Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58

36 W. Nentwig, T. Blick, D. Gloor, P. Jäger & C. Kropf Bonnet (1957: 1937) listed anirensis as a synonym of G. tae- niata (Walckenaer, 1841), while the World Spider Catalog (2019) follows Dahl (1914: 287) and ranked both taxa as sub- species of G. taeniata .The types of both taxa (all females) are available in the SMF and were examined for this study (SMF 3710–3715,TB & CK vid.). All are similar to the figure of al- biventer Butler 1873 (Butler 1873: pl. 4, f. 6; syn. of G. taeniata (Walckenaer, 1841)). However, figure 3 from Koch (1871) for G. violenta (also syn. of G. taeniata ) is less similar whereas his figure 1 for vittata (syn. of G. fornicata (Fabricius, 1775) fits quite well. Chrysanthus (1959: Fig. 5) also illustrated tae- niata but unfortunately, this is less similar to Strand’s figures (1915b: Figs 78, 81). Therefore, we refrain from any conclu- sion and recommend these Gasteracantha taxa for a taxonomic revision. Gasteracantha aruana antemaculata Strand, 1911 = nominate form of Gasteracantha theisi Guérin, 1838, syn. nov. This name has been published as an aberration of G. arua- na Thorell, 1881 (a synonym of G. theisi Guérin, 1838) by Strand (1911b: 154) because he thought that slight colour differences to the nominate form would justify its own name. While Roewer (1942) and the World Spider Catalog (2019) list it as a subspecies, Dahl (1914: 249) and Bonnet (1957: 1937) mentioned it under G. theisi . They did not formally synonymize them but Dahl (1914: 249) pointed to the high variability of this species and added that “dem kindlichen Vergnügen der Varietätenbeschreibung sind hier also keine Schranken gesetzt” [the childish fun of describing new varie- ties has no limitations].We follow the argumentation of both that Gasteracantha aruana antemaculata Strand, 1911 is the nominate form of G. theisi Guérin, 1838, syn. nov. Gasteracantha aruana keyana Strand, 1911 = syn. nov. of the nominate form of Gasteracantha theisi Guérin, 1838 Strand (1911b: 154) described this variety of G. aruana from the Indonesian island of Kei and it is listed as a synonym (Dahl 1914: 249; Bonnet 1957: 1938) or as subspecies (World Spi- der Catalog 2019) of G. theisi . Strand argued with differences in colour pattern and he reported that keyana was frequently found together with the nominate species, thus it cannot be a separated population which would justify a subspecies name. We investigated four females of the var. keyana from Elat and Kei Doelah (= Kei Dulah), Kei Islands (where this variation should be predominant) from the Natural History Museum Basel (paratypes, ARAN-00752Ia–b, CK vid.), together with a vial containing five specimens (ARAN-00752a, sub. G. theisi ) from Kobroor, Aru Islands (where only the nomi- nate form should occur) with the colour pattern typical for the nominate form, labelled with the same handwriting as “ Gaster . aruana Th.” Even within these nine specimens the var. keyana cannot be clearly delimited against the nominate form.Therefore, we propose the var. keyana as a new synonym of the nominate form. Gasteracantha bradleyi trivittinota Strand, 1911= syn. nov. of the nominate form of Gasteracantha taeniata (Walckenaer 1841) Gasteracantha bradleyi univittinota Strand, 1911 = syn. nov. of the nominate form of Gasteracantha taeniata (Walckenaer 1841) These two names have been published by Strand (1911a: 206, 1915b: 234) as aberrations of the nominate species Gastera- cantha bradleyi Thorell, 1881, from New Guinea. Dahl (1914: 280) listed G. bradleyi as a syn. of Gasteracantha fornicata (Fabricius, 1775), but later synonymized both aberrations with G. taeniata (1914: 287). While Roewer (1942: 948-949) listed them as subspecies of G. taeniata , Bonnet synonymized them (1957: 1941) with G. fornicata (Fabricius, 1775). The World Spider Catalog (2019), following Roewer, listed them as subspecies of G. taeniata . The type material of trivittinota (SMF 3743, 3768) and univittinota (SMF 3769) is available at SMF. It varies according to colouration, lateral spine length and epigynal shape, but belongs clearly to the nominate form (PJ vid.). Obviously, Bonnet overlooked Dahl’s final conclu- sion, especially since Dahl did not formalize the synonymiza- tion.We follow Dahl’s argumentation: both taxa belong to the nominate form of Gasteracantha taeniata (Walckenaer 1841). Gasteracantha lepida rueppelli Strand, 1916 = nomen dubium Strand (1916b: 64) described this new variety from a subadult female from Egypt (SMF 3755) (CK vid.) and no additional material exists. Bonnet (1957: 1940) synonymized this vari- ety with G. sanguinolenta C. L. Koch, 1844. Indeed, Gaste- racantha lepida is a synonym of G. sanguinolenta C. L. Koch, 1844 and, therefore, the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies of the latter. Strand used mainly characters of opisthosomal spines and colour patterns for his diagnosis. G. sanguinolenta C.L. Koch, 1844 / G. rhomboidea Guérin, 1838 is a “tricky” species complex with several additional subspe- cies described (seven in sanguinolenta , two in rhomboidea ). Emerit (1974) in his monumental and astonishingly modern monography of Malgasy gasteracanthines, points out that the opisthosomal spines develop step by step during postembry- onic development and get their final form in the adult stage. Therefore, a comparison of Strand’s subadult type specimen with other published descriptions is actually impossible. In addition, Emerit (1974) used successfully the morphology of the female copulatory organs for his delimitation of subspe- cies of G. sanguinolenta , also in this case no comparison with Strand’s type is possible. Furthermore, morphometrics with statistical analyses of opisthosomal characters could be use- ful for taxa delimitation in Gasteracantha , but for this, series of specimens are required; Emerit pointed out that a reliable system based on single specimens is an illusion in gasteracan- thines. Based on this, Gasteracantha lepida rueppelli Strand is considered here as a nomen dubium. Gasteracantha minax leonhardii Strand, 1913 = subspecies inquirenda (in Austracantha ) Strand (1913b: 609) described this variety (for Dahl (1914: 251) and for Bonnet (1957: 1939) a synonym of the nomi- nate form, with subspecies rank in the World Spider Cata- log 2019) from a single female from Australia (SMF 3764) (CK vid.).The weak annulation of the legs of the type speci- men described by Strand seems indeed unusual. Austracantha minax (genus assignment by Emerit 1974) is a polymorphic species with four additional subspecies described. The whole complex is in need of revision.This makes it difficult to decide whether Gasteracantha minax leonhardii Strand is just a colour morph of A. minax or indeed a separate taxon and, thus, we conclude on subspecies inquirenda.