Fecenia ochracea

From Species-ID
Jump to: navigation, search
Notice: This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.

If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly.

This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Bayer S (2011) Revision of the pseudo-orbweavers of the genus Fecenia Simon, 1887 (Araneae, Psechridae), with emphasis on their pre-epigyne. ZooKeys 153 : 1–56, doi: 10.3897/zookeys.153.2110. Versioned wiki page: 2011-12-09, version 19866, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Fecenia_ochracea&oldid=19866 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.

Citation formats to copy and paste

BibTeX:

@article{Bayer2011ZooKeys153,
author = {Bayer, Steffen},
journal = {ZooKeys},
publisher = {Pensoft Publishers},
title = {Revision of the pseudo-orbweavers of the genus Fecenia Simon, 1887 (Araneae, Psechridae), with emphasis on their pre-epigyne},
year = {2011},
volume = {153},
issue = {},
pages = {1--56},
doi = {10.3897/zookeys.153.2110},
url = {http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2110/abstract},
note = {Versioned wiki page: 2011-12-09, version 19866, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Fecenia_ochracea&oldid=19866 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.}

}

RIS/ Endnote:

TY - JOUR
T1 - Revision of the pseudo-orbweavers of the genus Fecenia Simon, 1887 (Araneae, Psechridae), with emphasis on their pre-epigyne
A1 - Bayer S
Y1 - 2011
JF - ZooKeys
JA -
VL - 153
IS -
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.153.2110
SP - 1
EP - 56
PB - Pensoft Publishers
M1 - Versioned wiki page: 2011-12-09, version 19866, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Fecenia_ochracea&oldid=19866 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.

M3 - doi:10.3897/zookeys.153.2110

Wikipedia/ Citizendium:

<ref name="Bayer2011ZooKeys153">{{Citation
| author = Bayer S
| title = Revision of the pseudo-orbweavers of the genus Fecenia Simon, 1887 (Araneae, Psechridae), with emphasis on their pre-epigyne
| journal = ZooKeys
| year = 2011
| volume = 153
| issue =
| pages = 1--56
| pmid =
| publisher = Pensoft Publishers
| doi = 10.3897/zookeys.153.2110
| url = http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2110/abstract
| pmc =
| accessdate = 2019-01-21

}} Versioned wiki page: 2011-12-09, version 19866, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Fecenia_ochracea&oldid=19866 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.</ref>

See also the citation download page at the journal.


Taxonavigation

Ordo: Araneae
Familia: Psechridae
Genus: Fecenia

Name

Fecenia ochracea (Doleschall, 1859)Wikispecies linkPensoft Profile

  • Tegenaria ochracea Doleschall, 1859: 50, pl. 8, fig. 8 (Description of ♀), [Holotype ♀ (SB 94) from INDONESIA: Maluku Prov.: Ambon Isl.; C. L. Doleschall leg. 1855–1858; NHMW 12∙389, examined]; Thorell 1878[1]: 302 (sub Tegenaria [?]); Thorell 1881[2]: 694 (sub Tegenaria [?]).
  • Mezentia angustata Thorell, 1881: 204 (Description of ♀), [Holotype ♀ (SB 460) from INDONESIA: Maluku Utara Prov.: Ternate Isl. next to Halmahera; Prof. O. Beccari leg. 1872–1877; MCSN, examined]; Simon 1885[3]: 451.
  • Mezentia ochracea - Simon 1885[3]: 451 (Transfer from Tegenaria).
  • Fecenia ochracea - Simon 1887[4]: 194 (Formal transfer from Mezentia, preoccupied by Stål, 1878 in Orthoptera, replacement name Fecenia); Simon 1892[5]: 226; Simon 1906[6]: 287, fig. 1B (Illustration of ♀); Kulczyński 1908[7]: 570; Reimoser 1936[8]: 407; Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234; Levi 1982[10]: 133, figs 68–79, 90 (Illustration of ♂ and ♀♀); Murphy 1986[11]: 65; Griswold 1993[12]: 7; Murphy and Murphy 2000[13]: plate 21, fig. 5 (Photo of ♀); Song et al. 2002[14]: 373 (listed as fauna element of Singapore; doubtful!, to date no records from Singapore).
  • Fecenia angustata - Simon 1887[4]: 194 (Formal transfer from Mezentia); Simon 1892[5]: 226; Pocock 1900[15]: 212; Kulczyński 1908[7]: 570; Petrunkevitch 1928[16]: 90; Reimoser 1936[8]: 407; Chrysanthus 1967[17]: 102, figs 55–57, 60–64 (Description of ♂, illustration of ♂ and ♀♀); Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234 (Synonymy).
  • Fecenia maforensis Simon, 1906: 287, fig. 1A (Description of ♀), [Holotype ♀ (SB 464) from INDONESIA: Irian Jaya Barat Prov.: Numfor Isl., formerly Mafor; A. Raffray leg.; MNHN AR185, examined]; Kulczyński 1908[7]: 570; Strand 1915[18]: 191 (Description of ♀); Reimoser 1936[8]: 407; Chrysanthus 1967[17]: 104, fig. 65 (Illustration of ♀); Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234 (Synonymy).
  • Fecenia montana Kulczyński, 1910: 389, pl. 17, fig. 1 (Description of ♀), [Holotype ♀ (SB 461) from PAPUA NEW GUINEA: East New Britain Prov.: Baining Mountains; K. Rechinger leg. 1906; NHMW 12∙388, examined], Reimoser 1936[8]: 407, Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234 (Synonymy).
  • Fecenia oblonga Rainbow, 1913: 7, fig. 5 (Description of ♀), [Holotype ♀ from SOLOMON ISLANDS: Western Prov., Shortland Island Group, Island of Howla; W. W. Froggatt leg. ca. 1900; AMS, lost (Milledge, AMS, pers. comm.), thus not examined]; Reimoser 1936[8]: 407; Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234 (Synonymy).
  • Fecenia cinerea Hogg, 1914: 56 (Description of ♀), [Holotype ♀ (SB 404) from INDONESIA: Papua Prov.: Possibly near Mount Utakwa; A.F.R. Wollaston leg. 1912–1913 (Wollaston Expedition in Dutch New Guinea); NHM 1921·3·24·9, examined]; Hogg 1915[19]: 437, fig. 23 (Illustration of ♀); Reimoser 1936[8]: 407; Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234 (Synonymy).
  • Fecenia buruana Reimoser, 1936: 406, fig. 1 (Description of ♂ ♀), [Lectotype ♀ (SB 418), paralectotype ♂ (SB 417) by designation of Levi (1982[10]: 134), both from INDONESIA: Maluku Prov.: Buru Isl., station 1; L.J. Toxopeus leg. 1921; ZMA, examined]; Chrysanthus 1967[17]: 104, figs 66–67 (Illustration of ♂ and ♀); Lehtinen 1967[9]: 234 (Synonymy).

Note on the holotype of Tegenaria ochracea

The first description of Doleschall (1859)[20] lacks any remarks concerning deposition of the type specimen. Generally, material recorded by naturalists of the “Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch Indie” has been deposited either in RMNH or in ZMA. Lehtinen (1967)[9] stated that the type deposition was unknown (to him). Levi (1982)[10] mentioned a personal communication from Van der Hammen, the curator of the arachnid collection in RMNH at that time, who stated that the type was lost. At present, the colleagues of the arachnid collection of RMNH still cannot find any type material of Tegenaria ochracea there (K. van Dorp and J. Miller, RMNH, pers. comm.). In the arachnid collection of ZMA there is also no type specimen of Tegenaria ochracea (B. Brugge, pers. comm.). During a stay at the natural history museum in Vienna in April 2009 I recognised a syntype specimen of Psechrus argentatus (Doleschall, 1857). Both Lehtinen (1967)[9] and Levi (1982)[10] believed that the syntypes of this species had been lost. However, for this latter species found on Ambon, too, and recorded and described by the same author just two years before, it is evident that at least a part of the original syntype series was once deposited in RMNH (Van Hasselt 1877[21]). After consulting Jürgen Gruber and Verena Stagl (both NHMW) I learned that Doleschall sent only a part of his spider- and insect material collected on Ambon to the museum in Leiden; a large part of the material was sent to the museum in Vienna (Stagl 1999[22]). In the spider collection of NHMW I found a Fecenia female (SB 94), which was labelled “Fecenia - Insel Ambon” (oldest label). According to Gruber (pers. comm.) the handwriting is that of E. Reimoser, the curator of NHMW from 1923–1940. It is well known that Reimoser often discarded old labels and substituted them with new ones (Gruber pers. comm.). It is most likely that in this case the same had happened. Assuming that the handwriting on the original label from Doleschall was unclear, it is likely that Reimoser discarded that label, determined the female as Fecenia and just added the locality on the new label. Anyway, it is evident that before 1950 nobody other than Doleschall sent spider material from the island Ambon to the natural history museum in Vienna (Gruber pers. comm.). Hence, the female SB 94 (see synonymy list above) can be considered the holotype of Tegenaria ochracea.

Additional material examined

(4 ♂♂, 73 ♀♀, 4 s.a. ♂♂, 7 s.a. ♀♀, 2 p.s.a. ♀♀, 11 juvenile specimens). PHILIPPINES: Luzon: Laguna Prov.: Los Baños; Baker leg.; 1 ♀ (SB 153), MCZ 82529. MALAYSIA: Borneo: Sabah Prov.: Kinabalu N.P., Poring Hot Springs, 5°02'N, 116°42'E, 600–700 m, primary forest; A. Floren leg. 03.III.1996 by canopy fogging “ridge”; 1 ♀ (SB 518), Deeleman Coll. in RMNH. INDONESIA: Sumatra: Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam Prov.: Ketambe, Gunung Leuser N.P., 3°51'N, 97°37'E, ca. 1300 m, primary forest, from leaves; S. Djojosudharmo leg. 03.V.1986; 1 ♀ (SB 127), Deeleman Coll. in RMNH. Halmahera: Maluku Utara Prov.: Jailolo Distr., Kampung Pasir Putih, 0°53'N, 127°41'E; A.C. Messer, P.M. Taylor leg. 1981; 1 ♂ (SB 187), USNM. Maluku Utara Prov.: Ternate Isl.; A. Raffray leg.; 1 s.a. ♂ (SB 465), MNHN. Maluku Prov.: Buru Isl., station 1; L. J. Toxopeus leg. 1921; 1 ♀ (SB 419), ZMA. Ceram Isl.; 6 ♀♀ (SB 470–473, 475–476), 1 s.a. ♂ (SB 467), 1 s.a. ♀ (SB 469), 1 juv. (SB 468), MNHN AR193. Ambon Isl.; 1 ♀ (SB 474), MNHN AR193. Aru Isls; 1 s.a. ♀ (SB 80), Roewer Coll. 1819 in SMF. Irian Jaya Barat Prov.: Manokwari, Dorey; A. Raffray leg.; 1 ♀ (SB 466), MNHN. Papua Prov.: Sentani; leg. IV. 1903; 1 ♀ (SB 661), MIZ. Mindiptana; B. Monulf leg. 1958-1965; 3 ♀♀ (SB 96-98) Coll.-No. 8474, 1 ♂ (SB 95), 1 ♀ (SB 442) Coll.-No. 8476, all RMNH. Merauke; B. Monulf leg. 1956-1957; 16 ♀♀ (SB 426-441) Coll.-No. 8475, 8 ♀♀ (SB 443-447, 450, 452-453), 1 s.a. ♂ (SB 444) Coll.-No. 8477, 4 ♀♀ (SB 99-102) Coll.-No. 8478, all RMNH. Java: Jawa Barat Prov.: Gunung Gedeh N.P., Cibodas Nature Reserve, 6°44'S, 107°00'E, 1450 m; S. Djojosudharmo leg. 06.XII.1986; 1 ♂ (SB 120), Deeleman Coll. in RMNH. PAPUA NEW GUINEA: West Sepik Prov.: Aitape, Seleo; 1 ♀ (SB 662), MIZ. Morobe Prov.: Wau, 7°20'S, 146°43'E; M. Robinson leg. 10–15.IV.1977, 5 ♀♀ (SB 163–166, 484), 2 juvs (SB 482–483); H. Levi, Y. Lubin, M. Robinson leg. 07.–12.III.1979, MCZ 82521, 5 ♀♀ (SB 156–157, 162, 479–480), 1 s.a. ♀ (SB158), MCZ 82533, J.E. Carico leg. 22.–29.VI.1982, 2 ♀♀ (SB 154–155), 1 p.s.a. ♀ (SB 478), 1 juv. (SB 477), MCZ 82531. Wau; 7°20'S, 146°43'E; J.E. Carico leg. 05.–06.VII.1982; 1 ♂ (SB 180), USNM. Wau, Ecology Center; E.I. Schlinger leg. 17.II.1978; ♀ (SB 947), CAS 9032225. East New Britain Prov.: “Putie Bucht”, South coast; Dr G. Ducker leg. 05.-19.II.1909, Hamburg Südsee Exp., No. 300; 1 s.a. ♀ (SB 896), ZMH. Jacquinot Bay, ca. 5°34'S, 151°26'E; Dr G. Duncker leg. 19.-20.XII.1908, Hamburg Südsee Exp., No. 261; 2 ♀♀ (SB 892-893), ZMH. Keravat, 4°21'S, 152°07'E, 300 m, lowland tropical rain forest; I. Agnarsson leg. 03.–07.IV.2009; 1 s.a. ♀ (SB 540), 1 juv. (SB 541), SMF. Keravat, Laes; Y.D. Lubin leg. 01.VII.1980; 1 ♀ (SB 167), MCZ 82525. Kokopo, Ralum, ca. 4°20'S, 152°15'E, ca. 50 m; F. Dahl leg. 12.X.1896; 1 ♀ (SB 801), 1 s.a. ♀ (SB 794), 4 juvs (SB 795–800), ZMB 15472, 19244–19248. “Dörper Spitze, S.O. Bucht”: Dr G. Duncker leg. 14.V.1909, Hamburg Südsee Exp., No. 534; 2 ♀♀ (SB 894-895), ZMH. New Ireland Prov.: New Ireland, Lemkamin; Nocna Dan Exp. 1961-1962; 1 ♀ (SB 887), ZMUC 5728. Feni Isls, Ambitle Isl. (Anir); E. Wolf leg. 04.V.1909; 1 ♀ (SB 86), SMF 2769/1. Papua New Guinea [no other locality data]: L. Biro leg.; 1 ♀ (SB 668), 1 p.s.a. ♀ (SB 669), 2 juvs (SB 670-671), MIZ 46/51U. SOLOMON ISLANDS: New Georgia Group; J.F. P. leg. 1965; 1 s.a. ♀ (SB 392), NHM. Auki; W.M. Mann leg. 1916; 3 ♀♀ (SB 159–161), MCZ 82524.

Diagnosis

Distinguished from other Fecenia species by the epigyne with diverging anterior margins of lateral lobes (AML) (Fig. 1). Males differ from all other Fecenia species by RTA at least as long as width of palpal tibia, MA large and massive, at least as long as width of tegulum (T) (Fig. 8).

Description

MALE:Body and eye measurements. Carapace length 4.2–4.7, carapace width 2.8–3.4, anterior width of carapace 1.7–2.1, opisthosoma length 4.8–7.1, opisthosoma width 2.0–3.3. Eyes: AME 0.28–0.33, ALE 0.20–0.23, PME 0.20–0.23, PLE 0.20–0.22, AME–AME 0.17–0.28, AME–ALE 0.06–0.13, PME–PME 0.22–0.28, PME–PLE 0.28–0.42, AME–PME 0.14–0.17, ALE–PLE 0.11–0.17, clypeus height at AME 0.28–0.42, at ALE 0.21–0.34. Measurements of palp and legs. Palp 5.2–6.1 [2.0–2.4, 0.8–1.1, 0.7–0.8, 1.3–1.8], I 46.6–55.9 [12.6–15.6, 1.9–2.2, 12.3–15.5, 13.4–16.9, 5.2–5.7], II 21.7–26.8 [5.8–6.7, 1.5–1.8, 6.0–7.6, 6.0–7.0, 2.4–3.0], III 12.1–14.2 [3.4–4.1, 1.1–1.4, 3.0–3.6, 3.1, 1.4–1.7], IV 20.6–24.0 [5.4–6.8, 1.4, 5.4–6.5, 6.2–6.5, 2.2–2.6]. Leg formula: 1243. Copulatory organ: Ventral patellar apophysis (VPA) arising in basal third of palpal patella (Figs 11–18), retrolateral patellar apophysis (RPA) mostly inconspicuous (Figs 9, 17). RTA distally not or just slightly broader than basally (Fig. 10). MA ventrally in basal third with distinct bulge (Figs 8–9, 96). Distal part of MA bent prolaterally. General direction of MA 1:00 or 1:30-o'clock. Embolus (E) arising in ca. 9-o'clock-position on T, at most as long as width of T (Figs 7–10, 96). T with corner-like lobe ventrally in prolateral half, T slightly longer than broad. MP with differing lengths (Figs 7–10, 96). Conductor (C) small, arising centrally in upper third of T.
FEMALE(Measurements of holotype (SB 94) first, those of other specimens given as ranges in parentheses; Holotype misses both legs I as well as all limbs of legs IV from tibia on): Body and eye measurements. Carapace length 6.4 (3.2–6.9), carapace width 4.2 (2.2–4.3), anterior width of carapace 3.0 (1.7–3.1), opisthosoma length 9.1 (4.5–9.3), opisthosoma width 4.8 (2.2–5.2). Eyes: AME 0.33 (0.20–0.33), ALE 0.23 (0.15–0.23), PME 0.23 (0.15–0.23), PLE 0.25 (0.15–0.25), AME–AME 0.29 (0.22–0.29), AME–ALE 0.17 (0.09–0.17), PME–PME 0.36 (0.24–0.36), PME–PLE 0.48 (0.33–0.48), AME–PME 0.30 (0.15–0.30), ALE–PLE 0.24 (0.14–0.24), clypeus height at AME 0.44 (0.27–0.44), at ALE 0.42 (0.20–0.42). Measurements of palp and legs. Palp 6.3 (3.5–6.7) [2.2 (1.3–2.4), 1.1 (0.5–1.1), 1.2 (0.7–1.3), 1.8 (1.0–2.0)], I 17.2–40.7 [4.6–10.8, 1.3–2.9, 4.7.7–11.3, 4.5–11.4, 2.1–4.3], II 23.5 (10.8–24.5) [6.4 (3.0–6.6), 2.2 (1.1–2.2), 6.4 (2.9–6.8), 5.9 (2.50–6.2), 2.6 (1.3–2.7)], III 13.6 (6.6–14.6) [4.0 (1.9–4.3), 1.6 (0.8–1.7), 3.3 (1.5–3.5), 3.2 (1.5–3.4), 1.5 (0.9–1.7)], IV 10.0–21.4 [5.7 (2.7–5.8), 2.0 (1.0–2.1), 2.6–5.8, 2.5–5.3, 1.2–2.4]. Leg formula: 1243. Palpal claw with 10 (8–11) teeth. Spination (holotype from Ambon [except for leg I as well as tibia and metatarsus of leg IV, which are lost in holotype: spination of SB 474 from Ambon is listed instead]). Palp: 110, 000, 0000, 0000; legs: femur I 533(423), II 313, III 213, IV 111; patella I–IV 000; tibia I 3008, II 3006, III 0025, IV 2024; metatarsus I 2025, II 2025, III 1025, IV 1026. Copulatory organ: Anterior part of median septum (AS) of epigyne broad-“nose-like”, slightly broader than its posterior part (PS). Lateral lobes massive (Fig. 1, 102). Epigynal muscle sigillae (EM) mostly integrated in epigynal field (EF). Slit sense organs (SO) mostly outside EF. Vulva with relatively short and narrow transparent section of internal duct system (TSI). Strongly sclerotised section (SSI) compact, duct with two curves (Figs 2–3), apex of first one directed posterio-medially, of second anterio-laterally. Primordial copulatory organs: Pre-epigyne: Already strongly resembling the adult epigyne (Figs 20–21, 104). All major structures present in adult epigyne are recognizable in the pre-epigyne, too (of course much smaller). Epigynal field not or only poorly developed, EM far outside epigynal field (Fig. 21). Pre-pre-epigyne (antepenultimate instar): AML far shorter than in pre-epigyne and transversal ridge/edge of median septum (TR) hardly recognisable (Fig. 22, fine dotted line). Pre-vulva: Pre-receptacula bulbous/spherical and relatively close to each other. Distance between centres of pre-receptacula less than 3 times of diameter of one pre-receptaculum (Figs 23–24). Colouration: Male and female: As described for Fecenia in general, but white to beige patch in front of spinnerets may be rather unclear (Fig. 118), smaller or even absent. In one (SB 98, from Mindiptana, Eastern Papua Province, Indonesia) out of 103 specimens the light patches ventrally on opisthosoma are absent. Variation of copulatory organs: Among male specimens examined, cymbium differing at most slightly in length (Figs 11–18). In some specimens MA may be more massive (Fig. 10) or T slightly broader (Figs 9–10) than in others. Shape of prolatero-ventral lobe variable (Figs 7–10, 96). One specimen differing slightly more from the paralectotype of Fecenia buruana (Figs 8, 12, 16) from Buru island (which is the closest male record to the type locality, Ambon) than the others. This is SB 95 from Mindiptana, Eastern Papua Province of Indonesia: MA directed to 2:30-o'clock position (Fig. 9), embolus (E) slightly longer than in the other males examined, RTA broadest distally (Fig. 9). Additionally, T protruding a bit more out of cymbium (Fig. 13) than in the other specimens. In females intraspecific variation is higher. The shape of AS (Figs 1, 19, 27–33, 102) as well as the course of AML are highly variable. Number of SO varying among specimens without geographical dependence. Vulvae of the specimens examined show less variation than epigynes. The initial part of SSI may be slightly more prominent (Fig. 38). Further on, the position of SSI seems slightly shifted in some specimens (Figs 25, 34). Pre-epigynes also differing in shape of AS and in course of AML (Figs 20–21). Based on almost 80 females examined, all the variation described so far is neither geographically fixed, nor are there distinct forms of variants which recur here and there. In some cases females from exactly the same recording site show clear differences. And on the other hand females which are recorded in different localities, partly hundreds of km away from each other, look strikingly similar. Anyway, the following ‘form of females' has to be discussed separately (see remark below).

Remarks

The vulvae of the holotype of Fecenia cinerea (SB 404) (Fig. 40) and the specimens recorded from Mindiptana, Eastern Papua Province of Indonesia (SB 96–98, 442) (SB 98 illustrated in Fig. 44) differ from all other females examined. The duct of SSI is somewhat longer, especially the second curve (Figs 40, 44). Consequently, the course of the internal duct system of these specimens (Figs 41, 45) differs from the remaining Fecenia ochracea females (Figs 3, 35, 37, 39, 43, 47). However, the vulvae of the holotype of Fecenia cinerea (SB 404) and female SB 98 do not correspond completely. In SB 404 the second curve of SSI protrudes more strongly in a lateral direction. In one specimen (SB 97, not illustrated) from Mindiptana the second curve of SSI is a bit shorter than in the others from this locality. The epigynes of SB 96-98, 404 and 442 differ in shape (SB 404: Fig. 28; SB 98: Fig. 32; others not illustrated). According to the differences in the shape of the vulvae (see above) it may be justified to revalidate Fecenia cinerea Hogg, 1914. However, the difference is little (second curve of SSI slightly longer than in Fecenia ochracea) and thus does not provide evidence for a clear species delimitation; especially considering that in one specimen from Mindiptana the second curve is again slightly shorter. In addition, if the females from Mindiptana should be regarded as Fecenia cinerea, then the male (SB 95, Figs 9, 13, 17), which was recorded from exactly the same locality, should be placed here, too. However, as discussed above, the palp structures of this male only slightly differ from the ones of other Fecenia ochracea males (though these differences are worth mentioning as intraspecific variation). Moreover, no males have been recorded from the type locality of Fecenia cinerea so far. Consequently, I refrain from changing the taxonomic status of Fecenia cinerea. More material from the type locality of Fecenia cinerea, especially males may enlighten this “problematic case”.

Disribution

Philippines, Malaysia [Borneo], Indonesia [Sumatra, Borneo, Moluccas, West Papua, Java], Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Australia [Northern Queensland].

Taxon Treatment

  • Bayer, S; 2011: Revision of the pseudo-orbweavers of the genus Fecenia Simon, 1887 (Araneae, Psechridae), with emphasis on their pre-epigyne ZooKeys, 153: 1-56. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.153.2110

Other References

  1. Thorell T (1878) Studi sui ragni Malesi e Papuani. II. Ragni di Amboina raccolti dal Prof. O. Beccari. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, Genova 13: 1-317.
  2. Thorell T (1881) Studi sui Ragni Malesi e Papuani. III. Ragni dell‘Austro Malesia e del Capo York, conservati nel Museo civico di storia naturale di Genova. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova 17: 1-727.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Simon E (1885) Matériaux pour servir à la faune arachnologique de l'Asie méridionale. III. Arachnides recueillis en 1884 dans la presqu'ile de Malacca par M. J. de Morgan. Bulletin de la Societe zoologique de France 10: 1-39.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Simon E (1887) Observation sur divers arachnides: synonymies et descriptions. Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France (6)7(Bull.): 193–195.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Simon E (1892) Histoire naturelle des araignées. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris, 1: 1-256.
  6. Simon E (1906) Etude sur les araignées de la section des cribellates. Extrait des Annales de la Societe Entomologique de Belgique 50: 284-308.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Kulczyński W (1908) Symbola ad faunam Aranearum Javae et Sumatrae cognoscendam. I. Mygalomorphae et Cribellatae. Bulletin de l'academie des sciences de Cracovie 6 (1908): 527-581.
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Reimoser E (1936) Fauna Buruana. Arachnoidea. Treubia 7(Suppl.): 405–413.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 Lehtinen P (1967) Classification of the Cribellate Spiders and some allied families, with notes on the evolution of the suborder Araneomorpha. Annales Zoologici Fennici 4: 199-468.
  10. 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Levi H (1982) The spider genera Psechrus and Fecenia (Araneae: Psechridae). Pacific Insects 24 (2): 114-138.
  11. Murphy J (1986) Additional information concerning the spider family Psechridae. Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society 7 (2): 65-68.
  12. Griswold C (1993) Investigations into the phylogeny of the Lycosid spiders and their kin (Arachnida: Araneae: Lycosoidea). Smithsonian contributions to zoology 539: 1-39. doi: 10.5479/si.00810282.539
  13. Murphy F, Murphy J (2000) An introduction to the Spiders of South East Asia with notes on all the genera. Malaysian Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 625 pp.
  14. Song D, Zhang J, Li D (2002) A checklist of spiders from Singapore (Arachnida: Araneae). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 50 (2): 359-388.
  15. Pocock R (1900) The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Taylor and Francis, London, 279 pp.
  16. Petrunkevitch A (1928) Systema Aranearum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 29: 1-270.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Chrysanthus O (1967) Spiders from South New Guinea IX. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie110(afl. 1): 89–105.
  18. Strand E (1915) Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Hanseatischen Südsee-Expedition 1909. III. Indoaustralische, papuanische und polynesische Spinnen des Senckenbergischen Museums, gesammelt von Dr E. Wolf, Dr J. Elbert u. a. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 36 (2): 179-274.
  19. Hogg H (1915) Report on the spiders collected by the British Ornithologists' Union Expedition and the Wollaston Expedition in Dutch New Guinea. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 20 (14): 425-484.
  20. Doleschall C (1859) Tweede Bijdrage tot de Kennis der Arachniden van den Indischen Archipel. Verhandelingen der Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch Indie 5: 1-60.
  21. Hasselt van A (1877) Araneae exoticae, quas quondam in India Orientali (praesertim insula Amboina) collegit Cel. Dr. C. L. Doleschall, AC, pro Museo Lugdunensi. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 20 (1): 51-56.
  22. Stagl V (1999) Carl Ludwig Doleschall – Arzt, Forscher und Sammler. Quadrifina 2: 195-203.

Images