Mesiotelus patricki Zamani & Marusik, 2021

Mesiotelus patricki Zamani & Marusik, 2021 View in CoL

Figs 11 View FIGURES 7–12 , 58–60 View FIGURES 52–60

Mesiotelus scopensis View in CoL : Zamani et al. 2020: 584 (in part).

Mesiotelus patricki Zamani & Marusik 2021a: 110 View in CoL View Cited Treatment , figs 4E–F, 11A–E, 12A–C ( ♂); Zamani & Marusik 2021b: 560 View Cited Treatment , fig. 4H ( ♂).

Material. IRAN: Golestan Prov.: 1♀ ( MHNG), Tang-e Rah , 37°23'N, 55°50'E, 13.VII.1974 (leg. A. Senglet) GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. The epigyne of this species is somewhat similar to that of M. kulczynskii ( Figs 52–54 View FIGURES 52–60 ), but can be separated from it by the relatively wider anterior hood with distinct lateral margins ( vs. lacking), and subparallel posterior lateral margins ( vs. diverging), and receptacles spaced by their length ( vs. less). For male, see Zamani & Marusik (2021).

Description. Female. Habitus as in Fig. 11 View FIGURES 7–12 . Total length 5.50. Carapace 2.40 long, 2.00 wide. Eye sizes: AME: 0.13, ALE: 0.15, PME: 0.12, PLE: 0.14. Carapace, chelicerae, maxillae, labium and sternum light yellowish-brown. Legs slightly lighter than carapace, without annulations. Abdomen beige, lighter ventrally, without patterns. Spinnerets uniformly light yellowish-brown. Ventral paired tibial spines: I, II: 2p, III, IV: 3p. Measurements of legs: I: 8.31 (2.31, 1.23, 2.11, 1.66, 1.00), II: 7.32 (2.00, 1.08, 1.80, 1.50, 0.94), III: 6.91 (1.87, 0.93, 1.51, 1.75, 0.85), IV: 9.80 (2.56, 1.12, 2.37, 2.72, 1.03).

Epigyne as in Figs 58–60 View FIGURES 52–60 ; epigynal plate 1.4 times longer than wide; fovea ca. 2. time longer than wide; anterior hood ( Ah) with lateral margins ( Hl) longer that hood’s width, hood ca. 2 times thinner than fovea; fovea lacking distinct transversal wrinkles, posterior part of fovea V-shaped, anterior part of lateral margins subparallel; receptacles oval, ca. 1.6 times longer than wide, inclined, spaced by about their length; copulatory ducts almost of receptacle’s length, spaced by 1.5 times their width.

Male. See Zamani & Marusik (2021).

Comment. Although the female described here was not collected with a male, we are quite certain of our identification as the locality reported here is only approximately 9 km of aerial distance from the type locality.

Distribution. Known only from Golestan Province, northern Iran ( Fig. 75 View FIGURE 75 ).