On the taxonomic validity of Indian ground spiders: II. Genera Drassyllus Chamberlin, 1922 and Nodocion Chamberlin, 1922 (Araneae: Gnaphosidae) Author Sankaran, Pradeep M. 0AEC69AA-7E17-401F-B83B-280C2F04AC6E Division of Arachnology, Department of Zoology, Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Cochin, Kerala 682 013, India. & urn: lsid: zoobank. org: author: 0 AEC 69 AA- 7 E 17 - 401 F-B 83 B- 280 C 2 F 04 AC 6 E & Corresponding author: pradeepmspala @ rediffmail. com pradeepmspala@rediffmail.com Author Caleb, John T. D. 2B3052EB-5000-4A94-8E38-F88CC308ECAD Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhawan, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal 700 053, India. & Email: caleb 87 woodgate @ gmail. com & urn: lsid: zoobank. org: author: 2 B 3052 EB- 5000 - 4 A 94 - 8 E 38 - F 88 CC 308 ECAD caleb87woodgate@gmail.com Author Sebastian, Pothalil A. C22767DA-4C75-4685-B77E-2AB058C1091D Division of Arachnology, Department of Zoology, Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Cochin, Kerala 682 013, India. & Email: drpothalil @ rediffmail. com & urn: lsid: zoobank. org: author: C 22767 DA- 4 C 75 - 4685 - B 77 E- 2 AB 058 C 1091 D drpothalil@rediffmail.com text European Journal of Taxonomy 2020 2020-06-24 673 1 14 journal article 21603 10.5852/ejt.2020.673 de4f2e41-d1c5-47c8-98af-548b7f9842bb 2118-9773 3908345 3A281D69-7AB3-47DB-8A38-923A9B54760B “ Setaphis ” solanensis ( Tikader & Gajbe, 1977 ) comb. nov. Fig. 5 Nodocion solanensis Tikader & Gajbe, 1977: 73 , fig. 6A–D. Nodocion solanensis – Tikader 1982: 456 , figs 363–367. Diagnosis “ Setaphis ” solanensis comb. nov. resembles Setaphis subtilis (Simon, 1897) in having a large, flat proximal part of the copulatory ducts, but can be distinguished by the narrow, highly twisted distal part of the copulatory ducts (copulatory ducts of S. subtilis with broad, uncoiled distal part) (compare Fig. 5 C–D with Platnick & Murphy 1996 : fig. 24). Material examined Holotype INDIA • ♀ ; Himachal Pradesh , Solan , Kasauli (= Kasoli); 30°54′04.64″ N , 76°57′53.55″ E ; 1817 m a.s.l. ; 22 Dec. 1972 ; H.P. Agarwal leg.; NZC-ZSI, Kolkata 5002/18 . Supplementary description Female ( holotype , Fig. 5 ) Body length 7.54. Prosoma: length 2.97, width 2.20. Opisthosoma: length 4.57, width 2.77. Eye diameters: ALE 0.17, AME 0.16, PLE 0.16, PME 0.14. Eye interdistances: AME–AME 0.08, AME– PME 0.16, PME–PLE 0.12, PME–PME 0.08. Chelicerae length 0.90. Measurements of palp and legs. Palp (right) 2.97 [1.08, 0.53, 0.51, 0.85], III (right) 6.30 [1.78, 1.02, 1.23, 1.53, 0.74], IV 9.00 [2.32, Fig. 5. “ Setaphis ” solanensis ( Tikader & Gajbe, 1977 ) comb. nov. , ♀, holotype of Nodocion solanensis Tikader & Gajbe, 1977 (NZC-ZSI-5002/18). A . Habitus, dorsal view. B . Eyes of the same, dorsal view. C . Epigyne, ventral view. D . Same, dorsal view. E . Label from type bottle. Scale bars: A = 2 mm; B = 0.2 mm; C–D = 0.5 mm. 1.33, 2.01, 2.37, 0.97]. Epigyne ( holotype , Fig. 5 C–D): Epigynal plate sclerotized, with nearly M-shaped anterior ridge ( Fig. 5C ). Copulatory openings indistinct. Copulatory ducts long, highly twisted, with large, flat proximal part and narrow, tubular distal part ( Fig. 5D ). Receptacles small, oval, obliquely placed, diverging, lying adjacent to posterior epigynal margin ( Fig. 5D ). Fertilization ducts narrow, diverging. Fig. 6. Setaphis browni (Tucker, 1923) , ♀, holotype of Liodrassus mandae Tikader & Gajbe, 1977 (NZC-ZSI-5018/18). A . Habitus, dorsal view. B . Eyes of the same, dorsal view. C . Epigyne, ventral view. D . Same, dorsal view. E . Label from type bottle. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm. Male Unknown. Justification of the transfer Tikader & Gajbe (1977) described this species on the basis of a female specimen collected in Himachal Pradesh . The original illustration of the epigyne of this species ( Tikader & Gajbe 1977 : fig. 6b) clearly deviated from the epigyne of Nodocion mateonus Chamberlin, 1922 ( Platnick & Shadab 1980 : figs 3–4), indicating its misplacement under Nodocion Chamberlin, 1922 . Detailed examination of the holotype of N. solanensis revealed that its features do not fit those of any known gnaphosid genera, indicating that this species probably represents an unknown Indian gnaphosid genus. However, this will not be confirmed until the male pedipalp of this species will have been examined. Until then, we tentatively place this species in Setaphis due to the distant similarities in the following features: PMEs irregular, epigyne with a mid-piece and highly twisted internal ducts with wide proximal part ( Fig. 5 B–D). Remarks The ZSI collection has one glass bottle for this species labeled as ‘holotype’ (5002/18), containing a female specimen in fairly good condition, with broken legs and detached opisthosoma. The same bottle has a small glass vial containing the dissected epigyne.