Arachnologische Mitteilungen 58

Infraspecific spider taxa of Embrik Strand 47 during the Second World War. In addition, we were also un- able to find the type material in any of the other contacted museums, so it has to be assumed that it is lost.We conclude that Camaricus nigrotesselatus lineitarsus Strand, 1907 is a no- men dubium. Ozyptila trux devittata Strand, 1901 = nomen dubium Specimens from northern Norway have a reduced lateral black prosomal stripe and the legs are more intensively black than spiders from southern Norway. For Strand (1901: 174) this was the argumentation for a separate variety, synonymized by Bonnet (1958: 3247) with the nominate form and listed by the World Spider Catalog (2019) as a subspecies. The men- tioned difference is negligible and Strand’s variety is probably only a synonym of Ozyptila trux (Blackwall, 1846). However, the related O. westringi (Thorell, 1873) has been described from Sweden, it is similar to O. trux and occurs in Norway, so devittata could also be a synonym of O. westringi .The very general description by Strand suggests that there is no type specimen, at least we could not detect it in any of the con- tacted museums including Oslo, and so we declare devittata as a nomen dubium. Phrynarachne rugosa infernalis Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium In two publications Strand (1907c: 735, 1907i: 83) described this variety from a single subadult female from Nosy Be Is- land (also written Nossibé and Nosse Be), Madagascar, due to colour differences from the nominate form (type locality: Île de France = Mauritius). Bonnet (1958: 3644) saw it as a synonym of the nominate form and the World Spider Cata- log (2019) lists it as a subspecies.The type material belonged to the museum Lübeck and probably got destroyed. Also we were not able to find it in any of the contacted museums. In addition, the description of a juvenile spider does not allow any correct subspecies or species attribution and therefore we conclude that Phrynarachne rugosa infernalis Strand, 1907 is a nomen dubium. Regillus cinerascens sumatrae Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium as Borboropactus cinerascens sumatrae (Strand, 1907) The nominate form, R. cinerascens (Doleschall, 1859), now in the genus Borboropactus, occurs from Malaysia to the Philip- pines and New Guinea. In a complicated discussion of differ- ences between specimens from Sumatra and Java, as described by Thorell (1892: 6), Strand (1907g: 429) concluded that his one female from Java is the nominate form and specimens described by Thorell (1890: 318) from Sumatra are a different form, thus need another name: R. cinerascens sumatrae . Bon- net (1955: 903) synonymized it with the nominate form while the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies in the genus Borboropactus . These differences refer only to body length and colouration, thus are negligible within a so widely distributed species. Strand’s type material belonged to the museum Tübingen and was probably destroyed shortly after the Second World War. Since the type material could also not be detected in any of the listed museums, we conclude that Regillus cinerascens sumatrae Strand, 1907 is a nomen dubium. Synema imitatrix meridionale Strand, 1907 = nomen dubium Synema imitator (Pavesi, 1883) = Synema imitatrix (Pavesi, 1883), correction Due to differences in colouration and slight differences in body size and leg length, Strand (1907h: 600) described this female variety from South Africa. Bonnet (1958: 4203) syno- nymized it with the nominate form and the World Spider Catalog (2019) lists it as a subspecies. The nominate form Synema imitatrix (Pavesi, 1883) has been described from Ethiopia, but is also known from South Africa. Pavesi’s origi- nal ending imitator was incorrectly changed by Dahl (1907: 382) from the feminine imitatrix to imitator . According to the CODE (ICZN 2012) this is not correct, since only an “adjec- tival or participial species-group name must agree in gender with the generic name” (Paragraph 34.2), whereas a noun in apposition must not be changed (Paragraph 34.2.1); imitatrix is a noun (“female imitator”) and not an adjective. Therefore the correct name of the nominate form is Synema imitatrix (Pavesi, 1883).We could not detect the type material in any of the contacted museums, it belonged to the museumTübingen and is probably lost. So we consider Strand’s taxon as a no- men dubium. Thomisus albus meridionalis Strand, 1907 = syn. nov. of the nominate form of Thomisus onustus Walckenaer, 1805 Following Strand’s (1907e: 106) argumentation, males of this species from Tunisia are a bit darker and smaller than those from Europe, so the new subspecies name meridionalis was established for the Tunisian specimens. Strand also had sev- eral females fromTunisia but, rather unusual, did not describe them in detail and assumed only that they would be different (“indem wohl auch einige Abweichungen beim weiblichen Geschlechte sich würden nachweisen lassen” [some differenc- es could also be found in the female sex]). Thomisus albus and its subspecies meridionalis were synonymized with T. onustus by Bonnet (1959: 4587), which is, with respect to coloura- tion, an extremely variable species. Moreover, it is the only known Thomisus species from Tunisia (Bosmans 2003). The type material was stored in the museum Stuttgart that had been destroyed completely (Renner 1988). Since we were un- able to detect it in any of the other contacted museums, we have to conclude that the type material is probably lost. So we assume that Thomisus albus meridionalis Strand, 1907 is just a new synonym of the nominate form of Thomisus onustus . Conclusions The infraspecific names of Strand reflect his personal atti- tude towards creating taxonomic names but also reflect the widespread habit of that time that relied on phenetics rather than species concepts. Today, most of these infraspecific taxa are not justified and simply represent taxonomic ballast. For spiders, 1.2 % of the valid species names refer to subspecies and this study reduces such taxonomic redundancy a bit. Ne- vertheless, we concluded in many cases on nomen dubium (often in combination with the destroyed type material) and on subspecies inquirenda, so some taxonomic work to be done still remains. It should also kept in mind that in some cases these subspecies names may indeed hide true species that can only be detected and described within a taxonomic revision of the taxon in question (species inquirendae). Only a few decades after Strand other arachnologists no longer followed his taxonomic concept and began to reject his names. While Bonnet (1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959) con- sidered most of the infraspecific names (not only of Strand,