Sicarius levii, Magalhaes & Brescovit & Santos, 2017

SICARIUS LEVII View in CoL SP. NOV.

Figures 2, 5 View Figure 5 , 9 View Figure 9 , 16A, B View Figure 16 , 18F View Figure 18 , 26D, 30C View Figure 30 , 31F View Figure 31 , 32F View Figure 32 , 33K, 54 View Figure 54

Thomisoides terrosus : Mello-Leit ao ~, 1941: 108, fig. 4 (misidentified).

Sicarius sp. 1 : Levi, 1967: 322; figs 1 – 3; Levi & Levi, 1969: 31, figs 1 – 15.

Sicarius sp. 1 : Reiskind, 1966: 195.

Sicarius terrosus : Gerschman de Pikelin & Schiapelli, 1979: fig. 1b, plate 1, 4-5 (misidentified).

Note: Reiskind (1966), Levi (1967) and Levi & Levi’s (1969) illustrations and locality data indicate that the species they studied is this one; their vouchers were deposited in the MCZ and were destroyed in the fire at the Instituto Butantan before we could examine them. This species is probably the largest known haplogyne spider in terms of body length and body mass, although some Central American Scytodes might have a larger leg span.

Type material: Male holotype from ARGENTINA. R � ıo Negro: El Cuy, RP 6 (67.79195, 39.25879, 309 m), A.D. Brescovit et al., 12/X/2014 (MACN-Ar 33859) GoogleMaps . Paratypes: same province, El Cuy, Paso Cordoba (67.61586, 39.14034, 403 m) GoogleMaps , H.A. Iuri, 20 – 21/I/2015, 1 # (MACN-Ar 34200), 1 # (MACN-Ar 34201), 1 # (MACN-Ar 34202), 1 $ 5 imm. (MACNAr 34203); General Roca, Cinco Saltos, camino a Lago Pellegrini (68.0519, 38.81157, 311 m) GoogleMaps , A.D. Brescovit et al., 16/X/2014, 1 # 1 $ 3 imm. (MACNAr 33865); Santiago del Estero: Campo Gallo (62.85, 26.5833), J. Abalos �, no date, 3 # ( MLP 13736 View Materials ) .

Etymology: This species, the largest sicariid, is named in honour of the recently deceased Dr Herbert W. Levi, a giant among arachnologists. This is in recognition of his huge contributions to arachnology in the form of his beautiful, excellent taxonomic revisions and his ever inspiring example to new generations of students.

Diagnosis: This species can be easily recognized by its large size and cephalic region slightly wider than that of S. rupestris and S. mapuche sp. nov. (compare Figs 15H, 16B View Figure 16 ). Males are further distinguished by having a ventral tuft of setae in the palpal femur ( Fig. 54A View Figure 54 , VHT) and by the straight bulb with a distinct base and a short embolus ( Fig. 54B – D View Figure 54 ) (smooth transition between base and body, and long embolus in S. rupestris and S. mapuche sp. nov.). Females are easily distinguished from all Sicarius by the very short spermathecae branches, barely visible in dorsal view ( Fig. 54F – K View Figure 54 ).

Description: Male (holotype from El Cuy, R � ıo Negro, Argentina, MACN-Ar 33859). Coloration: carapace, chelicerae, labium and endites reddish brown, sternum orange, legs brownish orange, abdomen light brown. Carapace length 9.04, anterior width 4.39, thoracic region width 9.04. Eye diameters and interdistances: PME 0.23, ALE 0.32, PLE 0.22, PME – PLE 1.03, ALE – PLE 0.27. Clypeus height 1.73. Eye tubercles absent. Macrosetae in lateral border of the carapace in a single row. Femora without prolateral black setae. Sternum length 3.86, width 3.72, cordiform. Femoral thorns: 5. Leg I: femur 10.24 long, patella 3.99, tibia 9.98, metatarsus 7.32, tarsus 4.52. II: fe 11.44, ti 11.04. III: fe 10.51, ti 9.44. IV: fe 10.37, pa 3.33, ti 9.31, mt 7.32, ta 4.39. Abdomen: length 7.98, width 6.18. Palp as in Figure 54A and B View Figure 54 .

Female (La Curtiembre, Salta, Argentina, AMNH). As in male, except for the following. Labium, endites, sternum and legs light brown, abdomen brownish yellow. Total length 24. Carapace length 10.25, anterior width 5.18, thoracic region width 10.25. Eye diameters and interdistances: PME 0.23, ALE 0.28, PLE 0.25, PME – PLE 1.6, ALE – PLE 0.31. Clypeus height 2.31. Sternum length 2.01, width 4.51, cordiform. Femoral thorns: 6. Leg I: femur 9.25 long, patella 4.01, tibia 8.6, metatarsus 6.55, tarsus 4.15. II: fe 10, ti 9.38. III: fe 9.75, ti 8.38. IV: fe 9.3, pa 3.96, ti 8.5, mt 6.75, ta 4.09. Abdomen: length 12.9, width 12. Spermathecae branches: 8. Ventral branches present, one pair, straight. Spermathecae as in Figure 54J and K View Figure 54 .

Variation: Males (N = 6): carapace length 7.83 – 9.6 (8.93), femoral thorns 5 – 6, femur II length 9.9 – 12.5 (11.42). Females (N = 5): carapace length 8.8 – 10.5 (9.69), femoral thorns 5 – 7, femur II length 8.9 – 11.63 (10.08), spermathecae branches 6 – 12. Genital morphology is slightly variable in both sexes ( Fig. 54 View Figure 54 ). Female subadults with spermathecal branches unformed, with two triangular outgrowths in the place of the future spermathecal branches ( Fig. 54E View Figure 54 ).

Natural history: Levi (1967) and Levi & Levi (1969) studied the predatory and sexual behaviour of this species in detail; and Reiskind (1966) described its self-burying behaviour. We have collected it from monte xeric scrub, usually under large rocks or in the sediment accumulated next to cliffs.

Distribution: Western Argentina, from Salta to R � ıo Negro provinces ( Fig. 26D). A record from Buenos Aires (IBSP 4057) is doubtful; it could refer to somewhere in Buenos Aires province (where some records of S. rupestris are known), but the species has never been collected so far east. A vial in the MACN says ‘ Chile, Cerro San Cristobal’. We have examined hundreds of Chilean Sicarius specimens, and never found this species there. The only Cerro San Cristobal we know of is inside Santiago, capital of Chile; Gerschman de Pikelin & Schiapelli (1979) placed this record in the Valpara � ıso region, in the Andes range, next to the border with Mendoza, Argentina. We followed them and included this record in the distribution map, but it would be better regarded as a mislabelling.

Additional material examined: ARGENTINA.