Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58

46 W. Nentwig, T. Blick, D. Gloor, P. Jäger & C. Kropf contacted museums, so it is probably lost.Therefore, we con- clude that Hysterocrates affinis angusticeps Strand, 1907 is a no- men dubium. Hysterocrates robustus sulcifera Strand, 1908 = subspecies inquirenda With one poorly-preserved female from Cameroon avail- able to him (opisthosoma damaged), Strand (1908a: 264) described a new taxon “falls dies mehr als eine Aberration ist, könnte diese Form vielleicht als besondere Varietät … abgetrennt werden” [if this is more than an aberration, this form could perhaps be a separated as special variety]. Bonnet (1957: 2274) saw it as a synonym of the nominate form and the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as the subspecies sul- cifer . Strand’s description mentioned a “mehr charakteristisch ist aber eine schmale, aber tiefe Längsfurche [more character- istic small dorsal furrow], probably on the prosoma. It has to be assumed that this is the main difference from the nominate form which had been described from Equatorial Guinea, 300 km distant.The type is kept in the Museum Wiesbaden (Nr. 456). Since this genus is currently under revision, we abstain from a taxonomical decision: subspecies inquirenda. Theridiidae Argyrodes meus poecilior Strand, 1913 = subspecies inquirenda The female type of this subspecies is in Berlin (ZMB 28952), but the type material of the nominate form Argyrodes meus Strand, 1907 (a male and a female) belonged to the museum in Stuttgart and it has to be assumed that it got destroyed (Renner 1988). Strand (1913a) described his new variety from Lake Albert (at the border from DR Congo to Uganda), and the nominate species is from Madagascar, 2500 km dis- tant. Bonnet (1955: 706) listed this variety as a synonym of the nominate form, whereas the World Spider Catalog sees it as a subspecies. Both taxa have never been studied again and Strand did not provide drawings. However, Strand stated un- ambiguously that both taxa differ only by colour variation and slight differences in body size. Minor differences in epigynal shape were considered unimportant by Strand.The large dis- tance between the collection sites of both taxa and the specific situation of the island of Madagascar, a remarkable hotspot of biodiversity, cannot be neglected. It will probably be im- possible to prove Strand’s assumption that both taxa belong to the same species, because the type of A. meus is probably lost. Whether poecilior is a species of its own or a synonym of another species, needs further investigation and therefore, we consider Argyrodes meus poecilior Strand, 1913 as a subspecies inquirenda. Asagena tristis ruwenzorica Strand, 1913 = nomen dubium Strand came to the conclusion that the epigynes of two fe- males from the Ruwenzori Mountains (Uganda) look dif- ferent from Asagena tristis (Tullgren, 1910) when compar- ing dry specimen (1913a: 348); however, when comparing a specimen stored in alcohol, it fits the description of the nomi- nate species from Kilimanjaro (Tanzania), 1000 km distant. However, neither Strand nor Tullgren provided drawings of the epigynes. According to one male, the palpal tibia is less wide but “der Bau des Bulbus scheint der gleiche zu sein” [the structure of the bulbus seems to be the same]. In addition, Strand (1913a: 348) mentioned his usual minor differences in colouration and size but, overall, confirmed for both sexes that they fit the nominate form. Nevertheless, he described it as a new variety which Bonnet (1955: 752) saw as a synonym of the nominate form while the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies, meanwhile transferred to the genus Steatoda . Strand did not indicate where his type material was. We did not detect it in Berlin, nor in any of the other listed museums. Therefore, we conclude that Asagena tristis ruwen- zorica Strand, 1913 is a nomen dubium. Lithyphantes paykulliana obsoleta Strand, 1908 = nomen dubium (in Steatoda ) Strand (1908c: 97) described this as a new form from Ethi- opia and argued with his usual colour differences to the nominate species, but also variations in the structure of the epigyne. He described the epigyne of the new form in great detail and concluded that this new form is much more com- mon than the nominate form with which it co-occurs at one location in Ethiopia. He also stated that he did not detect transitions between the nominate species and his obsoleta . Bonnet (1957: 2558) synonymized it with the nominate form while the World Spider Catalog (2019) followed Roewer and listed it as a subspecies. Strand’s observation is based on several collections from Ethiopia with many specimens and may reflect real differences.The type material belonged to the museum Stuttgart that had been completely destroyed dur- ing the Second World War, so it must be assumed that all types are destroyed. Moreover, we were not able to find it in any of the contacted museums. Strand’s verbal description of the epigyne is not sufficient for a proper comparison, so we conclude that Lithyphantes paykulliana obsoleta Strand, 1908 is a nomen dubium. Theridion inquinatum continentale Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium When describing a new female variety from China, Strand (1907f: 129) discussed the colouration of Theridion inquina- tum and mentioned that the original description of Thorell (1878) stated the high variability of the colour pattern. Nev- ertheless, he concluded that the colour pattern of his speci- men justifies a description as a separate variety. Bonnet (1959: 4439) disagreed and synonymized it with the nominate form while the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspe- cies. Strand’s type material belonged to the museum Stuttgart and was probably destroyed when the museum burned down (Renner 1988). In the absence of illustrations, we conclude that Theridion inquinatum continentale Strand, 1907 is a no- men dubium. Thomisidae Camaricus nigrotesselatus lineitarsus Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium Following Strand (1907h: 651) this variety from South Af- rica is, based on one male and one female, characterized by a larger black dorsal line on the metatarsi which, in con- trast to the nominate form (distributed in Central, East and Southern Africa), reaches the tarsi. Bonnet (1956: 941) syno- nymized it with the nominate form but the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. The type material be- longed to the museum Lübeck that was completely destroyed