Views
3 weeks ago

Spiders

Spiders

CONTENTS Abstract .

CONTENTS Abstract . Introduction .................................................................. 3 Acknowledgments ........................................................... 4 Taxonomic History ............................................................ 4 The Archaeids and Their Relatives .............................................. 6 Archaeidae Koch and Berendt ................................................ 6 Archaea Koch and Berendt ................. .............................. 19 Austrarchaea, New Genus ................................................ 21 Afrarchaea, New Genus .................................................. 24 Eoarchaea, New Genus .................................................. 25 Mecysmaucheniidae Simon .................................................. 26 Mecysmaucheniinae Simon .................... ............................. 32 Mecysmauchenius Simon ................................................. 37 Mecysmauchenioides, New Genus ........... .............................. 60 Semysmauchenius, New Genus ............. .............................. 61 Mesarchaea, New Genus .................... ............................. 62 Aotearoa, New Genus .................................................... 63 Zearchaeinae, New Subfamily .............................................. 64 Zearchaea Wilton ....................................................... 64 Chilarchaea, New Genus .................... ............................. 64 Pararchaeidae, New Family .................................................. 65 Pararchaea Forster ...................................................... 71 Holarchaeidae, New Family ................................................. 71 Holarchaea Forster ....................................................... 76 The Other Palpimanoids ....................................................... 76 The Palpimanidae ........................................................... 76 The Stenochilidae ........................................................... 81 The Huttoniidae ........................................................... 84 The Textricellidae and Micropholcommatidae ......... ......................... 92 The Mimetidae ........................................................... 96 Cladistic Analysis and Conclusions .............................................. 99 Literature Cited ........................................................... 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A comparative morphological survey of the archaeid spiders and their relatives is presented; cladistic analysis of the results supports the following taxonomic changes. The family Archaeidae Koch and Berendt is relimited to include only four genera: Archaea Koch and Berendt (containing six Baltic amber species and six Recent species from Madagascar), and the new genera Austrarchaea (type species Archaea nodosa Forster from Queensland; also including Archaea hickmani Butler from Victoria and a new species from Queensland), Afrarchaea (type species Archaea godfreyi Hewitt from South Africa and Madagascar), and Eoarchaea (type species Archaea hyperoptica Menge from Baltic amber). Other taxa previously placed in the Archaeidae are assigned to the family Mecysmaucheniidae Simon and the new families Pararchaeidae (for Pararchaea Forster, including seven species from New Zealand, Australia, and Tasmania) and Holarchaeidae (for Holarchaea Forster, including H. novaeseelandiae Forster from New Zealand and Zearchaea globosa Hickman from Tasmania). The Mecysmaucheniidae is divided into two subfamilies. The Mecysmaucheniinae contains Mecysmauchenius Simon (type species M. segmentatus Simon from south- ABSTRACT em Chile, adjacent Argentina, and the Falkland Islands; also including M. gertschi Zapfe from central Chile and 14 new species from Chile and the Juan Fernandez Islands) and the new genera Mecysmauchenioides (type species Mecysmauchenius nordenskjoldi Tullgren from Chile), Semysmauchenius (type species S. antillanca, new species, from Chile), Mesarchaea (type species M. bellavista, new species, from Chile), and Aotearoa (type species Zearchaea magna Forster from New Zealand). The new subfamily Zearchaeinae contains Zearchaea Wilton (type species Z. clypeata Wilton from New Zealand; also including Z. fiordensis Forster from New Zealand) and the new genus Chilarchaea (type species C. quellon, new species, from Chile). Recent hypotheses by Lehtinen and Levi assigning these taxa to two different superfamilies are rejected. The four families are judged instead to constitute a monophyletic group with its closest relatives among the superfamily Palpimanoidea, which is expanded to include them as well as (in suggested sister-group sequence) the Textricellidae and Micropholcommatidae, the traditional palpimanoids (Huttoniidae, Stenochilidae, and Palpimanidae), and the Mimetidae. Despite their rarity in collections, the true archaeids are widely known by araneologists. Not only are they among the most bizarre of all spiders structurally, with an enormously elevated cephalic area and grossly developed chelicerae (figs. 1, 2), but the history of their discovery is equally extraordinary: they were described first as fossils in Baltic amber, and found alive only a quarter century later. Since the first record of an extant species from Madagascar in 1881, various genera and species have been added to the Archaeidae, mainly from the southern hemisphere; these taxa have in common a markedly raised pars cephalica accompanied by elongated chelicerae. By this gradual process of accretion, the limits of the family became so extended that some recent authors have concluded that the Archaeidae is not a monophyletic group but merely an aggregation of a number of different lineages held together by parallel modifications of the carapace. These authors have even removed some of the taxa from the su- INTRODUCTION 3 perfamily Araneoidea, where the archaeids traditionally have been placed. The present study is an attempt to investigate the interrelationships among the various archaeid taxa and other spiders by means of a cladistic analysis of the results of a comparative morphological survey. We conclude that apart from the obvious misplacement, by some workers, of the araneoid genus Landana, the spiders which have in the past been assigned to the Archaeidae do, in fact, form a natural group. However, we argue that the differences among these taxa, and their interrelationships, are best reflected in a classification recognizing four separate families. Furthermore, with an enhanced understanding of the significance of a number of the characters possessed by these spiders, we have reconsidered their generally accepted association with the araneoids and conclude that their true relationship lies instead with the palpimanoid families. We also suggest that three other families conventionally placed in

Spider cranes Spider cranes
spider cranes c&a - Vertikal.net
How Spiders Use Silk
Doctor Who and the Planet of the Spiders
Spider Presentation 2005 - SurfaTech
Kiss of the Spider Woman: The Musical
Spider Mite Issues in Cotton
IT'S A GREAT TIME TO BE A SPIDER! - RichmondSpiders.com
SPIDER ESTERS® - SurfaTech