Sesieutes Simon 1897

Sesieutes Simon, 1897

Sesieutes Simon, 1897: 153; Deelemen-Reinhold 2001: 446. Type species: Sesieutes lucens Simon, 1897, by original designation.

Diagnosis. Small to medium-sized liocranids, generally armored spiders with dense or sparse granulations or pits on carapace, sternum, labium and endites. Thoracic groove obsolete, or with a deep round pit. Both male and female abdomen usually with dorsal scutum, larger in males, smaller, even absent in females; and with a large undivided epigastric scutum, but never with a ventral postgenital scutum. Spiders in this genus can be distinguished from other phrurolithines by the oval carapace with rebordered clypeal lobe. It is separated from other liocranid genera distributed in China (for example, Agrocea, Itatsina, Mesiotelus, Paratus, and Spingius) by the narrow, more or less wedge-shaped posterior border of the carapace; by the basally dilated, dorsally geniculate femur I with one to three prolateral distal spines. Sesieutes is also distinguished from Mesiotelus by the short male palp (especially short tibia and patella); from Paratus by the longitudinal oval abdomen; from Sphingius by the presence of some pairs of ventral spines on anterior tibiae and metatarsi. Male palpal tibia usually with proximal and distal retrolateral apophyses, inflated tegulum with distinct sperm duct; embolus filiform, coiled apically or partly hidden on dorsal side of the bulb; conductor apical; medi- an apophysis occurring in some species; cymbium with cluster of fine hairs near tip. Epigyna a flat plate, with paired copulatory openings; spermathecae various, may be globose, long saccate, even tube-shaped, copulatory ducts long, surrounding and coiled (Deeleman-Reinhold 2001).

Note. Deeleman-Reinhold (2001) placed this genus in Phrurolithinae, as treat- ed in Corinnidae. However, Platnick (2009) lists this genus in Liocranidae as he believes this genus has not yet been formally transferred to Phrurolithinae (pers. comm. with Dr. Marusik). We are inclined to place this genus in Corinnidae according to the armoured habitus and genital characters. Certainly we agree with Deeleman-Reinhold (2001), who suggests that “boundaries between the Liocranidae and Corinnidae are somewhat arbitrary and break down in certain parts of the globe, one way out of this dilemma would be to raise the subfamilies, viz. the Castianeirinae, Trachelinae and Phrurolithinae to familial status.” There is an urgent need for a worldwide revision of the two families.