Account
What the sources say about this taxon, as written.
diagnosis · 
Plazi
Diagnosis: The long filiform embolus, the absence of terminal apophysis, the claviform distal suprategular apophysis, the absence of parmula, the erect fertilization grooves indicated that Neriene liupanensis Tang & Song, 1992 and Neriene nigripectoris ( Oi, 1960 ) should not belong to the genus Neriene ( Figs 1 , 2 B–D, 3B–D, 4–5, 6C– E). According to Millidge & Russell-Smith (1992) and Tanasevitch (2017) , the atrium with paired, more or less round openings anteriorly, the lightly sclerotized suprategular apophysis largely hidden by the embolic division, the reduced paracymbium (except K. liupanensis ) and the coiled embolus with fairly slender end indicate N. liupanensis and N. nigripectoris should belong to the genus Ketambea Millidge & Russell-Smith, 1992 . The male of K. liupanensis can be distinguished from other Ketambea species by the developed paracymbium ( Figs 1B , 2B, 2D ). The female of K. liupanensis is similar to K. nigripectoris and Ketambea acuta Tanasevitch, 2017 in having similar fertilization grooves tracing which are running downwards from the spermathecae inside the spiral tracing of copulatory groove, but can be distinguished from the latters by the copulatory groove with more coils ( K. liupanensis with three coils, but K. nigripectoris and K. acuta with two coils) ( Figs 1 D–E, 3C–D, 4F–G, 6D–E).