New taxonomic and faunistic data on Liocranidae (Arachnida: Araneae) of West Palaearctic), with nine new species of Mesiotelus Simon, 1897 Author Zamani, Alireza 0000-0002-8084-9666 Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit, FI- 20014 University of Turku, Turku 20500, Finland. zamani.alireza5@gmail.com Author Fomichev, Alexander A. 0000-0001-9268-622X Altai State University, Lenina Pr., 61, Barnaul, RF- 656049, Russia. a.fomichov@mail.ru Author Naumova, Maria 0000-0003-0060-048X Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria. munny@abv.bg Author Kaya, Rahşen S. 0000-0002-3769-9105 Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Science, Bursa Uludağ University, TR- 16059, Bursa, Türkiye. rkaya@uludag.edu.tr Author Marusik, Yuri M. 0000-0002-4499-5148 Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa. & Altai State University, Lenina Pr., 61, Barnaul, RF- 656049, Russia. & Institute for Biological Problems of the North, Portovaya Str. 18, Magadan 685000, Russia. yurmar@mail.ru text Zootaxa 2024 2024-10-08 5519 2 190 214 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5519.2.2 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.5519.2.2 1175-5326 13915743 1B8D59E6-A41D-4D37-B0B0-AF22A7257F3E Mesiotelus confusus Zamani, Fomichev, Naumova & Marusik , sp. nov. Figs 5, 6 , 17–19 , 46–48 Mesiotelus cyprius scopensis : Hadjissarantos 1940: 96 , fig. 32a‒b ( ♂ ); Lazarov 2009: 34 , figs 6‒10 ( ♂ ♀ ). Mesiotelus skopensis : Bosmans et al . 2009: 34 , figs 29‒33 ( ♂ ♀ , lapsus). Mesiotelus scopensis : Elverici et al . 2013: 306 , figs 6‒11 ( ♂ ♀ ); Naumova 2020: 4 , figs 4‒5 ( ♀ ); Zamani & Marusik 2021: 560, fig. 5F‒G ( ♀ ); Coşar et al . 2023: 11 , figs 12‒16 ( ♀ ); Tutar & Yağmur 2023: 208 , fig. 13A‒D ( ♂ ♀ ); Demircan Aksan 2023: 1432, fig. 2A‒B ( ♀ ); Bosmans 2023: 34 , figs 9C, H, 10C ( ♂ ♀ ). Type material. Holotype ♂ ( ZMUT ), TÜRKIYE : Kayseri Prov. : nr. Develi Dist. , 38°21'41"N , 35°28'56"E , 1274 m , among vegetation on rocky slope, 18.IX.2010 (leg. Y.M. Marusik ). Paratypes : 8♂ 6♀ ( ZMUT ), same data as for the holotype ; 1♀ ( ZMUT ), Antalya Prov. : Alanya Dist. , rd. of Elikesik Vil. , 36°33'55.6"N , 31°55'30.3"E , 24 m , maquis on southern exposed slope, 8.I.2013 (leg. Y.M. Marusik ) ; 1♂ 1♀ ( ZMUT ), Alanya Dist. , Asmaca Vil. , 36°36'32.3"N , 32°03'12.4"E , 686 m , 3.I.2013 (leg. Y.M. Marusik ) ; 1♀ ( ZMUT ), Hatay Prov. : İskenderun , Orhangazi , 36°37'18.0"N , 36°14'07.3"E , 4.V.2008 ; 1♀ ( ZMUT ), İzmir Prov. : Kemalpaşa Dist. , Vişneli Vil. , Fetrek Cave , 38°20'46.6"N , 27°25'16.3"E , 311 m , 5.VI.2009 (leg. Y.M. Marusik ) ; 1♂ 1♀ ( ZMUT ), Kahramanmaraş Prov. : Türkoğlu Dist. , Yeşilyurt Vil. , 37°14'21.7"N , 36°45'23.7"E , 11.III.2008 ; 1♂ ( ZMUT ), Onikişubat Dist. , Döngel Vil. , Döngel Caves , 37°51'32.8"N , 36°38'28.4"E , 30.V.2008 ; 1♀ ( IBER ), BULGARIA : Kardzhali Prov. : Eastern Rhodopes Mts. , 41°37'36.5"N , 25°32'10.0"E , 365 m , 14.V.2019 (leg. M. Naumova ) . Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the confusing history of this species and the fact that it has been repeatedly misidentified as M . scopensis . Diagnosis. The male of the new species differs from that of M. scopensis , with which it was previously confused, by having a subtriangular tibial apophysis ( vs . with parallel sides) (cf. Figs 18 and 24 ), a thinner sperm duct ( Sd ) (cf. Figs 19 and 23 ), a relatively shorter palpal tibia (cf. Figs 17 and 20 ), and the apparent absence of a prolateral tegular process ( vs . distinctly present). The epigyne of M. confusus sp. nov. differs from that of M. scopensis by having digitiform copulatory ducts ( vs . indistinct), and curved lateral margins ( Lm ) ( vs . straight) (cf. Figs 46–48 and Zamani & Marusik 2021b : fig. 5A–E). Description. Male ( holotype ). Habitus as in Fig. 5 . Total length 4.00. Carapace 1.85 long, 1.47 wide. Eye sizes: AME 0.08, ALE 0.11, PME 0.10, PLE 0.09. Carapace light brown, relatively densely coated with dark short setae. Chelicerae and labium brown. Maxillae light brown. Sternum pale yellow. Legs yellowish-brown. Abdomen and spinnerets dark grey, abdomen lighter ventrally. Ventral paired tibial spines: I, II: 2p, III, IV: 3p. Measurements of legs: I: 7.01 (1.64, 0.96, 1.81, 1.57, 1.03), II: 6.26 (1.75, 0.92, 1.48, 1.37, 0.74), III: 5.72 (1.57, 0.76, 1.21, 1.49, 0.69), IV: 8.65 (2.28, 0.88, 2.13, 2.38, 0.98). Palp as in Figs 17–19 ; femur almost as long as patella+tibia; patella longer and thicker than tibia; tibia ca. 3 times long than wide, RTA slightly longer than tibia wide, dorsal margin straight, basal half of ventral margin subparallel to dorsal one, distal part triangular; cymbium 2 times longer than wide; bulb suboval, ca. 1.7 times longer than wide; sperm duct thin, as wide as proximal width of tegular apophysis; prolateral process indistinct. Female. Habitus as in Fig. 6 . Total length 5.65. Carapace 2.00 long, 1.67 wide. Eye sizes: AME: 0.10, ALE: 0.12, PME: 0.09, PLE: 0.11. Coloration as in male. Paired ventral tibial spines: I, II: 2p; III, IV: 3p. Measurements of legs: I: 6.87 (1.94, 1.04, 1.63, 1.34, 0.92), II: 5.93 (1.66, 0.90, 1.40, 1.19, 0.78), III: 5.45 (1.48, 0.76, 1.18, 1.33, 0.70), IV: 8.24 (2.17, 0.95, 2.02, 2.18, 0.92). Epigyne as in Figs 46–48 ; epigynal plate 1.5 times longer than wide; fovea 2 times longer than its maximal width; anterior hood slightly wider than long; lateral margins roundly bent; copulatory duct short and thin; receptacles ( Re ) oval, 1.3 times longer than wide, spaced almost by their width. Comments. Mesiotelus cyprius scopensis Drensky, 1935 was described based on female specimens collected in the surroundings of Skopje, North Macedonia ( Drensky 1935 ). Hadjissarantos (1940) described and illustrated what they considered the conspecific male from Attica , Greece . Bosmans et al . (2009) elevated this subspecies to full species status and illustrated specimens of both sexes, which they had identified following Hadjissarantos (1940) . While the male palp illustrated by Bosmans et al . (2009) matches that illustrated by Hadjissarantos (1940) , the epigyne differs significantly from the one illustrated by Drensky (1935) , a point even noted by Bosmans et al . (2009) . Therefore, it can be concluded that the male illustrated by Hadjissarantos (1940) is not conspecific with the female described by Drensky (1935) . Hadjissarantos’ error led to a cascade of misidentifications by subsequent researchers. Consequently, all previous records of M . scopensis from Bulgaria , Greece , and Türkiye in fact belong to M . confusus sp. nov. , as they were all identified based on the illustrations provided by Hadjissarantos (1940) and Bosmans et al . (2009) . Distribution. Bulgaria , Greece , and Türkiye ( Fig. 75 ).