Mediostoma izmirica, Snegovaya & Kurt & Yağmur, 2016

Mediostoma izmirica View in CoL sp. nov.

Figures 2–11 View Figures 2–10 View Figures 11–13 , 14 View Figures 14–16 , 17 View Figures 17–19 , 20 View Figures 20–22 , 23 View Figures 23–25 , 26-28 View Figures 26–28 , 31, 32 View Figures 31–36 , 37 View Figures 37–39

3.1. Type of material

Holotype ♂ ( GUSAL): TURKEY, İzmir Province, Kemalpaşa District, Nif Mountain , 21 Oct. 2012, 38°22′33.9″N, 27°22′53.3″E, 1510 m; leg. E. A. Yağmur. GoogleMaps

Paratypes: 2 ♀♀ ( GUSAL), 1 ♀ ( RCNS), 1 ♂ used for SEM (RCNS), same region as the holotype GoogleMaps .

3.2. Etymology

The new species is named after the type locality, İzmir, a province of Turkey from the Aegean Region , with the Latin suffix - ica.

3.3. Diagnosis

Tergites I–IV with a pair of low, cylindrical tubercles; pseudo-articulations of legs: I - 0, II - 1, III - 1, IV - 2; meso-apical portion of pedipalp patella with large recurved hook-shaped tooth; basichelicerite with high and wide dorsal apophysis with small and deep depression, covered with different long setae; glans of penis with long pinnate wings.

3.4. Description

Based on holotype. Measurements: Body length 1.6 mm, width 1.1 mm. Body is ovoid, slightly constricted towards the level of legs IV ( Figures 2, 3, 4 View Figures 2–10 , 11 View Figures 11–13 ). Body integument with papillae. Tergites I–IV are a pair of low, cylindrical tubercles ( Figures 2 View Figures 2–10 , 11 View Figures 11–13 , 17 View Figures 17–19 ). Eye tubercle is very low and slightly elongated, 0.2 mm in diameter, shifted forward to the frontal edge of the carapace, with numerous small blunt tubercles ( Figure 14 View Figures 14–16 ). Leg short, II and IV thinner and longer than I and III ( Table 1 View Table 1 ). All legs are covered with the setae and with small comb tooth like denticles ( Figures 20 View Figures 20–22 , 23 View Figures 23–25 ). Femoral pseudo-articulations as follows: I - 0, II - 1, III - 1, IV - 2. Pedipalp short, covered with setae ( Figures 5 View Figures 2–10 , 26 View Figures 26–28 ). Tibia and tarsus covered with club-shaped setae. Meso-apical portion of patella with curved, hook-shaped tooth ( Figures 27, 28 View Figures 26–28 ). Chelicerae small and covered with different sized setae ( Figures 6 View Figures 2–10 , 31 View Figures 31–36 ); basichelicerite with a high and wide dorsal apophysis, covered with differently sized long setae ( Figure 32 View Figures 31–36 ). Distal segment is also covered with setae. Chelicera: basichelicerite 0.4 mm long, distal segment 0.45 mm. Penis is short, 0.9 mm, with apical part typical for genus, but has long pinnate wings ( Figures 7–10 View Figures 2–10 , 37 View Figures 37–39 ).

Female body length is 2.0 mm, width 1.6 mm ( Figure 4 View Figures 2–10 ). Chelicera: basichelicerite 0.6 mm, distal segment 0.5 mm. Female differs from male by following features: larger body size, absence of dorsal apophysis on basichelicerite, and pedipalpal patella without hook-shaped tooth ( Table 1 View Table 1 ).

3.5. Comparisons with other species of Mediostoma Mediostoma izmirica sp. nov. is easily distinguished from the great majority of species of the genus by the presence of a large recurved hook-shaped tooth in the meso-apical portion of the pedipalpal patella on males. A similar type of tooth-like structure is also present in Mediostoma stussineri (Simon, 1885) , but M. izmirica sp. nov. differs from M. stussineri by a different form of sculpturing of the leg I femur ( Mitov, 2002: fig. 5), shape of cheliceral apophysis, pseudo-articulation count on legs’ femora (in M. stussineri : I - 10, II - 21, III - 10, IV - 17) ( Roewer, 1923: p. 137-138, fig. 18), and, finally, the shape and ornamentation of the penis glans ( Mitov, 2002: figs. 2-3, 6-8). The new species differs from Mediostoma humerale (C. L. Koch, 1839) by a different form of sculpturing of the leg I femur ( Gruber, 1976: fig. 17), shape of cheliceral apophysis, and, finally, the shape and ornamentation of the penis glans ( Gruber, 1976: figs. 18-19; Mitov, 2002: figs. 9-10). We also present comparative material in Table 2 View Table 2 where we compare characteristic properties of the new species with the two other Mediostoma species.