Discovery of pirate spiders (Araneae: Mimetidae) in Sumatra (Indonesia) with descriptions of three new species

Abstract

Three new species of the spider genus Mimetus (Mimetidae) are described from Sumatra Island, Indonesia: Mimetus falcifer sp. n. (♂♀), M. nataliae sp. n. (♀), and M. telum sp. n. (♂♀). This represents the first record of the family Mimetidae Simon, 1881 from Sumatra. Detailed descriptions, digital photographs and distributional map are provided.

Keywords: Aranei, biodiversity, Mimetus, Sunda Islands

Introduction

The family Mimetidae Simon, 1881, commonly known as pirate spiders, comprises 166 extant species in eight genera (World Spider Catalog 2026). Additional 13 species from three genera are known from fossils (World Spider Catalog 2026). A key diagnostic feature of the family is the presence of linearly arranged raptorial spines on the prolateral surfaces of tibiae and metatarsi I and II (Liu et al. 2021). Most mimetids do not build webs for prey capture and are aggressive mimics, hunting other spiders (Jocqué & Dippenaar-Schoeman 2006; Zhang et al. 2025). The family has an almost worldwide distribution and is most diverse in the Neotropical Realm, southern China, and Australia (World Spider Catalog 2026; Zhang et al. 2025). Mimetidae was historically placed in different higher-level groups, but current morphological and molecular evidence supports its placement within Araneoidea (Forster & Platnick 1984; Benavides & Hormiga 2020). In the Indo-Malayan Realm, pirate spiders are represented by three genera: Ero C. L. Koch, 1836, Melaenosia Simon, 1906, and Mimetus Hentz, 1832 (World Spider Catalog 2026). The latter genus is the most diverse, a result of the numerous species recently described from southern China (Gan et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2021). While mimetids in the continental part of the Indo-Malayan Realm have been well studied, those on the Sunda Islands remain poorly known, with only one species described from Sulawesi Island (Brignoli 1980). The pirate spider fauna of Sumatra Island remains completely unknown. While studying unsorted material deposited in the Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, SB RAS (Novosibirsk, Russia), we discovered several specimens of Mimetus collected on the island of Sumatra representing three undescribed species. The aim of this paper is to describe these new species of Mimetus from Sumatra.

Materials and methods

The specimens were photographed using an Olympus DP74 camera mounted on an Olympus SZX16 stereomicroscope at Altai State University (Barnaul, Russia) and with a Nikon Z6 camera mounted on a WeMacro vertical stand and equipped with Laowa Aurogon FF 10–50X NA0.5 Supermicro APO, Laowa 25 mm f/2.8 2.5–5X Ultra Macro lenses (Vladivostok, Russia). Photographs of the general appearance, male palps, and intact epigynes were taken in a Petri dish with a white cotton bottom, filled with 96% ethanol. Photographs of macerated epigynes were taken on a temporary slide in ultrasound transmission gel. The epigynes were cleared in a warm KOH aqueous solution until the soft tissues were dissolved. The digital image stacks were merged using the Zerene Stacker software package (Zerene Systems LLC, USA). The distribution map was created using the online tool SimpleMappr (Shorthouse 2010). All measurements are given in millimeters. The lengths of the leg segments were measured along the dorsal side and are given as: total (femur, patella, tibia, metatarsus, tarsus). The terminology and descriptive format follow Zhang et al. (2025), with one modification: data on spination, based on the examination of one specimen of each sex (one side of the body), have been added. The studied material is deposited in the following collections: ISEA – Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, Novosibirsk, Russia (curator: G.N. Azarkina).

Abbreviations: AL – anterior lobe of receptacle, ALE – anterior lateral eye, AME – anterior median eye, BP – basal plate, C – conductor, CA – cymbial apophysis, CO – copulatory opening, CTA – ectal tegular apophysis, d – dorsal, E – embolus, EMP – cymbial ecto-medial process, EP – epigynal plate, Fe – femur, MOA – median ocular area, Mt – metatarsus, NTA – ental tegular apophysis, p – prolateral, Pa – paracymbium, PL – posterior lobe of receptacle, PLE – posterior lateral eye, PME – posterior median eye, Pt – patella, r – retrolateral, Re – receptacle, SS – sickle-shaped seta, T – tegulum, TA – tegular apophysis, Tr – tarsus, Ti – tibia, v – ventral, Vi – visor.

Results

Family Mimetidae Simon, 1881
Genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832

Type species. Mimetus syllepsicus Hentz, 1832 from USA.

Comments. Mimetus is the most species-rich genus in Mimetidae, comprising 72 species (World Spider Catalog 2026). The genus has a nearly cosmopolitan distribution but is absent from the Australasian Realm and Siberia (Mikhailov 2024; World Spider Catalog 2026). The genus is diagnosed by the following features: (1) the cymbium bears a retrolateral sclerotized extension (the 'shovel') and a terminal extension (the 'vexillum'); (2) the bulb possesses sclerites S1–S5, which maintain a consistent topological position and orientation; and (3) the epigyne has posterior, inconspicuous copulatory openings (Harms & Dunlop 2009). The genus is likely non-monophyletic (Harms & Dunlop 2009; Liu et al. 2021). The greatest known diversity is documented in southern China (Zeng et al. 2016; Gan et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2025), although this pattern most likely reflects collecting effort rather than the actual center of diversity.

Mimetus falcifer sp. n.

http://zoobank.org/17D73E28-7648-4316-ACD1-628F992F7BD4

Figures 1–17

Type material. INDONESIA: Aceh Prov. (Sumatra): Holotype ♂ (ISEA 001.9525), Ketambe Vill., 03°41'N, 97°39'E, 400–500 m, 1988 (precise date unknown), unknown collector. Paratype: ♀ (ISEA 001.9526), together with the holotype.

Etymology. The specific epithet is a Latin adjective meaning 'sickle-bearing' or 'sickle-shaped'. It refers to the distinctive, falciform (sickle-shaped) setae on the abdomen of this species.

Diagnosis. The male of M. falcifer sp. n. is most similar to that of M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993 from central and southern China. Both species possess a palpal tibia almost two times longer than the cymbium, a smooth dorsal surface of the cymbium without any apophyses, a triangular paracymbium (Pa), and a long, smoothly curved embolus (E). The male of the new species differs from that of M. sinicus by: (1) the presence of a triangular distal cymbial apophysis (CA) (vs. CA absent; cf. Figs 7–8 and fig. 9B in Zhang et al. 2025); (2) the presence of cymbial ecto-medial process (EMP) (vs. EMP absent; cf. Fig. 6 and fig. 9C in the same paper), (3) a curved tegular apophysis (TA) as long as the conductor (C) (vs. a straight TA two times shorter than C); and (4) a bilobed C directed prolaterad (vs. a single-lobed C directed retrolaterad; cf. Fig. 8 and fig. 9B in the same paper).

The female of M. falcifer sp. n. can be distinguished from all Asian congeners, except M. nataliae sp. n., M. telum sp. n. and M. testaceus Yaginuma, 1960 (wide-spread in eastern Asia), by the basal plate (BP), which is situated at the posterior margin of the epigyne and is clearly visible only in posterior view. The female of M. falcifer sp. n. can be distinguished from those of all aforementioned species by the presence of sickle-shaped setae (SS) on the dorsal side of the abdomen (vs. unmodified setae; cf. Figs 9–11 and Figs 18–19, 35–36 and fig. 13D, F in Zhang et al. 2025). Additionally, the female of M. falcifer sp. n. differs from that of M. telum sp. n. by: (1) having chelicerae twice as long as the height of the anterior face of the cephalic part (vs. three times as long; cf. Figs 12 and 37), (2) flat and thin visor (Vi) (vs. thick Vi; cf. Figs 14–15 and 39–40); and (3) a medial surface of the receptacles (Re) with a distinct invagination (vs. a medial surface without an invagination; cf. Figs 17 and 42).

The female of M. falcifer sp. n. differs from that of M. nataliae sp. n. in that: (1) Vi is as wide as basal plate (BP) (vs. almost twice narrower; cf. Figs 14–15 and 22–23); and (2) Re are solid (vs. bilobed Re; cf. Figs 17 and 25). Finally, the female of the new species differs from that of M. testaceus by: (1) a silver abdomen (vs. dark gray; cf. Figs 9–11 and fig. 13D in Zhang et al. 2025); and (2) kidney-shaped Re (vs. figure-eight-shaped Re; cf. Fig. 17 and figs 12D–E in the same paper).

Description. Male. Total length 2.43. Carapace: 1.14 long, 0.78 wide. Abdomen: 1.22 long, 0.9 wide, 0.71 height. Sternum: 0.65 long, 0.47 wide. Labium: 0.26 long, 0.20 wide. Clypeus height at AME: 0.09. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.07, ALE 0.07, PME 0.09, PLE 0.07, AME–AME 0.1, ALE–AME 0.03, PME–PME 0.02, PME–PLE 0.07. MOA 0.24 long, anterior width 0.24, posterior width 0.20. Promargin of the chelicerae with 6 peg teeth. Coloration. Carapace yellow with a gray median band forming a V-shaped mark. Clypeus yellow with a large dark gray spot below AME. Chelicerae light brown with a gray spot at the base, basolateral sides yellow. Labium and endites yellow. Sternum yellow, without pattern. Coxae yellow. Palps light yellow; cymbium light brown. Legs yellow with distinct brown annulations, leg I somewhat darker than legs II–IV. Dorsal side of abdomen with a number of light guanine spots. Abdomen laterally with a number of light guanine spots and a dark gray round spot at each side; ventrally light brown with small irregularly shaped dark gray spots. Spinnerets light brown with gray lateral sides. Leg measurements: I: total length not measured (2.38, 0.6, 2.14, Mt and Tr absent); II: 5.86 (1.72, 0.41, 1.78, 1.22, 0.73); III: 3.86 (1.23, 0.36, 0.99, 0.72, 0.56); IV: 4.38 (1.43, 0.31, 1.16, 0.96, 0.52). Leg spination: I: Fe d7 p1 r1; Pt d1; Ti d3 p6 r7; Mt absent. II: Fe d7 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d3 p3 r3; Mt p3 r3. III: Fe d6 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d1 p1 r2; Mt p1 r1. IV: Fe d8 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d2 p2 r2; Mt p3 r1.

Male palp as in Figs 4–8. Femur 1.2 times longer than tibia. Patella 3.6 times shorter than tibia. Tibia 1.7 times longer than cymbium. Cymbium boat-shaped. Distal cymbial apophysis (CA) triangular, as long as wide. Paracymbium (Pa) 2 times longer than wide, subtriangular. Cymbial ecto-medial process (EMP) poorly-developed, crest-shaped. Tegulum (T) oval, poorly delimited. Tegular apophysis (TA) falcated. Conductor (C) with square ectal and triangular ental lobes, concealing embolus (E) apex. E 2.3 times longer than TA, origin at 5 o'clock position.

Female. Total length 2.65. Carapace: 1.40 long, 0.98 wide. Abdomen: 1.25 long, 1.05 wide, 0.73 height. Sternum: 0.70 long, 0.55 wide. Labium: 0.10 long, 0.21 wide. Clypeus height at AME: 0.11. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.10, ALE 0.09, PME 0.09, PLE 0.07, AME–AME 0.07, ALE–AME 0.04, PME–PME 0.04, PME–PLE 0.09. MOA 0.23 long, anterior width 0.30, posterior width 0.20. Promargin of the chelicerae with 8 peg teeth. Coloration. Carapace light yellow, with a brown median band and two dark spots at the margins. Eye field orange. Clypeus orange-gray medially, yellow laterally. Chelicerae yellow basally, brown apically. Labium brown. Endites gray-brown. Sternum and coxae light yellow. Palps light yellow. Legs: Fe I–II light yellow, with an orange-gray distal part and an orange-gray median ring; Fe III–IV light yellow, with irregularly shaped dark gray spots; Pa I–II orange-gray; Pa III gray; Pa IV light yellow; Ti–Tr of all legs light yellow. Abdomen silver due to dense guanine spots. Venter of abdomen with median dark gray spot. Spinnerets: Anterior pair yellow-gray; median and posterior spinnerets yellow. Leg measurements: I: 9.96 (2.78, 0.55, 2.88, 2.70, 1.05); II: 7.46 (2.23, 0.50, 1.98, 1.85, 0.90); III: 4.54 (1.48, 0.40, 1.08, 0.90, 0.68); IV: 5.24 (1.63, 0.38, 1.45, 1.08, 0.70). Leg spination: I: Fe d7 p3 r1; Pa d2; Ti d3 p5 r1; Mt p7 r6. II: Fe d8 r1; Pa d2; Ti d3 p2 r1; Mt p4. III: Fe d5 r1; Pa d2; Ti d1 v1; Mt d2 p1 v1. IV: Fe d6 r1; Pa d2; Ti d1 p1 r2 v1; Mt d2 p1 v1. Dorsal side of abdomen with sickle-shaped setae with thickened bases.

Epigyne as in Figs 14–17. Epigynal plate (EP) as long as wide. Basal plate (BP) trapezoidal in posterior view. Visor (Vi) trapezoidal in posterior view, inverted V-shaped in ventral view, separating EP from BP. Copulatory openings (CO) large, distinct. Copulatory ducts (CD) short, almost as wide as receptacles (Re). Re kidney-shaped, 1.4 times longer than wide.

Distribution. Known only from the type locality (Figs 43–45).

Comments. When this species was first examined, only a female specimen was available, which made its generic placement uncertain. At that stage, Danilo Harms (pers. comm.) considered Mimetus to be the most appropriate provisional assignment, noting that Australomimetus cannot be reliably distinguished from Mimetus in the absence of males, and that the former genus is predominantly distributed south of the Wallace Line, whereas Mimetus is diverse in Southeast Asia. Subsequently, a male specimen was discovered among additional material from the same collection. The structure of the palp generally agrees with that of other Asian representatives of Mimetus, which supports the placement of the new species in this genus. Nevertheless, a broader revision, ideally including molecular data, would be desirable to further test its generic assignment.

---

Mimetus nataliae sp. n.

http://zoobank.org/6FE60E52-E36D-4285-85D5-453229C7A524

Figures 18–25

Type material. INDONESIA: Aceh Prov. (Sumatra): Holotype ♀ (ISEA 001.9527), Kedah Vill., 03°59′N, 97°15′E, 1300–1500 m, 1988 (precise date unknown), unknown collector.

Etymology. The specific name is a matronym in honor of Natalia Omelko, the second author's mother, an entomologist and specialist in Gelechiidae (Lepidoptera) from Gornotayozhnoye Village, Russia. The name is treated as a noun in the genitive case.

Diagnosis. The female of M. nataliae sp. n. differs from all Asian congeners, except M. falcifer sp. n., M. telum sp. n., and M. testaceus, by the basal plate (BP), which is situated at the posterior margin of the epigyne and is clearly visible only in posterior view. The female of M. nataliae sp. n. can be distinguished from those of all aforementioned species by the visor (Vi) being almost twice narrower than the BP (vs. Vi as wide as or wider than BP; cf. Figs 22–23 and Figs 14–15, 39–40 and fig. 12D in Zhang et al. 2025). The female of M. nataliae sp. n. differs from those of M. falcifer sp. n. and M. telum sp. n. by having bilobed receptacles (Re) (vs. solid; cf. Figs 25 and 17, 42). Finally, the female of the new species can be distinguished from that of M. testaceus by the anterior lobes of Re (AL) being significantly larger than the posterior lobes (PL) (vs. anterior lobes of Re significantly smaller than the posterior lobes; cf. Fig. 25 and fig. 12D in Zhang et al. 2025).

Description. Female. Total length 4.25. Carapace: 2.23 long, 1.46 wide. Abdomen: 2.02 long, 1.66 wide, 1.12 height. Sternum: 1.07 long, 0.75 wide. Labium: 0.59 long, 0.3 wide. Clypeus height at AME: 0.13. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.12, ALE 0.11, PME 0.11, PLE 0.12, AME–AME 0.11, ALE–AME 0.1, PME–PME 0.1, PME–PLE 0.03. MOA 0.39 long, anterior width 0.39, posterior width 0.33. Promargin of the chelicerae with 10 peg teeth. Coloration. Carapace yellow with a dark brown broad medial band, forming 4 lateral projections and narrow wavy lateral bands of the same color. Clypeus yellow with a large dark gray spot below AME. Chelicerae brown with a gray spot at the base, basolateral sides yellow. Labium and endites light brown. Sternum yellow, without pattern. Coxae yellow. Palps yellowish. Legs yellow with distinct brown annulations. Dorsal side of abdomen brown with a few light guanine spots and a series of small black spots. Abdomen laterally light brown with a number of light guanine spots and small black spots; ventrally light brown with a few guanine spots and two small black spots. Spinnerets light brown. Leg measurements: I: 15.90 (4.25, 0.88, 4.67, 4.50, 1.60); II: 11.61 (3.23, 0.71, 3.32, 2.95, 1.40); III: 7.41 (2.31, 0.61, 1.90, 1.53, 1.06); IV: 8.78 (2.69, 0.61, 2.49, 1.90, 1.09). Leg spination: I: Fe d9 p3 r1; Pt d1; Ti d3 p12 r11; Mt p8 r9. II: Fe d8 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d4 p6 r7; Mt p4 r6. III: Fe d5 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d1 p3 r3; Mt p4 r2. IV: Fe d6 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d2 p4 r6; Mt p4 r3.

Epigyne as in Figs 22–25. Epigynal plate (EP) 1.9 times wider than long. Basal plate (BP) trapezoidal in posterior view. Visor (Vi) semicircular in posterior view, W-shape in ventral view. Copulatory openings (CO) large, distinct. Copulatory ducts (CD) short, parallel. Receptacles (Re) bilobed. Anterior lobe of Re (AL) circular, touching each other. Posterior lobe of Re (PL) ovoid, nearly 4 times smaller than AL.

Distribution. Known only from the type locality (Figs 43–45).

---

Mimetus telum sp. n.

http://zoobank.org/B5582D8E-7386-4530-9DB4-8B38CBB49178

Figures 26–42

Type material. INDONESIA: Aceh Prov. (Sumatra): Holotype ♂ (ISEA 001.9528), Ketambe Vill., 03°41'N, 97°39'E, 400–500 m, 1988 (precise date unknown), unknown collector. Paratype: ♀ (ISEA 001.9529), together with the holotype.

Etymology. The specific epithet is a Latin noun in apposition, meaning 'spear'. It refers to the male's greatly elongated pedipalps.

Diagnosis. The male of M. telum sp. n. is most similar to those of M. liangkaii Yao & Liu, 2024 and M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993, both from southern China. These species share the following characters: a palpal tibia longer than the cymbium, an apical part of the cymbium without processes, and a triangular paracymbium (Pa). The male of M. telum sp. n. can be distinguished from those of M. liangkaii and M. sinicus by: (1) the presence of a cymbial ecto-medial process (EMP) (absent in both compared species); and (2) a blunt ectal tegular apophysis (CTA) (vs. pointed; cf. Figs 32–34 and figs 1D–E in Wang et al. 2024 and figs 9B–C in Zhang et al. 2025). The male of M. telum sp. n. differs from that of M. liangkaii by its long, slender embolus (E) originating from the 6 o'clock position (vs. short, thick embolus originating from the 9 o'clock position; cf. Fig. 34 and fig. 1D in Wang et al. 2024). The male of the new species can be further distinguished from that of M. sinicus by the presence of an ental tegular apophysis (NTA) (vs. absent; cf. Fig. 34 and fig. 9B in Zhang et al. 2025).

The female of M. telum sp. n. can be distinguished from all Asian congeners, except M. falcifer sp. n. (Sumatra), M. nataliae sp. n., and M. testaceus, by the basal plate (BP), which is situated at the posterior margin of the epigyne and is clearly visible only in posterior view. The female of M. telum sp. n. can be distinguished from that of M. falcifer sp. n. by: (1) having chelicerae three times as long as the height of the anterior face of the cephalic part (vs. twice as long: cf. Figs 37 and 12), (2) straight, spine-like setae on the dorsal side of the abdomen (vs. sickle-shaped setae; cf. Figs 35–36 and 9–11); (3) thick visor (Vi) separating the epigynal plate (EP) from the BP (vs. very thin and flat Vi; cf. Figs 39–40 and 14–15); and (4) a medial surface of the receptacles (Re) without an invagination (vs. a medial surface with a distinct invagination; cf. Figs 42 and 17). The female of M. telum sp. n. can be distinguished from that of M. nataliae sp. n. by: (1) Vi being significantly wider than the BP (vs. Vi almost twice narrower than the BP; cf. Figs 39–40 and 22–23); (2) indistinct copulatory openings (vs. distinct openings; cf. Figs 40–41 and 23–24); and (3) Re being solid (vs. bilobed; cf. Figs 42 and 25). Additionally, the female of the new species differs from that of M. testaceus by: (1) uniformly brown basal segments of the chelicerae (vs. light yellow basally; cf. Fig. 37 and fig. 14F in Zhang et al. 2025); (2) a U-shaped basal plate (BP) in dorsal view (vs. W-shaped; cf. Fig. 42 and fig. 12E in the same paper); and (3) ovoid Re (vs. figure-eight-shaped Re; cf. Fig. 42 and figs 12D–E in the same paper).

Description. Male. Total length 3.9. Carapace: 1.98 long, 1.5 wide. Abdomen: 2.25 long, 1.53 wide, 1.43 height. Sternum: 0.95 long, 0.78. Labium: 0.15 long, 0.3 wide. Clypeus height at AME: 0.26. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.16, ALE 0.10, PME 0.10, PLE 0.10, AME–AME 0.11, ALE–AME 0.13, PME–PME 0.07, PME–PLE 0.17. MOA 0.37 long, anterior width 0.40, posterior width 0.30. Promargin of the chelicerae with 12 peg teeth. Coloration. Carapace yellow, with a gray-orange median band extending from the ocular area to the fovea. Clypeus and chelicerae brown. Labium and endites light brown. Sternum light yellow, with five gray spots arranged as follows: two adjacent to coxae I, two adjacent to coxae II, and one at the posterior margin. Coxae light yellow. Palps light yellow; cymbium yellow-brown. Legs yellow with distinct brown annulations. Leg I generally darker than legs II–IV. Dorsal side of abdomen gray. Abdomen laterally and ventrally with dense covering of light guanine spots. Venter of the abdomen with an inverted triangular gray spot posterior to the epigastric furrow and a horseshoe-shaped gray spot anterior to the spinnerets. Spinnerets gray. Leg measurements: I: 14.85 (3.95, 0.95, 4.1, 4.35, 1.5); II: 10.85 (3.0, 0.85, 2.75, 2.95, 1.3); III: 6.65 (2.1, 0.55, 1.6, 1.45, 0.95); IV: 8.15 (2.5, 0.6, 2.15, 1.9, 1.0). Leg spination: I: Fe d9 p3 r1; Pt d2; Ti d3 p9 r7; Mt d4 p6 r8. II: Fe d7 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d2 p5 r5; Mt d6 p4 r5. III: Fe d6 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d1 p1 r2 v1; Mt d1 p3 r1. IV: Fe d7 r1; Pt d2; Ti d2 p1 r1 v1; Mt p3 r1. Median carapace (from ocular area to fovea), abdomen dorsum and lateral sides covered with long, thick spine-like setae bearing thickened bases.

Male palp as in Figs 30–34. Femur 1.8 times longer than tibia. Patella 2.0 times shorter than tibia. Tibia length subequal to cymbium (including paracymbium). Cymbium subrounded; apical part unmodified, without processes. Paracymbium (Pa) 1.7 times longer than wide; subtriangular in dorsal and ventral views. Cymbial ecto-medial process (EMP) strongly sclerotized; apex triangular. Tegulum (T) oval, 1.2 times longer than wide. Ectal tegular apophysis (CTA) short, blunt; several times larger than ental tegular apophysis (NTA). NTA triangular. Conductor (C) long, slender; apical part curved, not concealing embolus (E) apex. E thin, smoothly curved; origin at 6 o'clock position.

Female. Total length 4.5. Carapace: 2.4 long, 1.58 wide. Abdomen: 2.75 long, 2.63 wide, 2.63 height. Sternum: 1.05 long, 0.83 wide. Labium: 0.25 long, 0.35 wide. Clypeus height at AME: 0.20. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.14, ALE 0.13, PME 0.11, PLE 0.11, AME–AME 0.13, ALE–AME 0.14, PME–PME 0.09, PME–PLE 0.20. MOA 0.41 long, anterior width 0.41, posterior width 0.31. Promargin of the chelicerae with 12 peg teeth. Coloration. Carapace as in male, but with several elongated gray spots flanking the median band. Clypeus and chelicerae dark brown. Labium and endites brown. Sternum gray, with a distinct yellow spot adjacent to each coxa. Coxae light yellow. Palps: Fe–Pt light yellow; Ti light yellow proximally and distally, with a medial brown annulation; Tr dark brown. Legs as in male, but leg I not darker than legs II–IV. Abdomen and spinnerets as in male. Leg measurements: I: 15.6 (4.3, 1.0, 4.45, 4.15, 1.7); II: 12.2 (3.5, 0.9, 3.25, 3.1, 1.45); III: 7.7 (2.45, 0.6, 1.9, 1.7, 1.05); IV: 9.65 (3.05, 0.7, 2.6, 2.2, 1.1). Leg spination: I: Fe d8 p3 r1; Pt d2; Ti d3 p10 r2; Mt p6. II: Fe d9 p1 r1; Pt d2; Ti d3 p5 r1; Mt p4. III: Fe d7 r1; Pt d2; Ti d1 p1 r1 v1; Mt d2 p1 v1. IV: Fe d7 r1; Pt d2; Ti d2 p1 r1 v1; Mt p3 r1. Median carapace (from ocular area to fovea), abdomen dorsum and lateral sides covered with long, thick spine-like setae bearing thickened bases.

Epigyne as in Figs 38–41. Epigynal plate (EP) as long as wide. Basal plate (BP) trapezoidal in posterior view. Visor (Vi) semicircular in posterior view, M-shaped in ventral view. Copulatory openings indistinct. Copulatory ducts short, indistinct. Receptacles (Re) ovoid, heavily sclerotized, touching each other.

Distribution. Known only from the type locality (Figs 43–45).

Comments. In studying numerous recent papers on Indo-Malayan mimetids (Gan et al. 2019; Zeng et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2025), we found that the terminology for the parts of the male palp is not completely settled. In the description of M. telum sp. n. in this paper, we distinguish the following parts of the bulb: conductor (C), ectal (CTA), and ental (NTA) tegular apophyses. There is an opinion that the conductor should be considered an outgrowth of the bulb that serves to direct the embolus during copulation or to protect it at rest (Marusik & Kovblyuk 2011: 330). This term is used for non-homologous structures (Marusik & Kovblyuk 2011: 330). Guided by this approach, we named the structure encompassing the apical part of the embolus the conductor. In redescribing M. sinicus, a species similar to M. telum sp. n., Zhang and coauthors also called the structure that guides the embolus a conductor (Zhang et al. 2025: fig. 9B). At the same time, Yao and Liu, in Wang et al., in the description of M. liangkaii, a species which is also close to M. telum sp. n., considered the conductor to be another, paired sclerite (Wang et al. 2024: fig. 1D). In our paper, for the homologous paired sclerite in M. telum sp. n., we use the terms ectal and ental tegular apophyses. In redescribing M. sinicus, Zhang and coauthors also distinguish the tegular apophysis. In the latter species, it is unpaired. Based on the fact that in different groups the function of the conductor may be performed by non-homologous structures, and that function is easier to establish than homology, we consider it correct to designate the conductor based on analogy rather than homology.

---

Acknowledgements

The work of Mikhail M. Omelko was carried out within the state assignment of Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (theme No. 124012400285-7). We are grateful to Yuri M. Marusik (Magadan, Russia) for his valuable comments on an early draft of the manuscript.

References