[Title Page] [List of Genera] Comparison of Drawings] [Descriptions of New Taxa] [Geographical Distribution] [Color Photographs] See also Catalogue of Salticidae [ Title page] List of Genera - names beginning with: A BC DEFG HIJKL MN OPQ RS TUVWXYZ References: Authors beginning with: A BC DEFG HIJKL MN OPQ RS TUVWXYZ [See also Catalogue: Marpissa] [and also of Mendoza] ,[See also Catalogue: Mendoza] [and also of Marpissa]

Salticidae: Diagnostic Drawings Library

by Jerzy Proszynski 2000

Genus Mendoza  Peckham et Peckham, 1894 

COLOR PHOT Mendoza elongata

[TYPE SPECIES memorabilis ] [ canestrini]-- synonyms according to Logunov: ------------------------------------------------- [magister][nobilis] -------------------------------------------------

[cognata] [dersuuzalai][elongata][ibarakiensis][interrogationis?][magister] [nobilis][[orientalis ] ][proszynski][pulchra][zebra] ---------------------------------

[COMPARISON OF: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF EPIGYNE][body length,legs I,hairs under eyes lateral]

Comment. Separation of Mendoza from Marpissa seems to me doubtful, precisely because of arguments supplied by Logunov 1999 himself: presence of "CL" - "cymbial ledge" in male palpal organ, marked by himself in drawings of all species - (this was character which convinced me years ago to merge these two genera). Differences in complicated channels in internal structure of epigyne in Marpissa and much simpler structures in Mendoza presented a problem I could not solve myself, when I have compared these form in 1970ties. Happily, the problem solved Logunov 1999 presenting on figs 41-43 a chain of continuous forms, particularly striking when starting from figs 44-46 and then continuing trough 41-43, and adding the most complicated forms. Clearly all these forms are closely related. None the less I follow, provisionally, nomenclatorical changes proposed by Logunov because do not want to get involved into empty name joggling. However I am convinced the splitting of these genera is wrong and not warranted. Jerzy Proszynski. 1999.

NB. Conclusions on synonymic status of several forms by Logunov and Rakov 1998, and Logunov 1999b, create a problem because documentation drawings are not provided, or seems to be insufficient; these Authors accept also intuitive synonymy by Nementz 1967, and Nenilin 1984, which were not based on examination of type specimens. J. Proszynski 2005.
Copyright © for the page by J. Proszynski, 2000.