Revision of the genus Sitticus Simon , 1901 s . l . ( Araneae : Salticidae ) * 1

The genus Sitticus Simon, 1901 sensu lato is revised and split into new genera Sittiab gen. n., Sittiflor gen. n., Sittilong gen. n., Sittisax gen. n., which join existing already Attulus Simon, 1889 sensu novo, Jollas Simon, 1901, Sitticus Simon, 1901 sensu stricto, and Sittipub Prószyński, 2016, based on interpretation of taxonomic data from a number of publications of the Author, on the background of world's literature synthesized in Prószyński (2016a, b) available at http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/Subfamilies/, and http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/. The following new synonyms and combinations are established, or clarified. Attus viduus Kulczyński, 1895 (removed from synonymy of A. distinguendus) = Attulus avocator (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1885) comb. n., Jollas armatus (Bryant, 1943) = "Oningis" armatus Bryant, 1943b retransfer of misplaced species, belonging to EUOPHRYINES, Jollas crassus (Bryant, 1943) = "Oningis" crassus Bryant, 1943 retransfer of misplaced species, belonging to EUOPHRYINES, Jollas lahorensis (Dyal, 1935) (nomen dubium) = "Oningis" lahorensis Dyal, 1935 unrecognizable species, should be listed as nomen dubium in its original combination, Sitticus absolutus (Gertsch, Mulaik, 1936) = Sittiab absolutus (Gertsch & Mulaik, 1936) comb. n., Sitticus ammophilus (Thorell, 1875) = Attulus ammophilus (Thorell, 1875) comb. n., Sitticus ansobicus Andreeva, 1976 = Attulus ansobicus (Andreeva, 1976) comb. n., Sitticus atricapillus (Simon, 1882) = Sittiflor atricapillus (Simon, 1882) comb. n., Sitticus avocator (PickardCambridge O., 1885) = Attulus avocator (Pickard-Cambridge O., 1885) comb. n., Sitticus burjaticus Danilov & Logunov, 1993 = Attulus burjaticus (Danilov & Logunov, 1993) comb. n., Sitticus caricis (Westring, 1861) = Sittiflor caricis (Westring, 1861) comb. n., Sitticus clavator Schenkel, 1936 = Attulus clavator (Schenkel, 1936) comb. n., Sitticus concolor: Maddison, 1996 (nomen dubium) = Sittiab cursor (Barrows, 1919) comb. n., Sitticus cursor (Barrows, 1919) = Sittiab cursor (Barrows, 1919) comb. n., Sitticus cutleri Prószynski, 1980 = Sittiflor cutleri (Prószynski, 1980) comb. n., Sitticus damini (Chyzer & Kulczynski, 1891) = Attulus damini (Chyzer & Kulczynski, 1891) comb. n., Sitticus distinguendus (Simon, 1868) = Attulus distinguendus (Simon, 1868) comb. n., Sitticus dorsatus: Richman, 1979 (nomen dubium) = Sittiab absolutus Gertsch & Mulaik, 1936 comb. n., Sitticus dubatolovi Logunov & Rakov, 1998 = Attulus dubatolovi (Logunov & Rakov, 1998) comb. n., Sitticus dudkoi Logunov, 1998 = Sittiflor dudkoi (Logunov, 1998) comb. n., Sitticus dzieduszyckii (L. Koch, 1870) = Sittisax dzieduszyckii (L. Koch, 1870) comb. n., Sitticus floricola (Koch C.L., 1837) = Sittiflor floricola (Koch C.L., 1837) comb. n., Sitticus floricola palustris (Peckham & Peckham, 1883) = Sittiflor floricola palustris (Peckham & Peckham, 1883) comb. n., Sitticus goricus Ovtsharenko, 1978 = Attulus goricus (Ovtsharenko, 1978) comb. n., Sitticus inopinabilis Logunov, 1992 = Attulus inopinabilis (Logunov, 1992) comb. n., Sitticus inexpectus Logunov, Kronestedt, 1997 = Sittiflor inexpectus (Logunov, Kronestedt, 1997) comb. n., Sitticus juniperi Gertsch & Riechert, 1976 = Sittiab juniperi (Gertsch & Riechert, 1976) comb. n., Sitticus karakumensis Logunov, 1992 = Attulus karakumensis (Logunov, 1992) comb. n., 1 Present paper constitutes partial publication of sections of the Internet "Monograph of Salticidae (Araneae) of the World 19952016", parts I & II by Prószyński (2016a, b), available at: http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/Subfamilies/ and http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/ respectively Ecologica Montenegrina 10: 35-50 (2017) This journal is available online at: www.biotaxa.org/em REVISION OF THE GENUS SITTICUS 36 Sitticus kazakhstanicus Logunov, 1992 = Attulus kazakhstanicus (Logunov, 1992) comb. n., Sitticus longipes (Canestrini, 1873) = Sittilong longipes (Canestrini, 1873) comb. n., Sitticus magnus Chamberlin, Ivie, 1944 = Sittiflor magnus (Chamberlin, Ivie, 1944) comb. n., Sitticus mirandus Logunov, 1993 =Attulus mirandus (Logunov, 1993) comb. n., Sitticus monstrabilis Logunov, 1992 = Sittiflor monstrabilis (Logunov, 1992), Sitticus nenilini Wesolowska, Logunov, 1993 = Attulus nenilini (Wesolowska, Logunov, 1993) comb. n., Sitticus niveosignatus (Simon, 1880) = Attulus niveosignatus (Simon, 1880) comb. n., Sitticus penicillatus (Simon, 1875) = Attulus penicillatus (Simon, 1875) comb. n., Sitticus penicilloides Wesolowska, 1981 =Attulus penicilloides (Wesolowska, 1981) comb. n., Sitticus pulchellus Logunov, 1992 = Sittiflor pulchellus (Logunov, 1992) comb. n., Sitticus ranieri (Peckham & Peckham, 1909) = Sittisax ranieri (Peckham & Peckham, 1909), Sitticus rivalis Simon, 1937 = Sittiflor striatus (Emerton, 1911) reinstated synonym, contra Logunov, 2004 a: 35, Sitticus rupicola (Koch C.L., 1837) = Sittiflor rupicola (Koch C.L., 1837) comb. n., Sitticus saltator (Simon, 1868) = Attulus saltator (Simon, 1868) comb. n., Sitticus saxicola (C. L. Koch, 1846) = Sittisax saxicola (C. L. Koch, 1846) comb. n., Sitticus sinensis Schenkel, 1963 = Attulus sinensis (Schenkel, 1963) comb. n., Sitticus striatus Emerton, 1911 = Sittiflor striatus (Emerton, 1911) comb. n., Sitticus talgarensis Logunov & Wesolowska, 1993 = Attulus talgarensis (Logunov & Wesolowska, 1993) comb. n., Sitticus vilis (Kulczynski, 1895) =Attulus vilis (Kulczynski, 1895) comb. n., Sitticus zaisanicus Logunov, 1998 = Attulus zaisanicus (Logunov, 1998) comb. n., Sitticus zimmermanni (Simon, 1877) = Sittiflor zimmermanni (Simon, 1877). South American groups of species Sitticus leucoproctus and Sitticus palpalis are left temporarily within genus Sitticus pending further research. Pseudattulus kratochvili Caporiacco, 1955 (female only) = Sitticus cabellensis Prószyński, 1971 comb. reinstated = Sittisax cabellensis (Prószyński, 1971) comb. n. Referring to previous paper by Prószyński (2016c) I correct species synonym Myrmavola globosa (Wanless, 1978) = Toxeus globosus (Wanless, 1978), being a typing error. Also, I reconfirm hereby original genus placement of Emertonius exasperans Peckham & Peckham, 1892, as seconded by Prószyński & Deeleman-Reinhold, 2010: 164-167, figs 169-171 and documented at: http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/q24-Emer.html, dismissed by the World Spider Catalog, ver. 2016 with incompetent comment. Misplacement in Sitticus s.l. detected: Sitticus taiwanensis Peng X. & Li S., 2002, Sitticus wuae Peng X. & Tso I., Li S., 2002 – correction pending further research.


Introduction
Genus Sitticus sensu lato, now split into smaller genera, had mainly Eurosiberian distribution, with a number of species extending their ranges to North America, Central Asian Mountains and some temperate Oriental areas (Russian Primore-Maritime Province, Korea, Japan, some areas of China).That group of genera, Sitticus and related, contains some 76 nominal species, out of which 57 is recognizable, but 10 known from single sex specimens only.Noticeable in variety of environments (tree trunks, buildings, rocks, but also wet meadows) called attention of a number of arachnologists (during last 60 years Harm, Logunov, Maddison, Marusik, Prószyński, Wesołowska, Żabka and other, in South America Galiano; during previous centuries C.L & L. Koch, Simon, Emerton, G.W. & E.G. Peckham, O. Pickard-Cambridge, Kulczyński, Dahl) and photographers (Knoflach, Lissner, Senglet and other), was frequently reported in faunal reports and keys.Recognition of genus Sitticus sensu lato created no problem for the arachnologists knowing it from field observations, specimens preserved could be identified in various ways.According to Simon's posthumous key (1937) identification of Sitticus require checking of following characters described with relative terms like "longer", "slight", "distinct": -1.teeth on chelicerae, -2.length of pedicel, -3.presence of striae behind eyes III, as well as number and size of spines on legs, -4."normal" shape of carapace, -5.eyes II "distinctly" closer to eyes I than to eyes III, -6.eye field "slightly" narrowing anteriorly, -7.reading half a page long description of color pattern and setae distribution, -8.checking 2 diagrammatic drawings purporting to illustrate several related species.All that might lead to discovery that the examined specimen is, in this example, a Sitticus, presumably S. floricola.
Main problem in taxonomic studies is, however, practical selection of diagnostic characters applicable to genera and species: the best appear to be defining of species by precise drawings of palps, epigyne, spermathecae and ducts, to be compared directly with comparable drawings in literature and dismissal of translation of these drawings into words.The graphic definitions appear unequivocal, selected characters are sufficiently stable and permit separation of genera.Tests carried out by Prószyński (1980: 1-7) on large sample of 130 females and 47 males of 4 closely related species of Sitticus (rupicola, floricola, palustris and caricis), confirmed by 60 years of practice, demonstrated that dutifully made tedious descriptions of external appearances and measurements of body parts (25 of each specimen!) are almost useless.Both raw measurements and indices, calculated from them, shown considerable overlapping even between larger and smaller species, being of little help in separation of species.Routine descriptions of external appearance, ineffective and practically useless, should be replaced nowadays by color photographs of both live and preserved specimens (as in photographs by R. Whyte and his colleagues).
Relationship of species (genera, group of genera) by morphology could be established by continuity of similarities of particular characters, compared in sufficiently numerous taxa.Species apparently standing out of chain of similarities are probably misplaced.Interpretation of morphological premises requires knowledge and documentation of sufficiently numerous samples of both sexes of particular species.It happens that in some species one sex does not fit easily into general pattern (a case of female of Sittisax saxicola -Fig.2A) but then characters of males may help in classification.Individual variation within particular species may raise questions in identification -for instance does bulbus rotated by 35 degree in male Sittiflor rivalis (below) indicate separate species status, or is just result of individual behavior of that particular specimen in a moment of preservation?In practice of taxonomic research species described on single specimen (during studies of little known faunae, or material collected from inaccessible areas), may be first trials of recognition, pending confirmation on richer material.The same concerns matching of males and females incidentally stored in the same collection vial, or collected separately, often from places hundreds of kilometers apart.Collections of Salticidae are full of misidentified specimens, and Catalogs lists false synonyms, whose authors were sure that their opinions constitute sufficient proof, as in cases of Sitticus dorsatus, S. concolor and S. absolutus (Figs 2 E-H).Not documented taxonomic decisions and generalizations should be inadmissible.

Material and Methods
The paradigm of this paper consists of a number of publications presenting results of revisions of Salticidae, carried out by Prószyński (numerous publications) and by other authors, now instantly available to readers on the Internet.That influenced also style of this presentation, with long descriptions of morphology condensed to the most important data.The aim of this publication is synthetic summary of mass of information concerning genus Sitticus s. l., with help of the data stored in electronic database, electronic catalog of spiders and texts of taxonomic literature stored in electronic library.In particular -diagnostic illustrations stored in the Internet database of Salticidae http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/Subfamilies/index.html(Prószyński 2016a), preliminarily arranged into comparative plates, permitting to scan characters of all recognizable species within seconds.Also additional taxonomic data of particular species (diagnostic documentation of synonyms, geographical distributions, whereabouts of stored collections, etc.) from http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/index.html.Other facility, used simultaneously, were selected bibliographic citations for each species, available in the World Spider Catalog (later quoted as WSC in the text) at http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/,complemented with full texts of each publication, instantly opened on screen from the electronic library, also provided by the WSC.The above are documented with comparative plates of diagnostic drawings and photographs (Figs 1-3) of representative species of each genus.

Taxonomic descriptions SITTICINES, Sitticeae, Sitticinae and Sitticini
Group of genera named Sitticeae, or subfamily Sitticinae, inherited in 1960ties from earlier authors (Simon (1901-1903), Petrunkevitch (1928), and reported by Bonnet (1945-1961) and Roewer (1954[1955]) containing mixed up crowd of species classified as Attulus, Chalcoscirtus, Neon, Pseudattulus, Sitticus, Yllenus and some other, was revised by Prószyński in 1960ties and1980ties (op. cit.).These revision delimited genus Sitticus sensu lato, defined by type species Sitticus terebratus (Clerck, 1757) and including Attulus as a synonym (not published formally), but excluded incompatible Chalcoscirtus, Neon and Yllenus.However Maddison stressed at various occasions desirability of retaining Attulus and subdivision of Sitticus, which was supported by WSC.Finally Maddison (2015: 276) proposed newly defined taxonomic rank, a tribus, called Sitticini, based on gene sequencing and including also South American genera Aillutticus, Amatorculus, Capeta, Gavarilla, Nosferattus, Pseudattulus and Semiopyla.Morphological premises for such addition are unclear and are not yet precised, of the other hand practical application of gene sequencing arguments for taxonomic revisions of large series of species is not convincing.Abstaining from polemics on respective merits of morphological and molecular research, I propose to delimit temporarily an informal group of genera called SITTICINES (Prószyński 2016a), for facilitating identification of Sitticinae genera.Since informal group SITTICINES is not provided by rules of the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature, it cannot be described formally, but nothing prevents discussing mutual properties of genera included.
Diagnosis.Included genera are characterized by single comb like (multicusp) tooth on anterior median edge of chelicerae, with absence of any posterior tooth, and by "Amycoida" type of palp with prominent central loop of spermophor in bulbus, continuing along margin of bulbus, the proportions of bulbus to cymbium resembling those in average jumping spider (in difference to genera added by Maddison, listed above).Epigyne, spermathecae and ducts diverse, but generally resembling these in Attulus (Figs 1I-O).2 Diversity of diagnostic characters in ALL recognizable species are shown at http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/Sitticinae_clas.html.
Remarks.Splitting of Sitticus sensu lato into smaller, more coherent genera, will facilitate creation of keys and identification of species.The convenient criterion of this subdivision is structure of spermathecae and ducts, for routine identification correlated shape of palps and external appearance may help.
Distribution.Mainly Eurosiberian, some species secondarily colonized North America, Korea and Japan.There exist relict[?] ranges of Attulus in Central Asian Mountains, separated from forest zones by dry and hot belt of steppes and deserts.Relationships of South American Jollas and uncertain species of Sitticus to remaining genera are unclear, however their palps and cheliceral dentition are similar.
Composition.Prószyński (1987) (as a collection of diagnostic drawings, including type specimens) and literature data, all summarized in Prószyński (2016a).
Remarks.I have found in 1960ties that genus Attulus contained mixed up species of Sitticus, Yllenus and some other genera [Bonnet (opus cit.), Roewer (opus cit.)].Since type species Attulus distinguendus (and its junior synonym A. helveolus) were clearly related to Sitticus; I have merged them, and similar species, with Sitticus, that transfer was contested recently by Maddison (2015 and some earlier papers) and the WSC because of priority of names.Yielding to their arguments, I revive hereby Attulus to which some include species of Sitticus sensu lato having similar internal structure of epigyne and palps (Figs 1-3).
Diagnosis.Bulbus elongate oval, spermophor relatively broad with central loop distinctly elongate.Spermathecae "C" shaped, with rami of equal length, or somewhat asymmetrical, usually compressed, those in A. penicillatus seem intermediate to Sittiflor.Duct thin walled, but not membranous, relatively short and simple (Figs 1L-M).
Description.Small spiders of average body shape and proportions, abdomen usually dark, with a pair of white round spots (Figs 3 B-D), in some species with median abdominal whitish streak, mountain species living in higher altitudes are unusually black or blackish.Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.Diversity of diagnostic characters in ALL recognizable species are shown at http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/q29-Sit-dis.html.

Gen. Jollas
Diagnosis.Promarginal cheliceral tooth comb like, the retromarginal one absent, according to published drawings spermatheca seems to be divided into two chambers, ducts have walls as thick as spermathecae, copulatory openings separate, pocket prominent (Figs 2I-J Prószyński (1973) and literature data summarized in Prószyński (2016a, b).
Diagnosis.Distinctive character of the genus is the single copulatory duct running from mutual anterior copulatory opening, forking next in the middle of epigyne and joining a pair of spermathecae consisting of three spherical chambers.Male palps with central loop of spermophor extending along almost the whole length of oval bulbus, which resembles some Attulus, but differing from the latter by more proximal arising point of tibial apophysis, which is thin, long, apically slightly arching.Palpal tibia short, in two species distinctly narrowing proximally.
Description.Small jumping spiders with abdomen oval, or broadened in the posterior third, total body length about 3 mm (detailed measurements -see Prószyński, 1973).Dorsal pattern in preserved specimens consists of mosaic of small light and dark dots (Prószyński 1973: Figs 17-21), but there is no color photos documentation of either alive or preserved specimens.Species of this genus are identifiable mainly by internal structures of epigyne, described above and shown on Figs 2E, F1-H2.Epigyne of several species with translucent parts of spermathecae visible as two distinct but variable circles, a character not permitting to identify a species, none the less misleading previous authors.Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.
Remarks.Spermatheca divided into three spherical chambers is unique among SITTICINES and the only analogy is provided by European Alpine species Sittilong longipes comb.n., however it has separate copulatory openings and its external appearance is entirely different (Fig. 3J).
Distribution.North America.
Composition.Alleged synonymy with Attus dorsatus Banks, 1895e: 97 is rejected because that species is unidentifiable and, formally, there is even no publication establishing that synonym.Richman (1979: 125) note, on which the WSC base synonym, contains merely hearsay evidence: "... the type specimen of Banks "is apparently" in the Museum of Comparative Zoology..." and refers to the sources: Levi, Griswold, Johnson, Icenogle and Cutler, he was not able to indicate any published source of that synonymy (personal correspondence), and there is nobody else vouching that."Peckhamia", now respectable and accepted Internet journal, was in 1979 stenciled private bulletin, not acceptable as a source of taxonomic decisions.Alleged synonymy with Attus concolor Banks, 1895c: 206 is rejected because assumed species identity is not proven, what more, is doubtful in view of: -lack of documentation, for which observation of epigyne with "single opening and two circles" (Maddison 1996: 270) cannot substitute as fitting at least 3 species (Figs 2F-G6); -circumstances of that discovery are not raising confidence: an unidentified (misidentified?)specimen of alleged holotype of Attus concolor Banks, 1895 was retrieved by Maddison (1996: 270) from not defined vial of Pelegrina proterva, -note on this discovery was published inside Maddison's description of Pelegrina proterva (Dendryphantinae), unnoticeable to specialists of Sitticus.By the way: quotation "Sitticus concolor Maddison, 1996: 270" (removed from S of Pelegrina proterva, contra Edwards, 1980: 12, Sm)" in the WSC (version 18,0) mistakes Pelegrina with Sitticus.Maddison overlooked also large revision on the subject, published twelve years earlier by Prószyński (1973).Therefore: Sitticus concolor: Maddison, 1996 (nomen dubium) = Sittiab cursor (Barrows, 1919) comb.n.
Diagnosis.Resembles other SITTICINES by comb like cheliceral tooth (Fig. 2E) and type of palps, with central loop of spermophor.Differs by lateral expansion of anterior tip of cymbium, bulbus round, encircled by embolus, tibial apophysis large (Fig. 2F).Copulatory ducts half encircling epigyne laterally and passing into central, entangled, very complicated knot (usually simplified on published drawings) (Figs 2G-H), hiding spermatheca which also is not shown.Abdomen dark with whitish, irregular median streak, accompanied by irregular white dots (Fig. 3B).
Description.Male with bulbus round, or near round, typical loop of spermophor, embolus encircling bulbus and stretching in front of it inside prominent groove on expanded laterally tip of cymbium, tibial apophysis long, slightly bent, in S. terebratus robust.Epigyne with a pair of anterior openings, very close to each other, or fused, pocket simple.Copulatory ducts half encircling epigyne laterally and passing into central entangled, very complicated ducts, simplified on existing drawings.Spermathecae poorly visible among loops of ducts.Body coloration dark, with white, irregular streak on abdomen, expanded transversally by whitish spots and dots.For detailed measurements -see Prószyński (1968) godlewskii (Kulczynski, 1895), S. tannuolana Logunov, 1991, S. terebratus (Clerck, 1757).
Remarks.Palps resembling SITTICINES, but resemblance of internal structures is uncertain.Knowledge of this group of species is too insufficient to precise their placement.Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.
Composition.The following species are included: Sitticus cellulanus Galiano, 1989, S. flabellatus Galiano, 1989, S. leucoproctus (Mello-Leitão, 1944).Remarks.Palps resembling SITTICINES, but resemblance of internal structures is uncertain.Knowledge of this group of species is too insufficient to precise their placement.Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.
Diagnosis.Bulbus almost round, with "S"-like loop located near center, differs from Sitticus terebratus by tip of cymbium not expanded laterally and by smaller tibial apophysis.Spermathecae differs from those "C"-shaped in Attulus, by unequal development of both rami, the anterior one is shorter, the posterior longer and developed along longitudinal axe of epigyne.Ducts long, running around anterior half of spermathecae, in some species very long, extending like flattened loop along the whole spermatheca, they can be inserted to either ramus (Figs 1A-D).
Description.Body about 4-6 mm long, for detailed measurements -see Prószyński (1980).Dark colored -from light brownish to almost black, with ringed legs.Majority of species have a pair white spots in the posterior half of abdomen, either round or rectangular, there is also irregular, light abdominal streak.Carapace with thin white lines, median one and lateral along edges of dorsal surface, also along ventral edge of carapace.The white dots and lines pattern is to some extent variable, variously developed in some species, and possibly varying geographically, in some species (S. caricis) it is absent entirely.Frontal color pattern seems to be important for identification, but was little used.Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.There are some environmental differences among related species: S. floricola builds large white retreats atop of Juncus (Fig. 1D), along water shores and on wet meadows, S. caricis living on the same meadows is rarely seen because keeps low on tussock of grasses, just above their roots (personal communication from A. Kajak), microhabitat preferences of S. inexpectus found on the same meadows are not yet known.Sitticus rupicola is a mountain dweller, moving about rock surface, always nearby vegetation, it builds nests between surfaces of rocks and stones laying on them.

Corrections to list of synonyms Sitticus rivalis: Logunov, 2004
Sitticus rivalis: Logunov, 2004 a: 35, f. 10-12, 17-21 = Sitticus striatus: Prószyński, 1980: 27, f. 91-93 -removal of S. rivalis from synonymy of S. striatus is rejected because of misjudged importance of diagnostic characters: spermathecae and ducts, which are identical, are the most reliable indicator of relationships in Sitticus.The only visible difference between drawings of palps is bulbus rotation by about 35 degrees, but bulbus is rotatable, especially during copulation and possibly in other situations.Palps in Sitticus are poor indicator of species differences.Documentation of color differences is based on preserved, bleached specimens, insufficient and unreliable.Therefore (pending studies on more specimens): Sitticus rivalis Simon, 1937 = Sittiflor striatus (Emerton, 1911) -reinstated synonym, contra Logunov, 2004 a: 35.Sitticus floricola palustris (Peckham & Peckham, 1883) and S. floricola (Koch C.L., 1837) were described as separate species on different continents, but their alleged morphological differences seems to be insignificant and they were never compared in a professional way, their split distribution resemble several Eurosiberian relatives being recent immigrants to North America.Solving of uncertain status of Sittiflor floricola palustris seems to be desirable.
Diagnosis.Differs from other genera by black color pattern (high mountain melanism?), with silver median streak along abdomen, body less robust with relatively longer legs (Fig. 3J).Palp Attulus like, with slim tibial apophysis.Female spermathecae rather unusual, divided into three chambers like in Sittiab, but with separate copulatory openings and ducts (Fig. 1P).
Description.Body size about 5 mm, for detailed measurements -see Prószyński (1973).Black coloration could be possibly explained as high mountain melanism, facilitating warming of organism in cool high mountains environment, encountered also in other SITTICINES (Attulus ansobicus for instance  3Q, also Prószyński (1983Prószyński ( : map 5, 2016c: 27, fig: 27, fig.8K-M) and Żabka (1997: 92, f. 346-351).Sittipub pubescens agrees with characters expected from Sitticus -single, comb like tooth on cheliceral margin, comparable body shape and habits.However, it differs by short, differently shaped embolus, entirely different epigyne, spermathecae and ducts.Specimens of this common (in Poland) species, which I used to collect, had no white abdominal spots visible on Fig. 3K Note.Could it be that genus Sittipub represent separate branch of SITTICINES, arrived to Palaearctics and developed independently?The other species -S.relictarius, has the same characters but developed different enough to be considered kernel of a new genus, if more species would be discovered.
Comparable forms seem to occur among some South American Amycoida, but closely similar genera are not yet known.
Distribution.Eurosiberian, recent immigrant to North America.
Diagnosis.Male palps and cheliceral dentition agree with other SITTICINES, epigyne with very short, broad ducts and double spherical chambers of spermathecae.Live males of Sittisax saxicola strike by ginger hue.
Description.Body shape and color pattern is shown on Fig. 3I, it seem significant that pair of white abdominal spots are not round but truncated anteriorly and stretch transversally across abdomen, their contrasting appearance is increased by pairs of black areas in front and behind.There is also black narrow area at the level of eyes III on carapace.Palp is shown on Fig. 1A, diversity of appearance of epigyne on Figs 1A, of spermathecae at series B1-B4.Body size about 5 mm, for detailed measurements -see Prószyński (1971).Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.In S. ranieri [?] specimen from Mongolia spermatheca is a compact, sclerotized body with internal chambers -see Prószyński (1971, Figs 25, 30)  Corrections to list of synonyms Ruiz et al. (2005c: 756) matched female Sitticus cabellensis Prószyński, 1971Prószyński, (1971a: 198, f: 198, f. 31-39) (Fig. 2E) with Pseudattulus incertus Caporiacco, 1955 and next with Pseudattulus kratochvili Caporiacco, 1947(Ruiz et al, 2007: 377, f. 1-5), however, without any diagnostic documentation for females concerned, and without examining holotype specimen of S. cabellensis (Fig. 2C).The documentation provided is not sufficient for that matching, therefore female of Sitticus cabellensis should be removed from synonymy of both Pseudattulus incertus and Pseudattulus kratochvili.Matching of male Sitticus cabellensis with female is doubtful and pending revision.Therefore: Pseudattulus kratochvili Caporiacco, 1955 (female only) = Sitticus cabellensis Prószyński, 1971 = Sittisax cabellensis (Prószyński, 1971) (female only) comb.n., reinstated.

Discussion
As illustrated by the above diagram, major species radiation of Sitticus s. lato took place in the Eurosiberian zone of Palaearctic Region, with representative of several lines undertaking later migration to North America, apparently to its forest zone.Judging from present distribution some species maintaining now areals on both continents, could possibly migrate by old Bering Strait bridge opened during glacial periods.However, some East Palaearctic species arrived quite recently -I have learned from Bruce Cutler (personal communication) that Sitticus fasciger arrived to North America around 1959 and was observed first in neighborhood of New York, but within ten years spread northwest as far as St. Paul, Minnesota, where outnumbered 10 to 1 an earlier immigrant -Salticus scenicus (Clerck, 1757) on walls of the local university.That opinion was corroborated by Dr. W.J. Gertsch, who collected intensively in that area in 1930-1932(personal communication, see also Prószyński 1968: 394-395): 394-395).Additional interesting information was given to me by B. Cutler -within subsequent 10 years the number of S. fasciger specimens decreased significantly on the same university, a good illustration to dynamics of colonization processes.Other species of Sitticus s. lato arrived using trans Atlantic cargo and ballast sailings (Lindroth -The faunal connections between Europe and North America, (1957;344 Wiley, 1957, 344 pp.).Broader perspectives to Palaearctic radiation of Sitticus s. lato was supplied by Maddison (2015 and other papers) finding out, by gene sequencing methods, a large group of related genera he has classified as clade Amycoida.

Sittiab Prószynski, 2017 gen. n. Figures
Maddison (2015)rmathecae resembling Sittiab and Sittilong.Description.See original descriptions of particular species.Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.External appearance: long legged, small spider, not resembling European SITTICINES according to the photo byMaddison (2015)(genital documentation not enclosed so identification is not confirmed).
. Enclosed illustrations are integral part of description.