Zodarion nitidum Audouin, 1826

Zodarion nitidum Audouin, 1826 View in CoL

Figs 29–31 View Fig View Fig View Fig , 87 View Fig , 106 View Fig

Enyo nitida Audouin, 1826: 350 , pl. 3 fig. 7.

Enyo longipes Audouin, 1826: 351 , pl. 3 fig. 8.

Zodarion cambridgei Denis, 1938: 387 View in CoL .

Clotho nitida – Walckenaer 1837: 639. Clotho longipes – Walckenaer 1837: 640. Argus longipes – Walckenaer 1841: 347, pl. 16 fig. 6. Zodarion longipes – Walckenaer 1847: 563. Enyo nitida – Walckenaer 1847: 563. — Thorell 1869: 108. — F.O. Pickard-Cambridge 1876: 559. Enyo luisante – Simon 1864: 160. Zodarium longipes – Thorell 1869: 107. Zodarium nitidum – Simon 1885: 29. Zodarion nitidum View in CoL – Simon 1893: 432, figs 403–407; 1908: 425. — Denis 1937: 6, pl. 1 fig. 1; 1962:

31, fig. 2. — Levy 1992: 86, figs 53–61. — Zamani & Marusik 2021: 188, fig. 28a–c; 2022: 162,

fig. 11a–c. Metargus longipes – F. Pickard-Cambridge 1902: 8.

Diagnosis

Zodarion nitidum specimens are most similar to Z. nicki in the shape of their copulatory organs, but the former species is distinguished by a brownish carapace and yellow coxae (vs black carapace and black to grey coxae; cf. Fig. 29A, C View Fig and Fig. 84A, C View Fig ). Furthermore, males of Z. nitidum possess uniformly yellow femora (vs entirely black femora in Z. nicki ; cf. Fig. 29A View Fig and Fig. 84A View Fig ).

Material examined

EGYPT • 1 ♀; Alexandria; MNHN-AR2854 • 2 ♀♀; Cairo or Aswan, Lake Mariout ; MNHN-AR2847 .

ISRAEL • 1 ♂; Midreshet Sde Boker ; 30.857° N, 34.781° E; 1 Apr. 2001; S. Pekár leg.; HUJINV-Ar 21301 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀, same collection data as for preceding; HUJINV-Ar 21302 GoogleMaps • 1 juv.; Midreshet Sde Boker ; 10 Mar. 2001; S. Pekár leg.; CMU • 1 ♂; Arava Area , 12 km N of Ein Yahav Moshav, Hatzeva Moshav; 30.754° N, 35.269° E; 13 Mar. 2001; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♀, 3 juv.; s. loc.; Apr. 2001; S. Pekár leg.; CMU • 12 ♂♂, 9 ♀♀, 50 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; Feb.–Mar. 2018; L. Sentenská leg.; CMU • 1 ♀, 2 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 6 Apr. 2019; S. Pekár leg.; CMU • 9 ♂♂ 3 ♀♀ 1 juv.; Halukim ; 30.854° N, 34.784° E; 16 Apr. 2001; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 27 Mar. 2007; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 3 ♂♂, 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 18 Mar. 2017; O. Macháč leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 6 ♂♂; same collection data as for preceding; 9 Apr. 2019; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; Mashabim ; 31.000° N, 34.757° E; 4 Sep. 2002; Y. Lubin leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 2 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; Sep. 2004; J. Král leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♂, 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 1 Apr. 2016; S. Korenko leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 1 Apr. 2017; S. Korenko leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 6 Apr. 2019; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 28 Mar. 2023; S. Pekár and V. Opatová leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 29 Mar. 2023; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♂; Beersheba , between Beer Sheva and Mitzpe Ramon; 6–29 May 2003; M. Řezáč leg.; CMU • 1 ♀; Meirav ; 29 Sep. 2007; J. Král leg.; CMU • 2 ♂♂, 2 juv.; Yeroham ; 30.971° N, 34.97° E; 3 Mar. 2016; S. Pekár, S. Korenko and E. Líznarová leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 18 ♂♂, 11 ♀♀; same collection data as for preceding; 5 Apr. 2017; S. Pekár and S. Korenko leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 2 ♀♀, 8 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 18 May 2017; O. Macháč leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 3 juv.; same collection data as for preceding; 5 Apr. 2019; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 juv.; Ramon Crater , Nahal Paran; 30.333° N, 34.968° E; 8 Apr. 2019; S. Pekár leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 6 ♀♀, 2 juv.; s. loc.; May 2019; S. Pekár, L. Sentenská and S. Korenko leg.; CMU • 2 juv.; Hatira ; 30.872° N, 34.816° E; 28 Mar. 2023; S. Pekár and V. Opatová leg.; CMU GoogleMaps • 1 ♂, 1 ♀, 4 juv.; Borot Lotz ; 30.511° N, 34.612° E; 29 Mar. 2023; S. Pekár and V. Opatová leg.; CMU GoogleMaps .

PALESTINE • 3 ♀♀; Jericho or Bethlehem; MNHN-AR2849.

Redescription

Male (HUJINV-Ar 21301)

HABITUS ( Fig. 29A–B View Fig ). Carapace dark brown; chelicerae and mouthparts brown; sternum light brown, with dark spots radiating towards the center. Legs entirely yellow except for the first pair of Fe, Pa and Ti laterally greyish. Palp segments grey to yellow. Abdomen dorsum black, venter apically pale and turned to dark brown distally; PVS present. Spinnerets black basally and pale apically.

MEASUREMENTS. Total length 4; carapace 2 long, 1.5 wide. Clypeus 0.1 high. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.1, ALE= PME 0.06, PLE 0.04, AME–AME 0.06, AME–ALE 0.02, ALE–ALE 0.27, AME–PME 0.06, PME–PME 0.41, PME–PLE 0.06, PLE–PLE 0.23, ALE–PLE 0.1. Legs: I 7.52 (1.69, 0.64, 1.63, 2.03, 1.52), II 6.64 (1.59, 0.56, 1.53, 1.86, 1.1), III 6.8 (1.63, 0.87, 1.39, 1.85, 1.06), IV 8.14 (2.23, 0.64, 1.66, 2.37, 1.24). Palp: 1.28 (0.52, 0.25, 0.16, 0.35).

PALP ( Fig. 30A–F View Fig ). For details, refer to Levy (1992).

Female (HUJINV-Ar 21302)

HABITUS ( Fig. 29C–D View Fig ). Carapace, chelicerae and abdomen similar to those in male except abdomen venter slightly lighter. Mouthparts lighter than those in male. Fe I and II dark brown, with longitudinal, parallel lighter stripes; Fe III and IV darkened on the second half. Ti of all legs light, with dark lateral sides. Pa, Mt and Ta of all legs brown. Spinnerets brown basally and pale apically; PVS present.

MEASUREMENTS. Total length 6.8; carapace 2.59 long, 1.85 wide. Clypeus 0.18 high. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.1, ALE= PME =PLE 0.06, AME–AME 0.08, AME–ALE 0.04, ALE–ALE 0.4, AME–PME 0.08, PME–PME 0.42, PME–PLE 0.06, PLE–PLE 0.24, ALE–PLE 0.2. Legs: I 5.85 (1.41, 0.54, 1.61, 1.29, 1), II 5.37 (1.31, 1.15, 0.54, 1.47, 0.9), III 5.03 (1.23, 0.52, 1.1, 1.47, 0.71), IV 6.59 (1.69, 0.77, 1.4, 1.86, 0.87). Palp: 1.52 (0.54, 0.33, 0.19, 0.46).

EPIGYNE ( Fig. 31A–F View Fig ). For details, refer to Levy (1992).

Size variation

Total body length 2.5–4.4, carapace length/width 1.8–2/ 1.48–1.6 in males (N= 6). Total body length 4.6–6.8, carapace length/width 2.1–2.6/ 1.6–1.7 in females (N=6). For the carapace length/width ratio, refer to Fig. 87 View Fig .

Remarks

Although taxonomic studies on the genus Zodarion have a long history, little is known about its type species, Z. nitidum . In fact, Z. nitidum was not properly illustrated until Denis prepared two distinct epigyne drawings in separate manuscripts, each claiming to be the first illustration of Z. nitidum ’s epigyne ( Denis 1937, 1962). The reason for Denis’ failure to address this inconsistency in his publications from 1937 to 1962 remains unclear ( World Spider Catalog 2025).

Thirty years later, Levy (1992) acknowledged that the types of Z. nitidum – Enyo nitida ( ♀) and Enyo longipes ( ♂) – were presumably lost. However, he examined the holotypes of Zodarium nicki Strand, 1914 and Zodarion cambridgei Denis, 1938 , along with a large number of newly collected specimens from various localities across Israel, Jordan, and Sinai. Based on the observed similarities in copulatory structures, Levy assigned all of these specimens to Z. nitidum . Despite Levy being the first to provide detailed descriptions and illustrations for both sexes within the Z. nitidum complex, his conclusions were based solely on the newly collected material. Consequently, he neither compared these specimens with the original (now lost) types nor provided illustrations that might serve as proxies for future taxonomic assessments.

Ultimately, all morphologically variable specimens were subsumed under the name Z. nitidum . However, recent comprehensive studies on the biology and ecology of this species complex ( Pekár et al. 2022) combined with molecular phylogenomic analyses ( Ortiz et al. 2024) have revealed that the complex consists of two distinct, diagnosable species, now recognized as Z. nitidum and Z. nicki .

Examination of the material from the Simon collection, who frequently combined specimens of different species or from different localities in a single tube, demonstrated that six female individuals, preserved in three different tubes (MNHN-AR2847: 2 ♀♀; MNHN-AR2849: 3 ♀♀; MNHN-AR2854: 1 ♀), had been misidentified and are, in fact, assignable to Z. nitidum . It should be noted that the MNHN-AR2854 tube contains material from multiple species, including the neotypes of Z. tunetiacum and Z. nitidum . The epigyne of the single Z. nitidum specimen from this tube closely corresponds with the illustrations provided by Denis (1937) ( Fig. 31E View Fig cf. Fig. 31F View Fig ). Levy (1992) erroneously lumped specimens of Z. nitidum and Z. nicki under a single taxon, as he found no discernible differences in their copulatory organ structures.

Levy (1992) also pointed out that earlier arachnologists had merged E. nitida ( ♀) and E. longipes ( ♂) – both described by Audouin (1826) – and subsequently treated them as Z. nitidum . However, whether these original associations were taxonomically accurate remains uncertain.

Distribution

North Africa, Middle East.