral margins of W reaching clearly further anteriorly than anteriormost parts of septum, the former often reaching each other medially or even being connected to each other; epigynal field broader than long; primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior (sometimes, however, with gap between posterior margin of PS and posterior margin of W (Figs 33C, 73 E–F). Vulva with round PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) elongated drop-shaped to kidney-shaped with mainly longitudinal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly (Figs 33 D–E, 34B–C, 77D–E); copulatory ducts moderately long and with transversal lateral direction; connective ducts between SS and PS narrow and long and meeting primary spermathecae antero-medially; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising centro-anteriorly (slightly shifted medially) on PS, bent laterally (Figs 33 D–E, 34B–C, 77D–E). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 62I). Legs red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 62I). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present, however, sometimes, but rarely, inconspicuous (Fig. 62I).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. In males low: in few specimens the embolus (E) is slightly longer (Fig. 65L) than in others (Fig. 33A) or the retrolateral process of bifurcated tip of E is clearly longer and larger than prolateral process (Fig. 65L). Females: lateral margins of epigynal windows inconsistent and with small gaps in some females (Figs 34A, 73E), regularly rounded and without gaps in others (Figs 1C, 33C, 73F). Additionally, in few females entire epigyne broader than usually (Fig. 73E). Connective ducts (DST) between secondary (SS) and primary spermathecae (PS) in some specimens slightly longer (Fig. 34B) than usually (Figs 33D, 77 D–E) and SS in some specimens broader (Fig. 77E) than in others. DST in few females clearly stronger diverging from posterior to anterior direction (Fig. 77D).</p> <p>Remarks. This species is, like C. waleckii, widespread over the northern part of South America. It was synonymised with C. tropica by Galiano (1962). There is no indiaction that Galiano once did re-examine the type material of C. fulgipedia or other material examined by Crane (1948). For the present study a lot of material from the Crane (1948) study was re-examined. We recognised several fine, but specific differences in the males of C. fulgipedia in comparison to those of C. waleckii or C. tropica, thus we do not follow the opinion of Galiano (1962). The same concerns the copulatory organs of the females (of C. waleckii; remark: those of C. tropica are still unknown). With the present study based on many specimens well documented by several illustrations and statements on intraspecific variation, we could prove that C. fulgipedia is a valid species. It is more similar to C. waleckii than to C. tropica. But even C. waleckii, being stunningly similar to C. tropica, can be distinguished from the latter by fine differences (see both diagnosis in the present study). Galiano (1962) seemingly had not examined the details of embolus morphology. She possibly thought that a bifurcated embolus tip might be a unique character exhibited by only one species in the genus Corythalia.</p> <p>It is difficult to evaluate which species also belonging to the C. waleckii species-group might be the closest relative of C. fulgipedia. Fact is, that the following three species, C. electa, C. chalcea and C. metallica are similar in having an embolus that is hardly S-shaped. As far as the females are concerned, C. waleckii is very similar (from C. electa and C. metallica the females are still unknown).</p> <p>As mentioned above, the types (holotype male and paratype female) could not be found at the arachnid collection of the AMNH, where actually all Crane-material should have been transferred since the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society no longer existed or its collections no longer existed, respectively. That same problem concerns the two other Corythalia species firstly described by Crane (1948), C. chalcea and C. xanthopa (see below). We also contacted curators of other American natural history museums, e.g. USNM, PMNH or MCZ, if (parts of) the Crane material ended up there, but not one responsible curator could find material belonging to the Crane collection in their collections. So, we guess that the type material, if still existing, might still be at the AMNH, but located in/among parts of the (Crane-) collection, where nobody would expect it. Additional material of C. fulgipedia (remark: as well as additional material of C. chalcea and C. xanthopa) from the type locality, Rancho Grande, examined by Crane (see above), was kindly sent to us on loan by the colleagues of the AMNH. This material was once not well organised by J. Crane (and/or collaborators?): sometimes structures of two different or even all three different Corythalia species (described by Crane 1948), e.g. epigynes or chelicerae, were put together in one vial with dubious notes to discriminate them. Moreover, in several cases vials were not precisely labelled. In a few cases specimens were misidentified: one male among the material of C. fulgipedia could here be identified as C. blanda (see respective species description below). Additionally, we found one vial with a small male with a (field-?/ sample-?) number P16, which was not mentioned in the publication, within a jar containing many specimens of C. xanthopa. This male specimen was labeled as “ holotype ”, but no label with a species name was added. After examination we could identify it as Corythalia cf. placata Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901 (see respective species description above). All this carelessness of J. Crane (and/or collaborators?) might be a reason why the types currently cannot be found, they might even be among the material examined here, but not labelled as types. We would strongly appreciate if the types were found in the future and could be re-examined, but for the moment, we think it is a good compromise that the additional specimens from the type locality (Rancho Grande) that were determinated by J. Crane herself, were re-examined and treated thoroughly. Some of these specimens had even been used as samples/templates for illustrations or measurements in Crane (1948). Needless to say that all the specimens (except for the few misidentified specimens, see above) examined for the present study exactly corresponded to the according illustration of the male palp or the female epigyne/vulva in Crane (1948) of C. fulgipedia.</p> <p>Distribution. Venezuela, Brazilian Amazonia, French Guiana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFD6C11366ABFB8E62A94DE8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFD2C11D66ABFAC865804F2C.text	03D88781FFD2C11D66ABFAC865804F2C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia electa (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia electa (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 35 A–B, 59A, 66A, 69G</p> <p>Escambia electa Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 336, pl. 26, figs 11, 11a–c (description &amp; illustration of ♂ and ♀), partim, figs 11 and fig. 11a misidentified (= C. spiralis), (figs 11b–c: description &amp; illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from New Grenada, today: Colombia or Panama (less likely); G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 655, MCZ 21175: herein designated Paralectotypes: 2 ♀ (misidentified, identified by us as C. spiralis; individual numbers: F-7: female with 7 legs, F-2: only 2 legs) with the same data as for lectotype, MCZ 21175; all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia electa — Petrunkevitch 1911: 616 (transfer from Escambia to Corythalia); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 191 (illustra- tion of ♂); Zhang &amp; Maddison 2015: 44, figs 27–33, 649 (illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀, misidentified, = most likely an undescribed Corythalia species).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species, except C. chalcea, by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [at most as long as width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 35A, 66A), if at all, minimally S-shaped, without widened section(s) at distal half and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 35A, 66A); distal section of E directed prolatero-distally; embolus base (EB) circle just moderately broad (still narrower than 2/3 the width of T, Figs 35A, 66A). Distinguished from C. chalcea by: E slightly longer (its length almost the width of T; in C. chalcea E shorter than width of T) and tip of E more clearly bifurcated; ventral tibial bump slightly larger and further prolaterally at distal section of palpal tibia.</p> <p>Description. Male (lectotype): total length 6.6, carapace length 3.0, maximal carapace width 2.3, width of eye rectangle 1.7, opisthosoma length 3.1, opisthosoma width 2.1, fovea length 0.28. EYES: AME 0.55, ALE 0.34, PME 0.11, PLE 0.32, AME–AME 0.01, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.46, PME–PLE 0.29, ALE–PLE 0.69, PLE– PLE 1.19, clypeus height at AME 0.13, clypeus height at ALE 0.68. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005, II 3024, III 3134, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014 {2024}, II 2024, III 3034, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4 [0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.8], I 5.5 [1.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.5 [1.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.0, 0.6], III 6.8 [2.2, 1.0, 1.4, 1.5, 0.7], IV 6.7 [2.0, 0.9, 1.4, 1.6, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 342&amp;1 (legs I &amp; II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) moderately long [at most as long as width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section &lt;1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), if at all, minimally S-shaped and distally clearly and evenly bifurcated (Figs 35A, 66A); embolus base (EB) circle broader than 1/2 but less than 2/3 the width of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 35A, 66A); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, clearly distinguished from remaining T-section; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia not distinctly short, slightly longer than broad (Figs 35 A–B, 66A, 69G) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite conspicuous, conical, distally rounded and located prolatero-distally at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, with retrolaterodistal direction and dorsally with (slight) serration (Figs 35A, 66A), in retrolateral view serration also just slightly recognisable and RTA distally converging (Figs 35B, 69G). COLOURATION (male holotype strongly bleached, especially opisthosoma, thus colouration difficult to infer): see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown (Fig. 59A). Legs brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 59A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, no statement possible about chevron-like patch in central band (Fig. 59A).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. As mentioned above the two female paralectotypes of Escambia electa are not conspecific with the male lectotype. After the examination of C. spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901) material from a certain locality in Brazil, where males and females were found together, we were able to definitely assign a female form of Corythalia to the male C. spiralis (see also species description of C. spiralis below). The female types of E. electa correspond exactly to this form, meaning these females could be definitely identified as C. spiralis. As the latter species shows a totally different basic structure in male and female copulatory organs, it is obvious that C. electa (the male lectotype can clearly be recognised as representative of the C. waleckii species-group) and C. spiralis belong to completely different species-groups. The female paralectotypes of E. electa clearly show the basic characters that are typical for the C. opima species-group (including also C. spiralis; characteristics of this species-group, see below under species description of C. opima). Hence, even though it would not have been possible to definitely identify the female paralectotypes (for example: assumed, they were belonging to an undescribed species slightly different from C. spiralis and C. opima but would, anyway, clearly show the basic characters of the C. opima group), it would have been obvious for reasons of interfering character states of two different species groups in one and the same type series. The following two previous publications already would have given rise to doubts that the type series of E. electa was monotypic: Crane (1948) had examined lots of males and females of C. fulgipedia and C. chalcea, all recorded at the same locality in Venezuela. Both species belonging to the C. waleckii species-group. The males of these species are strikingly similar to C. electa. The females, however, show the basic characters typical for those of the C. waleckii species-group which are strikingly different to those of the C. opima species-group shared by the female paralectotypes of Escambia electa. Chickering (1946) was the first who described and illustrated females of C. spiralis. His illustrations of the female epigyne and vulva (Chickering 1946, Figs 143–144) clearly show the basic characters of the C. opima species-group. The characters are also shared by the female paralectotypes of E. electa (which are meanwhile definitely identified as C. spiralis, see above). The males of C. spiralis, however, are distinctly different from the male lectotype of C. electa by having a much longer and slimmer RTA, elongated tegulum and a helical embolus with at least 1.3 windings around embolus base, which is typical for the C. opima species-group (see below).</p> <p>As mentioned in the remark above C. electa is clearly assignable to the C. waleckii species-group. Consequently, it is very likely that the other species of that species-group are close relatives of C. electa. Especially C. chalcea is strikingly similar to C. electa in having a relatively narrow and only moderately long embolus, a moderately broad embolus base and a sperm duct occupying at most the retrolateral 2/3 of the tegulum with its loops. We would not exclude that C. chalcea is actually a junior synonym of C. electa. However, without further material of C. electa available we, for now, consider the very fine differences in palp morphology (see above) (that might as well could be regarded as intraspecific variation by other authors) diagnostic and thus specific. Consequently, for now, we consider C. chalcea a valid species.</p> <p>Zhang &amp; Maddison (2015: 44, Figs 27–33, 649) showed illustrations of males and females they had identified as C. electa (material originated from Ecuador). After comparison with the male lectotype of C. electa it becomes obvious that they had misidentified their material. It is highly likely that they actually dealt with a species not yet described and named. For us the male and female copulatory organs shown in their figures are not assignable to any currently described Corythalia species.</p> <p>Distribution. Known from an unspecified locality in Colombia (or less likely Panama?).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFD2C11D66ABFAC865804F2C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFDCC11866ABF97462564E70.text	03D88781FFDCC11866ABF97462564E70.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia chalcea Crane 1948	<div><p>Corythalia chalcea Crane, 1948</p> <p>Figs 36 A–E, 59B, 63A, 66B–C, 69H, 73G, 77F</p> <p>Corythalia chalcea Crane 1948: 14, figs 9A–B, 10A–B (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Holotype ♂ from Venezuela: State of Aragua: near Maracay: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Rancho Grande</a>, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Portachuelo</a>, ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1200 m, cloud forest, leg. 10 May 1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical</a> research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe, Cat. No. 461191 Collections of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical Research</a>, New York, today possibly AMNH. Paratype (1 ♀) with the same data as for holotype, except leg. 23 May 1946, Cat No. 461192 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY, today possibly at AMNH; all type material could currently not be found by the curators of the AMNH (however, must not inevitably be lost), thus not examined, however, additional material of C. chalcea, once examined by Crane, was available and could be examined, see below.</p> <p>Material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande, all taken within a radius of 1/ 2 kilometer of Rancho Grande, ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1200 m, cloud forest: 1 ♂, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327853; 1 ♂, leg. 10 June 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327893; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, leg. 1945, “used for drawings, epigynum dissected”, AMNH-IZC 00327895; 3 ♂, leg. 1945, AMNH-IZC 00327910-1–3; 3 ♀, “only female epigynes; C. fulgipedia (single, large) and C. chalcea (several, small) (“crescent”&amp; “bronze”)”, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326918- 1–3; 1 ♀, “measured”, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327835; 1 ♀, leg. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327847; 1 ♀, leg. 12 June 1946, reared, died 28 July 1946, AMNH-IZC 00327862; 1 ♀, “measured”, leg. July 1945, AMNH-IZC 00327866; 1 ♀, leg. 1945, AMNH-IZC 00327896 (all leg. 1945–1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; all specimens with Cat No. 461200 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species, except C. electa, by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [at most as long as width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 36A, 66 B–C), if at all, minimally S-shaped, without widened section(s) at distal half and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 36A, 66 B–C); distal section of E directed prolatero-distally; embolus base (EB) circle just moderately broad (still narrower than 2/3 the width of T, Figs 36A, 66 B–C). Distinguished from C. electa by: E slightly shorter (shorter than the width of T; in C. electa E almost as long as width of T) and tip of E less clearly bifurcated; ventral tibial bump slightly smaller and not as far prolaterally at distal section of palpal tibia. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective ducts (DST) between primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS) quite broad (width slightly more than 1/3 the diameter of PS) and long (slightly more than 2x diameter of PS) (Figs 36D, 77F); SS quite narrow (mostly hardly broader than DST) and quite short, with mainly transversal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly (Figs 36 D–E, 77F); copulatory ducts (CD) quite short (about as long as width of SS), final section of CD (before meeting SS) running transversal laterally (minimally antero-laterally) (Figs 36 D–E, 77F). Septum (SW) of epigynal windows (W) broad (width at central section more than 1/4 the width of one W (Figs 36C, 73G); W not as elongated (Figs 36C, 73G) as in other species of the C. waleckii group.</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of all males as range): total length 5.7–8.5, carapace length 2.9–3.5, maximal carapace width 2.2–2.6, width of eye rectangle 1.6–2.1, opisthosoma length 2.9–3.7, opisthosoma width 1.7– 2.5, fovea length 0.27–0.27. EYES: AME 0.59–0.67, ALE 0.37–0.42, PME 0.09–0.11, PLE 0.33–0.39, AME–AME 0.04–0.05, AME–ALE 0.05–0.07, PME–PME 1.42–1.56, PME–PLE 0.29–0.34, ALE–PLE 0.72–0.84, PLE–PLE 1.59–1.73, clypeus height at AME 0.30–0.38, clypeus height at ALE 0.64–0.81. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal (including 1 additional extremely small even smaller than other) tooth located directly next to the other) and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns of the specimens listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, 1600, II–IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 2015, II 3015, III 3133, IV 3133, 3143; metatarsus I 2024, 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144, 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4–3.3 [0.9–1.2, 0.4–0.5, 0.3–0.5, 0.8–1.1], I 5.7–6.7 [1.9–2.2, 1.1–1.2, 1.1–1.4, 1.1–1.3, 0.5–0.6], II 5.7–6.6 [1.9–2.2, 1.1–1.2, 1.1–1.3, 1.1–1.3, 0.5–0.6], III 7.6–8.6 [2.4–2.7, 1.1–1.3, 1.7–1.9, 1.7–1.9, 0.7–0.8], IV 7.3–8.2 [2.2–2.5, 1.0–1.2, 1.7–1.8, 1.8–2.0, 0.6–0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 3412. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) medium-sized to moderately long [shorter than width of tegulum (T)], relatively narrow (width of E at central section about 1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), if at all, minimally S-shaped and distally evenly bifurcated (Figs 36A, 66 B–C); width of embolus base (EB) circle more than 1/2 but less than 2/3 the width of T; T (clearly) narrower than cymbium (Figs 36A, 66 B–C); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, distinguished from remaining T-section (only rarely T in retrolatero-proximal direction blunt-rounded conically converging); cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia not distinctly short, somewhat longer than broad (Figs 36 A–B, 66B–C, 69H) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite conspicuous, conical, distally rounded and located prolatero-distally at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with (slight) serration and distal knob (Figs 36A, 66 B–C), in retrolateral view serration not recognisable and RTA distally converging (Figs 36B, 69H). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 59B). Legs dark brown (to red-brown), except for tarsi and patellae III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 59B). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, transversal bands relatively narrow, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted and chevron-like patch in central band in most specimens not recognisable (Fig. 59B).</p> <p>Female (measurements of all females as range): total length 6.1–8.8, carapace length 3.0–3.6, maximal carapace width 2.0–2.6, width of eye rectangle 1.6–2.1, opisthosoma length 3.1–4.2, opisthosoma width 2.3–3.1, fovea length 0.22–0.30. EYES: AME 0.55–0.66, ALE 0.33–0.40, PME 0.09–0.10, PLE 0.31–0.36, AME–AME 0.04–0.06, AME–ALE 0.05–0.08, PME–PME 1.43–1.58, PME–PLE 0.32–0.34, ALE–PLE 0.77–0.85, PLE–PLE 1.42–1.86, clypeus height at AME 0.35–0.38, clypeus height at ALE 0.69–0.76. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns of the specimens listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, 1600, II–III 1600, IV 0600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2004, II 3004, 3014, III 3123, 3133, IV 3133, 3123, 2133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.3–3.0 [0.8–1.1, 0.5–0.6, 0.3–0.5, 0.7–0.8], I 5.1–6.1 [1.6–2.1, 1.0–1.1, 1.1–1.2, 0.9–1.1, 0.5–0.6], II 5.0–6.0 [1.6–2.0, 1.0–1.1, 1.0–1.2, 0.9–1.1, 0.5–0.6], III 6.0–7.3 [1.9–2.3, 1.1–1.2, 1.2–1.5, 1.2–1.6, 0.6–0.7], IV 6.0–7.4 [1.9–2.3, 1.0–1.1, 1.2–1.5, 1.3–1.8, 0.6–0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with (elongated) oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W broad and anteriorly distinctly diverging (Figs 36C, 73G); strongly converging lateral margins of W reaching further anteriorly than anteriormost parts of septum; epigynal field slightly broader than long; primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior (Figs 36C, 73G). Vulva with approximately round PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) relatively short and distinctly narrow (mostly hardly broader than width of connective duct (DST) between SS and PS), with mainly transversal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising posteriorly (Figs 36 D–E, 77F); copulatory ducts quite short and with transversal lateral direction; DST distinctly broad and relatively long; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising medio-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally (Figs 36 D–E, 77F). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 63A). Legs dark brown (to red-brown), except for tarsi and patellae III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 63A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, transversal bands slightly narrower than in most other Corythalia species, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted and chevron-like patch in central band absent (Fig. 63A).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Males: in some specimens embolus minimally shorter (Fig. 66C) and reaching less far distally than in others (Figs 36A, 66B). Tegulum sometimes slightly more “shouldered” in retrolatero-distal section (Figs 36A, 66B) than in others (Fig. 66C). Females: epigyne and epigynal windows (W) in some specimens slightly more elongated (Fig. 73G) than in others (Fig. 36C). Lateral margins of W after strongly coverging anterior-medially reaching further medially in some specimens (Fig. 73G) than in others (Fig. 36C). Connective ducts in some specimens slightly longer (Fig. 77F) than in others (Fig. 36D); secondary spermathecae in some specimens even narrower (Fig. 77F) than most others (Fig. 36D), but rarely slightly broader (not illustrated).</p> <p>Remarks. As mentioned above and like in the case of the species C. fulgipedia, also firstly described by Crane, the types (holotype male and paratype female) could not be found in the arachnid collection of the AMNH, where actually all Crane-material should have been deposited since the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society no longer existed or its collections no longer existed, respectively. See remark under the species description of C. fulgipedia for further details about possible causes for the possible loss of the types, etc. We would highly welcome if the types were found some day in the future and could be re-examined, but for the present study we think it is a good compromise that the additional specimens from the type locality (Rancho Grande) that were determinated by J. Crane herself, were here thoroughly re-examined and illustrated/ measured/ characterised. Some of these specimens were even used as samples/templates for illustrations or measurements in Crane (1948). It goes without saying that all the specimens examined in the course of the present study exactly corresponded to each illustration of the male palp or the female epigyne/ vulva in Crane (1948) for C. chalcea.</p> <p>Within the C. waleckii species-group C. electa might be the closest relative of C. chalcea. This species is strikingly similar in having a relatively narrow and only moderately long embolus, a moderately broad embolus base and a sperm duct occupying at most the retrolateral 2/3 of the tegulum with its loops. We would not even exclude that C. chalcea is actually a junior synonym of C. electa. However, without further material of C. electa available we, for now, consider the very fine differences in palp morphology (see above) diagnostic and thus specific. Additionally, the females of C. electa are still unkown. So, for now, we consider C. chalcea a valid species.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from Aragua, Venezuela.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFDCC11866ABF97462564E70	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFD8C11A66ABFF6C658A4C54.text	03D88781FFD8C11A66ABFF6C658A4C54.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia longiducta Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia longiducta sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 4C, 37 A–C, 63B, 73H–I, 77G–H</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: FFFB9347-E118-423D-B31F-C400EF13A14C</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.940002&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-3.04" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.940002/lat -3.04)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus, Igarapé São Jose, 3°02’24”S, 59°56’24”W, about 90 m a.s.l., low campina forest, H. Höfer leg. 07 Oct. 1987, INPA.</p> <p>Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Amazonas: road between <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.879997&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-4.88" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.879997/lat -4.88)">Borba</a> and Mapiá, 4°52’48”S, 59°52’48”W, about 50 m a.s.l., secondary forest and natural forest patches (the latter included white sand areas) and open land patches: 1 ♀, H. Höfer, H. Metzner, A.D. Brescovit &amp; A.B. Bonaldo leg. 22 Apr. 1996; SMNK-ARA 02858.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the long copulatory ducts of the female holotype (Latin “longus” means “long”, Latin “ductus” means “duct”); compound adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective ducts between primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS) narrow (width somewhat more than 1/5 the diameter of PS), moderately long to long (slightly more than 1.7x but less than 2.0x diameter of PS); SS with mainly transversal orientation, with heads of spermathecae arising laterally or postero-laterally (Figs 37 B–C, 77G–H); copulatory ducts (CD) long (longer than 1.8x the width of SS), final section of CD (before meeting SS) running anteriorly or latero-anteriorly (Figs 37B, 77 G–H); SS moderately broad, slightly more than 2/3 the diameter of PS (Figs 37B, 77 G–H).</p> <p>Description. Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female (measurements of holotype first, those of other female in parentheses): total length 8.8 (8.2), carapace length 3.6 (3.4), maximal carapace width 2.7, width of eye rectangle 2.2 (2.0), opisthosoma length 4.3 (4.0), opisthosoma width 3.5 (3.0), fovea length 0.42 (0.22). EYES: AME 0.69 (0.64), ALE 0.41 (0.37), PME 0.11 (0.08), PLE 0.37 (0.34), AME–AME 0.06 (0.05), AME–ALE 0.09 (0.10), PME–PME 1.91 (1.80), PME–PLE 0.36, ALE–PLE 0.93 (0.89), PLE–PLE 1.70 (1.63), clypeus height at AME 0.39 (0.40), clypeus height at ALE 0.87 (0.85). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1500 (1500{1600}), III 1500, IV 0500 (0500{1500}); patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2004 (3004{3015}), II 3024, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 3144 (4134{4132}). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS:</p> <p>palp 3.2 [1.3 (1.2), 0.5, 0.5 (0.6), 0.9], I 6.0 (5.8) [2.0 (1.9), 1.1, 1.2, 1.1 (1.0), 0.6], II 6.1 (5.8) [2.0 (1.9), 1.1, 1.3 (1.2), 1.1 (1.0), 0.6], III 7.4 (7.0) [2.4 (2.3), 1.1, 1.5 (1.4), 1.6 (1.5), 0.8 (0.7)], IV 7.6 (7.3) [2.3 (2.2), 1.1 (1.0), 1.7 (1.5), 1.7 (1.8), 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 (432&amp;1; legs I &amp; II with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with elongated and oval epigynal windows (W); septum of W narrow and anteriorly diverging (Figs 37A, 73 H–I); strongly converging lateral margins of W reaching clearly further anteriorly than anteriormost parts of septum, the former may reaching each other medially; epigynal field broader than long; primary spermathecae (PS), visible through cuticle of W, filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior (sometimes, however, with gap between posterior margin of PS and posterior margin of W) (Fig. 73I). Vulva with transversal oval PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) elongated kidney-shaped with transversal orientation and with heads of spermathecae arising laterally or postero-laterally (Figs 36 B–C, 77G–H); copulatory ducts long and with transversal lateral, then after a curve with anterior to latero-anterior direction; connective ducts between SS and PS narrow and moderately long to long; meeting PS medially. Copulatory ducts very long (in comparison to other Corythalia species); fertilisation ducts narrow, arising centro-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally (Figs 36 B–C, 77G–H). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 63B). Legs (sometimes light) red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV (sometimes also patellae III &amp; IV) being lighter (Fig. 63B). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 63B).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of female copulatory organs. Posterior margin of epigyne in female SMNK-ARA 02858 (Fig. 73I) slightly further reaching beyond epigastric furrow than in holotype (Figs 37A, 73H). Female SMNK-ARA 02858 having (at least slight) connection of both anterior margins of epigynal windows (AMW) (to be more precise, the strongly converging final sections of the lateral margins of W, anterior to the anteriormost section of the septum, because the AMW is not continuous in this species) (Fig. 73I), whereas holotype showing clear gap antero-medially (Figs 37A, 73H). Distance over both secondary spermathecae (SS) (from lateral margin to lateral margin) in holotype longer than distance over both primary spermathecae (PS) (Figs 37A, 73H), in female SMNK- ARA 02858 situation vice versa, because connective ducts running almost parallel and medially almost in contact with each other (not in a narrow V-shape like in holotype) and SS being slightly shorter than in holotype. Additional difference concerning shape of connective ducts: in holotype minimally curved sections recognisable (Figs 37A, 73H), in other female ducts regularly straight (Fig. 73I).</p> <p>Remarks. Concerning the structure of the female copulatory organ C. longiducta sp. nov. might be closely related to C. waleckii, C. foelixi Bayer, sp. nov. and C. fulgipedia. At least these are the most similar species within the C. waleckii species-group. They share not only the elongated epigynal windows and the elongated drop- to kidney-shaped secondary spermathecae, but especially the narrow and long connective ducts. Regarding the structure of the epigyne alone C. waleckii, C. fulgipedia and C. longiducta sp. nov. are nearly indistinguishable. Nevertheless, as long as the males of this species remain unknown these predictions have to be treated with caution.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality in Central Amazonia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFD8C11A66ABFF6C658A4C54	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFDBC10466ABFA5665984BF7.text	03D88781FFDBC10466ABFA5665984BF7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia metallica (Peckham & Peckham 1894)	<div><p>Corythalia metallica (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1894)</p> <p>Figs 38 A–B, 59C, 66D, 69I</p> <p>Dynamius metallicus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1894: 694, pl. 61, figs 2, 2a–c (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Holotype ♂ from Saint Vincent And The Grenadines (Lesser Antilles, Windward Islands): St. Vincent Island; Herbert H. Smith leg. 1887– 1892, who had been sent out by Mr. F. DuCane Godman to assist the Committee for the exploration of the Fauna &amp; Flora of the West Indian Islands, appointed by the British Association and by the Royal Society (Sclater 1893), G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll. No. 657, MCZ 22043; 1 ♂ paratype with the same data as for holotype, except Mustique Island and G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll. No. 1163, MCZ 35199; all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia metallica — Simon 1901: 654 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [slightly shorter than width of tegulum (T)], narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA at central section, in ventral view, Figs 38A, 66D), minimally S-shaped, without widened section(s) at distal half and distally not evenly bifurcated, but with relatively long, light and slightly hook-shaped retrolateral extension and very short, conical and darker prolateral extension (Figs 38A, 66D); distal section of E directed prolatero-distally; embolus base (EB) circle quite broad (broader than 2/3 the width of T, Figs 38A, 66D). T covering just about 1/3 of palpal tibia (Figs 38A, 66D).</p> <p>Description. Male (only measurements of holotype taken as paratype male is extremly similar): total length 6.2, carapace length 3.2, maximal carapace width 2.6, width of eye rectangle 1.9, opisthosoma length 2.7, opisthosoma width 2.1, fovea length 0.23. EYES: AME 0.63, ALE 0.38, PME 0.10, PLE 0.34, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.67, PME–PLE 0.30, ALE–PLE 0.80, PLE–PLE 1.46, clypeus height at AME 0.28, clypeus height at ALE 0.71. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, 1500, III 1500, 1600, IV 0600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005, II 3015, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2024, 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4044. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.5 [1.0, 0.4, 0.3, 0.8], I 5.9 [2.0, 1.0, 1.3, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.9 [2.0, 1.0, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], III 7.0 [2.2, 1.1, 1.5, 1.5, 0.7], IV 6.7 [2.1, 1.0, 1.4, 1.5, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 342&amp;1 (&amp;: legs connected with &amp; exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) moderately long [shorter than width of tegulum (T)], narrow (width of E at central section about 1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), minimally S-shaped and distally not evenly bifurcated but with relatively long, light and slightly hook-shaped retrolateral extension and very short, conical and darker prolateral extension (Figs 38A, 66D); width of embolus base (EB) circle more than 2/3 the width of T; T (slightly) narrower than cymbium (Figs 38A, 66D); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying nearly 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, hardly distinguished from remaining T-section but T in retrolatero-proximal direction rather blunt-rounded conically converging; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section rounded (even though in holotype tip of cymbium slightly shrunken); palpal tibia not distinctly short, about as long as broad (Figs 38 A–B, 66D, 69I) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view large and very conspicuous, conical and located subdistally at prolatero-central section at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with slight serration (Figs 38A, 66D), in retrolateral view serration not recognisable and RTA quite slim (Figs 38B, 69I). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 59C). Legs dark brown to red-brown (Fig. 59C). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, with some peculiarities: transversal light bands relatively narrow, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted, central band with a broad W-shaped patch centrally and the dark sections between the light bands with longitudinal light band medially (concerns first, meaning, anterior dark section) and several light chevron patches in a longitudinal row medially (second, meaning, posterior dark section) (Fig. 59C).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The holotype male from St. Vincent had been designated as “type” by Peckham &amp; Peckham (1894), which is equivalent to holotype, whereas the male from Mustique had been designated as “co-type”, which is equivalent to paratype.</p> <p>Within the C. waleckii species-group C. metallica is most similar to C. chalcea and C. electa. All these species have a comparatively narrow embolus that is, if at all, minimally S-shaped, a spermduct occupying at most the retrolateral 2/3 of tegulum and a palpal tibia which is about as long as broad or even longer. It is well imaginable that these species are (quite) closely related to C. metallica. Corythalia metallica is the last species that we consider belonging to the C. waleckii species-group. In our opinion all species following below do not belong to this particular species-group.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from St. Vincent Island and Mustique Island (Lesser Antilles).</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFDBC10466ABFA5665984BF7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFC5C10766ABFCB062244BA8.text	03D88781FFC5C10766ABFCB062244BA8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia blanda (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia blanda (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 39 A–E, 59D, 63C, 66E, 69J, 74A, 77I</p> <p>Dynamius blandus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 338, pl. 25, figs 9, 9a–b, pl. 26, fig. 1 (Description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀) Lectotype ♀ (here designated) from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-61.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.666667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -61.5/lat 10.666667)">Lesser Antilles</a>: Trinidad And Tobago: Trinidad: Port of Spain: Port of Spain, ca. 10°40’N, 61°30’W, about 50–150 m a.s.l., Walter Elias Broadway leg. 1888–1894. G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Collection No. 651, MCZ 20545. Paralectotypes (here designated, all with exactly the same data as for lectotype: 9 ♂, 1 ♀): 3 ♂ (M-1–3), MCZ 20545-I (ex. 20545); the following paralectotypes were misidentified by Peckham &amp; Peckham: 1 ♂ here identified as C. placata, see respective species description, MCZ 20545-II (ex. 20545); 5 ♂, 1 ♀, here identified as C. waleckii, see respective species description, MCZ 20545-III (ex. 20545); all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia blanda — Simon 1901: 654 (Transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia).</p> <p>Additional material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande (within a radius of 2 km), ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 900 m, deciduous seasonal forest: 1 ♂, leg. 24 July 1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical</a> research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; formerly with Cat No. 461201 Collection of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical Research</a> NY, AMNH-IZC 00327822-2.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) narrow boomerang-shaped (meaning with curve at central section: proximal half approximately straight or slightly curved, with distal to retrolatero-distal orientation, distal half straight, having prolateral to disto-prolateral orientation) and quite long and narrow [longer than width of tegulum (T) and at central section at most 1/2 the width of RTA at central section (ventral view), Figs 39A, 66E]; retrolateral margin of embolus base (EB) still recognisable in ventral view and not covered by E; width of EB just slightly longer than 1/2 the width of T; EB clearly distinguished from prolateral section of T (Figs 39A, 66E). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: actual epigynal windows (W) small and septum (SW) of W broad (SW clearly broader than 1/2 the diameter of W); W, beginnig from anterior, in a spiral-like way surrounded by an additional margin running out at anterior to anterior-medial section of epigyne (Figs 39E, 74A); secondary (SS) larger than primary spermthecae (PS); connective duct (DST) between SS and PS at distal section quite broad (clearly broader than 1/3 the diameter PS) and at pre-central section with distinct helical curve (Figs 39 C–D, 77I).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of one paralectotype, those of other paralectotypes extremely similar and thus omitted): total length 8.2, carapace length 4.3, maximal carapace width 3.2, width of eye rectangle 2.3, opisthosoma length 3.7, opisthosoma width 2.8, fovea length 0.41. EYES: AME 0.71, ALE 0.45, PME 0.13, PLE 0.40, AME–AME 0.07, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.98, PME–PLE 0.38, ALE–PLE 0.99, PLE–PLE 1.85, clypeus height at AME 0.33, clypeus height at ALE 0.89. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2025, II 3025, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2014, 2024, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.2 [1.2, 0.5, 0.4, 1.1], I 7.3 [2.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.4, 0.7], II 7.5 [2.4, 1.4, 1.6, 1.4, 0.7], III 8.7 [2.7, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 0.8], IV 8.7 [2.8, 1.3, 1.7, 2.1, 0.8]. LEG FORMULA: 3&amp;421 (&amp;: legs connected with &amp; exactly the same length). COPU- LATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite long [longer than width of tegulum (T)], quite narrow (width of E at central section only about 1/2 the width of RTA in ventral view), narrow boomerang-shaped and at tip slightly conical (Figs 39A, 66E); width of embolus base (EB) just slightly more than 1/2 the width of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 39A, 66E); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying slightly more than 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe in retrolateral section, only inconspicuously distinguished from remaining T-section; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging and at distalmost section mostly (slightly diagonally) truncated; palpal tibia short, clearly broader than long (Figs 39 A–B, 66E, 69J) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view medium-sized, conical and distally broad rounded, located distally at prolatero-central section at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, relatively long, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with serration (Figs 39A, 66E), in retrolateral view serration only recognisable in distalmost 1/4 and RTA quite slim (Figs 39B, 69J). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown (Fig. 59D). Legs (dark) red-brown, only tarsi III &amp; IV lighter (Fig. 59D). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, transversal light bands relatively narrow, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted, central band with rather inconspicuous chevron patch centrally (Fig. 59D).</p> <p>Female (lectotype): total length 7.4, carapace length 3.6, maximal carapace width 2.6, width of eye rectangle 2.0, opisthosoma length 3.3, opisthosoma width 2.7, fovea length 0.31. EYES: AME 0.63, ALE 0.40, PME 0.12, PLE 0.32, AME–AME 0.06, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.80, PME–PLE 0.40, ALE–PLE 0.93, PLE–PLE 1.59, clypeus height at AME 0.30, clypeus height at ALE 0.70. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I–II 1500, III 1600, 1500, IV 0500, 1500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2014, II 3024, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 3144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.2 [1.0, 0.6, 0.6, 1.0], I 6.0 [1.9, 1.2, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], II 6.0 [1.9, 1.2, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], III 6.8 [2.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 0.7], IV 7.0 [2.1, 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 432&amp;1 (&amp;: legs connected with &amp; exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with more or less round epigynal windows (W); septum of W very broad and anteriorly (slightly) diverging (Figs 39E, 74A); W, beginnig from anterior, in a spiral-like way surrounded by an additional margin running out at anterior to anterior-medial section of epigyne; epigynal field slightly broader than long; primary (PS) and especially secondary spermathecae (SS), visible through cuticle of epigyne, PS filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior (Figs 39E, 74A). Vulva with quite small, sac-shaped PS; secondary spermathecae (SS) distinctly larger than PS, with heads of spermathecae arising laterally or postero-laterally (Figs 39 C–D, 77I); copulatory ducts medium-sized, partly covered by helically curved section of connective ducts (DST) between SS and PS; DST moderately narrow at initial section and broad at distal half and quite long, meeting PS medially; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising centro-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally (Figs 39 C–D, 77I). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 63C). Legs (III &amp; IV quite light) red-brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter (Fig. 63C). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band inconspicuous but present (Fig. 63C).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. In some males proximal half of embolus straighter (Fig. 66E) than in others (Fig. 39A). Ventral tibial bump distally in some specimens more rounded (Fig. 39A) than in others (Fig. 66E).</p> <p>Remarks. The type series of Dynamius blandus (MCZ 20545) turned out to be polytypic and included three different species of males and two different species of females. Consequently, the designation of a lectotype was indispensable. The female here designated as lectotype corresponds exactly to the drawing of Dynamius blandus in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901, pl. 25, fig. 9). The illustrations of the male palps (pl. 25, figs 9a–b) are from retrolateral and from dorsal view and do hardly show any diagnostic characters. So it would have been a bad decision to designate a male as lectotype. Five males and one female could be identified as C. waleckii without any doubt (see respective species description above). One male was clearly smaller than the remaining eight ones. This male, additionally, showed a different dentition at the promargin of the cheliceral base. Its size and cheliceral dentition corresponded well to the female lectotype of C. placata. Accordingly, it is here described as the male of C. placata (see respective species description above). The three remaining males are certainly of one and the same species. As they could be clearly distinguished from the males of C. waleckii and corresponded well to the size-dimension and the dentition on the promargin of the cheliceral base of the female lectotype of C. blanda these three males are most likely conspecific with the female lectotype of C. blanda. They are here described as males of C. blanda and one of them certainly had been used as sample for the drawings in figs 9a–b in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901). Unfortunately, Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901) did not provide an illustration with ventral view on the palp. However, the RTA in their fig. 9a resembles much more that of the three males mentioned above than that of C. waleckii or that of C. placata. The inconsistency of the type series of Dynamius blandus was already recognised by G. Bodner (who added a label with her point of view during an examination in Mar. 2000).</p> <p>Corythalia blanda might be related to C. xanthopa as the following basic characters are similar: embolus (E) retrolaterally clearly protruding from embolus base (EB) and running in a long and wide curve prolatero-distally; retrolateral margin of EB in ventral view recognisable; proximal section of tegulum similar; RTA quite long and slim. Regarding the female genital morphological characters a close relationship to C. xanthopa cannot be inferred: epigynal windows with clearly different structure; Vulva with primary spermatheca being larger than secondary and connective ducts between both spermathecae without helical curve at central section in C. xanthopa and vice versa in C. blanda.</p> <p>Distribution. Known from Trinidad and Venezuela.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFC5C10766ABFCB062244BA8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFC6C10266ABFD0862564DA0.text	03D88781FFC6C10266ABFD0862564DA0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia xanthopa Crane 1948	<div><p>Corythalia xanthopa Crane, 1948</p> <p>Figs 2B, 40 A–E, 59E, 63D, 66F, 69K, 74B, 78D</p> <p>Corythalia xanthopa Crane 1948: 29, figs 9E–F, 10E–F (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Holotype ♂ from Venezuela: State of Aragua: near Maracay: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Rancho Grande</a>, water trail ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1100 m, lower cloud forest, leg. 14 Mar 1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical</a> research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe, Cat. No. 461195 Collections of the <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Department of Tropical Research</a>, New York, today possibly AMNH. Paratype (1 ♀) with the same data as for holotype, except leg. 02 Sep. 1946, Cat No. 461196 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY, today possibly at AMNH; all type material could currently not be found by the curators of the AMNH (however, must not inevitably be lost), thus not examined, however, additional material of C. xanthopa, once examined by Crane, was available and could be re-examined, see below.</p> <p>Material examined. VENEZUELA: State of Aragua: near Maracay: Rancho Grande, all were taken within a radius of 2 kilometers of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.683334&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.35" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.683334/lat 10.35)">Rancho Grande</a>, ca. 10°21’N, 67°41’W, 1100 m, lower cloud forest: 2 ♂, leg. 1945, AMNH- IZC 00326883; 3 ♂, leg. Mar, 1945, AMNH-IZC 00326886; 1 ♂, leg. 02 Sep. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326888; 2 ♂, July–Aug. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326891; 1 ♂, leg. 10 Sep. 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326892; 4 ♂, 2 ♀, AMNH-IZC 00326903; 1 ♀, 1946, AMNH-IZC 00326906; 1 ♀, AMNH-IZC 00326915; 1 ♀, leg. Apr. 1945, reared, produced 3 egg sacs, died 30 July 1945, AMNH-IZC 00326948; 1 ♀, 1945, AMNH (collection number not yet given) (all leg. 1945–1946 in the course of 45 th and 46 th Expeditions of the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society to Venezuela, made during 1945 and 1946 under the direction of Dr William Beebe; all specimens with Cat No. 461202 Coll. Dept. Trop. Res. NY).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite long and narrow [distinctly longer than width of tegulum (T) and at central section just slightly more than 1/4 the proximal width of ventral tibial bump (VTB), Figs 40A, 66F], protruding from embolus base (EB) in a large semicircle-shaped curve; retrolateral margin of EB clearly recognisable in ventral view and not covered by E; EB distinctly narrow (narrower than 1/2 the width of T) (Figs 40A, 66F). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: connective duct (DST) between secondary (SS) and primary spermthecae (PS) quite broad, especially initially, after arising from SS (slightly broader than 2/3 the diameter of PS) and meeting PS (postero-) medio-ventrally, thus medial margin of PS entirely recognisable (Figs 40D, 78D); epigynal windows (W) anteriorly with large gap as septum (SW) of W being quite short and anterior endings not strongly diverging (Figs 40C, 74B).</p> <p>Description. Male (only one of the larger males measured, except for very few characters): total length 5.7, carapace length 2.8, maximal carapace width 1.9, width of eye rectangle 1.8, opisthosoma length 2.3, opisthosoma width 1.5, fovea length 0.14–0.19. EYES: AME 0.57, ALE 0.40, PME 0.10, PLE 0.34, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.03, PME–PME 1.53, PME–PLE 0.21, ALE–PLE 0.73, PLE–PLE 1.27, clypeus height at AME 0.36, clypeus height at ALE 0.66. Cheliceral furrow with 2 (additional tooth also extremely small and both teeth located directly next to each other) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (for time reasons spination pat- terns of only one of the larger male specimens could be taken, except for few cases, here spination patterns listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1300, II 1400, III 1500, 1400, IV 0500, 1400; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002, 2003, II 3013, 2013, III 2123, 2133, IV 3133, 2133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144, 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.8–2.2 [0.8–0.9, 0.3–0.3, 0.2–0.2, 0.7–0.8], I 3.9–4.7 [1.3–1.5, 0.6–0.7, 0.8–1.0, 0.7–0.9, 0.5–0.6], II 4.1–4.9 [1.4–1.6, 0.6–0.7, 0.9–1.1, 0.7–0.9, 0.5–0.6], III 5.4–6.3 [1.7–2.0, 0.8–0.9, 1.1–1.3, 1.2–1.4, 0.6–0.7], IV 5.6–6.4 [1.8–2.1, 0.6–0.7, 1.3–1.4, 1.3–1.5, 0.6–0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 4321. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite long [distinctly longer than width of tegulum (T)], quite narrow (width of E at central section only about1/4 the width of VTB proximally), protruding from embolus base (EB) in a large semicircle-shaped curve, but at distal section with minimal curve distally, with tip having almost distal orientation (Figs 40A, 66F); retrolateral margin of EB clearly recognisable; width of embolus base (EB) less than 1/2 the width of T; T about as broad as cymbium (but both quite slim in comparison to the situation in many other Corythalia species; Figs 40A, 66F); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped (with distal loop quite narrow), occupying slightly more than 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe not distinguished from from remaining section of T, but T in retrolatero-proximal direction blunt-rounded conically converging; cymbium in ventral view distally slim and conically converging, at distalmost section ovoid; palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 40 A– B, 66F, 69K) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view medium-sized, conical and distally narrowly rounded, located distally at prolateral section at palpal tibia; RTA narrow, moderately long, with retrolatero-distal direction, dorsal serration missing (Figs 40A, 66F), in retrolateral view RTA distinctly slim (Figs 40B, 69K). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 59E). Legs dark (red-) brown, except for patellae III &amp; IV and tarsi III &amp; IV and proximal 1/4 sections of femora being lighter (Fig. 59E). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, entire opisthosoma covered by light scale hairs and transversal light bands relatively narrow, posteriormost band medially clearly interrupted, central band without chevron patch centrally (Fig. 59E). Consider that in living spider entire opisthosoma might appear light beige because of dense covering with light scale hairs. In preserved specimens scale hairs often rubbed-off enabling recognition of typical transverse light bands.</p> <p>Female (measurements of all females examined as range): total length 4.9–6.5, carapace length 2.3–2.9, maximal carapace width 1.8–2.1, width of eye rectangle 1.7–1.9, opisthosoma length 2.1–3.2, opisthosoma width 1.5– 2.4, fovea length 0.17–0.20. EYES: AME 0.51–0.60, ALE 0.30–0.41, PME 0.05–0.08, PLE 0.29–0.36, AME–AME 0.03–0.04, AME–ALE 0.04–0.06, PME–PME 1.41–1.58, PME–PLE 0.20–0.29, ALE–PLE 0.66–0.74, PLE–PLE 1.22–1.32, clypeus height at AME 0.22–0.33, clypeus height at ALE 0.50–0.65. Cheliceral furrow with 2 (additional tooth also extremely small and both teeth located directly next to each other) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth (Fig. 2B). SPINATION (spination patterns of the specimens listed in order of frequency): palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1300, II 1500, 1400, III 1500, IV 0500, 0600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002, 2003, II 3014, 3003, 2013, III 3123, 3133, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2024, 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.8–2.6 [0.7–1.0, 0.3–0.4, 0.3–0.5, 0.5–0.7], I 3.6–4.8 [1.1–1.5, 0.6–0.7, 0.8–1.1, 0.7–1.0, 0.4–0.5], II 3.6–4.9 [1.1–1.6, 0.6–0.7, 0.8–1.1, 0.7–1.0, 0.4–0.5], III 4.8–6.3 [1.6–2.1, 0.6–0.8, 1.0–1.4, 1.1–1.4, 0.5–0.6], IV 5.0–6.2 [1.6–1.9, 0.6–0.7, 1.0–1.4, 1.3–1.6, 0.5–0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 4321, 4312, 3412, 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with more or less oval epigynal windows (W) but anterior margins of W with distinct gap; septum of W moderately broad and anteriorly slightly diverging (Figs 40C, 74B); epigynal field broader than long; primary (PS) and especially secondary spermathecae (SS), visible through cuticle of epigyne, PS filling proximal 1/2 of W from posterior (Figs 40C, 74B). Vulva with medium-sized, round to sac-shaped PS; SS not only narrower than PS but also just slightly broader than connective ducts (DST) between SS and PS; heads of spermathecae arising posterolaterally (Figs 40 D–E, 78D); copulatory ducts medium-sized and with transversal lateral to antero-lateral direction; DST broad, especially at initial section, meeting PS (postero-) medio-ventrally; fertilisation ducts narrow, arising medio-anteriorly on PS, bent laterally (Figs 40 D–E, 78D). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 63D). Legs dark (red-) brown, except for tarsi III &amp; IV being lighter and patellae III &amp; IV sometimes slightly lighter (Fig. 63D). Opisthosoma actually like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, often with broad light longitudinal bands at both lateral sections from anterior parts of opisthosoma to central band (Fig. 63D); transversal light bands quite narrow; chevron-like patch in central band missing but dark area between posterior margin of central band to anterior margin of posterior band medially with batch of two to three light and narrow chevron-patches; posterior band medially clearly interrupted (Fig. 63D).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. In some males embolus protruding even more retrolaterally and retrolatero-proximal ending of tegulum (T) rather rounded (Fig. 66F) than in others (Fig. 40A) where retrolatero-proximal ending of T might show a minimal bulge retrolaterally. In some specimens embolus at very distal section with minimal curve distally (Fig. 40A).</p> <p>Epigyne of some females may showing anterior margins of epigynal windows (W) running posteriorly medially, shortly before reaching each other, then running parallel, almost touching each other, for a little distance until running out in the anterior section of septum (Fig. 74B). Septum in some specimens slightly narrower (Fig. 74B) than in others (Figs 40C). Connective ducts (DST) between secondary and primary spermathecae (PS) in some females reaching further posteriorly before turning laterally to meet PS (Figs 40 D–E) than in others (Figs 78D). Accordingly, in some females DST (seemingly) slightly longer (Fig. 40D) than in others (Fig. 78D).</p> <p>Remarks. As mentioned above and like in the cases of the species C. fulgipedia and C. chalcea as well, also firstly described by Crane, the types (holotype male and paratype female) could not be found at the arachnid collection of the AMNH, where actually all Crane material should have been deposited since the Department of Tropical research of the New York Zoological Society no longer existed or its collections no longer existed, respectively. See remark under the species description of C. fulgipedia for further details about possible causes for the possible loss of the types, etc. As long as the types cannot be found and re-examined, we find that for the present study the following proceeding it is a good compromise: the re-examination and illustration/ measurement/ characterisation of the additional specimens from the type locality (Rancho Grande) that were determinated by J. Crane herself. Some of these specimens were even used as samples/ templates for illustrations or measurements in Crane (1948). It goes without saying that all the specimens examined in the course of the present study exactly corresponded to each illustration of the male palp or the female epigyne/vulva in Crane (1948) for C. xanthopa.</p> <p>Corythalia xanthopa might be related to C. blanda as the following basic characters are similar: embolus (E) retrolaterally clearly protruding from embolus base (EB) and running in a long and wide curve prolatero-distally; retrolateral margin of EB in ventral view recognisable; similar proximal section of tegulum; RTA quite long and slim. However, regarding the female genital morphological characters a close relationship to C. blanda cannot be inferred: epigynal windows with clearly different structure; Vulva with primary spermatheca being larger than secondary and connective ducts between both spermathecae without helical curve at central section in C. xanthopa and vice versa in C. blanda.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from Aragua, Venezuela.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFC6C10266ABFD0862564DA0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFC3C10C66ABFB00653249B0.text	03D88781FFC3C10C66ABFB00653249B0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia latior Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia latior sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 41 A–B, 59F, 66G, 69L</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 24F3DAD7-7A01-481B-BEF0-8EB735C2CB08</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂: BOLIVIA: Departamento del Beni: Prov. Ballivián: Estación Biológica del Beni (Bio- sphere reserve), <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-66.85&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-14.816667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -66.85/lat -14.816667)">Forest Island</a> I, 181 m a.s.l., 14°49’S, 66°51’W, A.D. Brescovit leg. 21 July 1993 by beating by day, Expedition SMNK / IBSP July 1993, SMNK-ARA 13643.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the very broad embolus base circle, which is broader than in other Corythalia species (Latin adjective “latior” [comparative] means “broader”); adjective [comparative].</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite long and strong [distinctly longer than width of tegulum (T) and at central section as broad as RTA and more than 1/3 the proximal width of ventral tibial bump (VTB), respectively, Figs 41A, 66G], protruding from embolus base (EB) in a wide and large semicircle-shaped curve, but at very distal section with small curve distally, with small light tip having distal orientation; proximal to that tip with slight bulb (better recognisable in retrolaterral view, Figs 41B, 69L); retrolateral margin of EB clearly recognisable in ventral view and not covered by E; EB moderately broad (almost as broad as 2/3 the width of T) (Figs 41A, 66G).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 7.1, carapace length 3.1, maximal carapace width 2.6, width of eye rectangle 1.9, opisthosoma length 3.1, opisthosoma width 2.3, fovea length 0.29. EYES: AME 0.62, ALE 0.35, PME 0.12, PLE 0.33, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.65, PME–PLE 0.31, ALE–PLE 0.77, PLE–PLE 1.51, clypeus height at AME 0.33, clypeus height at ALE 0.76. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2005, II 3015, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.8 [1.0, 0.4, 0.3, 1.1], I 5.6 [1.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.6 [1.9, 1.0, 1.2, 1.0, 0.5], III 6.7 [2.1, 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 0.6], IV 6.5 [2.0, 0.9, 1.4, 1.5, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 342&amp;1 (&amp;: legs connected with &amp; exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) long [distinctly longer than width of tegulum (T)], quite broad (width of E at central section as broad as RTA and more than 1/3 the proximal width of ventral tibial bump (VTB), respectively), protruding from embolus base (EB) in a wide and large semicircle-shaped curve, but at very distal section with small curve distally, with tip having distal orientation and being lighter than subdistal section (Figs 41A, 66G); width of EB almost as broad as 2/3 the width of T and width of EB circle clearly broader than 4/5 the width of T; retrolateral margin of EB clearly recognisable; T slightly narrower than cymbium (Figs 41A, 66G); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe distinguished from remaining section of T; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section irregularly rounded; palpal tibia very short, clearly broader than long (Figs 41 A–B, 66G, 69L) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view large, broad conical, distally rounded and located in prolateral half of distal half of palpal tibia; RTA in ventral view narrow, medium-sized, with retrolatero-distal direction and with dorsal serration (Figs 41A, 66G), in retrolateral view RTA clearly broader and dorsal serration (at distal section) clearly recognisable (Figs 41B, 69L). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 59F). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for some articles being lighter (see genus description, except distal sections of tibiae and distal sections of metatarsi) (Fig. 59F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 59F).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. Possible relationsships of C. latior sp. nov. to particular Corythalia species are hard to predict. There are similarities to C. xanthopa and C. blanda: embolus (E) retrolaterally clearly protruding from embolus base (EB) and running in a long and wide curve prolatero-distally; retrolateral margin of EB in ventral view (clearly) recognisable. However, regarding other structures these species are quite different: RTA in C. latior sp. nov. much broader (Fig. 41B); embolus at tip with special structures; tegulum with proximal lobe being distinguished from remaining section.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality in Beni, Bolivia.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFC3C10C66ABFB00653249B0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFCDC10C66ABFF0A65854EDB.text	03D88781FFCDC10C66ABFF0A65854EDB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia ursina (Mello-Leitao 1940)	<div><p>Corythalia ursina (Mello-Leitão, 1940)</p> <p>Figs 42 A–B</p> <p>Capidava ursina Mello-Leitão, 1940: 185, fig. 18 (description &amp; illustration of ♂), Holotype ♂ from Guyana: Cuyuni-Maza- runi: region of <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-58.633335&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=6.366667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -58.633335/lat 6.366667)">Morabelli river</a> (and Mazaruni river) meeting Essequibo river, ca. 06°22’N, 58°38’W, about 50 m a.s.l., O. W. Richards leg. 1929 on the Oxford University Expedition to British Guiana under leadership of Major R. W. G. Hinston, NHM {type no. 482}, not available, thus not examined.</p> <p>Corythalia ursina— Galiano 1962: 16, figs 11–12 (transfer from Capidava to Corythalia; general summarised description &amp; illustration of ♂); Prószyński 1976: 153, fig. 205 (illustration of ♂).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite short [shorter than width of tegulum (T)] and in ventral view proximally slightly more than 2.5x broader than centrally (Fig. 42A); proximal lobe of tegulum (T) at initial section, where distinguished from remaining T, very broad (2/3 the width of T); RTA with dorsal serration but only at distal 1/4 (Figs 42 A–B).</p> <p>Description. Male: detailed description and measurement data not available as Galiano (1962) only provided a general summarised description and Mello-Leitão (1940) did only provide very few valuable descriptive data. Body length [according to Mello-Leitão (1940)]: 5.5. Copulatory organ (after illustrations in Galiano 1962): embolus (E) short [shorter than width of tegulum (T)], and in ventral view proximally slightly more than 2.5x broader than centrally (Fig. 42A); T clearly narrower than cymbium (Fig. 42A); sperm duct possibly double-stacked S-shaped (even though not entirely recognisable in Galiano 1962, Figs 11–12), occupying about 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe distinguished (by a small incision) from remaining section of T and very broad; cymbium (CY) in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section almost ovoid; CY with a flat, rounded “corner” retrolatero-distally (unlike in many other Corythalia species); palpal tibia not distinctly short, about as long as broad (Figs 42 A–B) and ventral tibial bump not recognisable (overseen by Galiano 1962?); RTA in ventral view mediumsized, with retrolatero-distal direction and with dorsal serration but only at distal 1/4 (Fig. 42A), in retrolateral view distinct dorsal serration of RTA recognisable only at tip (Fig. 42B). COLOURATION: according to the description in Galiano (1962) in accordance with the general description (transversal light bands dorsally on opisthosoma, etc., see genus description). No statements about concrete and detailed colouration aspects possible.</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The male holotype was requested at NHM, however, it was not found there (J. Beccaloni, pers. comm.). It is possible that it has not yet returned from a former loan or that it was accidently sorted back incorrectly after the return. Hence, it can possibly be found in the future. Consequently, for the present study there was no other way as to reproduce and re-evaluate the illustrations and descriptions in Galiano (1962), which appear to be quite detailed and helpful.</p> <p>Assumed Galiano (1962) had not forgotten any important details in her illustrations of the male palp of C. ursina and the proportions were exact, C. ursina would be similar to C. hadzji. The males of both species share a quite short embolus (E), continuously converging from proximal to distal section, an embolus base located more or less centrally at distal section of tegulum, a similar RTA with dorsal serration only at distal 1/4 and a similar flat, rounded “corner” retrolatero-distally at cymbium. Hence, C. hadzji might be a close relative of C. ursina. However, assumed, that Galiano (1962) oversaw important details the reliability of this prediction is poor (e.g. a retrolateral light, slender and long process distally at embolus; assumed, Galiano’s optical equipment did not have sufficient resolution or hairs were not removed from the margin of the cymbium or the distal part of palpal tibia and covered important structures, it is well imaginable that she had overseen or misinterpreted one or another structure). Additionally, it cannot be excluded that Galiano (1962) once did not draw in exact ventral view (maybe slightly shifted distally?). Moreover, it is questionable if she used a camera lucida that enabled her to draw in exact proportions. If all this is taken in consideration it is even possible that C. hadzji is conspecific with C. ursina and thus a junior synonym. To finally answer this question the type of C. ursina has to be re-examined. Hopefully it will be tracked in the future.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality in Cuyuni-Mazaruni, Guyana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFCDC10C66ABFF0A65854EDB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFCCC10F66ABFB5463BC4BF0.text	03D88781FFCCC10F66ABFB5463BC4BF0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia hadzji Caporiacco 1947	<div><p>Corythalia hadzji Caporiacco, 1947</p> <p>Figs 43 A–B, 59G, 66H, 70A</p> <p>Corythalia hadzji Caporiacco 1947: 33 (description of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (designated by Ruiz &amp; Brescovit 2008) from Guyana: Upper Demerara-Berbice: Kurukukari, Cumins Lodge (?); Campo VI (?)], ca. 04°40’N, 58°39’W, about 80 m a.s.l., Prof. Dr Beccari leg. Nov.–Dec. 1931, MZUF 587. Paralectotypes: 2 ♂, one of which with the same data as for lectotype, the other from Guyana: Potaro-Siparuni: at Konawaruk river (Conwarook), ca. 05°16’N, 59°00’W, about 70 m a.s.l., Prof. Dr Romiti leg. 18 May 1936; all type material examined; Caporiacco 1948: 721, figs 154–155 (description &amp; illustration of ♂); Ruiz &amp; Brescovit 2008: 491, figs 20–21 (description &amp; illustration of ♂).</p> <p>Corythalia hadzii— Roewer 1954b: 1102 (emendation, unjustified).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite short [shorter than width of tegulum (T)] and in ventral view proximally more than 2x but less than 2.5x broader than centrally; E distally irregularly bifurcated, with long, light, minimally curved and slender retrolateral extension and short, conical prolateral process (Figs 43A, 66H); ventral tibial bump (VTB) very large and with prolateral orientation; RTA with distinct dorsal serration but only at distal 1/4 (Figs 43 A–B, 66H, 70A).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotype from Konawaruk river, which is very similar, in parentheses, if taken at all; other paralectotype male even more similar, thus measurements not taken): total length 5.1 (4.7), carapace length 2.3 (2.3), maximal carapace width 1.7 (1.8), width of eye rectangle 1.5 (1.5), opisthosoma length 2.4 (2.3), opisthosoma width 1.5 (1.4), fovea length 0.19. EYES: AME 0.50, ALE 0.31, PME 0.07, PLE 0.29, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.04, PME–PME 1.28, PME–PLE 0.24, ALE–PLE 0.65, PLE–PLE 1.14, clypeus height at AME 0.13, clypeus height at ALE 0.49. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION (spination patterns of the lectotype first, those of paralectotypes in parentheses, if differing): palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 3003 (3003, 3013), II 3024 (3124, 3124), III 3123 (3123), IV 3133 (3133); metatarsus I 2024 (2024), II 2125 (3134{3124}, 2124), III 3134 (3134), IV 4134 (4044). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.9 [0.7, 0.3, 0.2, 0.7], I 4.2 [1.3, 0.6, 1.0, 0.8, 0.5], II 4.3 [1.4, 0.6, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5], III 5.6 [1.8, 0.8, 1.2, 1.3, 0.5], IV 5.8 [1.8, 0.7, 1.3, 1.4, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 4321. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) rather short [shorter than width of tegulum (T)], and in ventral view proximally more than 2x broader than centrally (Figs 43A, 66H); E distally irregularly bifurcated, with long, light and slender retrolateral extension and short, conical prolateral process; width of embolus base (EB) circle almost as broad as 2/3 the width of T; T slightly narrower than cymbium (Figs 43A, 66H); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 3/4 of T from retrolateral, central loop very narrow; proximal tegulum lobe distinguished from remaining section of T and quite narrow; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section slightly truncated (Fig. 43A), in retrolateral view also slightly truncated due to a flat, rounded “corner” retrolatero-distally; palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 43 A–B, 66H, 70A) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view large, broad rounded, extending beyond prolateral margin of palpal tibia and located in prolateral half of distal 2/3 of palpal tibia; RTA in ventral view relatively narrow, medium-sized, with retrolaterodistal direction and with distinct dorsal serration but only at distal 1/4 (Figs 43A, 66H), in retrolateral view distinct dorsal serration of RTA recognisable only at tip (Figs 43B, 70A). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 59G). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for tarsi I–IV being lighter yellowish brown to beige (Fig. 59G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central and anterior transversal bands inconspicuous, chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 59G).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. An additional male type (paralectotype) from the same locality/collection event as listed for the lectotype exists and was originally in the same vial together with the lectotype (MZUF 587). In vial MZUF 588 (Conwarook, Romiti leg.) there should actually be only one male according to the original publication (Caporiacco 1947). However, at arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2018), two males were found in MZUF 588 that were still labeled as “ Syntypi ”. The paralectotype male that originated from vial MZUF 587 must have been transferred to the vial MZUF 588 without any remark/labelling. Hence, it remains unclear which paralectotype male came from which of the two localities mentioned above.</p> <p>Corythalia hadzji is similar to C. ursina in having a quite short embolus (E) continuously converging from proximal to distal section, an embolus base located more or less centrally at distal section of tegulum, a similar RTA with dorsal serration only at distal 1/4 and a similar flat, rounded “corner” retrolatero-distally at cymbium. Accordingly, C. ursina might be closely related to C. hadzji. However, the reliability of this prediction depends strongly on the reliability of the illustrations of the male plap of C. ursina in Galiano (1962). The holotype of C. ursina was not available for the present study and the illustration in Mello-Leitão (1940) is not very helpful as it is very small and only shows retrolateral perspective. Assumed, Galiano (1962) had not forgotten (overseen) or misinterpreted any important details and the proportions were exact our prediction might come close to reality.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from Guyana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFCCC10F66ABFB5463BC4BF0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFCEC10866ABFCB065594E64.text	03D88781FFCEC10866ABFCB065594E64.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia trochophora Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia trochophora Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 44 A–B, 59H, 66I, 70B</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 2F7027AC-FA62-4BB7-A088-5A9CEB017B46</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, ECUADOR: Tungurahua Province: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-78.416664&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-1.3833333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -78.416664/lat -1.3833333)">Baños de Agua Santa</a>, about 1800 m a.s.l., ca. 01°23’S, 78°25’W, W. Weyrauch leg. 05 Apr. 1958, with remark “with the same locality and dates as RII/12732”, ex Coll. Carl-Friedrich Roewer RII/12737, SMF (collection number not yet given).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the embolus (except for the distal third) building an almost exact wheel or hoop together with the rim of the embolus base (Ancient Greek “trochos” means “wheel” or “hoop”, “phorein” means “to carry, to wear”); concatenated term in apposition.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) long, quite narrow (longer than width of tegulum (T), narrower than RTA in ventral view), main section retrolaterally with semicircle course and distal third very narrow and with irregularly bifurcated tip having long, light, minimally curved and conspicuously slender retrolatero-distal extension and tiny, conical prolateral process (Figs 44A, 66I); base of E (EB) in ventral view compressed round and distinctly long (longer than 2/5 the length of entire T including EB); EB circle very broad,&gt; 3/4 the width of T; proximal tegulum lobe covering more than 3/4 of palpal tibia (Figs 44A, 66I).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 6.1, carapace length 2.6, maximal carapace width 1.9, width of eye rectangle 1.6, opisthosoma length 2.7, opisthosoma width 1.8, fovea length 0.24. EYES: AME 0.52, ALE 0.34, PME 0.08, PLE 0.27, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.35, PME–PLE 0.25, ALE–PLE 0.65, PLE–PLE 1.20, clypeus height at AME 0.34, clypeus height at ALE 0.62. Cheliceral furrow with 2 promarginal (including one additional, even smaller tooth then regular promarginal tooth, both directly in contact with each other) and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1400, II 1500 {1600}, III–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2004, II 3004, III 3133{4133}, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004, II 2014, III 3134{3234}, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.3 [0.8, 0.4, 0.3, 0.8], I 4.5 [1.4, 0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 0.5], II 4.4 [1.5, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.5], III 5.6 [1.8, 0.8, 1.2, 1.2, 0.6], IV 5.7 [1.8, 0.7, 1.2, 1.4, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULA- TORY ORGAN: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) long, quite narrow, main section retrolaterally with semicircle course and distal third very narrow and with irregularly bifurcated tip having a long, light and conspicuously slender retrolatero-distal extension and a tiny, conical prolateral process (Figs 44A, 66I); embolus base (EB) in ventral view completely visible, width of EB circle broader than 3/4 the width of T; EB located almost centrally at distal part of T; T minimally narrower than cymbium (Figs 44A, 66I); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe not distinguished from remaining section of T but T retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded ending; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia very short, distinctly broader than long (Figs 44 A–B, 66I, 70B) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view very flat but broad and located in central section of prolateral half of palpal tibia; RTA in ventral view moderately narrow, long and with retrolatero-distal to distal direction and with inconspicuous (prolatero-) dorsal serration (Figs 44A, 66I), in retrolateral view serration only recognisable at tip of RTA (Figs 44B, 70B). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 59H). Legs quite light brown to red-brown, except for some articles being even lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 59H). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central and anterior transversal bands quite narrow and not very conspicuous, chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 59H).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The semicircle course of the embolus (E) retrolateral to the embolus base (EB), the (almost) round and very long EB located (almost) centrally at distal part of tegulum, the very narrow distal third of E, the irregularly bifurcated tip of E,, meaning with a light, retrolatero-distal extension on E; the very flat ventral tibial bump and the quite long RTA with (indistinct) serration only at distal 1/4 probably indicate a close relationship between C. trochophora Bayer, sp. nov. and C. lineata Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality in Tungurahua, Ecuador.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFCEC10866ABFCB065594E64	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFC8C10A66ABFF6C65A24DE8.text	03D88781FFC8C10A66ABFF6C65A24DE8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia lineata Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia lineata Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 45 A–B, 59I, 66J, 70C</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 8C5050CD-D869-4980-B93E-C972D892D144</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, GUYANA: East Berbice-Corentyne: Canje-Ikuruwa River, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-57.5&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=5.7" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -57.5/lat 5.7)">Forest Savanna</a>, ca. 57°30’W, 05°42’N, about 25 m a.s.l., George Bentley leg. Aug.–Dec. 1961, AMNH-IZC 00327077 - II (ex. AMNH- IZC 00327077).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the central light transverse band on the opisthosoma of the male holotype, which is narrow and exactly straight (Latin subject “linea” means “line”; “lineatus” means “drawn after a straight line [or perpendicular]”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite long [longer than width of tegulum (T)], centrally relatively broad (broader than RTA in ventral view), main section retrolaterally with semicircle course and distal third very narrow and with irregularly bifurcated tip having a quite long, light, minimally curved and slender retrolatero-distal extension and a tiny, conical prolateral process (Figs 45A, 66J); base of E (EB) in ventral view compressed round and moderately long [shorter than 2/5 the length of entire T (including EB)]; EB circle very broad,&gt; 3/4 the width of T; proximal tegulum lobe covering more than 1/2 but less than 2/3 of palpal tibia (Figs 45A, 66J).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 6.7, carapace length 3.1, maximal carapace width 2.1, width of eye rectangle</p> <p>2.0, opisthosoma length 2.9, opisthosoma width 2.0, fovea length 0.24. EYES: AME 0.67, ALE 0.43, PME 0.11, PLE 0.37, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.75, PME–PLE 0.26, ALE–PLE 0.79, PLE–PLE 1.41, clypeus height at AME 0.39, clypeus height at ALE 0.81. Cheliceral furrow with 2 promarginal (including one additional, even smaller tooth then regular promarginal tooth, both directly in contact with each other) and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600, III 1600 {1500}, IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3013, III 3123, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 5144. MEA- SUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.5 [0.9, 0.3, 0.4, 0.9], I 5.5 [1.8, 0.8, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], II 5.7 [1.9, 0.9, 1.2, 1.1, 0.6], III 7.2 [2.3, 1.0, 1.6, 1.7, 0.6], IV 6.6 [2.1, 0.8, 1.4, 1.7, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) quite long, main section relatively broad and retrolaterally with semicircle course, distal third of E very narrow and with irregularly bifurcated tip having a quite long, light and slen- der retrolatero-distal extension and a tiny, conical prolateral process (Figs 45A, 66J); embolus base (EB) completely visible in ventral view, width of EB circle broader than 3/4 the width of T; EB located (almost) centrally at distal part of T; T about as broad as cymbium (Figs 45A, 66J); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe not distinguished from remaining section of T but T retrolatero-proximally conically converging with blunt-rounded (but irregularly rounded) ending; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia not distinctly short, just slightly broader than long (Figs 45A, 66J) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view very flat and located in central section of prolateral half of palpal tibia; RTA in ventral view moderately narrow, long, with retrolatero-distal to distal direction and with inconspicuous (prolatero-) dorsal serration (Figs 45A, 66J), in retrolateral view inconspicuous serration only recognisable at distal section of RTA (Figs 45B, 70C). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown, proximal sections of lateral margins without broad bands of dense, light scale hairs (Fig. 59I). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for proximalmost articles and tarsi being lighter (Fig. 59I). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band very narrow (even narrower than posterior band) and distinctly even and straight, chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 59I).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. Several characters correspond well to C. trochophora Bayer, sp. nov.: semicircle course of embolus (E) retrolateral to embolus base (EB); (almost) round and long EB located (almost) centrally at distal part of tegulum; very narrow distal third of E; irregularly bifurcated tip of E, meaning with a retrolatero-distal extension on E; very flat ventral tibial bump; quite long RTA with (indistinct) serration only at distal 1/4. Despite the fact that the type localities of C. trochophora Bayer, sp. nov. and C. lineata Bayer, sp. nov. are far distant from each other, these similarities probably indicate a close relationship between these two species.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in East Berbice-Corentyne, Guyana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFC8C10A66ABFF6C65A24DE8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFCBC13466ABFAC8624C48D0.text	03D88781FFCBC13466ABFAC8624C48D0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia hamulifera Bayer 2020	<div><p>Corythalia hamulifera Bayer, sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 46 A–B, 60A, 66K, 70D</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 0D05EDD8-3FB0-40D7-8EB5-7B17DA244BA4</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, ECUADOR (most likely from one of the provinces Guayas, Los Ríos or El Oro); col- lected in Hamburg harbour (Germany) in banana fruit transportation, G. Schmidt leg. 17 Oct. 1952, donated to SMF 07 July 2004, det. Corythalia sp., Ref. No. 322, SMF (collection number not yet given).</p> <p>Additional material. ECUADOR (most likely from one of the provinces Guayas, Los Ríos or El Oro); collected in Hamburg harbour (Germany) in banana fruit transportation, G. Schmidt leg. 26 Mar. 1952, donated to SMF 07 July 2004: 1 ♂, Ref. No. 325, SMF (collection number not yet given).</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the hook-like distal extension of the embolus (Latin subject “hamulus” means “little hook”; “ferre” means “carrying”); (compound) adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) retrolatero-distally with a conspicuous hook-like extension with tip having retrolatero-proximal orientation (Figs 46 A–B, 66K); base of E (EB) in ventral view almost round; EB circle broad,&gt; 2/3 but (slightly) &lt;3/4 the width of T; RTA in ventral view medium-sized, with dorsal serration and with very narrow tip (central section of RTA almost 5x broader than tip) (Figs 46A, 66K).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 4.1, carapace length 2.2, maximal carapace width 1.6, width of eye rectangle 1.6, opisthosoma length 1.8, opisthosoma width 1.3, fovea length 0.16. EYES: AME 0.52, ALE 0.34, PME 0.09, PLE 0.29, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.02, PME–PME 1.26, PME–PLE 0.21, ALE–PLE 0.61, PLE–PLE 1.11, clypeus height at AME 0.19, clypeus height at ALE 0.54. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1600 {1500}, III–IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 2005 {2004}, II 3024{3025}, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I–II 2024, III 3134, IV 4134{3134}. MEA- SUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 1.9 [0.7 0.2, 0.3, 0.7], I 3.8 [1.2, 0.6, 0.9, 0.7, 0.4], II 3.8 [1.2, 0.6, 0.9, 0.9, 0.4], III 4.9 [1.5, 0.7, 1.1, 1.1, 0.5], IV 5.0 [1.5, 0.6, 1.1, 1.2, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 432&amp;1 (legs 2 and 1 exactly with the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [slightly longer than width of tegulum (T)], moderately broad (centrally about as broad as RTA in ventral view), proximal half retrolaterally with semicircle course and distally converging, retrolatero-distally with light hook-like extension (Figs 46A, 66K); width of embolus base (EB) circle clearly broader than 2/3 the width of T, but slightly less than 3/4; EB located (almost) centrally at distal part of T; T minimally narrower than cymbium (Figs 46A, 66K); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying almost 3/4 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe hardly distinguished from remaining section of T, but T rather retrolatero-proximally conically converging with bluntrounded ending; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia very short, clearly broader than long (Figs 46 A–B, 66K, 70D) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view conical with rounded tip and located in central section of prolateral half of palpal tibia; RTA in ventral view moderately narrow at main section, medium-sized in length, with retrolatero-distal direction, with dorsal serration and with very narrow tip (Figs 46A, 66K), in retrolateral view RTA with rounded conical tip, serration beginning subdistally and reaching almost to central part of RTA (Figs 46B, 70D). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark (red-) brown (Fig. 60A). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for proximalmost articles and tarsi (Fig. 60A). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central band quite narrow, nevertheless, chevron-like patch in central band present (Fig. 60A).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The origin of the holotype male and the additional male from one (or two) of the provinces Guayas, Los Ríos or El Oro in Ecuador is highly likely for the following reason: More than 95% of the Ecuadorian bananas exported abroad are planted in regions belonging to these three provinces.</p> <p>Some of the characters typical for C. trochophora Bayer, sp. nov. and C. lineata Bayer, sp. nov. can be found in C. hamulifera Bayer, sp. nov. as well: semicircle course of embolus (E) retrolateral to embolus base (EB); (almost) round and long EB located almost centrally at distal part of tegulum; prescence of a retrolatero-distal extension on E. According to these similarities a relationship between these three species is possible.</p> <p>Distribution. Known from (South-eastern part of) Ecuador.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFCBC13466ABFAC8624C48D0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFF5C13566ABFDD0655B4C9C.text	03D88781FFF5C13566ABFDD0655B4C9C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia tribulosa Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia tribulosa sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 47 A–B, 60B, 67A, 70E</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: FFC97B40-39C0-437A-8E49-055E930C52D3</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, COLOMBIA: Departamento de Putumayo: El Pepino, about 1000 m a.s.l., 01°03”N, 76°37’50”W, Prof. Dr Norbert Leist leg. 21 Feb. 1973, SMNK-ARA 12954.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the thorn-like apophyses at the embolus of the male holotype of this species (Latin adjective “tribulosus” meaning “thorny”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) quite strong, with two conspicuous apophyses centrally (Figs 47A, 67A) which are crossing in retrolateral view (Figs 47B, 70E) and distally with retrolatero-distal, relatively long and very narrow extension with tip having (disto-) retrolateral orientation (Figs 47 A–B, 67A) and prolatero-distally with stout, conical and very small process; distal margin of base of E (EB) in ventral view almost reaching distal margin of tegulum (T) (gap &lt;width of RTA in ventral view) (Figs 47A, 67A); RTA medium-sized (shorter than width of T), without dorsal serration and with tip distinctly bent ventrally (Fig. 47B).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 5.6, carapace length 2.5, maximal carapace width 1.9, width of eye rectangle 1.7, opisthosoma length 2.6, opisthosoma width 1.5, fovea length 0.28. EYES: AME 0.58, ALE 0.36, PME 0.08, PLE 0.33, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.03, PME–PME 1.46, PME–PLE 0.22, ALE–PLE 0.61, PLE–PLE 1.19, clypeus height at AME 0.29, clypeus height at ALE 0.62. Cheliceral furrow with 2 (one of them slightly smaller, both located directly next to each other) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II 1500 {1600}, III 1500, IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 1003 {2004}, II 3013, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4143{4144}. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0 [0.8, 0.3, 0.2, 0.7], I 4.4 [1.5, 0.7, 0.9, 0.8, 0.5], II 4.6 [1.5, 0.7, 1.0, 0.9, 0.5], III 5.9 [1.9, 0.8, 1.3, 1.3, 0.6], IV 6.0 [1.8, 0.8, 1.3, 1.5, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 4321. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) (actual tubular section) moderately long [slightly shorter than width of tegulum (T)], quite broad [centrally (even without apophyses) slightly broader than RTA in ventral view], retrolatero-distally with quite long, light and very narrow extension with tip having (disto-) retrolateral orientation (Figs 47A, 67A) and prolatero-distally with stout, conical and very small process, centrally with thorn-shaped apophysis prolaterally and quite prominent and pointed apophysis retrolaterally (Figs 47A, 67A); width of embolus base (EB) circle&gt; 1/2, but &lt;2/3 the width of T; EB located centrally to prolatero-centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 47A, 67A); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe not recognisable as such, but T proximally moderately converging and proximal ending (very) broad rounded; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 47 A–B, 67A, 70E) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view broad, distally almost truncated, located in proximal section of prolateral half of palpal tibia and having prolatero-distal orientation; RTA in ventral view quite narrow, medium-sized, with almost distal direction and without dorsal serration (Figs 47A, 67A), in retrolateral view RTA distally converging and with tip clearly bent ventrally (Figs 47B, 70E). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown, proximal sections of lateral margins without broad bands of dense, light scale hairs (Fig. 60B). Legs brown to red-brown, except for proximalmost articles, patellae and tarsi being lighter (Fig. 60B). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band very narrow (just as narrow as posterior band) and quite even and straight, chevron-like patch in central band missing; posterior band distinctly separated medially (Fig. 60B).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. Among the currently known Corythalia species, C. valida, without any doubt, is most similar to C. tribulosa sp. nov. Several crucial structures of the palp are very similar: embolus (E) quite broad and strong, centrally with apophyses (three in C. valida, two in C. tribulosa sp. nov.); similar distal section of E; tegulum without distinguished proximal lobe, but broad rounded proximally; slender RTA with (at least slight) bending ventrally. Consequently, we expect a close relationship between these two species.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently known only from the type locality in Putumayo, Colombia.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFF5C13566ABFDD0655B4C9C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFF4C13066ABFA04654A4DC5.text	03D88781FFF4C13066ABFA04654A4DC5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia valida (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia valida (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 3E, 48 A–F, 60C, 63E, 67B, 70F, 74C, 78E</p> <p>Escambia valida Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 335, pl. 25, fig. 13, pl. 26, fig. 6 (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Lectotype ♂ (here designated, left palp lost) from Brazil: Amazon, today: Amazonas state, G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham coll., MCZ. Para- lectotypes: 3 ♀ (here designated; individual numbers F-1 (larger female) &amp; F-2 (smaller female)) with the same data as for lectotype, MCZ; all type material examined, except for one female paralectotype, which seems to be lost, see also remark below.</p> <p>Corythalia valida — Petrunkevitch 1911: 618 (transfer from Escambia to Corythalia); Prószyński 1976: 153, figs 204, 209 (il- lustration of ♂ &amp; ♀).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) long, strong, complex, with longitudinal ridges and centrally with three conspicuous apophyses (Figs 48A, 67B) and distally with retrolatero-distal, quite long and very narrow extension having exact retrolateral orientation (Figs 48A, 67B) and prolatero-distally with very flat (small; thus inconspicuous) and stout, broad conical process (hardly recognisable as such as E at this section with ‘corner-like’ bent); distal margin of base of E (EB) in ventral view almost reaching distal margin of tegulum (T) (gap &lt;width of E) (Figs 48A, 67B); RTA long to very long (distinctly longer than width of T), without dorsal serration and with distal section with slight bent ventrally (Figs 48B, 70F). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigynal windows clearly longer than broad (Figs 48C, 48F, 74C); primary spermathecae (PS) visible through cuticle located medio-centrally in epigynal windows (Figs 48C, 48F, 74C), their diameter less than half the length of epigynal windows. Secondary spermathecae (SS) between 2/3 and slightly more than 3/4 as broad as the diameter of PS; connective duct between PS and SS straight, narrow and relatively short (&gt; 1.1x but &lt;1.2x the diameter of PS); heads of spermathecae very flat, hardly protruding from postero-lateral margin of SS (at least 3x broader than long) (Figs 48D, 78E).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 7.0, carapace length 2.9, maximal carapace width 2.1, width of eye rectangle 2.0, opisthosoma length 3.2, opisthosoma width 2.0, fovea length 0.22. EYES: AME 0.62, ALE 0.40, PME 0.10, PLE 0.38, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.58, PME–PLE 0.24, ALE–PLE 0.71, PLE–PLE 1.25. Clypeus height at AME 0.34, clypeus height at ALE 0.71. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–III 1600, IV 0600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3013, III 3123, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.4 [0.9, 0.4, 0.3, 0.8], I 5.0 [1.6, 0.8, 1.1, 0.9, 0.6)], II 5.3 [1.7, 0.8, 1.2, 1.0, 0.6], III 6.9 [2.2, 0.9, 1.5, 1.5, 0.8], IV 6.6 [2.0, 0.8, 1.5, 1.6, 0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) long [clearly longer than width of tegulum (T)], complex, broad, centrally with one small and stout conical apophysis retrolaterally, one narrow, stick-like dorsally and one broad and thorn-like prolatero-ventrally (Figs 48A, 67B), retrolatero-distally with quite long, light and very narrow extension having retrolateral orientation and prolaterodistally with inconspicuous, very flat and very small process letting distal section of embolus appear like having a corner-like bent (Figs 48A, 67B), in proximal half with some longitudinal ridges; width of embolus base (EB) circle&gt; 3/4, but &lt;4/5 the width of T; EB located centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 48A, 67B); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 1/2 but less than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe not recognisable as such, but T proximally moderately converging and proximal ending broad round- ed, covering about distal half of palpal tibia; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia (not distinctly) short, about as broad as long (Figs 48 A–B, 67B, 70F) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view medium-sized, distally conically converging, located in proximal half of prolateral third of palpal tibia; RTA in ventral view quite narrow, long to very long [1.5x longer than width of tegulum, narrower than embolus at central section (even without apophyses)], with retrolatero-distal, nearly distal, direction and without dorsal serration (Figs 48 A–B, 67B), in retrolateral view RTA with distal section slightly bent ventrally and distally slightly converging (Figs 48B, 70F). COLOURATION: (Lectotype bleached and not in good condition) See genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown, proximal sections of lateral margins seemingly without broad bands of dense, light scale hairs (Fig. 60C). Legs brown to red-brown, except for proximalmost articles (Figs 3E, 60C), patellae and tarsi being lighter. Opisthosoma colouration difficult to interpret as bleached and cuticle separated from sub-cuticle (Fig. 60C).</p> <p>Female: total length 7.1–7.9, carapace length 2.9–3.0, maximal carapace width 2.1–2.2, width of eye rectangle 2.0–2.1, opisthosoma length 3.1–3.8, opisthosoma width 2.0–2.8, fovea length 0.19–0.22. EYES: AME 0.60–0.65, ALE 0.41–0.42, PME 0.07–0.08, PLE 0.36–0.38, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.04–0.06, PME–PME 1.63–1.70, PME–PLE 0.25, ALE–PLE 0.71–0.74, PLE–PLE 1.33–1.39, clypeus height at AME 0.25–0.30), clypeus height at ALE 0.67–0.70. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II 1500 (1500{1600}), III 1500, IV 0500 (0600); patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002, II 2002 (3013), III 2014 (3123), IV 3123 (3133); metatarsus I 2004, II 2014 (2014{2024}), III 3134, IV 4133 (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.3 (2.4) [0.9, 0.3 (0.4), 0.4, 0.7], I 5.0 (4.9) [1.6 (1.5), 0.8 (0.9), 1.1 (1.0), 0.9, 0.6], II 5.1 (5.3) [1.7, 0.8 (0.9), 1.1, 0.9 (1.0), 0.6], III 6.4 (6.3) [2.0 (1.9), 0.9, 1.3, 1.5 (1.6), 0.7 (0.6)], IV 6.4 (6.5) [2.0, 0.9 (0.8), 1.4, 1.4 (1.7), 0.7 (0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 3&amp;421 (III &amp; IV with exactly the same length) (4321). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with clearly elongated oval epigynal windows (W), anterior margins are build of three rims: firstly, anteriorly strongly converging lateral margins, secondly, diverging margins of anterior section of septum of W, thirdly by additional ridge, running almost parallel with the antero-lateral sections of lateral margins of W, slightly posterior of the former close to the area of copulatory openings; lateral margins very distinct as directly accompanied by lateral margins of entire epigyne, antero-medially both margins merge by converging; septum of W moderately broad (&gt; 1/4, &lt;1/3 the width of W) and anteriorly slightly diverging (Figs 48C, 48F, 74C); epigynal field missing; primary (PS) and secondary spermathecae (SS), visible through cuticle of epigyne, PS visible in central third of W (Figs 48C, 48F, 74C). Vulva with medium-sized, round (to sac-shaped) PS; SS (slightly) narrower than PS; connective ducts (DST) between SS and PS narrow (at most slightly broader than 1/5 the diameter of PS) and straight, meeting PS medio-ventrally; heads of spermathecae very flat, arising postero-laterally (Figs 48 D–E, 78E); copulatory ducts very short, with (initially anterior, then) lateral direction; fertilisation ducts at distal section narrow, proximally, however, quite broad (about 1/3–1/2 the width of PS) arising anteriorly on PS, bent laterally (Figs 48 D–E, 78E). COLOURATION: (Paralectotypes bleached, but general colouration still recognisable) See genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown, lateral margins of proximal sections without densely arranged light scale hairs (Fig. 63E). Legs red-brown, except for several articles (see genus description) being slightly lighter (Fig. 63E). Opisthosoma actually like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, central transversal light band just moderately broad; chevron-like patch in central band missing; posterior band medially interrupted (Fig. 63E).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation. Additional ridges at the area of copulatory openings running slightly less steep in female paralectotype F-2 (Fig. 48C) than in F-1 (Fig. 48F). Primary spermathecae [visible through cuticle of epigynal windows (W)] in paralectotype F-1 even more “shifted” anteriorly and not exactly in central third of W (Fig. 48F), secondary spermathecae in F-1 also visible further anteriorly than in F-2.</p> <p>Remarks. The male lectotype, as well as two female paralectotypes (here designated), were at arrival at SMNK (Apr. 2015) found within a vial containing the original type label of Dynamius fimbriatus (MCZ 21310). They must have been erroneously put there, as D. fimbriatus was described on the base of two males only. Additionally, the three specimens listed above exactly match the original figures for Escambia valida in Peckham &amp; Peckham (1901). The types of D. fimbriatus have apparently simultaneously been taken away and put into the vial with the types of D. parvus. The original label of the types of E. valida as well as the third female type specimen (here designated as paralectotype) cannot be found at the moment (Laura Leibensperger, pers. comm.).</p> <p>Conspecificity of the female paralectotypes with the male lectotype is not 100% sure, but highly probable. At first, it is likely that the male and the two females were once found at the same locality within the Amazonas state. Secondly, male and female type specimens corroborate in colouration by the missing of the densely arranged light scale hairs at lateral margins of the proximal carapace.</p> <p>The strong/broad and complex embolus (having apophyses and longitudinal ridges) with distal section having long, light and very slender extension disto-retrolaterally and small to tiny, very flat conical process prolaterally, the proximal tegulum shape (rounded; proximal lobe as such missing) and the (long) slender RTA with almost distal direction are similar to those in C. flagrans sp. nov. and C. tribulosa sp. nov. A close relationship between these three species is thus likely. A very close relationship might exist to C. tribulosa sp. nov. (see remark under C. tribulosa sp. nov. above). According to the copulatory organs females show at least slight resemblance to the females of the C. waleckii species-group. However, it is difficult to assess if there is a closer relationship to those species.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in the state of Amazonas, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFF4C13066ABFA04654A4DC5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFF1C13266ABFAF862B44B84.text	03D88781FFF1C13266ABFAF862B44B84.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia flagrans Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia flagrans sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 4A, 49 A–B, 60D, 67C, 70G</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 3490EE5B-D56D-4F40-A7C0-113C14B1166C</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♂, BRAZIL: Acre: Rio Branco, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-67.67&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-9.75" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -67.67/lat -9.75)">Reserva Humaitá</a>, 9°45’00”S, 67°40’12”W, about 150 m a.s.l., leg. Exp. SMNK / IBSP, 10–13 Apr. 1996, in secondary forest, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02861, final deposition IBSP 209868.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the similarity of the long, narrow, slightly curved distal section of the embolus of the male holotype resembling the beak of the sunbird Aethopyga flagrans Oustalet, 1876; term (specific epithet) in apposition.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) long, broad, strong, complex, with several longitudinal ridges (Figs 49 A–B, 67C, 70G) and distally with retrolatero-distal, long and narrow extension having retrolateral orientation (Figs 49 A–B, 67C) and prolatero-distally with flat and stout, very broad conical and small process; distal margin of base of E (EB) in ventral view by far not reaching distal margin of tegulum (T) (gap almost as long as EB itself) (Figs 49A, 67C); cymbium alveolus centro-distally with quite broad extension, converging distally and pointing towards distal section of embolus (Figs 49 A–B); RTA relatively long (slightly longer than width of T) and with dorsal serration (Figs 49 A–B, 67C, 70G).</p> <p>Description. Male: total length 6.4, carapace length 3.0, maximal carapace width 2.1, width of eye rectangle 1.9, opisthosoma length 2.6, opisthosoma width 1.8, fovea length 0.28. EYES: AME 0.66, ALE 0.42, PME 0.09, PLE 0.36, AME–AME 0.04, AME–ALE 0.07, PME–PME 1.61, PME–PLE 0.24, ALE–PLE 0.70, PLE–PLE 1.3, clypeus height at AME 0.30, clypeus height at ALE 0.72. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1400, II 1500, III 1600, IV 1600; patella I 1000, II 1010 {1000}, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2002 {2003}, II 3014, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4144{4145}. MEA- SUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.6 [1.0, 0.4, 0.3, 0.9], I 5.2 [1.6, 0.9, 1.1, 1.0, 0.6], II 5.3 [1.7, 0.9, 1.1, 1.0, 0.6], III 6.7 [2.1, 1.0, 1.4, 1.5, 0.7], IV 6.7 [1.9, 0.9, 1.5, 1.8, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 3&amp;421 (legs III &amp; IV with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) long [slightly longer than width of tegulum (T)], complex, broad, with several longitudinal ridges and retrolatero-distally with long, light and narrow extension having retrolateral orientation and prolatero-distally with broad conical, flat and small process (Figs 49 A–B, 67C); width of embolus base (EB) circle&gt; 2/3, but &lt;3/4 the width of T; EB located prolatero-centrally at pre-subdistal part of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 49A, 67C); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying minimally more than 1.2 but clearly less than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe not recognisable as such, but T proximally moderately converging and proximal ending broad rounded (even though irregularly in having somewhat retrolateral orientation), covering about distal half of palpal tibia; cymbium alveolus centro-distally with quite broad extension, converging distally and pointing towards distal section of embolus; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 49A, 67C) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view quite large, distally rounded, located proximally in prolateral half of palpal tibia and reaching beyond prolateral margin of palpal tibia in ventral view (Figs 49 A–B, 67C); RTA in ventral view moderately narrow, long (slightly longer than width of tegulum, narrower than embolus at central section), with almost distal direction and with dorsal (or better prolateral if such a straight distally directed RTA is viewed ventrally) serration (Figs 49 A–B, 67C), in retrolateral view dorsal serration much more clearly recognisable and RTA with ventro-distalmost section narrow and slightly converging but tip still rounded (Figs 49B, 70G). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 60D). Legs brown to red-brown, except for several articles lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 60D). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band just moderately broad and chevron-like patch in central band missing; posterior band distinctly separated medially; with large, light beige patch reaching medially from central band up to posterior band and converging somewhat in posterior direction (Fig. 60D).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Remarks. The long, strong, broad and complex embolus, the proximally rounded and quite elongated tegulum and the (long) slender RTA (especially if viewed ventrally) are similar to C. valida and C. tribulosa sp. nov. so we expect a close relationship between these three species. Corythalia flagrans sp. nov. additionally shares the conspicuous and large ventral tibial apophysis with C. tribulosa sp. nov., however, lacks the apophyses centrally on the embolus that are present in the other two species mentioned in this paragraph.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Acre, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFF1C13266ABFAF862B44B84	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFF3C13D66ABFD2C651E4D10.text	03D88781FFF3C13D66ABFD2C651E4D10.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia fragilis Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Corythalia fragilis sp. nov.</p> <p>Figs 3B, 50 A–E, 60E, 63F, 67E–H, 70H, 74D–F, 78A–C urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 2A0A7F5C-345C-45AB-AB64-6F40D6C2E2A9</p> <p>Type material. Holotype: ♀, BRAZIL: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.975002&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-2.9305556" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.975002/lat -2.9305556)">Amazonas</a>: Manaus, Reserva Ducke, ca. 2°55’50”S, 59°58’30”W, noninundated primary forest, H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 22 June 1992, sample number BE I/1 (arboreal funnel trap), interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02230, final deposition INPA. Paratypes: 1 ♂, with same data as for holotype, except leg. 13 Apr. 1992, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02232, final deposition INPA; 1 ♂, with same data as for holotype, except leg. 30 Nov. 1992, SMNK-ARA 02234; 1 ♂, with same data as for holotype, except leg. 11 Nov. 1992, sample no. BE I/17, SMNK-ARA 02236; 2 ♂ (SMNK-ARA 02237-1: leg III, left &amp; leg I, right miss- ing; SMNK-ARA 02237-2: intact specimen), with same data as for holotype, except leg. 21 Dec. 1992, sample no. BEI/17, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02237, final deposition INPA; 1 ♂, 1 ♀, with same data as for holotype, except leg. 07 Dec. 1992, sample no. BE I/1, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02229, final deposition INPA; 1 ♀, with same data as for holotype, except leg. 17 Feb. 1992, SMNK-ARA 02233; 1 ♀, with same data as for holotype, except leg. 25 Nov. 1991, sample no. BE I/17, SMNK-ARA 02235.</p> <p>Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.975002&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-2.9305556" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.975002/lat -2.9305556)">Reserva Ducke</a>, 2°55’50”S, 59°58’30”W, 100 m a.s.l., non-inundated primary forest: 1 ♂, very bad condition, sample number BE I/1, H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 30 Nov. 1992, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02234, final deposition INPA; 1 s.a. ♂, 1 s.a. ♀, 1 juvenile, with same data as above, except leg. 07 Dec. 1992, sample no. BE I/1, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02229, final deposition INPA; 4 juveniles, with same data as above, except leg. 22 June 1992, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02230, final deposition INPA; 1 juvenile, with same data as above, except leg. 09 Dec. 1992, interim deposition SMNK-ARA 02231, final deposition INPA.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name refers to the extraordinarily fragile copulatory ducts of females of this species (Latin “fragilis” means “fragile”); adjective.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) quite long [longer than width of tegulum (T)], longitudinally connected with a broad, extremely thin, fine, hyaline and membranous structure (lamella), the latter proximally to subdistally about 4x as broad as actual (sclerotised, rather narrow and in distal third even filiform) section of E (Figs 50A, 67 E–H); proximal tegulum lobe very broad (almost 3/4 the width of T); base of E prolaterally slightly protruding beyond disto-prolateral section of T (Figs 50A, 67 E–H). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigynal windows laterally with distinct gap and transversely divided by a ridge (median half of this ridge may be only indicated by colour difference or by a fine ridge) (Figs 50C, 74 D–F); vulva without secondary spermathecae; copulatory duct extremely long (at least 1.3x as long as width of entire epigyne) (Figs 50 D–E, 78A–C).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of all paratypes as range): total length 5.4–6.2, carapace length 2.4–2.8, maximal carapace width 1.7–1.9, width of eye rectangle 1.5–1.6, opisthosoma length 2.4–2.8, opisthosoma width 1.5–1.7, fovea length 0.19–0.26. EYES: AME 0.45–0.52, ALE 0.30–0.33, PME 0.06–0.08, PLE 0.25–0.28, AME– AME 0.03–0.04, AME–ALE 0.04–0.06, PME–PME 1.17–1.31, PME–PLE 0.23–0.25, ALE–PLE 0.63–0.66, PLE– PLE 0.92–1.03, clypeus height at AME 0.19–0.22, clypeus height at ALE 0.53–0.58. Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400, II 1600 (1500, 1600{1400}, 1500{1600}), III 1600 (1500{1600}), IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003, II 3003 (3100), III 3133 (3033), IV 3133; metatarsus I 2004 (2014, 2014{2004}), II 2014, III 3134, IV 4144 (3144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0–2.3 [0.7–0.9, 0.3–0.4, 0.3, 0.7–0.8], I 4.2–4.5 [1.4–1.5, 0.7–0.8, 0.8–0.9, 0.7–0.8, 0.5)], II 4.4–4.7 [1.3–1.5, 0.7–0.8, 0.9–1.0, 0.8–0.9, 0.5], III 5.4-5.8 [1.5–1.7, 0.7–0.8, 1.1–1.3, 1.1–1.3, 0.6–0.7], IV 5.4–5.9 [1.5–1.7, 0.7–0.8, 1.2–1.3, 1.2–1.4, 0.6–0.7]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 (4321, 4&amp;321, legs III &amp; IV with exactly the same length in two specimens). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) quite long, slim, in distal third filiform, arising point at prolatero-proximal section of embolus base (EB) and longitudinally connected with a broad, very fine, hyaline and membranous structure (lamella) (Figs 50A, 67 E–H); distal third of E with prolaterodistal driection; EB somewhat broader than 1/2 the tegulum (T), slightly protruding beyond disto-prolateral section of T and located prolaterally at distal section of T; EB circle almost 3/4 as broad as T (Figs 50A, 67 E–H); T narrower than cymbium, sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying about 2/3 of tegulum from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe distinctly broad and broad rounded proximally (Figs 50A, 67 E–H). Cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, distally ovoid distalmost section rounded); palpal tibia short, broader than long; ventral tibial bump inconspicuous and flat rounded and located centrally in prolateral fourth of palpal tibia. RTA quite narrow, with retrolatero-distal direction and dorsally with not very distinct serration (Figs 50A, 67 E–H), in retrolateral view (Figs 50B, 70H) RTA also quite narrow and distally converging. COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Figs 3B, 60E), behind posterior eye row with several patches of densely arranged light scale hairs (the latter not only sparsely distributed like in most other Corythalia species) (Figs 3B, 60E). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for several articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 60E). Opisthosoma dorsally dark brown with three light beige transverse bands and light bordering (bordering especially broad at anterior(-lateral) third of opisthosoma), all bands not broad or even narrow (Fig. 60E); anteriormost band broadest, centrally with curve and in connection with a longitudinal, medial light patch in anterior half of opisthosoma, central transversal band narrow, slightly zigzagged and posterior of which three (rarely four) light chevrons getting continuously smaller, third transversal band also narrow and medially separated (Fig. 60E). Opisthosoma ventrally light brown.</p> <p>Female (measurements of holotype first, those of female paratypes as range in parentheses): total length 6.7 (6.6–7.0), carapace length 2.5 (2.5–2.7), maximal carapace width 1.7 (1.7–1.9), width of eye rectangle 1.5 (1.5– 1.7), opisthosoma length 3.1 (3.1–3.5), opisthosoma width 2.1 (2.1–2.3), fovea length 0.21 (0.18–0.21). EYES: AME 0.49 (0.49–0.53), ALE 0.30 (0.30–0.32), PME 0.07 (0.07–0.08), PLE 0.26 (0.26–0.28), AME–AME 0.03 (0.03–0.04), AME–ALE 0.04 (0.04–0.05), PME–PME 1.17 (1.17–1.31), PME–PLE 0.24 (0.24–0.26), ALE–PLE 0.64 (0.64–0.67), PLE–PLE 0.96 (0.96–1.03), clypeus height at AME 0.18, clypeus height at ALE 0.53 (0.53–0.55) (Fig. 3B). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1400 (1400{1300}), II 1400 (1500), III 1500 {1400} (1500, 1500{1400}), IV 0500; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 2003 (2003{3003}), II 2003 (3003), III 2023 (3033), IV 2033 (3033, 3133); metatarsus I 2004 (2004, 2004{2014}), II 2014, III 3134{3034} (3134), IV 3134 (4244, 3234). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.0 (2.0–2.3) [0.7 (0.7–0.8), 0.4 (0.4–0.5), 0.4, 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], I 4.0 (4.0–4.2) [1.3 (1.3–1.4), 0.7, 0.8 (0.8–0.9), 0.7 (0.6–0.7), 0.5], II 3.9 (3.9–4.4) [1.2 (1.2–1.4), 0.7, 0.8 (0.8–0.9), 0.7, 0.5], III 4.6 (4.6–4.7) [1.4 (1.4–1.5), 0.7, 1.0 (1.0–1.1), 1.0 (1.0–1.1), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], IV 4.9 (4.9–5.3) [1.5 (1.5–1.6), 0.7 (0.7–0.8), 1.0 (1.0–1.2), 1.1, 0.6]. LEG FORMULA: 4312 (4321). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne with slightly elongated oval epigynal windows (W), anterior margins continuous, but lateral margins having distinct gaps; W in central section transversally divided by a ridge (running out medially; transversal division medially still recognisable by colour difference between anterior and posterior half of W) (Figs 50C, 74 D–F); septum of W quite broad (almost 1/3 the width of W) and anteriorly and posteriorly slightly diverging (Figs 50C, 74 D–F); epigynal field slightly broader than long (Figs 50C, 74 D–F). Vulva with medium-sized, round primary spermathecae (PS), almost touching each other medially; secondary spermathecae absent (or at least not recognisable as such, Figs 50D, 78 A–C); copulatory ducts extraordinarily long, narrow, with many windings, especially proximally, and surrounding primary spermathecae from anterior, lateral, posterior and ventral direction, meeting PS medio-ventrally; heads of spermathecae absent (or that inconspicuous that not recognisable?) (Figs 50 D–E, 78A–C); fertilisation ducts relatively narrow, arising anterocentrally (to antero-medially) on PS, bent laterally (Figs 50 D–E, 78A–C). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace (dark) red-brown (Fig. 63F), behind posterior eye row with several patches of densely arranged light scale hairs (the latter not only sparsely distributed like in most other Corythalia species but not as densely arranged as in conspecific males). Legs light brown to red-brown, except for several articles being even lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 63F). Opisthosoma dorsally dark brown with three light beige transverse bands and light bordering (bordering especially broad at anterior(-lateral) third of opisthosoma), all bands not broad or even narrow (Fig. 63F); anteriormost band broadest, centrally with curve and in connection with a longitudinal, medial light patch in anterior half of opisthosoma, central transversal band narrow, slightly zigzagged and posterior of which three (rarely four) light chevrons getting continuously smaller, third transversal band also narrow but medially separated (Fig. 63F). Opisthosoma ventrally light brown to beige.</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Males with slight variation concerning width of tegulum (T): paratype SMNK-ARA 02232 (Fig. 67E): T (in relation to width of cymbium) slightly narrower than in remaining paratypes. Subtegulum slightly more protruding underneath prolateral margin of T in 2237-1 (Fig. 67G) than in others. In male 2237-2 proximal lobe (Fig. 67H) of T slightly broader than in paratypes shown in Figs 50A and 67 E–G. Females: transversal ridge- or border-like structure in epigynal window (W) in paratype SMNK- ARA 02229 (Fig. 74F) slightly further shifted posteriorly than in holotype and remaining paratypes. Gap in lateral margins of W in paratype 2233 (Fig. 74E) slightly larger than in holotype and remaining paratypes. Additionally, in 2233 course of transversal ridge-like structure not exactly transversal, but slightly diagonal in one half (Fig. 74E), not so in holotype and remaining paratypes (Figs 50C, 74D, F). In paratype 2229 (Fig. 78B) copulatory duct slightly shorter than in other females and hairpin-like loop of copulatory duct posterior of primary spermathecae with more diagonal orientation. Distance between posterior margin of primary spermathecae and hairpin-like loop of copulatory duct in paratype 2235 (Fig. 78C) longer than in holotype and remaining paratypes (Figs 50D, 44 A–B).</p> <p>Remarks. In having a membranous lamella at embolus and a very broad proximal tegular lobe males of this species (clearly) differ from other Corythalia species. Hence, a prediction on possible relationships with other Corythalia species is currently quite difficult. The colouration pattern of the carapace and especially the opisthosoma, however, resembles that of C. metallica. Predictions on a close relationship between these two species only based on similar colouration are in our opinion not justified. Females are even more unique in apparently having no secondary spermthecae, no spermathecal heads and an extremely long copulatory duct.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Central Amazonia, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFF3C13D66ABFD2C651E4D10	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFFCC13E66ABFB90658F4E88.text	03D88781FFFCC13E66ABFB90658F4E88.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia grata (Peckham & Peckham 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia grata (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 51 A–C, 60F, 67D, 70I</p> <p>Dynamius gratus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 342, pl. 25, fig. 8, pl. 26, fig. 10 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from Brazil: San Paolo, today: São Paulo; G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 664. (obtained from Coll. Moenkhaus), MCZ 21497; 1 ♂ &amp; 1 juvenile paralectotypes (here designated) with exactly the same data as for lectotype, MCZ 21497; all type material examined.</p> <p>Corythalia grata — Simon 1901: 654 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia).</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) long (with almost 3/4 windings around embolus base and about 1.5x longer than width of tegulum) (Figs 51 A–C, 67D); base of E with longitudinal division (ridge) (Figs 51A, 51C 67D) and in retrolateral view distinctly protruding from tegulum (T) (Figs 51B, 70I); Proximal section of T (proximal fourth) very narrow in comparison with broadest section of T (less than 2/3 the width of broadest section) (Figs 51A, 51C, 67D).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotype in parentheses): total length 5.5 (4.6), carapace length 2.7 (2.3), maximal carapace width 2.0 (1.7), width of eye rectangle 1.6 (1.4), opisthosoma length 2.4 (1.9), opisthosoma width 1.9 (1.5), fovea length 0.195 (0.13). EYES: AME 0.51 (0.44), ALE 0.29 (0.26), PME 0.075 (0.065), PLE 0.27 (0.24), AME–AME 0.06, AME–ALE 0.09 (0.06), PME–PME 1.38 (1.24), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.24), ALE–PLE 0.66 (0.59), PLE–PLE 1.17 (1.03), clypeus height at AME 0.30 (0.20), clypeus height at ALE 0.57 (0.47). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1500, II–III 1600 (1500), IV 0600 (1600{0600}); patella I–II 1000, III 1000 (1010), IV 1000 (1010); tibia I 2005 (2004), II 3004 (3002), III 3133 (3133{2133}), IV 3133; metatarsus I 2024 (2004), II 2024 (2014), III 3134, IV 5144{4144} (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.2 (1.9) [0.9 (0.7), 0.3, 0.3 (0.2), 0.7], I 5.1 (4.0) [1.6 (1.3), 0.9 (0.6), 1.1 (0.9), 0.9 (0.7), 0.6 (0.5)], II 5.4 (4.4) [1.6 (1.4), 0.9 (0.7), 1.2 (1.0), 1.0 (0.8), 0.6 (0.5)], III 6.0 (4.9) [2.0 (1.5), 0.9 (0.7), 1.2 (1.1), 1.2 (1.0), 0.7 (0.6)], IV 5.8 (4.9) [1.8 (1.5), 0.8 (0.7), 1.2 (1.0), 1.3 (1.1), 0.7 (0.6)]. LEG FORMULA: 3421 (3&amp;421; in paralectotype legs III &amp; IV with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) long [about 1.5x longer than width of tegulum (T)], in proximal half moderately broad, in distal half not broad, in distal fourth even slender (almost filiform) and with prolaterodistal direction (Figs 51A, 51C 67D), arising point at prolateral section of embolus base (EB); EB longitudinally divided in basal and prolatero-distal part; width of EB circle&gt; 2/3, but &lt;3/4 the width of T; retrolateral margin of EB sometimes not covered by E (Fig. 51C), EB&gt; than 1/2 the width of T, but &lt;2/3; EB located prolaterally at distal part of T; T (clearly) narrower than cymbium (Figs 51A, 51C 67D); sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 1/2 but clearly less than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe very narrow and covering only retrolateral half of palpal tibia and somewhat more than distal half of palpal tibia; cymbium in ventral view distally conically converging, at distalmost section rounded; palpal tibia not distinctly short, minimally longer than broad (Figs 51 A–C, 67D, 70I); ventral tibial bump in ventral view extremely small and inconspicuous, even in prolateral view hardly recognisable (not illustrated); RTA in ventral view medium-sized (shorter than width of tegulum, broad- er than embolus, even at proximal section), with retrolatero-distal direction and with inconspicuous dorsal serration (Figs 51A, 51C 67D), in retrolateral view dorsal serration also inconspicuous and only present in distal third of RTA (Figs 51B, 70I). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 60F). Legs red-brown, except for several articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 60F). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however all transversal bands moderately broad (posterior one narrow) and chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 60F).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. In lectotype (Figs 51A, 67D) embolus in distal half somewhat broader than in paralectotype (Fig. 51C). Retrolateral division of embolus base in lectotype broader than in paralectotype. Additionally, tegulum in distal half in lectotype with fine transversal ridge (Figs 51A, 67D).</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from an unspecified locality in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFFCC13E66ABFB90658F4E88	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFFEC13866ABFF6C63604F2C.text	03D88781FFFEC13866ABFF6C63604F2C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia vervloeti Soares & Camargo 1948	<div><p>Corythalia vervloeti Soares &amp; Camargo, 1948</p> <p>Figs 52 A–B, 60G, 67I–J, 70J</p> <p>Corythalia vervloeti Soares &amp; Camargo 1948: 429, figs 12–14 (description &amp; illustration of ♂). Holotype ♂ from Brazil: Espírito Santo: Município de Colatina: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-40.666668&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-19.5" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -40.666668/lat -19.5)">Rio São José</a>, ca. 19°30’S, 40°40’W, B.A.M. Soares leg. 14 Sep. 1942, MZUSP E.454-C.1122, examined.</p> <p>Additional material examined. BRAZIL: Amazonas: road between Borba and Mapiá (<a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.879997&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-4.88" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.879997/lat -4.88)">Balneario do Lina</a>), 4°52’48”S, 59°52’48”W, about 50 m a.s.l., secondary forest and undisturbed forest patches (including white sand areas: campinas) and open areas: 2 ♂ (M-1 &amp; M-2), H. Höfer, H. Metzner, A.D. Brescovit &amp; A.B. Bonaldo leg. 22 Apr. 1996, deposition SMNK-ARA 02856. Paraná: Antonina: RPPN <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-48.6553&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-25.324339" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -48.6553/lat -25.324339)">Reserva do Cachoeira</a>, 25°19’27.62”S, 48°39’19.08”W, about 90 m a.s.l., secondary lowland forest: 1 ♂, individual number M-4, F. Raub &amp; L. Scheuer- mann leg. Nov. 2007 – 15 Dec. 2007, on tree eclector (CC 3 F), interim deposition SMNK-ECS 0357, later transferred to ECS 0821, final deposition IBSP 209870; 1 ♂, individual number M-3, same data as above, except leg. Jan. 2008 – 18 Feb. 2008, interim deposition SMNK-ECS 0212, later transferred to ECS 0750, final deposition IBSP 209869.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) extremely long [running in almost two windings around embolus base, about 4x longer than width of tegulum (T), Figs 52 A–B, 67I–J, 70J]; embolus base (EB) completely visible in ventral view and almost 2/3 as broad as width of T; RTA in retrolateral view with very broad proximal section (about 1/2 as broad as width of palpal tibia) (Figs 52B, 70J); proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) very narrow (clearly less than half as broad as T at broadest section) (Figs 52A, 67 I–J).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of specimen SMNK-ARA 02856 M-1 first, those of M- 2 in parentheses; measurements of other two males insignificant as within this range): total length 5.0 (4.8), carapace length 2.3 (2.2), maximal carapace width 1.7, width of eye rectangle 1.5, opisthosoma length 2.2 (2.0), opisthosoma width 1.3 (1.1), fovea length 0.17 (0.14). EYES: AME 0.47, ALE 0.31, PME 0.07, PLE 0.28, AME–AME 0.03, AME–ALE 0.05, PME–PME 1.23 (1.24), PME–PLE 0.23, ALE–PLE 0.61 (0.57), PLE–PLE 1.10 (1.06), clypeus height at AME 0.25 (0.23), clypeus height at ALE 0.56 (0.51). Cheliceral furrow with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINA- TION: palp without spines. Legs: femur I 1500 (1500), II 1600 {1500} (1600), III 1600, IV 1600; patella I 1000, II–IV 1010; tibia I 3024 (3012), II 3123, III 2123, IV 3133; metatarsus I 2124 (2014{2024}), II 2124 (2014{2024}) III 3134, IV 4134 (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.1 [0.8, 0.3, 0.2, 0.8], I 4.0 [1.3, 0.6, 0.9, 0.8, 0.4], II 4.2 (4.0) [1.4 (1.3), 0.6, 0.9, 0.9 (0.8), 0.4], III 5.3 (5.2) [1.7, 0.7, 1.1, 1.3 (1.2), 0.5], IV 5.5 (5.4) [1.7 (1.6), 0.7, 1.2, 1.4, 0.5]. LEG FORMULA: 4321 (in other male the same, but legs I &amp; II exactly with the same length). Long fringe hairs ventrally on tibia &amp; metatarsus III present, but less distinct than in other Corythalia species. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) extremely long [about 4x longer than width of tegulum (T)], very narrow to filiform (at least in distal 3/4 section definitely filiform), running in almost two windings/ loops around embolus base (EB) and arising distally on EB (from retrolatero-distally to prolatero-distally) (Figs 52A, 67 I–J); EB completely visible ventrally, hence width of EB easily measurable (&gt; 1/2 the width of T, but &lt;2/3); EB located retrolatero-centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 52A, 67 I–J); sperm duct double-stacked Sshaped, however, extremely depressed, occupying more than 3/4 of T from retrolateral (almost entire T); proximal tegulum lobe very narrow (clearly less than half as broad as entire T); cymbium alveolus slightly distal of EB with two conspicuous ridges (Figs 52A, 67 I–J), one of which in retrolateral view protruding towards distal part of EB (Figs 52B, 70J); cymbium in ventral view distally (strongly) conically converging, at distalmost section rounded, but narrower than in other Corythalia species; palpal tibia very short (about 2x broader than long, Figs 52 A–B, 67I–J, 70J) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view very flat, distally broad rounded, located centrally in prolateral half of palpal tibia (Figs 52A, 67 I–J); RTA quite long (longer than half the width of T) and broad (&gt;&gt; 1/2 the length of palpal tibia) (Figs 52A, 67 I–J) and in retrolateral view at proximal section even about 1/2 as broad as width of palpal tibia (Figs 52B, 70J); distalmost part of RTA (distal knob) in ventral view bended prolaterally; RTA with retrolatero-distal direction and with dorsal serration (Figs 52A, 67 I–J); in retrolateral view distal knob of RTA even better recognisable (Figs 52B, 70J). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 60G). Legs dark brown to red-brown, except for several articles being lighter (see genus description) (Fig. 60G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, central transversal band just narrow, but nevertheless with dark, chevron-like patch in central section; posterior band even narrower and separated (interrupted) medially (Fig. 60G).</p> <p>Female: unknown.</p> <p>Intraspecific variation. Arising point of embolus located retrolatero-distally at embolus base in specimens from Cachoeira, Paraná (Fig. 67J) and prolatero-distally in those from Borba, Amazonas (Figs 50A, 67I). In specimens from Paraná (Fig. 67J) prolateral section of tegulum reaching slightly further prolaterally (beyond prolateral cymbium margin) than in those from Amazonas (Figs 50A, 67I).</p> <p>Remarks. The male holotype was examined by the third author in 1996 at MZUSP. The type specimen was once not available for loan (and thus could not be re-examined in the labs of SMNK, Karlsruhe, Germany). However, a schematic illustration was made at MZUSP and the third author can guarantee that the specimens from Amazonas and Paraná examined herein correspond exactly to the holotype, in other words these specimens unambiguously belong to this species.</p> <p>C. vervloeti is unique in having the following characters: extremely long embolus; large and prominent embolus base located retrolatero-centrally at distal section of tegulum; somewhat depressed tegulum with clearly depressed spermduct; very broad RTA. Due to these unique characters/ character states, the position of C. vervloeti within the genus Corythalia is currently very difficult to assess.</p> <p>Distribution. Known from Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFFEC13866ABFF6C63604F2C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFF9C12466ABF97464344888.text	03D88781FFF9C12466ABF97464344888.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia opima (Peckham & Peckham 1885)	<div><p>Corythalia opima (Peckham &amp; Peckham, 1885)</p> <p>Figs 53 A–E, 60H, 63G, 67K, 70K, 74G, 78F</p> <p>Jotus opimus Peckham &amp; Peckham 1885: 71, pl. 2, figs 7, 7a–b (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀). Lectotype ♂ (here desig- nated; only left palpus of the specimen left, body misplaced or lost) from Guatemala (eastern part) (no further information), G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll. No. 462, MCZ 22400. Paralectotypes (1 ♂, only left palpus left, body misplaced or lost, 1 ♀, 1 juvenile, here designated) with the same data as for lectotype, MCZ 22400 (♂ and juvenile paralectotypes are here put in separate vial, ♀ paralectotype ♀ in another separate vial); all type material examined.</p> <p>Dynamius opimus— Simon 1888: 205 (transfer from Jotus to Dynamius); Banks 1898: 283, pl. 17, fig. 25 (illustration of ♀); Peckham &amp; Peckham 1901: 340, pl. 25, Fig. 6 (illustration of habitus of ♀).</p> <p>Sidusa opima— F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 219, pl. 18, figs 5–6 [transfer from Dynamius to Sidusa, not followed by subsequent authors; description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀ after Peckham &amp; Peckham (1885)].</p> <p>Sidusa fulvoguttata F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 214, pl. 17, figs 1, 1a (description &amp; illustration of ♀) Syntypes (3 ♀, all ex Collection Frederick DuCane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin): 1 ♀, Mexico: Vera Cruz: Atoyac, H.H. Smith leg. before 1897, NHM; 1 ♀, Guatemala (no further information), F. Sarg leg. before 1897, NHM; 1 ♀, Guatemala: Guatemala city, Stoll leg. before 1897, NHM; all type material examined; F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 219 ([probable] synonymy with S. opima established by F.O. Pickard-Cambridge himself in the same publication, synonymy followed by all subsequent authors and corroborated in the present study).</p> <p>Sidusa spiralis F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 217, pl. 17, figs 14, 14a–e (description &amp; illustration of ♂) partim, pl. 17, figs 14a–c misidentified (= C. opima), pl. 17, figs 14, 14d–e (= in fact Corythalia [at that time Sidusa] spiralis, see species description below).</p> <p>Corythalia opima — Simon 1901: 652, 657 (transfer from Dynamius to Corythalia); Peckham &amp; Peckham 1909: 444 (description of ♂ &amp; ♀).</p> <p>Corythalia spiralis— Petrunkevitch 1925: 212, fig. 131 (description &amp; illustration of ♂), misidentified (after thorough assess- ment of description and illustration in Petrunkevitch 1925; = C. opima); Roewer 1933: 185 (record from Mexico, Vera Cruz; according to distribution area most likely misidentified, = C. opima); Kraus 1955: 63, pl. 10, figs 177–179 (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀), misidentified (material re-examined for the present study, see below; = C. opima); Prószyński 2017: 83, figs 36S-1–3 (illustration of ♂ after F. O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901, pl. 17, fig. 14b &amp; ♀ after Chickering 1946) partim, fig. 36S-1 [male palp] misidentified (= C. opima), figs 36S-2–3 [female epigyne &amp; left half of vulva] (illustration of ♀ of C. spiralis).</p> <p>Additional material examined. MEXICO: Tabasco: Teapa: 1 ♂ paralectotype of Sidusa spiralis, misidentified, H.H. Smith leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin Collection, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 5). GUATEMALA (no further information): 9 ♂ paralectotypes (with individual numbers M-1–M-4, M-6–M- 9, M-11) of Sidusa spiralis, misidentified, F. Sarg leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin Collection, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 2b &amp; 4b). EL SALVADOR (for all remaining material listed below): San Salvador: San Salvador, Institute, 700 m: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 27 June 1951, SMF 8435. Banana plantation near Institute, 670 m: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 18 June 1951, SMF 8436. Street from San Salvador to Suchitoto: 1 ♀, A. Zilch leg. 21 June 1951, SMF 8432. Santa Ana: Laguna de Guija, 420 m: 2 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 26 June 1951, SMF 8433. East of Volcano Izalco, Hacienda Buena Vista: 1 ♀, A. Zilch leg. 26 July 1951, SMF 8434. La Paz: Forest 6 km north of Los Blancos: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 20 June 1951, SMF 8437. San Vicente: Finca El Carmen, 1300 m: 1 ♂, A. Zilch leg. 11–16 June 1951, SMF 8438.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) very long [slightly longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; beginning at arising point from embolus base (EB) E with more than 1.3 but less than 1.5 windings around EB; E in ventral view proximally at arising point at least 10x broader than in distal third (Figs 53A, 67K); RTA very long and extremely narrow (spine-like) (1.3–1.5x longer than width of T) (Figs 53 A–B, 67K, 70K). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigyne without epigynal windows, but with a rather spiral-like or helical structure (Figs 53C, 74G). Vulva without secondary spermathecae (at least not recognisable as widened chamber); primary spermathecae (PS) just slightly widened and distinctly elongated; vulva with elongated blind sac laterally next to PS (Figs 53 D–E, 78F), blind sac shorter and narrower than PS (rarely not narrower, however, at most as broad as PS); copulatory duct very long (about as long as width of entire epigyne) (Figs 53D, 78F).</p> <p>Description. Male (from lectotype only palpus left, hence, no measurements possible, thus measurements of largest male from additional material given): total length 8.6, carapace length 4.2, maximal carapace width 3.1, width of eye rectangle 2.4, opisthosoma length 3.7, opisthosoma width 2.6, fovea length 0.37. EYES: AME 0.76, ALE 0.46, PME 0.14, PLE 0.40, AME–AME 0.05, AME–ALE 0.08, PME–PME 1.97, PME–PLE 0.30, ALE–PLE 0.92, PLE–PLE 1.75, clypeus height at AME 0.40, clypeus height at ALE 0.94. Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600 {1500}, 1500, II 1600, III 3500{2500}, 2600, IV 2600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 3025, 3014, II 3016, 3015, III 3034, 3134, IV 3134{3034}, 3134; metatarsus I 2024, 2014, II 2024, III 3134, IV 4134. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 3.1 [1.2, 0.5, 0.3, 1.1], I 7.6 [2.4, 1.4, 1.7, 1.4, 0.8], II 7.7 [2.5, 1.4, 1.7, 1.4, 0.8], III 9.3 [3.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.0, 0.9], IV 9.0 [2.7, 1.3, 1.9, 2.2, 0.9]. LEG FORMULA: 3421. COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) very long [slightly longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; E in ventral view proximally at arising point at least 10x broader than in distal third (Figs 53A, 67K), arising point distally at embolus base (EB); direction of distal section of E prolatero-distally to (rarely minimally proximo-) prolaterally; EB in ventral view completely visible, but very small and narrow (width of EB 1/4–9/23 the width of T); EB located prolatero-centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 53A, 67K) and more elongated than in other Corythalia species; sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe broad to very broad (&gt; 2/3, &lt;3/4 the width of entire T); cymbium in ventral view distally broad conically converging, at distalmost section broad rounded; palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 53 A–B, 67K, 70K) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view inconspicuous (if at all recognisable); RTA in ventral view extremely narrow (spine-like) and very long (at least 1.3 x longer than width of tegulum), with almost distal direction and without serration (Figs 53A, 67K), in retrolateral view RTA subdistally rarely with additional very small and extremely narrow side-branch (Figs 53B, 70K), however, mostly without such a side-branch. COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown, light scale hairs laterally at proximal sections of carapace sometimes just indistinctly recognisable (Fig. 60H) (but consider that only old museum material was examined). Legs brown to red-brown, more or less unicoloured, however fourth leg pair mostly lighter (Fig. 60H). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band very bright, just moderately broad and centrally mostly interrupted; chevron-like patch in central band thus mostly missing (rarely present in specimens where central band not interrupted); posterior band always separated/ interrupted medially (Fig. 60H); sometimes with large, light beige patch reaching medially from central band up to posterior band.</p> <p>Female (paralectotype female): total length 10.2, carapace length 5.1, maximal carapace width 3.9, width of eye rectangle 2.8, opisthosoma length 5.1, opisthosoma width 3.5, fovea length 0.65. EYES: AME 0.92, ALE 0.56, PME 0.16, PLE 0.48, AME–AME 0.07, AME–ALE 0.11, PME–PME 2.53, PME–PLE 0.38, ALE–PLE 1.10, PLE–PLE 2.24, clypeus height at AME 0.59, clypeus height at ALE 1.22. Cheliceral furrow with Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth or with 1 promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600, II 1700, III–IV 1600; patella I–II 1000, III–IV 1010; tibia I 3014, II 3024{3025}, III–IV 3133; metatarsus I 3014, II 1023, III 3134, IV 4044. MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 4.5 [1.6, 0.9, 0.7, 1.3], I 9.0 [2.9, 1.8, 1.8, 1.6, 0.9], II 9.2 [3.0, 1.8, 1.9, 1.6, 0.9], III 10.9 [3.4, 1.9, 2.2, 2.3, 1.1], IV 10.9 [3.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.5, 1.0]. LEG FORMULA: 4&amp;321 (legs 4 and 3 with exactly the same length). COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne without epigynal windows but with helical or spiral-like structure on each side with copulatory opening latero-centrally (Figs 53C, 74G); posterior margin of helical structure not reaching epigastric furrow; anterior arches of copulatory ducts (CD) visible through cuticle of epigyne, directly (medio-) anterior of each helical structure; epigynal field minimally broader than long (Figs 53C, 74G). Vulva with narrow (just about twice as broad as CD) and distinctly elongated primary spermathecae (PS); secondary spermathecae absent (or at least not recognisable as widened chamber); heads of spermathecae (HS) also not recognisable [remark: anterior arche of CD with two to three very flat and small elevations/bulges; one of these might represent HS]; copulatory ducts very long, meeting PS posteriorly (Figs 53 D–E, 78F); fertilisation ducts (very) narrow, arising antero-centrally (at tip) on PS, bent laterally (Figs 53 D–E, 78F); blind sac (BS) lateral to PS shorter and narrower than PS (at most as broad as PS, but rarely the case) and generally not reaching as far anterior as PS, CD meeting BS posteriorly (at the same locality as PS). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown, light scale hairs laterally at proximal sections of carapace sometimes just indistinctly recognisable (Fig. 63G). Legs brown to red-brown (lighter than in males), almost unicoloured (only patellae slightly lighter), however, third and fourth leg pair slightly lighter than anterior two leg pairs (Fig. 63G). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, central transversal band very bright, just moderately broad and centrally mostly interrupted; chevron-like patch in central band thus generally missing; posterior band always separated/ interrupted medially; often with large, light beige patch occupying medial section of opisthosoma over posterior 2/3 (Fig. 63G).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male copulatory organs. Concerning male copulatory organ shape and width of proximal tegulum lobe (PTL) with noteworthy variation (sometimes about 2/3 the width of tegulum (T), sometimes even 3/4; sometimes PTL in proximal third (near proximal ending) with lateral bulges and even broader than further distally); additionally width of embolus base (EB) with slight variation (sometimes just minimally more than 1/4, sometimes almost 2/5 the width of T) and gap between proximal section of embolus and (prolatero-) distal section of EB in some specimens slightly larger than in others. Lectotype male exhibiting a tiny and extremely narrow apohysis dorsally at subdistal section of RTA (Fig. 53B) being absent in all other males of C. opima examined in the present study. Even paratype male (originating from the same locality as holotype) only showing a very small bulge dorsally at subdistal section of RTA. Consequently, such a tiny side-apohysis might appear in males of C. opima, but very rarely. Females: in some specimens copulatory duct slightly longer than in others; followingly orientation of primary spermathecae and blind sacs also with variation (sometimes not as longitudinal as in others but rather diagonal).</p> <p>Remarks. Corythalia opima is very similar to C. spiralis. Males have in common: long, filiform and spiralshaped embolus; small embolus base; very long and spine-like RTA; quite elongated tegulum. Females: epigyne without epigynal windows (as present in most other Corythalia species) but with helical or spiral-like structure; vulva with additional blind sacs next to primary spermathecae (PS); PS narrow and longitudinally elongated. These two species are certainly closely related. Formally, these two species might be united as representatives of the C. opima species-group.</p> <p>Distribution. Known from USA (Arizona) (Petrunkevitch 1911), Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFF9C12466ABF97464344888	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFE5C12166ABFE28637A48D0.text	03D88781FFE5C12166ABFE28637A48D0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia spiralis (F. O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901)	<div><p>Corythalia spiralis (F.O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901)</p> <p>Figs 54 A–E, 55A–C, 60I, 63H, 67L, 70L, 74H, 78G–H</p> <p>Sidusa spiralis F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901: 217, pl. 17, figs 14, 14a–e (description &amp; illustration of ♂) partim, pl. 17, figs 14a–c misidentified (= C. opima), pl. 17, figs 14, 14d–e (illustration of ♂). Lectotype ♂ (here designated) from Panama: Chiriquí: Bugaba, G. C. Champion leg. between Nov. 1882 and Mar. 1883 (mostly during the dry season), Frederick Du- Cane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin Collection, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 1). Paralectotypes (14 ♂, here designated): Guatemala (no further information), F. Sarg leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin Collection: 1 ♂ (individual number M-12), NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 2a); 1 ♂ (M-13) with the same data as above, NHM 1905-4- 28 -298–307 (pt. 3); 2 ♂ (M-5, M-10) also with the same data as above, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 4a); all following 10 ♂ paralectotypes were misidentified and could, along with the present study, be identified as C. opima: Guatemala (no further information), F. Sarg leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin Collection: 1 ♂ (M-11), NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 2b); 8 ♂ (M-1–M-4, M-6–M-9) with the same data as above, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 4b); Mexico: Tabasco: Teapa, H. H. Smith leg. before 1897, Frederick DuCane Godmann &amp; Osbert Salvin Collection, 1 ♂, NHM 1905-4-28 -298–307 (pt. 5); all type material examined; Banks 1909: 221 (record from Costa Rica, genus name Sidusa misapplied).</p> <p>Corythalia spiralis — Simon 1903: 790 (transfer from Sidusa to Corythalia). Petrunkevitch 1925: 212, fig. 131 (description &amp; illustration of ♂), misidentified (= C. opima). Roewer 1933: 185 (record from Mexico, Vera Cruz; according to distribution area most likely misidentified = C. opima); Chickering 1946: 158, figs 143–144 (description &amp; illustration of ♀); Kraus 1955: 63, figs 177–179 (description &amp; illustration of ♂ &amp; ♀), misidentified (= C. opima); Prószyński 2017: 83, figs 36S- 1–3 (illustration of ♂ after F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1901, pl. 17, fig. 14b &amp; ♀ after Chickering 1946) partim, fig. 36S-1 [male palp] misidentified (= C. opima), Figs 36 S-2–3 [female epigyne &amp; left half of vulva] (illustration of ♀).</p> <p>Additional material. NEW GRENADA, today: COLOMBIA (or less likely PANAMA): 2 ♀ paralectotypes of Escambia electa, misidentified, G.W. &amp; E.G. Peckham Coll., No. 655 (separate vial), MCZ 21175. Departamento Magdalena: Santa Marta, introduced to Basel (Switzerland) (with fruits?): 2 ♀, 1 juvenile, Prof. Dr Ed. Handschin deposited 1930, NHMB 1027 a. Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-74.04583&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=10.9" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -74.04583/lat 10.9)">San Pedro</a>, 10°54’N, 74°02’45”W, about 1410 m a.s.l., forest, “jumping over the underground of the forest”: 1 ♂, C. Kugler leg. 02 Oct. 1977, sample no. #7, for- mer LNK coll. no. 0372, SMNK-ARA 14031. VENEZUELA: Amazonas: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-66.0&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=3.0" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -66.0/lat 3.0)">Rio Surumoni</a>, roughly 3° N, 66° W, 120–150 m a.s.l., L2: 1 ♀, Manfred Verhaagh leg. 05 Oct. 1998, with former label type «LNK—Landessammlungen für Naturkunde, Karlsruhe», SMNK-ARA 14032. FRENCH GUIANA: St. Laurent du Maroni: Fracas, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-53.412003&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.6006" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -53.412003/lat 4.6006)">La Trinité Nature Reserve</a> (westernmost section), 04°36’2.16”N, 53°24’43.2”W, about 150 m, primary forest: 1 ♀, Frédéric Ysnel leg. 31 Oct. 2008 by beating shrubs &amp; trees, sample number: FR-973-00111, GCBUR. Cayenne: Cayenne, <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.416668&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=4.7166667" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.416668/lat 4.7166667)">Montagnes des Chevaux</a>, ca. 04°43’N, 52°25’W, 17 m a.s.l., forest: 1 ♂, Vincent Vedel leg. 09 Nov. 2010, Sample number: FR-973-00337, GCBUR. BRAZIL: Amazonas: Manaus: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-59.98&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-2.92" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -59.98/lat -2.92)">Reserva Ducke</a>, 02°55’12’’S, 59°58’48’’W, 1 ♀, H. Höfer &amp; T. Gasnier leg. 30 Mar. 1992, sample number BE I/1 (arboreal funnel trap), SMNK-ARA 02513. Mato Grosso do Sul: Rio Pardo: 1 ♂, F.S. Cunha &amp; C. R. Souza leg. 22–25 May 2001, IBSP 53388. Santa Rita do Rio Pardo: 1 ♀, R. Bertani &amp; K. Kashimata leg. 24 Apr. 2001, IBSP ex. 53255. Corumbá, Passo do Lontra, Sub-regiões Miranda e Abobral: 2 ♂, J. Raizer et al. leg. June 1998 – Nov. 1999 (Am: 187), IBSP 86135. Anaurilândia: 1 ♀, F.S. Cunha &amp; C. R. Souza leg. 05–11 Mar. 2001, IBSP ex. 53374. São Paulo: Porto Primavera, Usina Hidrelétrica Sérgio Motta; Equipe IBSP leg. 2001: 1 ♂, 4 ♀, IBSP 53142; 2 ♂, IBSP 53033.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Males distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: embolus (E) very long [longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; beginning at arising point from embolus base (EB) E with more than 1.5 windings around EB (but less than 1.9); E in ventral view proximally at arising point at most 6x broader than in distal third (Figs 54A, 67L); RTA very long and extremely narrow (spine-like) (1.3–1.5x longer than width of T) (Figs 54 A–B, 67L). Females distinguished from those of all other Corythalia species by the following characters in combination: epigyne without epigynal windows, but with a rather spiral-like or helical structure (Figs 54C, 55A 74H). Vulva with just slightly widened secondary spermathecae, anteriorly distinctly rounded and posteriorly with straight margin; primary spermathecae (PS) just slightly widened (even less than SS) and clearly elongated; vulva with elongated blind sac laterally next to PS (Figs 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H), blind sac broader and longer than PS (Figs 54D, 55B, 78 G–H) (rarely just minimally longer than PS).</p> <p>Description. Male (measurements of lectotype first, those of paralectotypes and additional males as range in parentheses): total length 5.8 (4.6–7.4), carapace length 2.7 (2.1–3.2), maximal carapace width 2.2 (1.8–2.4), width of eye rectangle 1.7 (1.4–2.1), opisthosoma length 1.6 (2.0–3.3), opisthosoma width 1.7 (1.4–2.4), fovea length 0.21 (0.20–0.25). EYES: AME 0.56 (0.45–0.59), ALE 0.32 (0.28–0.36), PME 0.08 (0.08–0.09), PLE 0.28 (0.27–0.33), AME–AME 0.03 (0.02–0.07), AME–ALE 0.05 (0.05–0.11), PME–PME 1.48 (1.32–1.65), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.23– 0.31), ALE–PLE 0.68 (0.57–0.78), PLE–PLE 1.37 (1.08–1.47), clypeus height at AME 0.22 (0.20–0.35), clypeus height at ALE 0.58 (0.54–0.78). Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth, more rarely, but also recognised 1 pro- and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINA- TION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1600 (1600, 1500), II 1600 (1700, 1600, 1500), III 2600 (2600, 2700, 1600), IV 1600 (1600, 0500); patella I–II 1010 (1010, 1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 3024 (3024, 4004, 4014), II 4035 (3024, 3014, 3025), III 3134 (3133), IV 3134 (3134, 3133); metatarsus I 3124 (2124, 2024), II 2024 (2124, 2024), III 3134 (3134), IV 3144 (4144). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.3 (1.8–2.6) [0.8 (0.8–1.0), 0.4 (0.2–0.4), 0.2 (0.1–0.3), 0.9 (0.7–1.0], I 5.5 (3.9–6.1) [1.8 (1.2–2.0), 1.0 (0.7–1.1), 1.2 (0.8–1.3), 0.9 (0.7–1.1), 0.6 (0.5–0.6)], II 5.3 (4.0–6.1) [1.8 (1.3–2.0), 0.9 (0.7–1.1), 1.2 (0.8–1.3), 0.9 (0.7–1.1), 0.5 (0.5–0.6)], III 6.5 (5.0–7.0) [2.1 (1.6–2.2), 0.9 (0.7–1.0), 1.4 (1.0–1.4), 1.4 (1.1–1.6), 0.7 (0.6–0.8)], IV 6.7 (4.7–6.9) [2.2 (1.5–2.2), 0.9 (0.6–1.0), 1.3 (1.0–1.4), 1.6 (1.1–1.6), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 4312 (3421, 3412). COPULATORY ORGAN: embolus (E) very long [longer than 2x the width of tegulum (T)] and main section filiform; E in ventral view proximally at arising point at most 6x broader than in distal third (Figs 54A, 67L), arising point (retrolatero-) proximally at embolus base (EB); direction of distal section of E prolatero-distally to (sometimes proximo-) prolaterally; EB in ventral view completely visible, but very small and narrow (width of EB&gt; 1/5, &lt;1/3 the width of T); EB located approximately centrally at distal part of T; T narrower than cymbium (Figs 54A, 67L) and more elongated than in other Corythalia species; sperm duct double-stacked S-shaped, occupying more than 2/3 of T from retrolateral; proximal tegulum lobe broad (about 2/3 the width of T); cymbium in ventral view distally broad conically converging, at distalmost section broad rounded; palpal tibia short, broader than long (Figs 54 A–B, 67L, 70L) and ventral tibial bump in ventral view inconspicuous (Figs 54A, 67L); RTA in ventral view extremely narrow (spine-like) and very long (at least 1.3 x longer than width of tegulum), with retrolatero-distal to distal direction and without serration (Figs 54A, 67L), in retrolateral view exactly the same (Figs 54B, 70L). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace dark red-brown (Fig. 60I). Legs brown to red-brown, more or less unicoloured (patellae minimally lighter), however fourth leg pair mostly lighter (Fig. 60I). Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however central transversal band very bright, just narrow and centrally interrupted; chevron-like patch in central band thus missing; posterior band also narrow (even slightly narrower than central) and always separated/ interrupted medially (Fig. 60I).</p> <p>Female (measurement of female F-4 from Usina Hidrel. Sérgio Motta first, those of remaining females as range in parentheses): total length 7.5 (5.9–8.6), carapace length 3.0 (2.7–3.4), maximal carapace width 2.3 (2.0–2.5), width of eye rectangle 1.9 (1.6–2.0), opisthosoma length 3.8 (2.6–4.8), opisthosoma width 2.7 (1.9–3.2), fovea length 0.20–0.23. EYES: AME 0.60 (0.51–0.62), ALE 0.34 (0.31–0.35), PME 0.09 (0.07–0.10), PLE 0.29 (0.25– 0.30), AME–AME 0.05 (0.03–0.06), AME–ALE 0.08 (0.05–0.08), PME–PME 1.63 (1.47–1.69), PME–PLE 0.29 (0.25–0.30), ALE–PLE 0.76 (0.67–0.78), PLE–PLE 1.48 (1.33–1.55), clypeus height at AME 0.28 (0.22–0.35), clypeus height at ALE 0.63 (0.54–0.69). Cheliceral furrow with 2 (melted with each other, resembling a fissident tooth) promarginal and 1 retromarginal teeth or more rarely 1 pro- and 1 retromarginal teeth. SPINATION: palp: no spines. Legs: femur I 1700 {1500} (1500), II 1600 (1600), III 1600 {2600} (1600, 1500), IV 0600 (0500, 0600, 1500); patella I–II 1000 (1000), III–IV 1010 (1010); tibia I 3008{2004} (3005, 3004, 3025), II 3025{3015} (3005, 3004), III 3134 (3133, 2133), IV 3144 (3133); metatarsus I 2028 {2024} (2024), II 2024 (2024), III 3134 (3134, 3144), IV 3144 (4143, 4044). MEASUREMENT OF PALP AND LEGS: palp 2.6 (2.1–2.8) [0.9 (0.8–0.9), 0.5 (0.3–0.5), 0.4 (0.3–0.4), 0.8 (0.7–0.8)], I 4.9 (4.2–5.2) [1.6 (1.3–1.8), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 1.0 (0.8–1.1), 0.8 (0.7–0.9), 0.6 (0.4–0.6)], II 4.7 (4.2–5.0) [1.6 (1.3–1.6), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 0.8 (0.7–0.9), 0.5 (0.4–0.5)], III 5.9 (4.9–6.4) [1.9 (1.7–2.0), 1.0 (0.8–1.1), 1.1 (0.9–1.3), 1.2 (1.0–1.3), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)], IV 6.1 (5.2–6.7) [2.0 (1.7–2.1), 0.9 (0.8–1.0), 1.2 (1.1–1.4), 1.3 (1.1–1.5), 0.7 (0.5–0.7)]. LEG FORMULA: 4312. COPULATORY ORGAN: epigyne without epigynal windows but with helical or spiral-like structure on each side (of imaginal longitudinal axis of body) with copulatory opening centrally (Figs 54C, 55A, 74H); posterior margin of helical structure not reaching epigastric furrow; anterior sections of secondary spermathecae (SS) visible through cuticle of epigyne, anterior of each helical structure; epigynal field broader than long (Figs 54C, 55A, 74H). Vulva with widened SS (but not distinctly) with rounded anterior margin and straight posterior margin; heads of spermathecae very small, flat and inconspicuous (but generally recognisable) and located antero-laterally or centro-laterally on SS (Figs 54 D–E, 78G–H); primary spermathecae (PS) narrow [just slightly broader than copulatory duct (CD) or connective duct (DST) between SS and PS] and distinctly elongated, sometimes curved; DST quite long (about 2x as long as PS), not distinctly narrow and meeting PS and blind sac (BS) from posterior; CD moderately long, running anteriorly and meeting SS postero-laterally (Figs 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H); fertilisation ducts (very) narrow, arising antero-centrally (at tip) on PS, bent laterally (Figs 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H); BS located lateral (but not directly) to PS; BS longer (rarely just minimally longer) and broader than PS and generally reaching further anteriorly than PS (Figs 54 D–E, 55B–C, 78G–H). COLOURATION: see genus description for conservative aspects. Carapace red-brown (Fig. 63H). Legs brown to red-brown, unicoloured (Fig. 63H), third and fourth leg pair rarely slightly lighter than anterior two leg pairs. Opisthosoma like noted in genus description under general dorsal colouration, however, central transversal band very bright, just moderately broad (mostly narrower than in C. opima) and centrally mostly interrupted (if not interrupted, with extremly narrow section medially, connecting the two broader sections “approaching” fom lateral); chevron-like patch in central band missing (Fig. 63H); posterior band similarly narrow or narrower than central band and always separated/ interrupted medially (Fig. 63H).</p> <p>Intraspecific variation of male and female copulatory organs. Some males with distal section of embolus (E) directed prolaterally (or even proximo-prolaterally); number of windings around EB varying from 1.55 to 1.8. Intraspecific variation in females quite conspicuous: Helical structure of epigyne with slightly less windings in some specimens (Fig. 55A) than in others (Figs 54C, 74H); gap between posterior margin of helical structure and epigastric furrow slightly longer in some specimens (Figs 55A, 74H) than in others (Fig. 54C); rounded anterior margins of secondary spermathecae (SS) visible through cuticle of epigyne not reaching as far anterior in some females (Fig. 74H) than in others (Figs 54C, 55A); epigynal field less distinct in some specimens (Fig. 74H) than in others (Figs 54C, 55A). Primary spermathecae (PS) sometimes curved centrally (Figs 54D, 78H) or proximally; position of heads of spermathecae (HS) varying, sometimes latero-distally (Fig. 54D), sometimes centro-laterally (Fig. 78G) or rarely HS thus small that not even recognisable (Fig. 55B); blind sac of right half of vulva reaching distinctly further anteriorly than left in some specimens (Figs 78 G–H), in others vice versa (Fig. 55B); in some females distal parts of PS slightly bent laterally (Fig. 55B).</p> <p>Remarks. Conspecificity of the females presented in the present study with the male lectotype of Corythalia (originally sub Sidusa) spiralis is certain. That material was available from localities where males corresponding to the lectotype were collected together with females here presented as C. spiralis (see above). But also Chickering (1946) correctly identified C. spiralis and examined material from Panama where both females and males were available from exactly the same locality. Thus he was the first to describe the female of C. spiralis. In this context an irregularity should be addressed: Chickering (1946, p. 158, second paragraph from bottom and 162, second para- graph) lists one of these females as “ allotype ” and others as “ paratypes ”. These “type designations” are, of course, void according to the ICZN as this material does not belong to the material examined along with the first description by F.O. Pickard-Cambridge (1901). The material examined by Chickering (even though being of great importance) does not at all have type status.</p> <p>Corythalia spiralis is very similar to C. opima. The main similarities between these two species are listed above (under remarks in the species description of C. opima). A lot of misidentifications of C. spiralis as C. opima (see above) were certainly the consequence of this great similarity. Hence, these two species are certainly closely related and might be united as representatives of the C. opima species-group.</p> <p>Distribution. Guatemala to Brazil.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFE5C12166ABFE28637A48D0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFE3C12366ABFF1462784888.text	03D88781FFE3C12366ABFF1462784888.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia variegata Caporiacco 1954	<div><p>Corythalia variegata Caporiacco, 1954</p> <p>Corythalia variegata Caporiacco 1954: 179, fig. 67 description &amp; illustration of A juvenile. instead of, juvenile male from French Guiana: Saint-Laurent-du Maroni: Charvein, ca. 05°34’N, 53°54’W, about 20 m a.s.l., R. Benoist leg. Dec. 1913, MNHN (Col. No. unknown), holotype requested at MNHN, but lost (C. Rollard, pers. comm.), thus not examined; Ruiz &amp; Brescovit 2008: 493 (assessment as nomen dubium); (nomen dubium).</p> <p>Remarks. The assessment of C. variegata as a nomen dubium by Ruiz &amp; Brescovit (2008) is absolutely justified and will definitely not change anymore. Even, if the juvenile male holotype would be found in the future, it would be impossible to define this species, as the male copulatory organ is not developed in this specimen. A definite discrimination of Corythalia species, however, is not possible without the examination of copulatory organs of adult specimens. The present study has shown that colouration patterns, if at all, may help distinguish certain groups of species, but definitely not to recognise a particular species. Additionally, a certain degree of variation in coloura- tion is recognisable among different specimens of most species and especially the colouration of the opisthosoma depends on the nutritional state or the maturity of females (i.e. state of the oogenesis). Moreover, Crane (1948) had found out that the colouration of juvenile specimens often differ from that of adults. In French Guiana several other Corythalia species occur, e.g. C. waleckii, C. luctuosa, C. spiralis, C. foelixi Bayer, sp. nov., C. fulgipedia. It is not to exclude that the juvenile type of C. variegata is conspecific with one of these species. In any case, as the type specimen is juvenile, it is impossible to discriminate C. variegata from other Corythalia species based on the description and the illustration (Fig. 67) in Caporiacco (1954).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFE3C12366ABFF1462784888	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFE2C12C66ABF8B0640348F4.text	03D88781FFE2C12C66ABF8B0640348F4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia major Simon 1901	<div><p>Corythalia major Simon, 1901</p> <p>Corythalia major Simon 1901: 655 (mention of the name without any description or illustration); Petrunkevitch 1911: 617; Bonnet 1956: 1237 (recognition and assessment under status nomen nudum); Platnick (2001) (nomen nudum).</p> <p>Habrocestum major— Simon 1901: 666.</p> <p>Remarks. Simon (1901) listed this “species” together with Corythalia [at that time sub Habrocestum] locuples Simon (1888) (see below), so it once must have been collected in the same locality as C. locuples (Santo Domingo, Hispaniola). A description does neither exist under the genus name Habrocestum nor under Corythalia. Additionally, (a) type (s) was/were never designated and deposited. Accordingly, a characterisation of C. major is impossible and the invalid status as a nomen nudum is justified. In the context of the first description of Anasaitis [formerly temporarily in Habrocestum and Corythalia] locuples Simon (1888) seemingly mentioned a specimen varying from the type of H. locuples and stated: “... prope oculos squamulis majoribus laetissime purpureo-aureis vestita...”. However, he did not list it officially as variant or subspecies with an explicit heading and an explicit description. A few years later Simon (1901) mentioned the species name, so, it is well imaginable that he had planned to describe a species with this name (including designation and deposition of a type) subsequently, but he never did.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFE2C12C66ABF8B0640348F4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFEDC12D66ABF89C62C6481C.text	03D88781FFEDC12D66ABF89C62C6481C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Corythalia dimidiata Simon 1901	<div><p>Corythalia dimidiata Simon, 1901</p> <p>Corythalia dimidiata Simon 1901: 654 (mention of the name without any description or illustration); Petrunkevitch 1911: 615; Bonnet 1956: 1236 (recognition and establishment under status nomen nudum); Platnick (2001) (nomen nudum).</p> <p>Remarks. As distribution area of this “species” Simon (1901) listed Colombia. In Colombia, however, far more than one Corythalia species occur. As neither any types were deposited nor any description of this “species” exists, the invalid status as a nomen nudum is justified. Once again, Simon may have planned to describe a species with this name (including designation and deposition of a type), but never did so.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFEDC12D66ABF89C62C6481C	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FFECC12866ABF8B2638F48D0.text	03D88781FFECC12866ABF8B2638F48D0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pachomius argyrochrysos (Mello-Leitao 1946) Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Pachomius argyrochrysos (Mello-Leitão, 1946) comb. nov.</p> <p>Figs 56 A–I</p> <p>Dinamius [sic.!] argyrochrysos Mello-Leitão 1946: 89 (description of ♂) (the spelling of the genus name “ Dinamius ” was a lapsus, correct would be “ Dynamius ”, moreover, this genus name was misapplied at that point of time). Lectotype ♀ (specimen with chelicerae still present) and paralectotype ♀ (specimen with chelicerae dissected and lost) (here designated) from Par- aguay: Departamento Presidente Hayes: Puerto Pinasco, Mera G. von Bülow leg. Jan. 1943, MLPA 17020; types requested, but customs regulations of the state of Argentina do not allow to send scientific type material abroad. However, thanks to the kindness and efforts of Luis Alberto Pereira, the associate curator of the section “Arachnology and Myriapodology” and the permission by the main curator of the division “Zoología de Invertebrados” of the Museo de La Plata, María Cristina Damborenea, many photos of the two type specimens were made available for examination.</p> <p>Corythalia argyrochrysos— Roewer 1954b: 1100 [listing of that species correctly under Corythalia according to: Simon 1901: 652, 655, 657 (Synonymy of Dynamius with Corythalia, hence, formal transfer of all species described or listed in that genus to Corythalia)].</p> <p>Description. The description is only a short summary by mentioning a few characters of taxonomic interest. The reasons are: 1. This species is not a Corythalia. 2. A physical examination was not possible (see above).</p> <p>Male: unknown.</p> <p>Female: body length 6 mm. Basic colouration relatively dark red-brown, with light transversal band centrally on opisthosoma and additionally with short transversal band in front of spinnerets (Figs 56A, 56G). Carapace laterally and proximally without margin of light white to beige scale hairs (may or may not be rubbed off). General shape of carapace similar to the situation in Corythalia species but appears to be slightly longer (Figs 56A, 56G). Legs light brown to red brown, III &amp; IV annulated (light brown &amp; brown) (Figs 56A, 56G). Leg pair I (at least slightly) stronger and broader than others (Figs 56 A–B). Palps similar like those in females of Corythalia species but distally (palpal tarsus) slightly broader (Figs 56 C–D). Cheliceral claws longer than in Corythalia species (Figs 56 B–D), distal endings (in resting position) crossing. Gnathocoxae shorter and labium slightly shorter than in Corythalia species (Figs 56 C–D). Cheliceral furrow with two teeth at promargin (one clearly smaller and shorter than the other having normal size) and one at retromargin. The latter conspicuous and broad (larger than the large tooth on promargin) (Fig. 56D). Cheliceral base medio-distally at anterior surface without lobe. COPULATORY ORGAN: “Epigynal windows”, if regarded as such, very finely indicated and approximately round (Figs 56E, 56H). A crescent structure leading to the copulatory opening. Primary spermathecae visible through cuticle. Posterior margin of epigyne with conspicuous, deep invagination (Figs 56E, 56H). Epigynal field slightly longer than broad (Fig. 56H). Vulva: (primary) spermathecae clearly longer than broad, fertilisation ducts arising from medio-anteriorly. Copulatory duct quite broad (Figs 56F, 56I).</p> <p>Remarks. Concluding the descriptive aspects above, this species definitely does not belong to the genus Corythalia. Although, colouration of dorsal opisthosoma and shape of the carapace (except the fact that it is slightly longer) would suggest assignment to the genus Corythalia, the length of the cheliceral claws, the teeth on both margins of the cheliceral furrow and the missing lobes medio-distally on anterior surface of cheliceral base are not common in Corythalia. Above all, the basic structures of the copulatory organ distinctly differ from Corythalia. The deep invagination at posterior part of epigyne, the missing secondary spermathecae and the relatively broad copulatory duct running simply from anterior to posterior resemble the conditions in some species of Phiale C.L. Koch, 1846 and definitely correspond to Pachomius. Consequently, this species is here transferred to the genus Pachomius.</p> <p>Distribution. Presidente Hayes, Paraguay.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FFECC12866ABF8B2638F48D0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF15C1D466ABFF6C606649F0.text	03D88781FF15C1D466ABFF6C606649F0.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neonella Gertsch 1936	<div><p>Genus Neonella Gertsch, 1936</p> <p>Incertae sedis:</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF15C1D466ABFF6C606649F0	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
03D88781FF15C1D566ABFEEC65074B60.text	03D88781FF15C1D566ABFEEC65074B60.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Neonella heliophanina (Taczanowski 1871) Bayer & Höfer & Metzner 2020	<div><p>Neonella heliophanina (Taczanowski, 1871) comb. nov.</p> <p>Attus heliophaninus Taczanowski 1871: 109 (description of ♂). Holotype ♂ from French Guiana: <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=-52.583332&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=5.2833333" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long -52.583332/lat 5.2833333)">Cayenne</a>: Iles du Salut, ca. 5°17’N, 52°35’W, about 5–50 m, C. Jelski leg. 1866–1870, MIZ; holotype requested, however, considered lost by D. Mierzwa-Szymkowiak (pers. comm.), thus not examined.</p> <p>Corythalia heliophanoides— Simon 1901: 655 (transfer from Attus; specific epithet ‘ heliophanoides ’ was a lapsus).</p> <p>Corythalia heliophanina ― Platnick (2001)</p> <p>Remarks. According to the description in Taczanowski (1871) this species almost certainly does not belong to Corythalia. The arguments are the following: first, it is a very small species with a body length of only 3.5 mm, which is unusual in Corythalia; second, the following somatic characters clearly differ from all currently known Corythalia species: a) anterior row of eyes in frontal view equal in line—in Corythalia the lateral eyes reach further dorsally than the median eyes (Fig. 3B); b) carapace dark with one transverse light band; c) opisthosoma dorsally dark green, with metallic shine and with three crescent moon-like patches (Taczanowski 1871). As the holotype of C. heliophanina is lost, we did not have the chance of re-examination. Hence, at the moment a sufficient characterisation and definition (diagnosis) of this species is not possible. As it is not to exclude that the type will be found someday, we do not consider C. heliophanina a nomen dubium, but a species inquirenda. Accordingly, the provisional placement in Neonella has to be regarded under incertae sedis. Just in case the holotype would be found in the future and made available for examination, a re-description, a revised diagnosis and a comprehensive genus affiliation could be provided.</p> <p>Distribution. Known only from the type locality in Cayenne, French Guiana.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D88781FF15C1D566ABFEEC65074B60	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Bayer, Steffen;Höfer, Hubert;Metzner, Heiko	Bayer, Steffen, Höfer, Hubert, Metzner, Heiko (2020): Revision of the genus Corythalia C. L. Koch, 1850, part 1: Diagnosis and new species from South America (Araneae: Salticidae: Salticinae: Euophryini). Zootaxa 4806 (1): 1-144, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4806.1.1
