Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58

44 W. Nentwig, T. Blick, D. Gloor, P. Jäger & C. Kropf SMF type material (SMF 4648), figured both female variants (f. 96 is carinatula , but named as inola and declared a paralec- totype of inola , the lectotype f. 97 is the nominate form). We agree with Hirst’s (not formally expressed) synonymization and conclude that Isopeda inola carinatula Strand, 1913 is a syn. conf. of the nominate form. Olios lamarcki taprobanicus Strand, 1913 = Olios taprobanicus Strand, 1913 stat. nov. Both, the nominate species and this taxon, occur in Sri Lanka. Strand (1913c: 119) described it as a new variety in six lines due to differences in colouration and because its epigyne is more triangular. For Bonnet (1958: 3162) it was a synonym of the nominate form and for the World Spider Catalog (2019) it is a subspecies. Strand concluded that it might even be “vielleicht gute Art” [perhaps a good species] but did not provide drawings or a better description. After examining the type material (one female syntype: SMF 4691, one subadult female syntype: SMF 4681; PJ vid.) it is clear that it does not belong to the nominate form. This is a group of rarely col- lected species in urgent need of a revision. Both specimens are considered syntypes, following recommendation 73F and paragraph 72.4.1.1 of the CODE (ICZN 2012), although the subadult female was not mentioned in the publication, but was indicated in the unpublished catalogue of SMF and on the label as paratype.That indirect evidence supports its status as syntypes. For avoiding nomenclatural ambiguity, the adult female (SMF 4691) is herewith designated as lectotype, the subadult female is consequently a paralectotype. Olios malagassus septifer Strand, 1908 = subspecies inquirenda Strand (1908b: 480) argued for this new variety, described from a female from Madagascar with minor differences in epigyne structure, colouration and body size, that it belonged to the same species but such minor differences would be suf- ficient to describe it as a new variety because these differences are “lediglich als Altersunterschiede oder als durch individu- elle Variabilität bedingt aufzufassen” [due to age or individual variability]. For Bonnet (1958: 3162) it was a synonym of the nominate form and according to the World Spider Catalog (2019) it is a subspecies. However, after examining the holo- type female (NHRS, Tr. 324, PJ vid.) this taxon and a few related species are meanwhile seen as a group of very similar but separate species, currently under revision: subspecies in- quirenda. Panaretus chelata vittichelis Strand, 1911 = nomen dubium When describing this new variety, Strand (1911c: 10) men- tioned differences in epigyne shape between dry and alcohol preserved specimens of the new variety and the nominate form. Bonnet (1958: 3319) saw it as a synonym of the nomi- nate form, the World Spider Catalog lists it as a subspecies. However, the mentioned differences may be treatment-in- duced and, thus, not represent real differences. Strand himself wrote that the colouration of the variety is the same as in im- mature specimens of the nominate form and concluded that it could be “nur eine nicht völlig entwickelte Form der vorigen Art? [a not yet completely developed form of the former spe- cies?] (1911c: 10). Moreover, the type material of this taxon has been destroyed 1945 in the museum Dresden (World Spider Catalog 2019). Therefore, we conclude that Panaretus chelata vittichelis Strand, 1911 is a nomen dubium. Pediana regina isopedina Strand, 1913 = syn. conf. of Pediana horni (Hogg, 1896) From an adult male and a subadult female from Australia, both initially dried and only later preserved in alcohol, Strand (1913b: 618) described this new variety because it has a slightly different colour pattern, slightly different leg spination and a comparably short prosoma.The World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. Given the circumstances of drying a large spider, we cannot accept colour or size differences as argumentation, that, moreover seem to be in the normal vari- ation range of a population. Hirst (1989) revised the genus Pediana and mentioned P. r. isopedina only indirectly: “Strand (1913) gave a description of P. horni under the name of P. regi- na (var.?)” (Hirst 1989: 113), but did not formally synonymize the taxa nor did he examine the type before 1995, when he recognised the synonym of both taxa (as mentioned on a label in the vial with the type material). Strand’s type material is available at SMF (4736) and clearly fits the description of P. horni (PJ vid.). Also the distributions fit now much better: Strand’s specimen is from central Australia, where P. horni oc- curs, while P. regina is only known from the Australian eastern coast.We conclude that Pediana regina isopedina Strand, 1913 is a syn. conf. of P. horni (Hogg, 1896). Tetragnathidae Leucauge granulata rimitara Strand, 1911 = subspecies inquirenda Strand (1911a: 204, 1915b: 199, f. 11, only habitus) described this new variety from the Rimitara island (also termed Ri­ matara is., French Polynesia) because of a shorter but higher and brighter opisthosoma, legs appeared to be shorter, and the colouration of prosoma and legs was paler (SMF 1871, 1 female, 1872, 6 females, 1 subadult male, all considered to be syntypes, CK vid.). Following Bonnet (1957: 2461), it is a synonym of the nominate form and according to the World Spider Catalog (2019) it is a subspecies. L. granulata is a wide- spread species with a distribution from India over the Sunda Islands to Australia and French Polynesia (WSC 2019). The species shows intraspecific variation in both somatic and genitalic characters, compare e.g. the epigyne/vulva of Indian (Malamel & Sebastian 2018) versus Australian specimens (Davies 1988). There is indication for differentiation within this species (“ Leucauge cf. granulata ”, Dierkens & Ramage 2016: 147, subspecies marginata Kulczyński 1911), therefore the status of L. granulata rimitara Strand can only be clarified in the frame of a comprehensive revision of L . granulata and related taxa. Our conclusion: subspecies inquirenda. Leucauge grata anirensis Strand, 1911, = Opadometa grata (Guérin, 1838) syn. conf. Leucauge grata bukaensis Strand, 1911 = Opadometa grata (Guérin, 1838) syn. conf. Leucauge grata maitlandensis Strand, 1911 = Opadometa grata (Guérin, 1838) syn. conf. Leucauge grata mathiasensis Strand, 1911 = Opadometa grata (Guérin, 1838) syn. conf. Leucauge grata salomonum Strand, 1911 = Opadometa grata (Guérin, 1838) syn. conf.