Metashinobius dulongjiang Xu, Wang, Zhang & You, 2026, sp. nov.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Metashinobius dulongjiang sp. nov. Figs 1 B – F, 3 A – G, 4 A – D, 5 Chinese name. 独龙江后侵蛛. Type material. Holotype • ♂ (SWUC -T-TR-03-01), CHINA, CHINA, Yunnan, Gongshan Co., Dulongjiang Town, nr Hapang waterfall, 27°40'43"N, 98°16'13"E, elev. 1155 m, 21 May 2024 (adult on 26 October 2024), L. Y. Wang, Q. L. Lu and H. Y. Chen leg. Paratypes: • 1 ♀ (SWUC -T-TR-03-02), same data as holotype. Etymology. Named after the type locality, Dulongjiang; noun in apposition. Diagnosis. The male of this new species is similar to M. hikariae (Cheng et al. 2025: 6, fig. 1 A – F), in having similar structures of the palp, but can be distinguished by the bent ventral part of retrolateral tibial apophysis (Fig. 3 A – D) (vs. straight), the disserent shape of median apophysis. The female of this new species is similar to theta of M. daweishan sp. nov. (Fig. 2 A – C), but can be distinguished by the septum as long as wide (Fig. 4 C) (vs. wider than long, Fig. 2 B), the pea-shaped anterior part of copulatory ducts (Fig. 4 D) (vs. arc-shaped, Fig. 2 C), smaller spermathecae, diameter is less than 2 × wide of posterior part of copulatory ducts (Fig. 4 D) (vs. large, wider than 2 ×, Fig. 2 C), spermathecae spaced by 1.8 diameters (Fig. 3 H) (vs. 1.2, Fig. 2 C). Description. Male (Fig. 4 A) total length 5.73. Carapace 2.69 long, 2.25 wide; abdomen 2.87 long, 2.10 wide. Carapace pear-shaped, brown, with with grayish-brown markings. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.16, ALE 0.15, PME 0.23, PLE, 0.21; AME – AME 0.10, AME – ALE 0.04, PME – PME 0.12, PME – PLE 0.18 Clypeus height 0.16. Chelicerae reddish-brown, with four promarginal teeth and five or six retromarginal teeth. Labium and endites reddish-brown, longer than width. Sternum reddish-brown, with sparse black and white setae. Legs yellowish. Leg measurements: I 10.32 (2.54, 3.70, 2.66, 1.42); II 10.48 (2.77, 3.70, 2.64, 1.37); III 8.83 (2.41, 2.96, 2.30, 1.16); IV 10.05 (2.71, 3.10, 2.87, 1.37). Abdomen oval. Dorsum yellow brown, with pair of dark longitudinal bands; Venter yellow-brown. Palp (Fig. 3 A – G). Patella about as long as wide, yellowish-brown. Tibia brown, 1.4 times longer than wide, with a bifurcate and pectinate retrolateral apophysis (RTA), and the prolateral branch towards ventral. Ventral tibial apophysis (VTA) large and bulge shaped. Subtegulum small. Median apophysis (MA) long, located on retrolateral half of bulb, and with two sclerotized arm: anterior arm (AA) beak-shaped in ventral view and; prolateral arm (PA) short and finger-shaped. Conductor longer than wide, almost S-shaped, membranous. Embolus (Em) long and arc-shaped, hidden by median apophysis in ventral view. Embolus base sclerotized, nearly kidney-shaped, with a small process. Female paratype (Fig. 4 B) total length 6.15. Carapace 2.76 long, 2.28 wide; abdomen 3.24 long, 2.43 wide. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.16, ALE 0.15, PME 0.22, PLE, 0.21; AME – AME 0.12, AME – ALE 0.06, PME – PME 0.13, PME – PLE 0.19. Clypeus height 0.18. Chelicerae reddish-brown, with four promarginal teeth and four or five retromarginal teeth. Leg measurements: I 9.14 (2.46, 3.18, 2.39, 1.11); II 8.19 (2.11, 2.67, 2.28, 1.13); III 8.13 (2.38, 2.81, 1.94, 1.00); IV 10.27 (2.85, 3.38, 2.80, 1.24). Coloration and markings as in male. Epigyne (Fig. 4 C, D). Plate ca. 1.2 times wider than long; Septum (Se) considerably large and disc-shaped as long as wide; stalk very short, approximately 2.8 times shorter than septal width. Copulatory openings (CO) slit-like, located on posterior third of septum. Copulatory ducts (CD) subdivided into two parts, anterior part strongly sclerotized, thick and long, pea-shaped, posterior part slightly sclerotized, thin and short. Spermathecae (Sp) clavate, heads separated by slightly more than two widths. Fertilization ducts (FD) originate on the inner side of copulatory ducts and extend laterally outward. Distribution. Known only from the type locality, Yunnan, China (Fig. 5).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.