J.Entomol.Soc.Brit.Columbia93,December 1996 105 Zora hespera in British Columbia: a new spider family record for Canada (Araneae: Zoridae) ROBERT BENNETTl G. BC MINISTRY OFFORESTS, 7380PUCKLEROAD, SAANICHTON, B.C. V8M 1W4 BRUMWELL and LISA J. DEPARTMENT OFZOOLOGY, 6270UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISHCOLUMBIA, VANCOUVER, B.C. V6T 1Z4 ABSTRACT The collection of specimens of Zora hespera from two localities on southern Vancouver Island, British Columbia are the first records of zorid spiders in Canada. To aid identification ofthis spider, drawings of the species diagnostic characters are presented alongwithbriefdiscussions ofthe genus, the family, and genitalic terminology conventionsfollowed. Key words: Zora, Zoridae, VancouverIsland, pitfall trap, distribution diversity. INTRODUCTION The spider family Zoridae comprises about a dozen genera (Platnick 1993) probably most closely related to the large and primarily tropical family Ctenidae. The genus Zora C. L. Koch has a Holarctic distribution but is most diverse in the Old World. Two species, Z. pumila (Hentz) and Z. hespera Corey and Mott, are the only known Nearctic zorids (Roth 1993). Until now these species were recorded only from the eastern (Z. pumila) and far western (Z. hespera) United States (Corey and Mott 1991). In Washington state (previously the northern limit of its range) Z. hespera has been collected in the extreme south along the Columbia River basin near Bingen and from north ofYakima (Crawford 1988). The natural history of zorid spiders is not well documented. Species of Zora are known to be active, diurnal, ground and shrub dwelling hunters (Corey and Mott 1991, Kaston 1948, Roberts 1985) which spin no retreats and attach their flattened egg cases to the underside of rocks or other objects (Bristowe 1958, Kaston 1948). They are most likely to be encountered in open, sunny areas with adult females in evidence year round andadult males during the spring and early summer. This paper reports the first collections ofa zorid, Z. hespera, in Canada. In late May, 1994 one ofus (RGB) collected a single male Z. hespera indoors in a rural area of the Saanich Peninsula just north of Victoria, British Columbia (this southern Vancouver Island locality is several hundred kilometres north of the Washington collection localities). Subsequent determination ofthree other males and a female collected in pitfall traps elsewhere on southern Vancouver Island (during a University ofBritish Columbia arthropod diversity study) convinced us that the species is established in British Columbia. Towhom all correspondence shouldbe addressed 106 J.ENTOMOL.SOC.BRIT.COLUMBIA93,DECEMBER1996 The Saanich Peninsula collection site is an office and laboratory building in an open grassy field with adjacent young plantations of Douglas-fir {Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) and western white pine {Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don) seed orchards surrounded by active agricultural fields on two sides and mature, second growth mixed conifers dominatedby Douglas-firandgrandfir {Abiesgrandis (Dougl. exD. Don) Lindl.) to the north and west. The pitfall trapping site is a recently replanted Douglas-fir regeneration site in the Koksilah River drainagejust west of Shawnigan Lake (between Duncan and Victoria). This site is in the dry part of the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone and is characterized by exposed rocky outcrops, invasive herbaceous plants, and scattered remnant conifers situated among Douglas-fir dominated stands of varying maturity. Because ofthe presence offorest stands varying in age from recently replanted to old growth and all having similar slope, elevation, and aspect, this regeneration site and the area around it havebeen the target ofseveral research studies on the effects offorestry practices onbiodiversity. Specimens are preserved in 70% ethanol in the collections of RGB (Saanich specimen) and the University of British Columbia. All specimens and their parts were examined in 70% ethanol with a Leitz MS5 dissecting microscope or in clove oil (female genitalia only) with a Nikon Labophot phase contrast microscope. Drawings were made with the aid ofa squared grid reticule in one ocular lens ofthe Nikon (female genitalia) or the Leitz (male palp). Drawings are included here to facilitate the identification ofthis species duringfuture work ontheBritish Columbiaaraneofauna. TAXONOMY In British Columbia, Z hespera is likely to be confused only with small lycosids because ofits behaviour and preferred habitat (see above), eye arrangement, and general size and shape. Specimens of this species are relatively small (average total length ranging from 3 to 5 mm), light coloured spiders with dark abdominal markings, heavily spotted legs, and two very conspicuous dark bands running from the posterior lateral eyes to the posterioredge ofthe carapace. Viewed dorsally the anterioreye row (foureyes) is nearly straight. The remainingfour eyes make up a posterior eye row so strongly recurved that there appear to be three rows ofeyes on the cephalothorax. The eyes are all small and subequal. This eye arrangement is somewhat lycosid-like and also is typical ofthe ctenids (which are not known to occur in Canada). From lycosids (and ctenids) Z. hespera is readily distinguishedbythe distinctive series ofsix to eight pairs ofvery long, overlapping, ventral macrosetae on the tibiae of legs I and II. Some small and cryptic phrurolithine clubionid (e.g., Scotinella Banks), cybaeid (e.g., Cybaeota Chamberlin and Ivie), and hahniid (e.g., Dirksia Chamberlin and Ivie) genera sport similar series ofdistinctive ventral tibial macrosetae but have eyes in only two rows. Additionally, males ofZ. hepera have a retrolateral tibial apophysis (Figs. I, 2) (lacking in lycosids) on the pedipalps and females have no distinctive, sclerotized epigynal features (lycosid females generally have distinctive epigyna with variously developed and well sclerotized plates and cavities). Zorids have two tarsal claws on each leg, lycosids have three. Species Diagnosis. No other zorid species is likely to be encountered in British Columbia but the following characters will serve to distinguish this species from the eastern species Z. pumila. J.ENTOMOL.SOC.BRIT.COLUMBIA93,DECEMBER 1996 107 Male (left palpus, ventral view): Retrolateral tibial apophysis with acuminate tip and shallow, ventral, transverse concavity subdistally (Fig. 2); simple, sinusoidal apical apophysis extending anteriorly from base ofembolus, with retrolaterally directed, bluntly acuminate tip (Fig. 1). Female: In ventral view (Fig. 3) atrium a shallow depression bordered laterally by inconspicuous, slit-like atrial openings leading to the internal vulval ducting; in dorsal view (Fig. 4) short, poorly defined copulatory ducts lead laterally from atrial openings to spermathecal stalks; stalks sinuous, moderately convolutedbut simple and not coiled. Figures 1-4. Genitalic characters ofZora hespera. 1-2, male, left palpus, ventral view: 1, tarsus with genital bulb; 2, patella, tibia, and base oftarsus; scale bar = 0.1 mm; AA- apical apophysis, CG~cymbial groove, E~embolus, RTA~retrolateral tibial apophysis, ST-subtegulum, T-tegulum, TA~tegular apophysis, TE~tip of embolus. 3-4, female, cleared vulva: 3, ventral view; 4, dorsal view; scale bar = 0.05 mm; AT~atrium, BS~ spermathecal base, CD-copulatory duct, FD-fertilization duct, HS-spermathecal head, SS~spermathecal stalk. 108 J.ENTOMOL.SOC.BRIT.COLUMBIA93,DECEMBER1996 Othergenitalic characters. Male: Cymbium of palpal tarsus with pronounced longitudinal groove; subtegulum heavily sclerotized, compact, and slightlyvisible inventralview; tegulum simple (i.e., no conspicuous, sclerotized tegular apophyses), convex, and lightly sclerotized with outline ofreceptaculum seminis visible through integument; inconspicuous membranous tegular apophysis locateddistallyontegulum; embolus simple, well sclerotized with membranous borders proximally (Figs. 1, 2), narrowingdistallyandproceeding clockwise around edge oftegulum, terminatinginconspicuouslybetweentegularandapical apophyses. Female: Short spermathecal heads project anteriorly fromjunction of connecting ducts and spermathecal stalks; simple primary pores present on spermathecal heads (schematically represented in Figs. 3, 4); no complex "dictynoid" pores on spermathecal stalks; stalks lead posteriorly to simple, bulbous spermathecal bases just anterior of epigastric groove; poorlydefinedfertilization ducts exit anterolaterallyfrom spermathecal bases (Fig. 4). DISCUSSION GenitalicterminologyfollowsBennett (1991, 1992), Coddington (1990), and Sierwald (1989, 1990) "in an effort to standardize names of presumably homologous parts in different taxa" (Bennett 1992). Female terms used here do not differ significantly from those ofCorey andMott (1991) butmaleterms do. Here we term the conductor of Corey and Mott (1991) the apical apophysis. A true conductor is a rigid extension of the tegular wall and thus a component of the middle division ofthe genital bulb (Bennett 1991, Sierwald 1990). (The subtegulum, tegulum, and embolus are sclerites respectivelytypical ofthe basal, middle, and apical divisions of the primitive tripartite spider genital bulb.) This structure ofZ. hespera appears to be a functional conductor (i.e. it is closely associated with the tip ofthe embolus and probably serves to support and guide the embolus during mating) but, because it is membranously attachedtothe embolarbase, itisa sclerite ofthe apical division and not a true conductor (i.e., it is anapical apophysis notategularapophysis). Two sclerites maybeassociatedwiththe tegulum in male spiders: A true conductor as discussed above and a median apophysis membranously attached to the tegulum (Bennett 1991, Sierwald 1990). Probablythe membranous tegular structure associated with the tips ofthe embolus and the apical apophysis in Z hespera is a median apophysis but, as we did not study it in detail, we maintain a conservative stance and simply refer to it as a tegularapophysis. Material examined. Specimen deposition noted above. CANADA: BC: southern VancouverIs. Saanichton, Saanich Seed Orchard, indoors, 26A^/1994 (R.G. Bennett), 1 ; male; Koksilah, 48039'25"N 123O46'10"W, 26A^-23/VI/1992 (K.G. Craig), 3 males; 23/VI-28mi/1992 (K.G. Craig), 1 female. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Dr. G.G.E. Scudder for suggesting to one of us (LJB) the spider diversity project that produced most ofthe specimens reported on here. Additionally we thank Katherine G. Craig for running the pitfall traps and accumulating a wonderful source ofmaterialforthis andfuture studies. J.ENTOMOL.soc.Brit.Columbia93,December 1996 109 REFERENCES Bennett, R. G. 1991. The systematics of the North American cybaeid spiders (Araneae, Dictynoidea, Cybaeidae). Ph.D. dissertation. UniversityofGuelph, 308 p. Bennett, R. G. 1992. The spermathecal pores of spiders with special reference to dictynoids and amaurobioids(Araneae, Araneomorphae, Araneoclada). Proc. ent. Soc. Ont. 123:1-21 Bristowe, W. S. 1958. TheWorldofSpiders. CollinsPress, 304 p. Coddington J. A. 1990. Ontogeny and homology in the male palpus of orb-weaving spiders and their relatives, with comments on phylogeny (Araneoclada: Araneoidea, Deinopoidea). Smithsonian Contr. Zool.496:1-52. Corey, D. T. and D. J. Mott. 1991. Arevision ofthe genus Zora (Araneae, Zoridae) in North America. J. Arachnol. 19:55-61. Crawford, R. L. 1988. An annotated checklist ofthe spiders ofWashington. Burke Mus. Contributions 5:1-48. Kaston, B. J. 1948. ThespidersofConnecticut. ConnecticutSt. Geol.Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 70:1-874. Platnick,N. I. 1993 Advance in SpiderTaxonomy 1988-1991 with Synonymiesand Transfers 1940-1980. NewYorkEntomological Society, 846 p. Roberts, M. J. 1985. TheSpidersofGreatBritainand Ireland, Vol. 1. HarleyBooks, 229 p. Roth, V. D. 1993. SpiderGeneraofNorthAmerica, 3rded. AmericanArchnological Society, 203 p. Sierwald, P. 1989. Morphology and ontogeny offemale copulatory organs in American Pisauridae, with special referencetohomologousfeatures(Arachnida: Araneae). Smithsonian Contr. Zool. 484:1-24. Sierwald, P. 1990. Morphologyand homologous features in the male palpal organ in Pisauridae and other families, with noteson thetaxonomyofPisauridae(Arachnida: Araneae). Nemouria35 :l-59. i