Total evidence analysis of the phylogenetic relationships of Lycosoidea spiders (Araneae, Entelegynae)

Polotow, Daniele; Carmichael, Anthea; Griswold, Charles E.

doi:10.1071/is14041

Cited by 51 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A series of studies based on morphology grouped the Lycosoidea, including Lycosidae, Pisauridae, Oxyopidae and Ctenidae, with the less known Trechaleidae, Senoculidae and even the cribellate Psechridae, Tengellidae, Zorocratidae and Zoropsidae (see Raven and Stumkat, ; Piacentini et al., ). A recent total evidence phylogeny (Polotow et al., ) differs in some details from our tree: the findings of Polotow et al. () are used as the basis for our classification here.…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A recent total evidence phylogeny (Polotow et al., ) differs in some details from our tree: the findings of Polotow et al. () are used as the basis for our classification here.…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A number of taxonomic changes are suggested based on these analyses, and are in general conservative. In a few cases, we refer to the results of clade‐specific total evidence (DNA sequences and morphology) analyses recently performed for Mygalomorphae (Bond et al., ; with morphological characters for Euctenizidae), Palpimanoidea (Wood et al., , ) and Lycosoidea (Polotow et al., ). Although our results here differ in some ways from those studies, we rely on the total evidence results to guide taxonomic suggestions for Mygalomorphae, Palpimanoidea and Lycosoidea.…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A growing number of multi‐family target gene phylogenetic analyses are incrementally covering parts of the spider tree of life. These studies have focused on Mesothelae (Xu et al., ), Mygalomorphae (Bond et al., ; and references therein), Palpimanoidea (Wood et al., ), many on orb‐weavers (Blackledge et al., ; Dimitrov et al., ; and references therein), symphytognathoids (Rix et al., ; Lopardo et al., ; Lopardo and Hormiga, ), entelegynes (J. Miller et al., ; Spagna et al., ), the Oval Calamistrum (OC) clade (Polotow et al., ), psechrids (Agnarsson et al., ; Bayer and Schönhofer, ), eresids (Miller et al., ), pholcids (Dimitrov et al., ) and sparassids (Moradmand et al., ). These analyses show significant agreement as well as important contradictions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The spider tree of life: phylogeny of Araneae based on target‐gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a phylogenetic analysis of spiders using a dataset of 932 spider species, representing 115 families (only the family Synaphridae is unrepresented), 700 known genera, and additional representatives of 26 unidentified or undescribed genera. Eleven genera of the orders Amblypygi, Palpigradi, Schizomida and Uropygi are included as outgroups. The dataset includes six markers from the mitochondrial (12S, 16S, COI) and nuclear (histone H3, 18S, 28S) genomes, and was analysed by multiple methods, including constrained analyses using a highly supported backbone tree from transcriptomic data. We recover most of the higher‐level structure of the spider tree with good support, including Mesothelae, Opisthothelae, Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae. Several of our analyses recover Hypochilidae and Filistatidae as sister groups, as suggested by previous transcriptomic analyses. The Synspermiata are robustly supported, and the families Trogloraptoridae and Caponiidae are found as sister to the Dysderoidea. Our results support the Lost Tracheae clade, including Pholcidae, Tetrablemmidae, Diguetidae, Plectreuridae and the family Pacullidae (restored status) separate from Tetrablemmidae. The Scytodoidea include Ochyroceratidae along with Sicariidae, Scytodidae, Drymusidae and Periegopidae; our results are inconclusive about the separation of these last two families. We did not recover monophyletic Austrochiloidea and Leptonetidae, but our data suggest that both groups are more closely related to the Cylindrical Gland Spigot clade rather than to Synspermiata. Palpimanoidea is not recovered by our analyses, but also not strongly contradicted. We find support for Entelegynae and Oecobioidea (Oecobiidae plus Hersiliidae), and ambiguous placement of cribellate orb‐weavers, compatible with their non‐monophyly. Nicodamoidea (Nicodamidae plus Megadictynidae) and Araneoidea composition and relationships are consistent with recent analyses. We did not obtain resolution for the titanoecoids (Titanoecidae and Phyxelididae), but the Retrolateral Tibial Apophysis clade is well supported. Penestomidae, and probably Homalonychidae, are part of Zodarioidea, although the latter family was set apart by recent transcriptomic analyses. Our data support a large group that we call the marronoid clade (including the families Amaurobiidae, Desidae, Dictynidae, Hahniidae, Stiphidiidae, Agelenidae and Toxopidae). The circumscription of most marronoid families is redefined here. Amaurobiidae include the Amaurobiinae and provisionally Macrobuninae. We transfer Malenellinae (Malenella, from Anyphaenidae), Chummidae (Chumma) (new syn.) and Tasmarubriinae (Tasmarubrius, Tasmabrochus and Teeatta, from Amphinectidae) to Macrobuninae. Cybaeidae are redefined to include Calymmaria, Cryphoeca, Ethobuella and Willisius (transferred from Hahniidae), and Blabomma and Yorima (transferred from Dictynidae). Cycloctenidae are redefined to include Orepukia (transferred from Agelenidae) and Pakeha and Paravoca (transferred from Amaurobiidae). Desidae are rede...

show abstract

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…A recent total evidence phylogeny (Polotow et al., ) differs in some details from our tree: the findings of Polotow et al. () are used as the basis for our classification here.…”

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The spider tree of life: phylogeny of Araneae based on target‐gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas the creation of new families is rather commonplace (Bond et al 2012;Polotow et al 2015;Miller et al 2010), the finding of a new spider family on newly collected material has become a very rare event. The monospecific Trogloraptoridae Griswold, Audisio & Ledford, 2012 is such a family and the last one that was described on newly collected specimens (Griswold et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Chummidae (Araneae): quadrupling the size of the clade

Jocqué

Alderweireldt

2018

EJT

809

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recently described family Chummidae, now the sister clade of Macrobuninae, so far only known from two South African species, is extended with seven new species, six from the southern part of South Africa and one from Lesotho: Chumma bicolor sp. nov. (♀), C. foliata sp. nov. (♂♀), C. interfluvialis sp. nov. (♂♀), C. lesotho sp. nov. (♀), C. striata sp. nov. (♂♀), C. subridens sp. nov. (♂♀) and C. tsitsikamma sp. nov. ♂. A key to the species is provided. Although Chumma is part of a clade containing the Macrobuninae, it is argued that the family name Chummidae should remain valid.

show abstract

Studies on chromosomal characteristics of Ctenus indicus (Gravely 1931) (Araneae: Ctenidae)

Kumar

Govindappa

Jayaprakash

et al. 2016

Nucleus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The karyological information gathered for the Indian spiders taxa thus far were cytologically derived from only few species but none for the representatives belonging to the genus Ctenus. Ctenus indicus (Gravely 1931), an Indian ctenid spider was cytogenetically analyzed following conventional, C-and NOR-banding techniques so as to gather substantial data for future course of understanding of karyotypic evolution among spider species. The karyotypic data for Ctenus indicus revealed the complement consisting of (2n = 28) 26AA ? X 1 X 2 # and (2n = 30) 26AA ? X 1 X 1 X 2 X 2 $ acrocentric chromosomes. A closer scrutiny of meiotic progression disclosed many male pachytenic cells displaying the occurrence of 'bouquet' formation. The results of C-banding enabled in identifying centromeric constitutive heterochromatin locales, and in some chromosomes also the distal ends of telomeric regions. Silver nitrate stained NOR-specifications were noticed at the distal telomeric regions of two pairs of chromosomes (#8 and #10) in the complement. Cytological evidence procured from the present study not only adds to the ever-growing list of the spider cytogenetic assessments but also offers as a baseline data towards establishing evolutionary relationships within this important group.

show abstract

Total evidence analysis of the phylogenetic relationships of Lycosoidea spiders (Araneae, Entelegynae)

Cited by 51 publications

References 63 publications

The spider tree of life: phylogeny of Araneae based on target‐gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling

The spider tree of life: phylogeny of Araneae based on target‐gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling

New Chummidae (Araneae): quadrupling the size of the clade

Studies on chromosomal characteristics of Ctenus indicus (Gravely 1931) (Araneae: Ctenidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About