Bioacoustics of Cambridgea reinga

Remarks. The collection of male and female specimens from the same area, the same colour pattern of both sexes and COI sequences that vary by only 2%, lead us to conclude that N. grandis is a junior synonym of C. reinga . We have retained C. reinga in Cambridgea because it has the blackish median and lateral stripes on the carapace that are typical of species of Cambridgea ; this colour pattern is lacking in Nanocambridgea gracilipes , which is the type species of the genus Nanocambridgea Forster & Wilton 1973 . Also, the tibial apophyses of C . reinga are more like those of other Cambridgea and not reduced as they are in N . gracilipes . Forster & Wilton (1973) distinguished Nanocambridgea from Cambridgea by the presence in Nanocambridgea of plumose hairs on the legs, four teeth on the promargin of the chelicerae and a ventral stridulating organ on the pedicel and abdomen of males. Blest & Vink (2000) added to these characters the greater ratio of length of leg 1 to carapace (> 7.0) in male Nanocambridgea . However, all of these characters except the ventral stridulating organ prove not to be diagnostic. Plumose hairs are present on the legs of some species of Cambridgea ( Blest & Vink 2000 ) , leg 1/carapace ratio of male Cambridgea reinga is greater, not less, than in Nanocambridgea gracilipes , and both genera have four teeth on the promargin and two teeth on the retromargin. Forster and Wilton (1973) , in their generic description of Cambridgea , had incorrectly reported two teeth on the promargin and three to five teeth on the retromargin, but in their species descriptions they correctly listed two teeth on the retromargin and between three and five teeth on the promargin. This leaves only the ventral stridulation organ of Nanocambridgea versus the dorsal stridulation organ of Cambridgea as separating the two genera; however, proper assessment of the validity of the genus Nanocambridgea is beyond the scope of this study, but could be resolved by a phylogenetic analysis of New Zealand Stiphidiidae ( Cambridgea , Nanocambridgea and Ischalea L. Koch 1872 ) and other similar genera, such as the Australian Procambridgea Forster & Wilton 1973 , to see if N. gracilipes falls within Cambridgea .

Remarks. The collection of male and female specimens from the same area, the same colour pattern of both sexes and COI sequences that vary by only 2%, lead us to conclude that N. grandis is a junior synonym of C. reinga . We have retained C. reinga in Cambridgea because it has the blackish median and lateral stripes on the carapace that are typical of species of Cambridgea ; this colour pattern is lacking in Nanocambridgea gracilipes , which is the type species of the genus Nanocambridgea Forster & Wilton 1973. Also, the tibial apophyses of C. reinga are more like those of other Cambridgea and not reduced as they are in N. gracilipes . Forster & Wilton (1973) distinguished Nanocambridgea from Cambridgea by the presence in Nanocambridgea of plumose hairs on the legs, four teeth on the promargin of the chelicerae and a ventral stridulating organ on the pedicel and abdomen of males. Blest & Vink (2000) added to these characters the greater ratio of length of leg 1 to carapace (> 7.0) in male Nanocambridgea . However, all of these characters except the ventral stridulating organ prove not to be diagnostic. Plumose hairs are present on the legs of some species of Cambridgea (Blest & Vink 2000), leg 1/carapace ratio of male Cambridgea reinga is greater, not less, than in Nanocambridgea gracilipes , and both genera have four teeth on the promargin and two teeth on the retromargin. Forster and Wilton (1973), in their generic description of Cambridgea , had incorrectly reported two teeth on the promargin and three to five teeth on the retromargin, but in their species descriptions they correctly listed two teeth on the retromargin and between three and five teeth on the promargin. This leaves only the ventral stridulation organ of Nanocambridgea versus the dorsal stridulation organ of Cambridgea as separating the two genera; however, proper assessment of the validity of the genus Nanocambridgea is beyond the scope of this study, but could be resolved by a phylogenetic analysis of New Zealand Stiphidiidae ( Cambridgea , Nanocambridgea and Ischalea L. Koch 1872) and other similar genera, such as the Australian Procambridgea Forster & Wilton 1973, to see if N. gracilipes falls within Cambridgea .