Stenaelurillus guttiger

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Stenaelurillus guttiger
The related Stenaelurillus termitophagus
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Chelicerata
Class: Arachnida
Order: Araneae
Infraorder: Araneomorphae
Family: Salticidae
Subfamily: Salticinae
Genus: Stenaelurillus
Species:
S. guttiger
Binomial name
Stenaelurillus guttiger
(Simon, 1901)
Synonyms[1]
  • Aelurillus guttiger Simon, 1901
  • Stenaelurillus natalensis Haddad & Wesołowska, 2006

Stenaelurillus guttiger (

termites, particularly Macrotermes and Odontotermes
.

Taxonomy

Aelurillus guttiger was first described by

clade Saltafresia.[5] Two years later, the genus was grouped with nine other genera of jumping spiders under the name Aelurillines by Jerzy Prószyński.[6]

Meanwhile, in 2006, Charles R. Haddad and the Polish arachnologist Wanda Wesołowska identified a new species, Stenaelurillus natalensis.[7] It was one of over 500 species identified by Wesołowska.[8] This new species was generally similar to Stenaelurillus guttiger but differed in that the tip of the males's embolus was hidden and there was a chamber in the female's epigyne.[7] In 2018, Dmitri V. Logunov and Galina N Azarkina found the sexual organs to be similar across the specimens of both species and consequently they combined them under the current name.[9] The holotype for Stenaelurillus natalensis was designated the holotype for Stenaelurillus guttiger.[10]

Description

Stenaelurillus guttiger is a medium-sized spider.[11] It has an overall shape that is typical for the genus but shows a high variation in patterns and colours.[12] This does not seem to depend on geographic location with, for example, males with different colour legs and palpal bulbs often living in the same area.[13]

The male spider has a pear-shaped brown or dark brown carapace that is covered in scales that is typically between 2.0 and 2.5 mm (0.079 and 0.098 in) long and 1.4 and 1.9 mm (0.055 and 0.075 in) wide. It is marked with two stripes made of white hairs that travel from front to back and, sometimes, two more that cross from side to side, and has a black eye field. The abdomen is shorter and wider, between 1.8 and 2.5 mm (0.071 and 0.098 in) long and between 1.35 and 2.0 mm (0.053 and 0.079 in) wide, and either brown or dark brown and covered in scales. It has a pattern that consists of a white stripe and V-shape on the front half and white spots on the rear half, sometimes one spot and sometimes three. Occasionally, the white hairs on the spiders rub off, removing the patterns. The chelicerae and clypeus may be dark brown, brown to dark brown, or yellowish brown to brown. In some examples, a sparse covering of white hairs covers the clypeus. The chelicerae may have a few short white hairs or a dense covering of long white hairs. The front and middle spinnerets are yellow the back ones dark brown. The legs may be yellow, brown or dark brown and the pedipalps are a combination of yellow and brown. The cymbium is a combination of brown and yellow with either brown or white hairs.[11][14] The spider is distinguished from other members of the genus by its short embolus, shaped like a claw, sitting on a wide round base.[15]

The female is similar in shape to the male but larger. It has a carapace that measures between 2.25 and 2.75 mm (0.089 and 0.108 in) in length and between 1.75 and 2.15 mm (0.069 and 0.085 in) in width and an abdomen that measures between 2.0 and 2.9 mm (0.079 and 0.114 in) in length and between 1.85 and 2.2 mm (0.073 and 0.087 in) in width.[14] The colouration is similar to the male, but sometimes the patterns have less complexity and are less bright. For example, a specimen may have only one stripe and two spots on the abdomen. The eye field is orange-brown and the pedipalps are brown-yellow.[16] The epigyne has a flat plate with widely separated lateral copulatory openings and a deep narrow pocket.[17] Although it is similar to Stenaelurillus furcatus, it can be distinguished by the narrowness of the epigyne pocket and the way that the insemination ducts are spaced apart.[15]

Behaviour

The spider has primarily been found in sandy environments, but has been observed thriving in swamps and on plants.

termites, including members of the genera Macrotermes and Odontotermes.[18] The spider also feeds on other prey like fruit flies and leafhoppers. The spider captures its prey by a process of grasping, holding, and injecting its captured prey with venom.[19] It produces a specialised venom that is dedicated for its prey, unlike other species which produce more general-purpose venom.[20] It shares a similar environment to Stenaelurillus modestus, but the two species do not seem to compete for food or space.[21] Stenaelurillus guttiger has also been found foraging along with Habrocestum africanum and Langellurillus squamiger.[22]

Distribution

Stenaelurillus guttiger has one of the most extensive

Tsholotsho in Zimbabwe.[26] It has also been found in Manica, Mozambique.[11] The holotype is from Ndumo Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal.[10]

References

Citations

  1. ^ a b World Spider Catalog (2023). "Stenaelurillus guttiger (Simon, 1901)". World Spider Catalog. 24.0. Bern: Natural History Museum. Retrieved 17 March 2023.
  2. ^ Fernández-Rubio 2013, p. 125.
  3. ^ Clark 1974, p. 12.
  4. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 4.
  5. ^ Maddison 2015, p. 279.
  6. ^ Prószyński 2017, p. 95.
  7. ^ a b c Haddad & Wesołowska 2006, p. 580.
  8. ^ Wiśniewski 2020, p. 6.
  9. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, pp. 50–51.
  10. ^ a b Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 48.
  11. ^ a b c Haddad & Wesołowska 2006, p. 576.
  12. ^ Azarkina & Haddad 2020, p. 22.
  13. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 50.
  14. ^ a b Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 51.
  15. ^ a b Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 47.
  16. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 54.
  17. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 56.
  18. ^ Pekár et al. 2020, p. 1313.
  19. ^ Pekár et al. 2018, p. 1643.
  20. ^ Pekár et al. 2018, p. 1649.
  21. ^ Pekár et al. 2020, p. 1315.
  22. ^ Wesołowska & Haddad 2018, p. 893.
  23. ^ Wesołowska 2014, p. 620.
  24. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, p. 116.
  25. ^ Simon 1901, p. 71.
  26. ^ Logunov & Azarkina 2018, pp. 48–50.

Bibliography