Proshermacha, SIMON, 1908

GENUS PROSHERMACHA SIMON, 1908 View in CoL View at ENA , STAT. REV.

FIG. 7 View Figure 7

Proshermacha Simon, 1908: 363 View in CoL . Type species: Proshermacha subarmata Simon, 1908 View in CoL , by subsequent designation of Rainbow (1911).

Diagnosis: Species of Proshermacha differ from Chenistonia s.s. by the long embolus in males ( Fig. 7C, D View Figure 7 ). They also differ from other Anamini as follows: from Aname and Hesperonatalius by the maxillary cuspules being restricted to a relatively narrow band near the mesal edge ( Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ); from Kwonkan and Swolnpes by the lack of thickened setae on the retrolateral face of the male pedipalpal tibia ( Fig. 7C View Figure 7 ) and the lack of an accessory receptaculum in the female spermathecae ( Fig. 7G View Figure 7 ); from Swolnpes by the digitiform tarsus I in males ( Fig. 7F View Figure 7 ); and from Teyl , Teyloides and Namea by the embolus arising from the distal end of the pedipalpal bulb ( Fig. 7C View Figure 7 ) or lacking a bulbous projection on metatarsus I ( Fig. 7F View Figure 7 ).

Description: Medium to large nemesiid spiders. Coloration: ranging from pale to dark brown.

Cephalothorax: Carapace ( Fig. 7A View Figure 7 ) strongly hirsute, with eight eyes in two rows; PME slightly smaller than other eyes; fovea straight to procurved. Maxilla ( Fig. 7E View Figure 7 ) with strongly produced basal heel; with numerous cuspules distributed over medial half and heel of each maxilla, restricted to a narrow medial band; maxillary serrula absent. Labium ( Fig. 7E View Figure 7 ) wider than long, slightly indented anteriorly, without cuspules. Coxal cuspules absent ( Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ). Sternum ( Fig. 7B View Figure 7 ) with three pairs of sigilla; posterior pairs oval, subcentral.

Chelicera: Rastellum weak or absent; cheliceral furrow with several prominent promarginal teeth and several small granules basomesally; intercheliceral tumescence absent.

Pedipalp ( Fig. 7C, D View Figure 7 ): Male tibia uniformly setose, without patch of spinules on retrolateral face, and without asetose ventral depression; tarsus (cymbium) long and slender, with prominent medial constriction (in lateral view); with simple pyriform bulb and tapering embolus; embolus not reflexed.

Legs: Male tibia I ( Fig. 7F View Figure 7 ) with large ventral spur bearing one, or occasionally two, megaspines; metatarsus I strongly incrassate; scopula usually present on entire ventral tarsi of legs I and II, and lighter scopula on tarsi III and IV, and metatarsi I and II; tarsi without spines; tarsus I not inflated; three claws, lateral claws each with two short rows of teeth; medial claw small and without ventral teeth.

Abdomen: Longer than wide. Two pairs of spinnerets; posterior median spinnerets unsegmented and separated by about diameter of spinneret; posterior lateral spinnerets three-segmented, apical segment elongate, digitiform.

Female genitalia ( Fig. 7G View Figure 7 ): One pair of spermathecae of variable shape.

Distribution: Species of Proshermacha are known from southern South Australia and south-western Western Australia, in mesic, semi-arid and arid habitats.

Remarks: As discussed above under Chenistonia , morphological and molecular data provide sufficient evidence for the resurrection of Proshermacha , which has long been considered a junior synonym of Aname or Chenistonia ( Raven, 1981, 1984a, 1985a, 2000; Main, 1982a, 1985b, 2012). The consistent differences in the length of the embolus support each clade morphologically.

Many of the previously named species here attributed to Proshermacha are poorly described and the status of those described by Hogg (1902), Simon (1908), Rainbow & Pulleine (1918) and Main (1954), and included in Chenistonia by Main (1982a, 1985b, 2012), are provisional and await confirmation based on revisionary studies. Indeed, the precise identity of the type species Proshermacha subarmata Simon, 1908 , from south-western Australia, may remain unknown until additional adult specimens from the type locality can be identified. For this reason, we have not provided images of the type species, and instead include images of another species of Proshermacha ( Fig. 7 View Figure 7 ).

Preliminary results from an unpublished molecular analysis strongly indicate that Proshermacha has high species-level diversity in south-western Australia (Harvey & Huey, unpublished data), which is confirmed by morphological features, primarily in the male pedipalp and the morphology of the first leg. This diversity has also been recently acknowledged by Main (2012). As it is very unlikely that any of these Western Australian species are conspecific with C. tepperi , which was originally described from southern South Australia ( Hogg, 1902), we here remove all species from the synonymy of C. tepperi until species-level revisions are undertaken.

Included species: Proshermacha auropilosa ( Rainbow & Pulleine, 1918) comb. nov., transferred from Chenistonia ; P. cuspidata ( Main, 1954) comb. nov., transferred from Chenistonia ; P. intricata ( Rainbow & Pulleine, 1918) comb. nov., transferred from Aname ; P. maculata ( Rainbow & Pulleine, 1918) comb. nov., transferred from Aname ; P. subarmata Simon, 1908 , removed from synonymy with Chenistonia tepperi ; P. tepperi ( Hogg, 1902) comb. nov., transferred from Chenistonia ; P. tigrina Simon, 1908 , removed from synonymy with Chenistonia tepperi ; and P. villosa ( Rainbow & Pulleine, 1918) comb. nov., transferred from Chenistonia .