Both male and female with flattened white hair on clypeus, in males just a small moustache below AME (Fig. 17c), in females with frontal strip of thick white flattened setae over whole carapace width (Fig. 17d); anterior eye region with patch covered with white setae, thorax with wide broad submarginal band with dark edge (Fig. 17a), in live specimens black with 2 white central patches and several small ones (Koh et al. 2022: 437). In alcohol tiny greenish iridescent pits on head in male and female. In males, legs I dark, with a light ring on tibia, metatarsus and tarsus, other legs pale; in females, legs and palps pale (all these features are also mentioned in the original description of leucaspis by Simon 1903b, here synonymized with versicolor). Abdomen dorsally with elongate black and white scales, side all white, venter in both sexes partly covered with white appressed flattened setae. Male palp pigmented on trochanter and base of femur, rest white; female palps all white. Epigyne of female (from Thailand) with slender, almost straight ducts (Fig. 18c, e).

Measurements. Total length: males Banting 6.30 and 4.40, males (Sam Roi Yot N. P.) 4.70 in mm, , Chiang Mai 5.00. Male Sam Roi Yot: total length 4.70, carapace 2.30 long, 1.80 wide 1.30 high, abdomen 2.30 long, 1.20 wide; palp 0.80 – 0.35 – 0.30 - 0.60, width cymbium 0.23.

The abdomen in males is easily recognizable by the dark central band flanked by a pair of lateral white bands (yellow in life; Fig. 17a, Koh et al. 2022: 437), in reverse to that in most Chrysilla and Phintella species and similar to Phintelloidesscandens; this is a reliable character also valid in material preserved in alcohol. This feature apparently is expressed in the latin name: reversal of pale and dark. The shape of the white central area on the thorax is variable in shape and width (compare Fig. 17a from Thailand with Koh et al. 2022: 437 from Singapore). Just like in representatives of Chrysilla and Phintelloides, the embolus is filiform and relatively short, straight and then slightly curved and bent near the base at an angle of 90° with the retrolateral distal edge of the tegulum (Fig. 19a). For a difference in tegulum see diagnosis of munita. Females differ from males by the different carapace, having a pair of black semi-rings on a light background on the posterior part of the thorax; they differ in abdomen pattern which is dorsally pale with irregular cinnamon-brown blotches and a central white band (Fig. 17b; Koh et al. 2022: 437). Epigyne (Fig. 18a, c, e): the copulatory duct is uniform in diameter, parallel, at the anterior end the ring-like copulatory opening in a 90° inward bend, the outer edge is prolonged as a fold or rim; the left and righthand folds are directed mesally, relatively short, the tips crossing. See P.munita for differences with that species.

Sumatra, Bintang Island, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam.

The previous generic assignment to Phintella of this species is doubtful, as the embolus does not conform to the definition of that genus (see for example Żabka 1985: fig. 403), nor of Phintelloides (see for example Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2019: fig. 18A). But despite the generic ambiguity, Phintelloidesversicolor is difficult to distinguish from its close relative Phintelloidesminuta, particularly based on the male copulatory organ. Phintelloidesminuta was removed from synonymy with P.versicolor without argumentation (Prószyński 2016; https://salticidae.pl/salticidae.php?adres=specimen.php?id=12129), and in lieu of justification this has not been adopted by World Spider Catalog (2024). However, we agree with the validity of both species and shall try to provide the missing arguments.

This species complex is a taxonomic snake in the grass. In the various papers listed, the identity of this species is full of contradictions. Prószyński (2017), in his pragmatic classification, used this species as the representative of the genus Phintella; this is misleading. The World Spider Catalog (2024) cites 62 taxonomic treatments of P.versicolor. The species including its synonyms has been placed in 11 different genera over nearly 175 years. Recently, it was assigned to Phintelloides (Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2019, p. 22). The genus assignment of versicolor through 130 years has commuted between Chrysilla or Phintella by authors with authority (Simon, Zabka, Song, Prószyński) which suggests that the species fits in neither of them satisfactorily.

Koch’s description of the male from a small islant between Singapore and Sumatra is mostly an enumeration of colours of the various body parts: black, white, and yellow, and the central abdominal band rusty red, which also fits our specimens. He mentioned that the female is unknown, but described one two years later as Maeviapicta from the same locality. Then, starting in the 1970s, records attributed to this poorly known tropical species stated to appear from Japanese localities on the latitude of southern Europe (Yaginuma 1977, Prószyński 1973). Prószyński (1973) was the first to provide detailed drawings of the male’s genital organs, in a paper on salticid type specimens from Japan present in the Berlin Museum. He stated that he found the male type specimen of Koch’s “Plexippus” versicolor from Bintang Island as well as male and female specimens labeled Hasariusversicolor Koch from Japan (the latter name combination does not appear elsewhere in the taxononmic literature; World Spider Catalog 2024). In the description, Prószyński (1973) focused on the colouration and the abdomen pattern and apparently decided for some reason that the specimens from Sumatra and Japan are conspecific. No female was available from Bintang. Genitals, male and female, he drew from Japanese specimens only (Prószyński 1973, figs 1-7).

Twelve years later, in the magnificent work by Żabka (1985) on Salticidae from Vietnam appear excellent drawings of a male palp by Prószyński of the alleged holotype of versicolor (Żabka 1985, figs 91, 92) side by side with Zabka’s drawings of versicolor from the same specimen, but apparently opposite pedipalp; Żabka 1985, figs 88-90) along with a specimen from Vietnam (Żabka 1985, figs 83-86). Prószyński’s 1973 identification of versicolor from Japan was followed by Yaginuma (1977) and since then a number of authors cited, re-described and illustrated males and females of versicolor from various material from Japan and China. It has to be admitted that the morphology of palps from the Malay and Japanese specimens is very similar, and warrants further comparative study. However, as is the case also in certain other chrysilloid genera, it is the females that express their identity more clearly than do males by differences in structure in the epigyne. The drawings of the epigyne from Vietnam (Żabka 1985, figs 93-95) differ consistently from those from the Japanese specimens, and better agree with that from specimens we collected in Malaysia and Thailand, representing versicolor. In Bohdanowicz and Prószyński (1987), the latter author presented illustrations of the palp of Phintellaleucaspis (Simon) from Sumatra (figs 214, 215), which looks identical to drawings of tropical Southeast Asian versicolor specimens and apparently leucaspis is a new synonym of versicolor. Although Japanese specimens according to drawings of palpal structure can hardly be distinguished from that of specimens from Bintang Island, Sumatra, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, the epigynes drawn from Japan, China and Hong Kong (e.g., Fig. 18b, d, f; Zhu and Zhang 2011, fig. 362a, b; Prószyński 1973, figs 6, 7) are incompatible with female specimens from the Malay Region, which have not been figured in detail previously (Fig. 18a, c, e). The population represented in Japan and China cannot be maintained in versicolor; the oldest name available is munitus Boesenberg & Strand 1906, which name we propose to remove from synonymy.

The World Spider Catalog (2024) erroneously lists Maeviapicta as Maeviapicta C. L. Koch 1846: 72; it should be C. L. Koch 1848: 72 (Brignoli 1985).