Thomisus Nicolet, 1849: 391, pl. 3, fig. 7; 392, pl. 3, figs 8, 11 (in part).
Stephanopis Keyserling, 1880: 187, pl 4, fig 103 (in part).
Coenypha Simon, 1895: 1051; 1053, fig. 1090. Mello-Leit„o 1926: 322, fig. 43; Machado & Teixeira 2021: 296.
Type species: Coenypha edwardsi (Nicolet, 1849)
Diagnosis. See Machado and Teixeira (2021: 296).
Description. Medium-sized spiders with marked sexual size dimorphism (total length 3.75–4.44 in males, 6.55–8.60 in females) and cryptic coloration, varying from yellow to dark brown (Figs 1A–E). Prosoma wider than long, presenting rough texture, many hyaline setae, and sparse clavated ones. Opisthosoma trapezoidal with anterior border varying from straight to deeply excavated (Figs 1 A–E). Tibiae I bear four pairs of ventral macrosetae, while tibiae II present only three pairs equally distant; posterior legs (III and IV) very reduced, with dense tarsal scopula. Epigynum with membranous and coiled copulatory ducts (Fig. 2F); spermathecae subdivided in small chambers (Figs 2D, 2F); male palp with discoid tegulum, pointed RTA and RTAvbr short, truncated or acute; embolus long, flattened, ribbon-shaped and presenting hyaline pars pendula (Figs 3C–F).
Composition. Six species distributed along the southern Andes and Patagonia regions: Coenypha edwardsi (Nicolet, 1849), Coenypha antennata (Tullgren, 1902), Coenypha ditissima (Nicolet, 1849), Coenypha trapezium sp. nov., Coenypha foliacea sp. nov. and Coenypha nodosa (Nicolet, 1849).
Note. The new species Coenypha trapezium sp. nov. and Coenypha foliacea sp. nov. are described based on males and females. However, for these two species there are still no records of both sexes collected together or in the same/near locality. Therefore, they were tentatively matched based on color patterns, shape and number of abdominal projections and disposition of tibial macrosetae.
We believe that proposing here what can be seen as doubtful associations is yet preferable than create unnecessary new names. Moreover, we take the opportunity to include them in this broader approach on Coenypha, avoiding isolated taxonomic notes or smaller papers on new species that would likely have less appeal and impact as a research publication.