The spider genus Rhysodromus Schick, 1965 in the Crimea (Aranei: Philodromidae)

Kastrygina, Z. A.; Kovblyuk, M. M.

doi:10.15298/arthsel.25.3.08

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It appears that the current Philodromus is quite homogeneous, genetically and morphologically, with somewhat ambiguous relationships between species groups. The situation is potentially different for other groups previously placed in Philodromus: most importantly, the barcode distances support an independent Rhysodromus (type species R. histrio), in good agreement with the morphology-based results of Muster (2009), Wunderlich (2012) and Kastrygina & Kovblyuk (2016). Even Artanes Thorell, 1870 (type species A. margaritatus) might be the sister group of Philodromus s.…”

Section: Median Intraspecies Distance Median Intragenus Distancesupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Pulchellodromus is a subgenus of Philodromus. (Kastrygina & Kovblyuk 2016). The two barcodes for Pulchellodromus pulchellus, the type species of the genus, are particularly close to Philodromus rufus (median pairwise distance 8.9%) and P. emarginatus (9.1%), both well below the 11.4% median distance between Philodromus species.…”

Section: Median Intraspecies Distance Median Intragenus Distancementioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barcode Taxonomy at the Genus Level

Breitling

2019

Ecol. Mont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DNA barcode sequencing has rapidly become one of the most powerful tools for biodiversity assessments. Beyond its original uses for the identification of animal species, including the discovery of cryptic diversity in difficult taxonomic groups, the growing public sequence datasets also offer opportunities for more wide-ranging applications. This contribution shows how barcode data can provide useful complementary information to assist taxonomic decision making at the genus level. An analysis of public barcode datasets for 10 diverse spider families, covering more than 3400 species and morphospecies, reveals numerous examples where sequence similarities either strongly support or convincingly refute recent controversial genus assignments. The following nomenclatorial changes are suggested based on a combined assessment of morphological evidence and the barcode analysis: Acantholycosa = Pardosa (syn. nov.); Piratula = Pirata (syn. nov.); Pulchellodromus, Philodromimus, Tibellomimus, Artanes, and Emargidromus = subgenera of Philodromus (stat. nov.); Cryptachaea riparia = Parasteatoda riparia (comb. nov.); Ohlertidion = Heterotheridion (syn. nov.); Saaristoa = Aphileta (syn. nov.); Aphileta microtarsa = Eulaira microtarsa (comb. conf.); Centromerita and Tallusia = Centromerus (syn. conf.); Obscuriphantes, Agnyphantes, and Acanthoneta = Poeciloneta (syn. nov.); Bolyphantes bipartitus = Poeciloneta bipartita (comb. nov.); Anguliphantes, Improphantes, Piniphantes, and Mansuphantes = Oryphantes (syn. nov.), Palliduphantes antroniensis = Oryphantes antroniensis (comb. nov.), Lepthyphantes nodifer = Oryphantes nodifer (comb. nov.), Hypositticus, Sittipub, Calositticus, Sittisax, Sittiflor, and Attulus = Sitticus (syn. nov.).

show abstract

Section: Median Intraspecies Distance Median Intragenus Distancesupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Median Intraspecies Distance Median Intragenus Distancementioning

confidence: 89%

Barcode Taxonomy at the Genus Level

Breitling

2019

Ecol. Mont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 d,e, 6 d,e and 8 e–g; [ 64 ], figs. 9–16) and in several Philodrominae ([ 65 ], figs. 1–3, 7–8; [ 63 ], pls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4–6), and it is also called retinaculum [ 3 ]. However, the shape and degree of sclerotization of the PCA may be variable intraspecifically ([ 65 ], figs. 4–8, 10, 11).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Solving a running crab spider puzzle: delimiting Cleocnemis Simon, 1886 with implications on the phylogeny and terminology of genital structures of Philodromidae

Prado¹,

Baptista²,

Schinelli³

et al. 2022

BMC Zool

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Among the 16 Neotropical genera of Philodromidae, Cleocnemis has the most troublesome taxonomic situation. Remarkable morphological differences among several genera historically said to be related to Cleocnemis denote controversial notions and general uncertainty about the genus identity. Thus, to clarify the genus limits and contribute to the understanding of Neotropical Philodromidae, we conducted a morphological analysis, along with Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood molecular phylogenetic analyses focusing on Cleocnemis and related genera of Thanatinae. All of the 14 species previously placed in Cleocnemis were studied, and eight of them included in the molecular analyses based on fragments of 28S rDNA, histone H3, 16S rDNA, and cytochrome oxidase I (COI). Results Cleocnemis was recovered as polyphyletic. Most of its species are distributed into six lineages allocated into five morphologically recognizable groups: Group I [Cleocnemis heteropoda], representing Cleocnemis sensu stricto and two new junior synonyms, Berlandiella and Metacleocnemis; Group II [Tibelloides bryantaecomb. nov., Tibelloides punctulatuscomb. nov., Tibelloides reimoserinom. nov., and Tibelloides taquaraecomb. nov.], representing Tibelloidesgen. rev., which was not recovered as monophyletic; Group III [Fageia moschatacomb. nov., Fageia roseacomb. nov.], representing the genus Fageia; Group IV [“Cleocnemis” lanceolata]; and Group V [“Cleocnemis” mutilata, “Cleocnemis” serrana, and “Cleocnemis” xenotypa]. Species of the latter two groups are considered incertae sedis. Cleocnemis spinosa is maintained in Cleocnemis, but considered a nomen dubium. Cleocnemis nigra is considered both nomen dubium and incertae sedis. We provide a redelimitation of Cleocnemis, redescription, neotype designation, and synonymy of type-species C. heteropoda. Taxonomic notes on composition, diagnosis, and distribution for each cited genus are also provided. Phylogenetic results support the division of Philodromidae into Thanatinae new stat. and Philodrominae new stat. and suggest expansion of their current compositions. Terminology of genital structures of Philodromidae is discussed. Conclusions Our results bring light to Cleocnemis taxonomy and enhance the understanding of the relationships within Philodromidae, especially through the assessment of neglected Neotropical taxa.

show abstract

A revised checklist of the spiders of Great Britain and Ireland

Lavery¹

2019

Arachnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spider genus Rhysodromus Schick, 1965 in the Crimea (Aranei: Philodromidae)

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Barcode Taxonomy at the Genus Level

Barcode Taxonomy at the Genus Level

Solving a running crab spider puzzle: delimiting Cleocnemis Simon, 1886 with implications on the phylogeny and terminology of genital structures of Philodromidae

A revised checklist of the spiders of Great Britain and Ireland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About