Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58

40 W. Nentwig, T. Blick, D. Gloor, P. Jäger & C. Kropf the locus typicus, we prefer to declare Pardosa proxima antoni (Strand, 1915) a nomen dubium. Tarentula hispanica dufouri Strand, 1916 = Lycosa hispanica du- fouri Simon, 1876 (correction of Roewer 1955a), subspecies inquirenda This subspecies name was erroneously ascribed to Strand as nomenclatural author by Roewer (1955a: 248) sub “ Hogna hispanica dufouri (Strand, 1916)” and he listed the taxon ad- ditionally as “ Allocosa dufouri (Simon, 1876)” (Roewer 1955a: 201, World Spider Catalog 2019). Strand (1916b: p. 41) only downgraded Lycosa dufouri Simon, 1876 (described from a fe- male from southern Spain) to subspecies rank (sub Tarentula hispanica dufouri Simon, 1876). Bonnet (1959: 4254) syno- nymized it with the nominate form and the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. Strand’s material com- prised two females and several juveniles, but it could not be found in the SMF or in any of the other contacted museums. Recently, Planas et al. (2013: 426) transferred the nominate form from Hogna to Lycosa . The taxon treated here was not included in Planas et al. (2013) and we leave it to future revi- sions to decide on its status: subspecies inquirenda. Tarentula piochardi infraclara Strand, 1915 = subspecies inquirenda as Lycosa piochardi infraclara (Strand, 1915) Strand (1915a: 167) described this new variety (with subspe- cies rank in the World Spider Catalog 2019) according to a damaged female from Israel with only two legs, one palp and a shrunken opisthosoma (SMF 2184). Strand argued that his specimen is smaller and that its ventral side is brighter than in the nominate species Lycosa piochardi Simon, 1876, however, the epigyne was mentioned to be exactly as in Kulczyński (1911: 52, f. 60–61) who drew spiders from “Beirut and Pal- estine”. Strand also mentioned the structural difference be- tween the epigyne as illustrated by Simon (1876: f. 8–9), who described the nominate species from Syria, to Kulczyński’s and his specimen (Fig. 6). Strand’s conclusion was to describe his specimen as a new subspecies. Bonnet (1959: 4255) syno- nymized it with the nominate form and the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. We agree with Strand, that the epigynes as illustrated by Simon and by Kulczyński are very different and may refer to different species, thus, an in-depth analysis of this species is needed. We investigated Strand’s type material (PJ vid.) and confirm the difference to Simon’s piochardi, but also Kulczyński’s drawings deviate from Strand’s type. An in-depth analysis has also to include Simon’s material, but more specimens would generally be helpful. For the subspecies infraclara , we conclude here on subspecies inquirenda. Tarentula urbana hova Strand, 1907 = subspecies inquirenda as Trochosa urbana hova (Strand, 1907) Strand (1907c: 744) described this subspecies from a single female from Nosy Be Island (an island to the north of Mada- gascar, also written Nossibé and Nosse Be) because it is a bit smaller and shows deviating colour patterns (less wide bands, darker appearance, less clear colouration) from the nominate form which is widely spread from North to East Africa, in- cluding Tanzania, to the Seychelles and to India. Nosy Be is located close to Madagascar, between Tanzania and the Sey- chelles, thus within the known distribution range of the nom- inate species. Strand described it as a subspecies of Tarentula urbana , Roewer (1955a: 241) transferred it to Geolycosa , Bon- net (1959: 4255) synonymized it with the nominate form and Zonstein et al. (2015: 378) placed it in Trochosa , where the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. The fe- male holotype belonged to the museum Lübeck that has been destroyed completely during the Second World War, so we have to assume that the type material is lost. However, there is non-type material (an adult male and an adult female, SMF 2253) from which Roewer drew the epigyne (1960: f 391) (Fig. 7c-d) though he erroneously thought that it was the hol- otype. Roewer (1960: 699) mentioned major size and colour variation of the nominate species within its large distribution area, later confirmed by Saaristo (2010: 88). However, it is difficult to decide whether Strand’s size and colouration dif- ferences justify an own subspecies, especially since Roewer’s comparison with the epigyne of the nominate type shows two very similar epigynes but also distinct differences. A broader Fig. 5 : Pardosa proxima antoni (Strand, 1915); a. epigyne fromNosek (1905: Fig. 19); b. photo of the epigyne from Nosek’s specimen Fig. 6: Lycosa piochardi Simon, 1876; a. epigyne from Simon (1876: Fig. 9) from Syria; b. epigynes from Kulczyński (1911: Figs 60, 61) from Beirut and Pa- lestine; Tarentula piochardi infraclara Strand, 1915, drawings of the type (SMF 2184) by PJ; c. epigyne, ventral; d. vulva, dorsal; e. left half of vulva, medial (scale bare only valid for c-e)