ERATIGENA VOMEROI (BRIGNOLI, 1977) COMB. NOV. (FIGS 13E–F, M–Q, 14C–D, G–H) Tegenaria inermis: Brignoli, 1971a: 88–89, figs 32–38, misidentified. Tegenaria vomeroi Brignoli, 1977a: 50–51, figs 31–33. Malthonica vomeroi: Guseinov et al., 2005: 164. Types Holotype. Italy: Basilicata: Potenza, Lagonegro, ‘ Grotta del Cervaro’, ♂ (MCSN, 541), 9.xii.1966, Sbordoni. Paratypes. Italy: same data as holotype, 1 ♂, 1 ♀; Potenza, Tramutola, Risorgenza dell’Aquila, 3 ♂, 1 ♀ (prope inermis, MHNG, epigyne missing in the tube, 1 ♂ MNHN, 1971), 21.xi.1970, Vomero; same location as previous, 1 ♂ (MCSN, 541), 9.iv.1970, Sbordoni. Other material examined Italy (4 ♀). Diagnosis See Diagnosis section for E. inermis. Description Measurements: Male (N = 1): CL 5.59, CW 3.97, STL 2.58, STW 2.47, OL 6.0, OW 3.6. Leg I (10.20, 2.23, 10.00, 11.00, 4.60), II (8.63, 2.15, 7.28, 10.10, -), III (6.98, 1.88, 6.15, 9.50, 3.58), IV (9.90, 1.92, 7.88, 12.60, 4.31). Pedipalp (2.55, 0.86, 1.12, 2.64), bulbL 1.06. Female (N = 2): CL 5.85–6.56, CW 4.04–4.42, STL 2.56–2.95, STW 2.38–2.73, OL 7.50, OW 3.98. Leg I (7.55–9.00, 2.22–2.30, 7.15–7.88, 7.67–8.55, 3.14–4.00), II (6.89–7.50, 2.07–2.30, 5.97–6.75, 7.19– 7.95, 3.16–3.75), III (6.41–7.28, 1.87–2.12, 5.28–6.00, 6.83–7.88, 2.96–3.27), IV (8.26–8.78, 1.91–2.30, 6.67– 7.65, 9.75–11.50, 2.82–4.20). Pedipalp (2.68–2.92, 1.00–1.07, 1.79–1.86, 2.81–3.09). EPL 0.80, EPW 1.26, ATL 0.65, ATW 0.80. Eyes: PME 0.23–0.26, PLE 0.25– 0.27, AME 0.21–0.24, ALE 0.25–0.32. Eye distances: PME–PME 1 x PME, PME–AME 0.5–1 x PME, PME– PLE 0.5–1 x PME, PME–ALE 1–1.5 x PME, AME– AME 0.5–1 x AME, AME–ALE ≤ 0.5 x AME, CLY1 2.5–3 x AME, CLY2 1.5–2 x ALE. Male palp: As in E. inermis except for a less sclerotized basal part of the median apophysis and the massive transversal ridge of conductor with indistinct margin between membranous and more sclerotized areas. Epigyne and vulva: As in E. inermis except for the long appendages anteriorly of the CD reaching at least to the top of the RC (or even beyond; Fig. 14G, H). As the appearance of the epigyne and vulva seems to be quite variable, no other distinct differences between the two species could be found. Other important characters and coloration: As in E. inermis except for spination on male and female palp femora 2–1–1–0. Distribution Reported from central to southern Italy.

Published as part of Bolzern, Angelo, Burckhardt, Daniel & Hänggi, Ambros, 2013, Phylogeny and taxonomy of European funnel-web spiders of the Tegenaria-Malthonica complex (Araneae: Agelenidae) based upon morphological and molecular data, pp. 723-848 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society (Zool. J. Linn. Soc.) (Zool. J. Linn. Soc.) 168 (4) on page 773, DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12040, http://zenodo.org/record/5282985