Agroeca tikaderi Sudhin & Sankaran & Sen 2024, n. comb.

Agroeca tikaderi (Gajbe, 1992) n. comb. Fig. 7 Mimetus tikaderi Gajbe, 1992: 427, figs 1–3 (♀); 2007: 433, figs 23–25 (♀). Harms & Harvey 2009b: 243 (provisional transfer to Liocranidae as incertae sedis, but without specifying a genus). Type material. Holotype ♀, INDIA: Chhattisgarh: Narayanpur (formerly part of Bastar district, which itself formerly part of Madhya Pradesh), Narayanpur Tehsil, Badgaon (not Bargaon) (19°28’N, 81°19’E; 484 m), 24 December 1983, leg. U.A. Gajbe, repository NZC-ZSI (8981/18), examined. Justification of the transfer. The original description and illustrations of M. tikaderi clearly suggest its misplacement in Mimetidae as well as in Mimetus as suggested by Harms & Harvey (2009b). To confirm this, we examined its holotype (Figs 7A–C). Unfortunately, the holotype of M. tikaderi lacks its legs, left chelicera, and genitalia. Some features can be still elucidated, which are not congruent with Mimetus species, confirming its misplacement not only in the genus, but also in the family Mimetidae: the anterior eyes are not placed on raised humps, longitudinal fovea, short chelicerae, and wider than long sternum (Figs 7A–C). Gajbe (1992) mentioned that the inner margin (retromargin) of the chelicerae bears conspicuous heavy bristles, which could be a misidentified and misleading fact, and not comparable with the peg teeth present on the promargin of Mimetus species. We could not observe such bristles on the chelicera of the holotype of M. tikaderi as the specimen is severely damaged and the bristles are lost. It is worth note that Gajbe (1992) did not mention the macrosetae crossing forming an ‘X’ on the distal part of the chelicerae, which is a very conspicuous feature of Mimetidae. The genitalia of M. tikaderi (Gajbe 1992: figs 2–3; herein Fig. 7D) clearly deviates from that of Mimetus species. Instead of short copulatory ducts and large spermathecae, M. tikaderi has long tubular copulatory ducts, and small, spermathecae (cf. Figs 2B, 6D, Gajbe 1992: fig. 3 and herein Fig. 7D). Gajbe (1992) also mentioned the presence of a prolateral row of long spines intermingled with short spines on anterior tibiae and metatarsi I–II. This could also be a misidentified feature, and not comparable to the raptorial spines present in Mimetidae since all other features of M. tikaderi are deviating from that of Mimetidae, with the eye arrangement, the shape of prosoma and opisthosoma, the pattern of opisthosoma, and the genitalia of M. tikaderi showing close similarities with the members of the family Liocranidae Simon, 1897. Since the genitalia illustrated for M. tikaderi show close similarities with that of Agroeca brunnea (Blackwall, 1833), the generotype of the liocranid genus Agroeca such as epigyne with anteromedian septum, with dark shadow of obliquely oriented and contiguous parts of copulatory ducts, and vulva with thick, long, slightly curved copulatory ducts (e.g., Fig. 7D; Gajbe 1992: figs 2, 3 and Mu et al. 2019: figs 12C, D), we transfer M. tikaderi to Agroeca. Remarks. The NZC-ZSI collection has one glass tube for this species, labelled as ‘holotype’ (NZC-ZSI-8981/18) containing the female specimen without legs and left chelicera (Figs 7A–C, E). The genitalia of this female were found to be dissected, but not kept in the tube, and is apparently lost.