Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay, 2025
Vol. 34 (1):
ISSN 2393-6940
https://journal.szu.org.uy
e34.1.6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26462/34.1.6
ABSTRACT
Neohahnia ernsti (Simon, 1898) is redescribed and
illustrated based on newly examined material. For the first
time, the male palp (retrolateral view) and female
epigynum (ventral view) are documented. Scanning
electron micrographs complement the species'
description, and new distribution records are provided.
Neohahnia chalupas Dupérré & Tapia, 2024 syn. nov.
with N. ernsti (Simon, 1898) is proposed. Previously
recorded only in its type locality, N. ernsti is now reported
from several Neotropical regions, including location
across the Caribbean, such as Saint Vincent Island,
Puerto Rico, and Cuba, as well as Venezuela, Colombia,
Ecuador, and Brazil. This study expands the known
distribution of N. ernsti and offers morphological
description into the species. Most specimens were
collected from Neotropical rainforests, indicating a
possible soil-dwelling habitat.
Keywords: dwarf sheet spiders; Hahniinae; taxonomy.
RESUMO
Neohahnia ernsti (Simon, 1898) (Araneae: Hahniidae):
redescrição e novos registros de distribuição.
Neohahnia ernsti (Simon, 1898) é reescrita e ilustrada
com base em material recentemente examinado. Pela
primeira vez, o palpo masculino (visão retrolateral) e o
epígino feminino (visão ventral) são documentados.
Micrografias eletrônicas de varredura complementam a
descrição da espécie, e novos registros de distribuição
são fornecidos. Neohahnia chalupas Dupérré & Tapia,
2024 syn. nov. com N. ernsti (Simon, 1898) é proposto.
Anteriormente registrada apenas para sua localidade tipo,
N. ernsti agora é relatada em várias áreas neotropicais,
incluindo locais no Caribe, como Ilha de São Vicente,
Porto Rico e Cuba, bem como Venezuela, Colômbia,
Equador e Brasil. Este estudo expande a distribuição
conhecida de N. ernsti e oferece descrição morfológica da
espécie. A maioria dos espécimes foi coletada em
florestas tropicais neotropicais, indicando um possível
habitat de solo.
Palavras-chave: aranhas anãs de teia em lençol;
Hahniinae; taxonomia.
INTRODUCTION
Neohahnia Mello-Leitão 1917 was originally
described in the subfamily 'Hahniae' under Agelenidae,
but it has been listed under Hahniidae since Gertsch
(1934) and belonging to the subfamily Hahniinae as per
Lehtinen (1967) until the present. Some authors have
suggested a close relationship between Neohahnia
and Neotropical species included in Hahnia (Mello-
Leitão, 1917; Gertsch, 1934; Heimer and Müller, 1988),
as well as Alistra and Scotopsillus (Mello-Leitão, 1917).
According to Mello-Leitão (1917), Neohahnia is
closely related to Alistra, Scotopsillus and Hahnia
because its anterior median eyes are smaller than the
others. Additionally, Neohahnia is related to Hahnia
due to the tracheal spiracle being closer to the
spinnerets than the genital furrow (Schiapelli and
Gerschman, 1958; Heimer and Müller, 1988).
However, Neohahnia differs from all these genera
because its anterior median eyes are contiguous and
distinctly separated from anterior lateral eyes (Mello-
Leitão, 1917).
Lehtinen (1967, p. 251) noted that the taxonomic
status of this genus has remained somewhat obscure,
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
ON THE COMB-TAILED Neohahnia ernsti (SIMON, 1898) (ARANEAE: HAHNIIDAE): REDESCRIPTION
AND NEW DISTRIBUTION RECORDS
1 2 3
Nancy F. Lo-Man-Hung * , David F. Candiani and Alexandre B. Bonaldo
1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Biológicas (Biologia Genética), Universidade de São Paulo,
São Paulo, Brasil
2 Metazoa Zoologia e Consultoria Cientifica LTDA, São Paulo, Brasil
3 Laboratório de Aracnologia, Coordenação de Zoologia, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Brasil
* Corresponding author: hahniidae@gmail.com
Fecha de recepción: 23 de octubre de 2024
Fecha de aceptación: 05 de diciembre de 2024
.
2
LO-MAN-HUNG et al.
partly because the type specimen's preservation was
unknown for him. Currently, Neohahnia Mello-Leitão
1917 comprises ten species (WSC, 2024). The type of
specie N. sylviae was described based in juvenile
exemplar from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Moreira et al.,
2010). Mello-Leitão (1917) also described N.
palmicola, which, like N. sylviae, was described based
on a juvenile specimen from the same type locality. N.
chibcha was described by Heimer and Müller (1988)
based in male and female specimens from Colombia.
Six species of Neohahnia were recently described from
Ecuador (Dupérré and Tapia, 2024): Neohahnia
catleyi, based on a female; N. piemontana, based on
both male and female specimens; N. pristirana, based
on both male and female specimens; N. freibergi,
based on both male and female specimens; N. paramo,
based on both male and female specimens; and N.
chalupas, based on a male.
Neohahnia ernsti (Simon, 1898) was described
based in male and female specimens reported from St.
Vincent, Venezuela. Later, Petrunkevitch (1929)
described the structural characteristics for female
species, as Simon had only provided details on the
color pattern in his original descriptions. Petrunkevitch
also expanded the know distribution of the species to
Naguabo and Adjunas in Puerto Rico. N. ernsti was
originally placed in the genus Hahnia but was
transferred to Neohahnia by Lehtinen (1967), who also
provided figures of the male palp (ventral view) and
female epigynum (dorsal view).
In the present paper, N. ernsti is recognized,
redescribed, and illustrated. Neohahnia chalupas
Dupérré and Tapia, 2024 is synonymized with N. ernsti
(Simon, 1898). Male palp (retrolateral view) and female
epigynum (ventral view) are illustrated for the first time.
Scanning electron micrographs were taken as a
complement to the species description, and new
distribution records are provided.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
All morphological measurements, descriptions,
drawings and color patterns were based on specimens
immersed in 70% alcohol, using a stereomicroscope
ZEISS SV11. The measurements were taken with an
ocular micrometer and was used a conversion factor
from the known measurement to convert the physical
length of the marks on the scale in millimeters.
Drawings were made with camera lucida attached on
the stereomicroscope, male palp drawing were based
on left pedipalp, female genitalia were first dissected
following Levi (1965) then digested in trypsin enzyme
(for digesting internal soft tissues) following modified
protocol of Álvarez-Padilla & Hormiga (2007) and
immersed in clove oil to be cleared for an easy
examination of internal sclerotized structures. For
scanning electron micrographs (SEM), the structures,
after dissected, were cleaned for 3 min in alcohol in an
ultrasonic bath (Ultrasonic Cleaner USC 700) with
water, then structures were submitted to dehydration
by crescent alcohol concentration series (4 series:
80%, 85%, 90%, 96%) passed after to acetone 100%
and then critical point dried from CO2 using a critical
point Dryer (Bal-Tec CPD 030 Critical Point Dryer) for
2h, the dried structures were fixed to an aluminum stub
with a double-sided adhesive carbon tape, and
sometimes glued in the tip of an entomological pins, the
stubs were sputter coated with gold in a Bal-Tec SCD
005 Sputter Coater and placed in a vacuum desiccator
until examination under a Philips XL 30 scanning
electron microscope operated at 20kV. All the SEM
protocol and images were made at Centro de
Microscopia e Microanálises (CEMM) of the Pontifícia
Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS).
Drawings and SEM
images were processed with Open-Source image
editing Gimp 2.6 (GNU Image Manipulation Program)
and the final plates were edited with Open-Source
vector graphics editor Inkscape 0.48.
Abbreviations used in the text and figures, as
follows:
ALE Anterior lateral eyes; ALS Anterior lateral
spinnerets; AME Anterior median eyes; CD Copulatory
ducts; CO Copulatory openings; cx Coxae; Cy
Cymbium; d Dorsal; E Embolus; FD Fertilization Ducts;
fe Femur; mt Metatarsus; p Prolateral; pa Patella; PA
Patellar apophysis; PLE Posterior lateral eyes; PLS
Posterior lateral spinnerets; PME Posterior median
eyes; PMS Posterior median spinnerets; r Retrolateral;
RTA Retrolateral tibial apophysis; T Tegulum; ta
Tarsus; ti Tibia.
Specimens examined are deposited in the following
institutions (curators in parentheses):
IBSP Instituto Butantan, São Paulo, São Paulo
(A.D. Brescovit)
MPEG Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém,
Pará (A.B. Bonaldo)
UFMG Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo
Horizonte, Minas Gerais (A.J. Santos)
Taxonomy
Neohahnia ernsti (Simon, 1898)
Hahnia ernsti Simon 1898: 888 (male and female
syntypes from Saint Vincent Island, in the
Caribbean, also material from Caracas,
Venezuela) (examined). WSC, 2024.
Hahnia ernesti Petrunkevitch 1929: 78-79, figs. 67-68
(four females from Puerto Rico: two from
Naguabo, March 7, 1914; two from Adjuntas, June
8-13, 1915). Gertsch 1934: 9, 11 (two females
from North America). Schiapelli and Gerschman
de Pikelin 1958: 213 (cited from Central America).
Opell and Beatty 1976: 421. Calvo 2000: 135-136
(one subadult female and one juvenile female
Map produced with QGIS 3.40.3.
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
3Redescription and distribution of Neohahnia ernsti
from Cuba). Lapsus calami. WSC, 2024.
Neohahnia ernesti (Simon). Transference established
by Lehtinen 1967: 251, figs. 366, 370. Heimer and
Müller 1988: 229-230. Lapsus calami. WSC,
2024.
Neohahnia chalupas Dupérré and Tapia, 2024: 86-87
(male holotype from Ecuador, Napo Province,
Tena, Colonso Chalupas Natural Reserve). WSC,
2024. Syn. Nov.
Type material. Syntypes of Hahnia ernsti Simon,
1898: male and female from St. Vincent Island and
Caracas, Venezuela (MNHN 13284) (examined)
Note: … “The tube labelled B. antarctica in Paris
contains a single female of a Neohahnia sp., and it was
interpreted as the holotype by Galiano” (in Schiapelli
and Gerschman de Pikelin, 1959) (Lehtinen, 1967, p.
240-241). This information highlights historical
taxonomic ambiguities in the group and the need to
revisit and revise earlier type interpretations in the light
of modern taxonomy, ensuring the accuracy of the
redescriptions and distribution records.
Additional material examined. COLOMBIA:
Caqueta: (Fazenda José Antonio Polo), 17.VI.2009, P.
Lavelle et al., CSP214, 1♂ (MPEG 17760); BRAZIL:
Amazonas: Coari (Base de Operações Geólogo Pedro
de Moura, Porto Urucu), 4º52'31"S 65º10'27"W,
22.VIII.2008, S.C. Dias et al., Sid 1-206, 1♀ (MPEG
13455); Sid 1-204, 1♀ (MPEG 13456); Pará: L.
Macambira, 94♂, 15♀ (MPEG 18429); Bragança,
22.VIII.2008, FST3-C3, 7♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13458); F5T1-
C10, 7♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13462); F3T2-C9, 21♂, 1♀ (MPEG
13481); TT3-C9, 1♀ (MPEG 13485); TT3-C1, 1♀
(MPEG 13486); FST2-C14, 1♀ (MPEG 13490); FST1-
C7, 9♂, 2♀ (MPEG 13491); FST3-C11, 3♂, 1♀ (MPEG
13493); FST3-C5, 3♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13494); FST3-C11,
2♀ (MPEG 13496); FST1-C17, 35♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13501);
TT1-C5, 7♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13503); FST3-C17, 2♂ (MPEG
13515); FST2-C20, 6♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13517); FST2-C1,
6♂, 1♀ (MPEG 13518); FST2-C8, 3♂, 1♀ (MPEG
13523); FST2-C14, 1♀ (MPEG 13490); Belém (Ilha de
Cotijuba), 01º14'S 48º35'W, 22.VIII.2008, Cotijuba 56,
1♀, 1j (MPEG 4717); Tailândia (Empresa Juruá
Florestal. Fazenda Santa Marta), 21.I.2010, Equipe
IPAN, Am 669, 1♀ (MPEG 17441); Am 225, 1♀ (MPEG
17442); Am 568, 1♀ (MPEG 17443); Am 574, 1♀
(MPEG 17445); Am 618, 1♀ (MPEG 17446); Am 656,
1♀ (MPEG 17447); Am 627, 1♀ (MPEG 17450); Am
705, 1♀ (MPEG 17452); Am 243, 1♀ (MPEG 17453);
Am 245, 2♀ (MPEG 17454); Am 267, 1♀ (MPEG
17455); Am 276, 1♀ (MPEG 17457); Am 262, 2♀
(MPEG 17458); Am 606, 1♀ (MPEG 17460); Am 596,
1♀ (MPEG 17461); Am 264, 1♀ (MPEG 17462); Am
601, 1♀ (MPEG 17463); Am 637, 1♀ (MPEG 17465);
Am 639, 1♀ (MPEG 17468); Am 699, 1♀ (MPEG
17470); Am 258, 2♀ (MPEG 17473); Am 247, 2♀
(MPEG 17475); Am 616, 1♀ (MPEG 17477); Am 701,
1♀ (MPEG 17478); Am 275, 1♀ (MPEG 17481); Am
713, 1♀ (MPEG 17482); Am 274, 2♀ (MPEG 17483);
Am 578, 1♀ (MPEG 17484); Am 676, 1♀ (MPEG
17485); Am 610, 1♀ (MPEG 17486); Goianésia do Pará
(Empresa Cikel Brasil Verde. Fazenda Rio Capim),
03º18'50'S 48º28'54' W, 21.I.2010, Equipe IPAN, Am
450, 1♀ (MPEG 17444); Am 76, 1♀ (MPEG 017449);
Am 11, 1♀ (MPEG 17451); Am 439, 1♀ (MPEG 17459);
Am 445, 1♀ (MPEG 17464); Am 9, 1♀ (MPEG 17467);
Am 78, 1♀ (MPEG 17469); Am 407, 1♀ (MPEG 17472);
Novo Repartimento (Empresa Juruá Florestal.
Fazenda Arataú), 21.I.2010, Equipe IPAN, Am 483, 1♀
(MPEG 17448); Am 384, 1♀ (MPEG 17456); Am 532,
1♀ (MPEG 17466); Am 168, 1♀ (MPEG 17471); Am
510, 1♀ (MPEG 17474); Am 142, 1♀ (MPEG 17476);
Am 372, 1♀ (MPEG 17479); Am 481, 1♀ (MPEG
17480); Am 345, 1♀ (MPEG 17487); Am 155, 1♀
(MPEG 17488); Am 359, 1♀ (MPEG 17489); Nova
Ipixuna (Macaranduba), 682382.74/ 9469861.49,
17.VI.2009, P. Lavelle et al., BMB 1 DB4, 1♀ (MPEG
17759); Tocantins: Ananás, 06º13'34.70''S
52º25'2.39''W, U. Oliveira and M.D. Miranda, 2♂, 2♀
(UFMG 5751); Xambioá, 06º26'12.6''S 50º34'2.5''W, U.
Oliveira and M.D. Miranda, 1♂ (UFMG 5701); Santa Fé
do Araguaia, 06º43'41.6''S 48º48'8''W, U. Oliveira and
M.D. Miranda, 1♂ (UFMG 5735); 1♂ (UFMG 5732);
Piauí: José de Freitas (Fazenda Nazareth),
4º47'58.1''S 42º37'48.8''W, V.O. Costa, VOC(1)14, 1♀
(MPEG 9717); 08.VIII.2009, NZ TMSC 77, 1♂ (MPEG
17758); NZ TMSCO 168, 1♂ (MPEG 18177); NZ
TMSCO 167, 1♂ (MPEG 18178); NZ TMSC 205, 2♂
(MPEG 18179); NZ TMSC 92, 1♀ (MPEG 18180); NZ
TMSC 144, 1♂ (MPEG 18181); NZ TMSC 147, 1♂
(MPEG 18182); NZ TMSC 164, 1♂ (MPEG 18183); NZ
TMSC 205, 1♂ (MPEG 18179); Maranhão: Caxias (APA
do Inhamum), 2017-2018, I. Lima, Am 475 pitfall, 1♀
(IBUSP 246475); Bahia: Ilhéus (Campus UFSC,
Cabruaca), 20.VII.1999, M.F. Dias, 1♀ (IBUSP 24226);
Mato Grosso: Cotriguaçu (Ilhas do Rio Juruá),
09º52'40''S 58º12'38''W, A.J. Santos, 1♂, 3♀ (UFMG
7859); (Fazenda São Nicolau), 09º50'24''S
58º14'54''W, A.J. Santos, 1♂, 2♀, 1j (UFMG 7708); 1♂
(UFMG 7709); Canarana/Querência (Fazenda
Tanguro, antiga Fazenda Morro Azul), 13º04'25.1''S
52º22'54.9''W, 22.VIII.2008, D.F. Candiani and N.F. Lo-
Man-Hung, Tang 416, 1♀ (MPEG 13452); Nossa
Senhora do Livramento (Distrito de Pirizal, Fazenda
Retiro Novo), 16º22'1''S 56º17'58''W, F.S.F. Leite, 1♀
(UFMG 8771); Mato Grosso do Sul: Três Lagoas
(Horto Barra do Moeda), 20º57'0''S 51º47'0''W, M.
Uehara-Prado, 1♂, 4♀ (UFMG 5684); 13♂, 5♀ (UFMG
5685); 1♂, 1♀ (UFMG 5686); 6♂, 3♀ (UFMG 5687); 3♂,
4♀ (UFMG 5688); 6♀ (UFMG 5689); 11♂, 2♀, 1j (UFMG
5690); Brasilândia (Horto Rio Verde), 20º50'S 51º40'W,
M. Uehara-Prado, 3♂, 2♀ (UFMG 5713); (Usina
Hidrelétrica Sérgio Motta), 31.VII-07.VIII.2000, Equipe
IBSP, Etapa II, pitfall 03, 2♀ (IBSP 30826); Etapa II,
pitfall 43, 2♂ (IBSP 30841); Etapa II, pitfall 19, 2♂ (IBSP
30854); Etapa II, pitfall 43, 1♂ (IBSP 30863); Etapa II,
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
LO-MAN-HUNG et al. 4
pitfall 46, 1♂ (IBSP 30864); (Usina Hidrelétrica Sérgio
Motta, Fazenda Cizalpira), 15-9.VIII.2000, C.
Fukushima and J.P. Guadanucci, Etapa II, pitfall 37, 1♂
(IBSP 35376); Etapa II, pitfall 23, 1♂ (IBSP 35378);
Etapa II, pitfall 25, 1♂ (IBSP 35393); MS 21, 2♂ (IBSP
35394); Etapa II, pitfall 6, 1♂, 2♀ (IBSP 35518); 2000,
Equipe IBSP, pitfall 25, MS 16, 1♀ (IBSP 30454); pitfall
2, MS 26 1♀ (IBSP 30456); MS 24, 1♂, 1♀ (IBSP
30471); pitfall 2, 1♀ (IBSP 35519); MS 24, 1♂ (IBSP
35527); MS 8, 1♂ (IBSP 35536); pitfall 47, 1♂, 1♀ (IBSP
35373); MS 41, 3♂ (IBSP 35374); MS 51, 4♂ (IBSP
35375); MS 50, 2♂ (IBSP 35389); MS 35, 4♂ (IBSP
35408); MS 38, 1♂ (IBSP 35410); MS 05, 3♂ (IBSP
35532); Minas Gerais: Jaboticatubas (Parque
Nacional da Serra do Cipó), 19º15'S 43º31''W; 1♂
(IBUSP 159025); 1♂ (IBUSP 159026); 1♂ (IBUSP
159027); 1♂ (IBUSP 159028); 1♂ (IBUSP 159029); 1♂
(IBUSP 159030); 1♂ (IBUSP 159031); 1♂ (IBUSP
159032); 1♂ (IBUSP 159033); 1♂ (IBUSP 159034); 1♂
(IBUSP 159035); 1♂ (IBUSP 159036); 1♂ (IBUSP
159037); 1♂ (IBUSP 159038); 1♂ (IBUSP 159039); 1♂
(IBUSP 159040); 1♂ (IBUSP 159041); 2♂ (IBUSP
159042); 1♂ (IBUSP 159043); 1♂ (IBUSP 159044); 1♂
(IBUSP 159045); 1♂ (IBUSP 159046); 1♂ (IBUSP
159047); 1♂ (IBUSP 159048); 1♂ (IBUSP 159050); 1♂
(IBUSP 159051); 1♂ (IBUSP 159052); 1♂ (IBUSP
159053); 1♂ (IBUSP 159055); 1♂ (IBUSP 159057); 1♀
(IBUSP 159058); 1♂ (IBUSP 159059); 1♂ (IBUSP
159060); 1♂ (IBUSP 159061); 1♂ (IBUSP 159062); 1♂
(IBUSP 159063); 2♂ (IBUSP 159064); 1♂ (IBUSP
159065); 1♂ (IBUSP 159066); 2♂ (IBUSP 159067); 1♂
(IBUSP 159069); 1♂ (IBUSP 159070); 07-14.X.2002,
coleta 3: Am 100, 2♂ (IBUSP 159123); Am 37, 1♂
(IBUSP 159136); Am 73, 1♂ (IBUSP 159183); 03-
09/I.2003, equipe Biota, Am 63 pitfall: campo rupestre,
coleta 4, 2♂ (IBUSP 159184); Am 49, 2♂ (IBUSP
159185); Am 55 pitfall, 4♂ (IBUSP 159186); Am 50, 1♂
(IBUSP 159188); Am 33, 1♂ (IBUSP 159190); Am 150,
1♂ (IBUSP 159192); Am 36, 2♂ (IBUSP 159193); Am 15
pitfall: campo rupestre, 1♂ (IBUSP 159194); Am 71, 2♂
(IBUSP 159196); Am 42, 1♂ (IBUSP 159197); Am 48,
1♂ (IBUSP 159198); Am 47, 1♂ (IBUSP 159199); Am
62, 1♂ (IBUSP 159200); Am 116, 1♂ (IBUSP 159203);
Am 59, 1♂ (IBUSP 159205); Am 112, 1♂ (IBUSP
159206); Am 62, 1♂ (IBUSP 159207); Am 53, 1♂
(IBUSP 159208); Am 94, 2♂ (IBUSP 159209); Am 120,
1♂ (IBUSP 159211); Am 70, 3♂ (IBUSP 159212); Am 96
pitfall, 1♂ (IBUSP 159214); Am 137, 2♂ (IBUSP
159215); Am 99, 1♂ (IBUSP 159216); Am 75, 2♂
(IBUSP 159217); Am 58, 1♂ (IBUSP 159219); Am 9
pitfall: campo rupestre, coleta 4, 1♂ (IBUSP 159221);
Am 5, 1♂ (IBUSP 159223); Am 138, 1♂ (IBUSP
159225); Am 29, 1♂ (IBUSP 159229); Am 93 pitfall:
campo rupestre, coleta 4, 1♂ (IBUSP 159226); Am 87,
2♂ (IBUSP 159227); Am 145 pitfall: campo rupestre,
coleta 4, 1♂ (IBUSP 159228); Am 148, 1♂ (IBUSP
159233); 2♂ (IBUSP 159235); Am 142, 1♂ (IBUSP
159237); Am 80, 1♂ (IBUSP 159238); Am 83, 2♂
(IBUSP 159239); Am 126 pitfall, 1♂ (IBUSP 159241);
Am 119, 1♂ (IBUSP 159242); Am 108, 1♂ (IBUSP
159245); Am 105, 1♂ (IBUSP 159246); Am 19 pitfall:
campo rupestre, coleta 4, 2♂ (IBUSP 159247); 1♂
(IBUSP 159249); Am 24, 1♂ (IBUSP 159924); Santana
do Riacho (Parque Nacional da Serra do Cipó, Portaria
Palácio), 19º15'S 43º31'W, E.S.S. Álvares and E.O.
Machado, 1♀ (UFMG 1413); Belo Horizonte (Estação
Ecológica da UFMG), 19º52'28''S 43º58'22''W, E.S.S.
Álvares and E.O. Machado, 6♂ (UFMG 1587); E.S.S.
Álvares and E.O. Machado, 3♂, 7♀ (UFMG 1588);
E.S.S. Álvares, 3♂, 1♀ (UFMG 5016); E.S.S. Álvares et
al., 1♂ (UFMG 5436); E.S.S. Álvares, 4♂ (UFMG 6030);
E.S.S. Álvares, 3♂ (UFMG 6049); I.L.E. Magalhães, 2♂
(UFMG 8528); Ouro Preto (Parque Estadual do
Itacolomi), 20º22'S 32º32'W, K.P. Santos et al., 1♀
(UFMG 2022); 1♂ (UFMG 2025); 1♀ (UFMG 2105); 1♂,
2♀ (UFMG 2284); 62♂ (UFMG 2332); 56♂, 37♀ (UFMG
2333); 4♂ (UFMG 2334); (Estação Ecológica de Tripuí),
Am P1-6, 3♂, 3♀ (IBUSP 159020); Am P8-6, 3♂ (IBUSP
159021); São Paulo: São Paulo (Parque da
Previdência), 16-23.XI.1999, D.F. Candiani, Verão
PREV IV-37, 1♀ (IBUSP 42105); Verão PREV IV-43,
1♀ (IBUSP 42106); Verão PREV IV-35, 1♂ (IBUSP
42107); Verão PREV IV-24, 1♂, 1♀ (IBUSP 42108);
Verão PREV IV-34, 1♀ (IBUSP 42109); Verão PREV IV-
22, 1♂ (IBUSP 42112); Verão PREV IV-12, 1♀ (IBUSP
42115); Inverno PREV II-12, 1♂ (IBUSP 42120);
Inverno PREV II-21, 1♂ (IBUSP 42121); Inverno PREV
II-47, 1♂ (IBUSP 42126); Inverno PREV II-43, 1♂
(IBUSP 42127); Inverno PREV II-35, 1♂ (IBUSP
42129); Primavera PREV III-40, 1♂ (IBUSP 42135);
Primavera PREV III-02, 1♂, 1♀ (IBUSP 42142);
V.2000-II.2001, pitfall 1♀ (IBUSP 76547); Santa Rita do
Passo Quatro (Parque Estadual de Vassununga),
21º43''S 47º35''W, 19-24.III.2002, Equipe Biota, 2♀
(IBUSP 60121); Campos do Jordão (Parque Estadual
de Campos do Jordão), 22º43''S 45º27''W, alt 1557 m,
IX.2004 – IX.2005, D. Baretta, Am 10, 1♂ (IBUSP
88022); Am 65, 1♂ (IBUSP 88023); Am 65, 1♂ (IBUSP
88035); Rio de Janeiro: Petrópolis (Fazenda
Ranchinho da Roça), 15-16.VIII.2001, Equipe Biota,
Am 14 cascata pitfall traps, 1♂ (IBUSP 157041); Am
134 cascata pitfall traps, 1♂ (IBUSP 157042); Am 35 PF
cascata pitfall traps, 3♂, 1♀ (IBUSP 157045); Am 21
cascata pitfall traps, 1♂ (IBUSP 157051); Am 01
cascata pitfall traps, 1♂ (IBUSP 157053); Am 9 PF
cascata pitfall traps, 1♂, 1♀ (IBUSP 157055); Am 02
cascata pitfall traps, 2♂ (IBUSP 157063); Am 33
cascata pitfall traps, 1♀ (IBUSP 157065); Am 38
cascata pitfall traps, 2♂, 1♀ (IBUSP 157066); (Fazenda
Ranchinho, Ponto da Roça Km 78,5 – BR 040), 2001,
F.S. Cunha, 1♀ (IBUSP 35884); Paraná: Cornélio
Procópio (PE Mata São Francisco), 28º08'47''S
50º34'19''W, V.2009-IV.2010, N. Cipola, Am:133, 1♀
(IBSP 163861); Am:180, 1♀ (IBSP 163862); Am:47, 1♂
(IBSP 164673); Am:89, 4♂ (IBSP 164674); Am:69, 4♂,
1♀ (IBSP 164675); Am:88 1♂ (IBSP 164676); Am:26,
2♂ (IBSP 164677); Am:68, 2♂ (IBSP 164678); Am:158,
1♂ (IBSP 164679); Am:48, 1♂ (IBSP 164680); Am:182,
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
5Redescription and distribution of Neohahnia ernsti
1♂ (IBSP 164681); Rio Grande (Fazenda Experimental
Grelha Azul), 25º40'16''S 49º16'44''W, IX.2010-X.2011,
J. Ricetti, FEGA 183, 1♀ (IBUSP 220616); IRATI 270,
1♀ (IBUSP 220618);
Diagnosis. Neohahnia ernsti shares several
characteristics with other species, particularly N.
chibcha, N. piemontana, N. pristirana, N. freibergi, and
N. paramo, but can be distinguished by a combination
of key features. The males of N. ernsti, like those of N.
chibcha, N. piemontana, N. pristirana, have a rounded
cymbium. Additionally, similar to N. chibcha, N. ernsti
males have an embolus that curves in a clockwise
direction around the bulbus in a complete circle (Fig.
2), lying in a furrow on the tegulum, without a median
apophysis, and exhibiting a long, curved retrolateral
tibial apophysis (RTA). However, N. ernsti males differ
from other species in the direction of the RTA and the
shape of the embolus. In N. chibcha, the embolus
curves in an S-shape toward the cymbium (Heimer
and Müller, 1988: fig. 4), while in N. piemontana, the
RTA is larger (Dupérré and Tapia, 2024: fig. 11B), and
in N. pristirana, the RTA is shorter and more angular
than in N. ernsti, with a different orientation (Dupérré &
Tapia, 2024: fig. 18B). In N. chibcha, the RTA points
toward a curved patellar apophysis (PA) (Heimer and
Müller, 1988: fig. 3), in N. piemontana, the PA is bi-
dentate (Dupérré & Tapia, 2024: fig. 11B), and in N.
freibergi, the PA is single-pointed (Dupérré and Tapia,
2024: fig. 20B). In contrast, in N. ernsti the embolus
curve in a slight V-shape in the cymbial furrow,
between the bulbus and the cymbium laterally, and the
RTA is thin and semicircular, direct against the PA
which is also curved with 1-3 hook (Figs. 3-4).
Females of N. ernsti resemble females of N. chibcha in
having a simple epigynum, but they differ in the shape
and direction of the copulatory openings, copulatory
ducts, and fertilization tubes. In N. chibcha, the
copulatory openings are rectangular (Heimer & Müller,
1988: fig. 5), and the copulatory ducts form highly
coiled, irregular loops, which terminate in connection
with the posterior spermathecae. The fertilization
tubes are small and lateral (Heimer and Müller, 1988:
fig. 6). Whereas females of N. ernsti present a simple
epigynum, with paired copulatory openings (or
“pockets”) that are very conspicuous, and the
copulatory ducts are almost globular with small central
fertilization tubes (Figs. 5-6). When compared to N.
piemontana, N. ernsti females can be distinguished by
their copulatory openings, which are less separated
(Fig. 5), whereas in N. piemontana, the openings are
more widely spaced (Dupérré and Tapia, 2024: fig.
11D). Females of N. pristirana have large, rounded
secondary spermathecae and bean-shaped primary
spermathecae (Dupérré & Tapia, 2024: fig. 18D), while
N. freibergi has elongated, joined copulatory openings
accompanied by a small triangular hood (Dupérré and
Tapia, 2024: fig. 20C, D). In contrast, N. ernsti females
have copulatory ducts more globular. Furthermore,
compared to N. paramo, the internal genitalia and
spermathecae of N. ernsti differ in the arrangement of
the copulatory ducts and the absence of more defined
loops (Dupérré and Tapia, 2024: fig. 22D), which is
observed in N. paramo.
Description. Male (MPEG 18179). Total length
1.64, Cephalothorax 0.70 long, 0.60 wide. Eye
diameters and interdistances: AME 0.08, ALE 0.06,
PME 0.06, PLE 0.04, AME-AME 0 (contiguous), AME-
ALE 0.01, PME-PME 0.06, PME-PLE 0.02, ALE-PLE 0
(contiguous). Clypeus shallow 0.08. Spinnerets total
length and interdistances: ALS 0.24, PLS 0.36, MLS
0.14, ALS-PLS 0.20, ALS-MLS 0.04, MLS-MLS 0.02.
Legs length: Coxae I 0.22, II 0.22, III 0.22, IV 0.24,
Trochanter I 0.08, II 0.08, III 0.08, IV 0.10, Femur I 0.56,
II 0.56, III 0.50, IV 0.60, Patella I 0.20, II 0.20, III 0.20, IV
0.20, Tibia I 0.50, II 0.44, III 0.40, IV 0.46, Metatarsus I
0.38, II 0.38, III 0.38, IV 0.50, Tarsus I 0.32, II 0.34, III
0.36, IV 0.42. Dorsal carapace pale brown with
prominent border mottled dark brown, dark brown
bands in pars thoracica. Pars cephalica a little darker
than pars thoracica (see Fig. 1 for mottled pattern).
Carapace with plate structure (Fig. 7-8). Longitudinal
black thoracic low groove (Fig. 8). Eyes bordered in
black, except PME. Carapace almost smooth, with a
few long setae in a longitudinal row between fovea and
PME, some long setae scattered in eyes (Fig. 7).
Chelicerae pale brown mottled dark brown, with two
promarginal (Fig. 9, 16) and one retromarginal teeth,
without stridulatory files. Endites rectangle shape (Figs.
10-11), 0.20 long, 0.16 wide, with same color's pattern
of chelicerae, long setae scattered, serrula in a single
row of teeth (Figs. 12-13, 18, 20). Labium trapezoidal
shape (Fig. 14), 0.04 long, 0.08 wide, pale brown with
few long setae. Sternum circular shape, 0.42 long, 0.42
wide, pale brown with soft border dark brown, long
setae in border and short setae scattered in the middle
of sternum. Coxae and trochanters pale beige
(especially in ventral view), remaining segments of legs
and pedipalps brown-orange, setae, macrosetae and
trichobothria, three claws. Dorsal abdomen dark brown
with large and well-defined beige chevrons in the
middle of abdomen and pale beige points around it (see
Fig. 1 for chevrons pattern). Ventral abdomen unicolor,
pale, same color as sternum, without chevrons or
points, few setae (about eight) in epigastric furrow and
book lungs base, tracheal spiracle in the middle of
abdomen, same distance of spinnerets base as
epigastric furrow. Spinnerets with modified topology,
arranged in transversal row (Fig. 23), PMS, ALS and
MLS with same color as ventral abdomen, pale brown,
PMS and ALS segmented (Fig. 23), PMS longer than
others (Fig. 23), gland spigots PLS cylindrical spigots
and piriform spigots (Figs. 24-28, 35), ALS gland
spigots; cylindrical spigots and piriform spigots (Figs.
29-30, 36-37), MLS gland spigots; cylindrical spigots
and piriform spigots (Figs. 31-34, 38). Cymbium
rounded, embolus thin and long (Fig. 2), without
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
LO-MAN-HUNG et al. 6
median apophysis, shape of retrolateral tibial
apophysis, thin, long and curved against the patellar
apophysis which is also curved (Fig. 3-4). Retroventral
tibial apophysis.
Description. Female (MPEG 13490). Total length
1.86, Cephalothorax 0.66 long, 0.56 wide. Eye
diameters and interdistances: AME 0.06, ALE 0.06,
PME 0.06, PLE 0.04, AME-AME 0.02, AME-ALE 0.01,
PME-PME 0.06, PME-PLE 0.02, ALE-PLE 0
(contiguous). Spinnerets total length and
interdistances: ALS 0.22, PLS 0.42, MLS 0.14, ALS-
PLS 0.20, ALS-MLS 0.06, MLS-MLS 0.04. Legs length:
Coxae I 0.22, II 0.20, III 0.20, IV 0.22, Trochanter I 0.10,
II 0.08, III 0.08, IV 0.10, Femur I 0.56, II 0.54, III 0.48, IV
0.60, Patella I 0.22, II 0.20, III 0.18, IV 0.20, Tibia I 0.46,
II 0.40, III 0.38, IV 0.58, Metatarsus I 0.38, II 0.32, III
0.34, IV 0.50, Tarsus I 0.32, II 0.32, III 0.38, IV 0.42.
Color and description same as male, except dorsal
carapace with border mottled dark brown and dark
brown bands in pars thoracica, not too defined as in
male. Endites (Figs. 15, 17, 19) 0.12 long, 0.10 wide.
Labium 0.06 long, 0.10 wide (Figs. 15, 21). Sternum
ovoid shape (Fig. 22), 0.32 long, 040 wide. Coxae and
trochanters pale brown (especially in ventral view),
remaining segments of legs and pedipalps with same
color pattern of carapace, pale brown with mottled dark
brown. Dorsal abdomen chevrons and points not too
defined as in male. Epigynum larger (almost the same
length of book lung, almost twice wider than book lung),
globose (Fig. 5-6), copulatory opening next to pedicel.
Variation. Females: size, color pale, mottled
pattern not too defined; Males: size, color not too
brown-orange.
Fig. 1-6. Neohahnia ernsti (Simon 1898). 1, Habitus male, dorsal view; 2, Male palp ventral view; 3, Male palp retrolateral
view; 4, Male tibia and patella palp; 5, Female epigynum dorsal view; 6, Female epigynum ventral view.
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
7Redescription and distribution of Neohahnia ernsti
Fig. 7-14. Neohahnia ernsti (Simon 1898) male. 7, Carapace dorsal view; 8, Carapace dorsal view, fovea and plate structure; 9,
Two promarginal teeth; 10, Right endite ventral view; 11, Left endite ventral view; 12, Right serrula ventral view; 13, Left serrula
ventral view; 14, Labium ventral view.
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
8
LO-MAN-HUNG et al.
Fig. 15-22. Neohahnia ernsti (Simon 1898) female. 15, Chelicerae, endites and labium ventral view; 16, Two promarginal teeth;
17, Left endite ventral view; 18, Left serrula ventral view; 19, Right endite ventral view; 20, Right serrula ventral view; 21, Labium
ventral view; 22, Sternum ventral view.
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
9Redescription and distribution of Neohahnia ernsti
Natural history. Most individuals were collected in
Neotropical rain forests. When collected in Amazon,
the places were characterized by tall dense jungle on
dry soil. Most individuals were collected by Winkler's
extractor, pitfall traps and Tropical Soil Biology and
Fertility Program (TSBF) method, suggesting the
specimens has a soil habitat.
Distribution. Island in Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines (type locality) (Simon, 1898), Venezuela,
(Simon, 1898), Puerto Rico: Naguaboi, Adjuntas
(Petrunkevitch 1929), Cuba (Calvo 2000), Colombia,
Ecuador (Dupérré & Tapia, 2024), Brazil: Pará,
Tocantins, Piauí, Maranhão, Bahia, Mato Grosso, Mato
Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Rio de
Janeiro, Paraná (Map 1).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks to Nadine Dupérré for the information on
Neohahnia chalupas Dupérré & Tapia, 2024. Special
thanks to the Centro de Microscopia e Microanálises
(CEMM) of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio
Grande do Sul (PUCRS) for their support. We also
extend our gratitude to João Lucas Chavari for
providing records from Paraná and to Rafael Francisco
for examination the type specimen. This research was
supported by the Brazilian Council for the Development
of Science (CNPq), through the M.Sc. scholarship
process 130775/2011-8 awarded to NFLMH and PQ-
grant #307165/2022-1 to ABB.
Fig. 23-34. Neohahnia ernsti (Simon 1898) male. 23, Spinnerets ventral view; 24, PLS ventral view; 25, PLS ventral view; 26,
PLS ventral view; 27, PLS ventral view; 28, PLS ventral view; 29, Left ALS apical view; 30, ALS ventral view; 31, Left MLS apical
view; 32, MLS ventral view; 33, MLS ventral view; 34, MLS ventral view.
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
11 Redescription and distribution of Neohahnia ernsti
Fig. 35-38. Neohahnia ernsti (Simon 1898) female. 35, Right PLS apical view; 36, Right ALS apical view; 37, Right ALS apical
view; 38, Right MLS apical view.
REFERENCES
Álvarez-Padilla, F., & Hormiga, G. (2007). A protocol for
digesting soft tissues and mounting spiders for
scanning electron microscopy. Journal of
Arachnology, 35, 538-542.
Calvo, A.F.A. (2000). Primer registro de la familia
Hahniidae (Arachnida: Araneae) para Cuba.
Avicennia, 12/13, 135-136.
Dupérré, N., & Tapia, E. (2024). First record of the
family Hahniidae in Ecuador with description of
thirteen new species and three new genera
(Araneae: Hahniidae). Taxonomy, 4(1), 53-111.
Gertsch, W.J. (1934). Some American spiders of the
family Hahniidae. American Museum Novitates,
712, 1-32.
Heimer, S., & Müller, H.G. (1988). Spiders from
Colombia VIII. Neohahnia chibcha n. sp. from
the Sierra Nevada mountains, northern
Colombia (Arachnida, Araneida, Hahniidae).
Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 7,
229-230.
Lehtinen, P.T. (1967). Classification of the cribellate
spiders and some allied families, with notes on
the evolution of Araneomorphae. Annales
Zoologici Fennici, 4(3), 1-199.
Levi, H.W. (1965). Techniques for the study of spider
genitalia. Psyche, 72, 152-158.
Mello-Leitão, C.F. 1917. Gêneros e espécies novas de
araneidos. Archivos da Escola Superior de
Agricultura e Medicina Veterinária, 1, 3-19.
Moreira, T.S., Baptista, R.L.C., Kury A.B., Giupponi,
A.P.L., Buckup, E.H., & Brescovit A.D. (2010).
Annotated check list of Arachnidae type
specimens deposited in the Museu Nacional,
Rio de Janeiro. II – Araneae. Zootaxa, 2588, 1-
91.
Opell, B.D., & J.A. (1976). Beatty. The Nearctic
Hahniidae (Arachnida: Araneae). Bulletin of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard,
147, 393-433.
Petrunkevitch, A. (1929). The spiders of Porto Rico.
Part one. Transactions of the Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences, 30, 1-158.
Schiapelli, R.D., & B.S. Gerschman de P. (1958).
Arañas argentinas III. Arañas de Misiones.
Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia”, 3, 187-231.
QGIS.org, 2025. QGIS Geographic Information Sys-
tem. QGIS Association. http://www.qgis.org
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
12
LO-MAN-HUNG et al.
Schiapelli, R.D., & B.S. Gerschman de P. (1959).
Aclaración sobre los caracteres genericos del
género Bigois Simon, 1898 (Araneae,
Hahniidae). Revista de La Sociedad
Entomológica Argentina, XXI, 129-132.
Simon, E. (1898). On the spiders of the Island of St.
Vincent Part III. Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London 860-890.
World Spider Catalog. 2024. World Spider Catalog.
Natural History Museum Bern, online at
http://wsc.nmbe.ch, version 25.5, accessed in
October 2024. doi: 10.24436/2
Section Editors:
Anita Aisenberg, Macarena González,
Carolina Rojas-Buffet
Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.6
