Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58

Infraspecific spider taxa of Embrik Strand 43 ed as a subspecies in the World Spider Catalog (2019). It is based on a single female with the opisthosoma so badly main- tained that neither form nor colouration can be recognized (Strand 1907f: 116, sub 14-maculatus ). We could not detect type material in any of the contacted museums and since the type material belonged to the museum Stuttgart, it is prob- ably destroyed (Renner 1988). The variety clarior is justified entirely by colour differences in the opisthosoma although this is clearly damaged. Strand’s comment: “An der Hand nur zweier Individuen lässt das sich aber nicht sicher entscheiden und jedenfalls ist der Unterschied gross genug, um einen Va- rietätsnamen zu rechtfertigen.” [With only two individuals it is difficult to decide but the difference is large enough to justify the name of an own variety.] (Strand 1907f: 116). We do not share this opinion and treat this taxon as new synonym of the nominate form. Sparassidae Damastes coquereli affinis Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium While Strand (1907c: 735) gave a 9-line description of a sub- adult female and a 3-line (but meaningless) description of an adult female from Madagascar, Strand (1907i: 85) added five pages of description for adult females and subadult males, but provided no illustrations. The problem with these long de- scriptions is that they do not stress differences between two taxa but simply describe the specimens he studied. At the end, Strand concluded that his spiders belong to D. coquereli Simon, 1880 (described from a juvenile female from Mada- gascar, no illustration) but needed to be described as a new variety of the nominate form. Bonnet (1956: 1374) saw it as a synonym of the nominate form and the World Spider Cata- log (2019) lists it as a subspecies. If we ignore the descriptions of subadults, there is only one useful description of an adult female (Strand 1907i: 85). All specimens, Strand studied, belonged to the museum Stuttgart. We know from Renner (1988) that the whole collection of the museum had been de- stroyed 1944, so we have to conclude that all specimens of Strand’s variety are also lost. In addition, we did not detect other specimens of this variety in any of the contacted mu- seums. So we conclude that Damastes coquereli affinis Strand, 1907 is a nomen dubium. Heteropoda pedata magna Strand, 1909 = nomen dubium Strand (1909a: 21) described one female from India with a darker colouration, slightly deviating leg spination and “viel- leicht ein klein wenig schwächer recurva gebogen” [perhaps a little bit less recurve] anterior eye row as a new variety of the nominate species. For Bonnet (1957: 2186) it was a synonym of the nominate form and the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. Strand confirmed that it is “probably” no good species. The type material of both, the nominate form and the subspecies, is destroyed (Renner 1988) and so we conclude that it is a nomen dubium. Heteropoda submaculata torricelliana Strand, 1911 = nomen dubium When Strand (1911c: 12) described this new variety, he only had one male with a shrunken opisthosoma, all legs missing and in overall poor condition. However, because the nominate species was also described from one poorly preserved specimen only, Strand concluded that the differences he detected will probably not justify separate species status and consequently described his animal “vorläufig” [provisionally] as a new variety. For Bonnet (1957: 2187) it was a synonym of the nominate form and the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspe- cies.The type material was destroyed 1945 in Dresden (World Spider Catalog 2019) and therefore, we conclude that Hetero- poda submaculata torricelliana Strand, 1911 is a nomen dubium. Heteropoda sumatrana javacola Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium Describing one female from Java, Strand (1907g: 430) men- tioned slight differences in the size of the posterior median eyes and the shape of the epigyne to justify his new subspe- cies. In his conclusion, he stated that his new taxon is con- specific with H. sumatrana. For Bonnet (1957: 2186) it was a synonym of the nominate form and the World Spider Cata- log (2019) lists it as a subspecies.The type material belonged to the collection of the Zoological Institute in Tübingen and we know that it probably had been destroyed after the Second World War. We could not detect it in any of the contacted museums and, therefore, we conclude that Heteropoda sumat- rana javacola Strand, 1907 is a nomen dubium. Heteropoda venatoria pseudoemarginata Strand, 1909 = nomen dubium From Java, Strand (1909a: 7, Fig. 27) described a spider and added an illustration of the epigyne of “ein Weibchen, das sich von der Hauptform von venatoria durch die Form der Epigyne unterscheidet und zwar so viel, dass man leicht an eine neue Art denken könnte, wenn das Exemplar nicht in allen anderen Merkmalen mit venatoria gänzlich übereinstimmte” [one fe- male, different from the main form of venatoria by the shape of the epigyne to such a degree, that it could be a new spe- cies, if the specimen would not be identical with venatoria in all other regards], and therefore he concluded that this animal from Java would probably be identical with H. venatoria emar- ginata Thorell, 1881 from Western New Guinea. Nevertheless, he named this form pseudoemarginata, just in case it may be different from emarginata . The World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. Subadult sparassid females have a pre- epigyne that is jammed occasionally between the lobes so that it does not moult correctly and only drops off later (PJ, per- sonal observation).This observation may explain at least some of Strand’s strange epigynal structures that he obviously could not interpret correctly.The type material of this subspecies be- longed to the museum Stuttgart that had been destroyed 1944 completely (Renner 1988). Since we could not detect it in any of the contacted museums, we have to assume that also this material is destroyed. Therefore, we conclude that Heteropoda venatoria pseudoemarginata Strand, 1909 is a nomen dubium. Isopeda inola carinatula Strand, 1913 = syn. conf. of the nomi- nate form of Isopedella inola (Strand, 1913) From the same location in Australia, Strand (1913b: 612) described the nominate form inola (several specimens) and the deviating variety carinatula (one female only) because the epigyne showed a stronger keel in its anterior part. It is listed by Bonnet (1957: 2313) as a synonym of the nominate form and as a subspecies by the World Spider Catalog (2019). In all other aspects, this female was identical with the nomi- nate form. Isopeda inola was transferred to Isopedella by Hirst (1990: 20). Later, Hirst (1993: 64, Figs 96-97) analyzed the