Difference between revisions of "Madagascarchaea"

From Species-ID
Jump to: navigation, search
m (1 revision imported)
m (Imported from ZooKeys)
(No difference)

Revision as of 16:21, 8 January 2018

Notice: This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.

If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly.

This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Wood H, Scharff N (2017) A review of the Madagascan pelican spiders of the genera Eriauchenius O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1881 and Madagascarchaea gen. n. (Araneae, Archaeidae). ZooKeys (727) : 1–96, doi. Versioned wiki page: 2018-01-08, version 164523, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Madagascarchaea&oldid=164523 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.

Citation formats to copy and paste

BibTeX:

@article{Wood2017ZooKeys,
author = {Wood, Hannah M. AND Scharff, Nikolaj},
journal = {ZooKeys},
publisher = {Pensoft Publishers},
title = {A review of the Madagascan pelican spiders of the genera Eriauchenius O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1881 and Madagascarchaea gen. n. (Araneae, Archaeidae)},
year = {2017},
volume = {},
issue = {727},
pages = {1--96},
doi = {10.3897/zookeys.727.20222},
url = {https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=20222},
note = {Versioned wiki page: 2018-01-08, version 164523, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Madagascarchaea&oldid=164523 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.}

}

RIS/ Endnote:

TY - JOUR
T1 - A review of the Madagascan pelican spiders of the genera Eriauchenius O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1881 and Madagascarchaea gen. n. (Araneae, Archaeidae)
A1 - Wood H
A1 - Scharff N
Y1 - 2017
JF - ZooKeys
JA -
VL -
IS - 727
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.727.20222
SP - 1
EP - 96
PB - Pensoft Publishers
M1 - Versioned wiki page: 2018-01-08, version 164523, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Madagascarchaea&oldid=164523 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.

M3 - doi:10.3897/zookeys.727.20222

Wikipedia/ Citizendium:

<ref name="Wood2017ZooKeys">{{Citation
| author = Wood H, Scharff N
| title = A review of the Madagascan pelican spiders of the genera Eriauchenius O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1881 and Madagascarchaea gen. n. (Araneae, Archaeidae)
| journal = ZooKeys
| year = 2017
| volume =
| issue = 727
| pages = 1--96
| pmid =
| publisher = Pensoft Publishers
| doi = 10.3897/zookeys.727.20222
| url = https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=20222
| pmc =
| accessdate = 2024-12-23

}} Versioned wiki page: 2018-01-08, version 164523, https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Madagascarchaea&oldid=164523 , contributors (alphabetical order): Pensoft Publishers.</ref>

See also the citation download page at the journal.


Taxonavigation

Ordo: Araneae
Familia: Archaeidae

Name

Madagascarchaea Wood & Scharff, 2017 gen. n. – Wikispecies link – ZooBank link – Pensoft Profile

Type species

Archaea gracilicollis Millot, 1948

Etymology

The name refers to the Madagascan distribution and is feminine in gender.

Diagnosis

Distinguished from all other archaeids by the presence of six protrusions, each with a small spine, on the crown of the cephalon, and by the presence of a retrolateral apophysis on the male pedipalpal patella.

Description

See Wood (2008)[1] for a complete description.

Included species

14 described species M. ambre (Wood, 2008), M. anabohazo (Wood, 2008), M. borimontsina (Wood, 2008), M. gracilicollis (Millot, 1948), M. griswoldi (Wood, 2008), M. halambohitra (Wood, 2008), M. jeanneli (Millot, 1948), M. lavatenda (Wood, 2008), M. legendrei (Platnick, 1991), M. namoroka (Wood, 2008), M. spiceri (Wood, 2008), M. tsingyensis (Lotz, 2003), M. vadoni (Millot, 1948), M. voronakely (Wood, 2008), and 4 new species described here: Madagascarchaea fohy sp. n., Madagascarchaea lotzi sp. n., Madagascarchaea moramora sp. n., Madagascarchaea rabesahala sp. n

Distribution

Madagascar

Discussion

We elevate the “gracilicollis group” (Wood 2008[1]) to genus level based on phylogenetic analysis that strongly supports two monophyletic clades, Eriauchenius and Madagascarchaea gen. n., that have diversified on Madagascar (Fig. 1) (Wood et al. 2015[2]; Wood et al. 2012[3]). These two genera are not sister clades, but instead Afrarchaea is sister to Eriauchenius in Wood et al (2015)[2], and Afrarchaea is sister to Madagascarchaea gen. n. in Wood et al (2012)[3]. Eriauchenius and Afrarchaea are never recovered as sister clades.
Madagascarchaea gen. n. contains two main clades, the “vadoni group” and the “jeanneli group” (Fig. 1). The “vadoni group” contains M. borimontsina, M. legendrei, M. vadoni, M. fohy sp. n., and M. rabesahala sp. n., and these species share the following traits: a retrolateral apophysis on the male pedipalpal femur (compare fig. 12A with fig. 12B in Wood 2008[1]) and a highly reduced FSGP that lacks “wings” (Figs 23B, 24B, 25B). The female genitalia of “vadoni group” species do not have interspecific variation. Instead, somatic traits are more useful for identifying “vadoni group” species. We split what was previously considered M. legendrei into two species: M. legendrei and M. rabesahala sp. n. For clarity, we describe both M. legendrei and M. rabesahala sp. n. here. In addition, there is a single female specimen (CASENT9046596), denoted as “Madagascarchaea sp. 1” in Fig. 1 that may be a new species, however, since this is the only known specimen and females are difficult to diagnose, we chose not to describe it (collection information: Madagascar, Fianarantsoa, Réserve Forestiére d’Agnalazaha, Mahabo, 42.9 km 215° SW Farafangana, 23°11'38"S, 47°43'23"E, 20 m, 19 Apr 2006, littoral rainforest, maxi winkler litter extraction, B.L. Fisher et al.).
M. jeanneli, M. ambre, M. lotzi sp. n., and M. moramora sp. n. belong to the “jeanneli group” and are part of a species complex distinguished from other Madagascarchaea by having an elongated and pointy head (Figs 26A, 27A, 28A), a triangular abdomen that is either straight across the posterior (Fig. 28A) or invaginated (Figs 26A, 27A), and a conductor that is a large triangular piece in the prolateral view (Figs 26D, 27D). The current study splits the M. jeanneli of Wood (2008)[1] into several different species: M. jeanneli, M. lotzi sp. n., and M. moramora sp. n. For clarity, we also redescribe M. jeanneli here. M. ambre, is considered a part of the “jeanneli-complex” but is not redescribed here, see Wood (2008)[1] for a complete description. These four species form a monophyletic group (Fig. 1), although M. jeanneli is not included in the phylogeny. Females cannot be distinguished. For the males, embolus shape is the main morphological difference among species.

Madagascarchaea gen. n.: to supplement “Gracilicollis group” key

When using the identification key from Wood (2008)[1], if a specimen is identified as either M. jeanneli or M. ambre, then use the following key to separate M. jeanneli, M. ambre, M. lotzi sp. n., and M. moramora sp. n.; females of these four species are indistinguishable:

Madagascarchaea gen. n.: to supplement “Gracilicollis group” key — H. Wood , N. Scharff
1
Embolus bifurcation shallow, both parts of bifurcation roughly equal thickness (Fig. 27E–F, G–H, “a” and “p”); posterior of abdomen usually invaginated in both males and females (Fig. 27H, arrow) 
   M. lotzi
–
Embolus with a deeper bifurcation, both parts of bifurcation different thickness (Figs 26F, I, L, 28E–F, compare shape of “a” with shape of “p”); abdomen invaginated or straight across the posterior in both sexes (Fig. 28A, arrow) 
  2
2
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation thinner than the posterior part, and jutting out past the conductor in the ventral view (see fig. 21 in Wood 2008[1]); usually abdomen straight across the posterior in both sexes (as in Fig. 28A, arrow; also see fig. 1C in Wood 2008[1]) 
   M. ambre
–
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation broad, posterior portion not extending past conductor, and posterior portion with a bifurcation (Fig. 26E–F,H–I) 
  3
3
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation thick and blunt at tip (Fig. 28D–F, “a”), posterior portion with a bifurcation at tip with each piece of unequal width (Fig. 28D–F, “p”); posterior part of abdomen usually straight in both sexes (Fig. 28A, arrow) 
   M. moramora
–
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation tapering off to a point (Fig. 26D–L, “a”), posterior portion with a bifurcation at the tip (Fig. 26E–F, H–I); posterior part of abdomen usually invaginated in both sexes (Fig. 26A) 
   M. jeanneli
1
In males and females, cephalon crown rounded (Figs 23A, 24A) 
  2
–
Cephalon crown not as round in both sexes (Fig. 25A) 
   M. rabesahala
2
In males, pedipalpal bulb, with a sclerotized rod-shaped piece on embolus (Fig. 23H, J, arrow); presence of a cymbium process that has setae on the retrolateral side of the cymbium (Fig. 23C); females of M. fohy and M. legendrei are indistinguishable 
   M. fohy
–
Embolus lacking heavily sclerotized rod-shaped piece (Figs 24G–I, 25G–I); retrolateral process on cymbium present but lacking setae (Fig. 24C) 
   M. legendrei
When using the identification key from Wood (2008)[1], if a specimen is identified as M. legendrei, then use the following key to separate species of M. legendrei, M. fohy sp. n., and M. rabesahala sp. n.:
Madagascarchaea gen. n.: to supplement “Gracilicollis group” key — H. Wood , N. Scharff
1
Embolus bifurcation shallow, both parts of bifurcation roughly equal thickness (Fig. 27E–F, G–H, “a” and “p”); posterior of abdomen usually invaginated in both males and females (Fig. 27H, arrow) 
   M. lotzi
–
Embolus with a deeper bifurcation, both parts of bifurcation different thickness (Figs 26F, I, L, 28E–F, compare shape of “a” with shape of “p”); abdomen invaginated or straight across the posterior in both sexes (Fig. 28A, arrow) 
  2
2
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation thinner than the posterior part, and jutting out past the conductor in the ventral view (see fig. 21 in Wood 2008[1]); usually abdomen straight across the posterior in both sexes (as in Fig. 28A, arrow; also see fig. 1C in Wood 2008[1]) 
   M. ambre
–
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation broad, posterior portion not extending past conductor, and posterior portion with a bifurcation (Fig. 26E–F,H–I) 
  3
3
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation thick and blunt at tip (Fig. 28D–F, “a”), posterior portion with a bifurcation at tip with each piece of unequal width (Fig. 28D–F, “p”); posterior part of abdomen usually straight in both sexes (Fig. 28A, arrow) 
   M. moramora
–
Anterior portion of embolus bifurcation tapering off to a point (Fig. 26D–L, “a”), posterior portion with a bifurcation at the tip (Fig. 26E–F, H–I); posterior part of abdomen usually invaginated in both sexes (Fig. 26A) 
   M. jeanneli
1
In males and females, cephalon crown rounded (Figs 23A, 24A) 
  2
–
Cephalon crown not as round in both sexes (Fig. 25A) 
   M. rabesahala
2
In males, pedipalpal bulb, with a sclerotized rod-shaped piece on embolus (Fig. 23H, J, arrow); presence of a cymbium process that has setae on the retrolateral side of the cymbium (Fig. 23C); females of M. fohy and M. legendrei are indistinguishable 
   M. fohy
–
Embolus lacking heavily sclerotized rod-shaped piece (Figs 24G–I, 25G–I); retrolateral process on cymbium present but lacking setae (Fig. 24C) 
   M. legendrei

Original Description

  • Wood, H; Scharff, N; 2017: A review of the Madagascan pelican spiders of the genera Eriauchenius O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1881 and Madagascarchaea gen. n. (Araneae, Archaeidae) ZooKeys, (727): 1-96. doi

Images

Figure 1. Total evidence phylogeny from Bayesian analysis of molecular and morphological data, from Wood et al. (2015)[2]. Outgroups not shown and with the morphospecies names changed to the new species names from the current study. Posterior probabilities are as follows, greater than or equal to: (*) 0.90; (**) 0.95; (***) 0.99.
Figure 1. Total evidence phylogeny from Bayesian analysis of molecular and morphological data, from Wood et al. (2015)[2]. Outgroups not shown and with the morphospecies names changed to the new species names from the current study. Posterior probabilities are as follows, greater than or equal to: (*) 0.90; (**) 0.95; (***) 0.99. 
Figure 23. Madagascarchaea fohy sp. n. A male (holotype, CASENT9015766) habitus, lateral view B female (CASENT9015766) internal genitalia, dorsal view C–L male pedipalpal bulbs (holotype, CASENT9015766) D–F right bulb, image reversed C, G–L left bulb C cymbium close-up, dorsal view, arrow showing the retrolateral cymbium protrusion that has setae D, G, J prolateral view, arrow showing rod-like piece on embolus E, H, K ventral view, arrow showing rod-like piece on embolus F, I, L retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.25 mm (B, D).
Figure 23. Madagascarchaea fohy sp. n. A male (holotype, CASENT9015766) habitus, lateral view B female (CASENT9015766) internal genitalia, dorsal view C–L male pedipalpal bulbs (holotype, CASENT9015766) D–F right bulb, image reversed C, G–L left bulb C cymbium close-up, dorsal view, arrow showing the retrolateral cymbium protrusion that has setae D, G, J prolateral view, arrow showing rod-like piece on embolus E, H, K ventral view, arrow showing rod-like piece on embolus F, I, L retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.25 mm (B, D). 
Figure 24. Eriauchenius legendrei (Platnick, 1991). A male (USNMENT01377217) habitus, lateral view B female (CASENT9012333) internal genitalia, dorsal view. C–I male pedipalpal bulbs D–F left bulb (CASENT9012333) C left bulb (CASENT9010074) G–I left bulb (USNMENT01377217): C cymbium close-up, dorsal view, arrow showing the small retrolateral cymbium protrusion that lacks setae D, G prolateral view E, H ventral view F, I retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.25 mm (B, D).
Figure 24. Eriauchenius legendrei (Platnick, 1991). A male (USNMENT01377217) habitus, lateral view B female (CASENT9012333) internal genitalia, dorsal view. C–I male pedipalpal bulbs D–F left bulb (CASENT9012333) C left bulb (CASENT9010074) G–I left bulb (USNMENT01377217): C cymbium close-up, dorsal view, arrow showing the small retrolateral cymbium protrusion that lacks setae D, G prolateral view E, H ventral view F, I retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.25 mm (B, D). 
Figure 25. Madagascarchaea rabesahala sp. n. A male (holotype, CASENT9004011) habitus, lateral view, image reversed B female (CASENT9004086) internal genitalia, dorsal view C–I male pedipalpal bulbs D–F right bulb (CASENT9004086), image reversed C, G–I left bulb (CASENT9004086): C cymbium close-up, dorsal view, arrow showing the absence of a retrolateral cymbium protrusion D, G prolateral view E, H ventral view F, I retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.25 mm (B, D).
Figure 25. Madagascarchaea rabesahala sp. n. A male (holotype, CASENT9004011) habitus, lateral view, image reversed B female (CASENT9004086) internal genitalia, dorsal view C–I male pedipalpal bulbs D–F right bulb (CASENT9004086), image reversed C, G–I left bulb (CASENT9004086): C cymbium close-up, dorsal view, arrow showing the absence of a retrolateral cymbium protrusion D, G prolateral view E, H ventral view F, I retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.25 mm (B, D). 
Figure 26. Madagascarchaea jeanneli (Millot, 1948). A male (CASENT9004085) habitus, lateral view, image reversed B–C female (CASENT9012336) internal genitalia B dorsal view C anterior view. D–L male pedipalpal bulbs D–I left bulb (CASENT9004085) J–L left bulb (CASENT9005233): D, G, J prolateral view E, H, K ventral view F, I, L retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.125 mm (B, D).
Figure 26. Madagascarchaea jeanneli (Millot, 1948). A male (CASENT9004085) habitus, lateral view, image reversed B–C female (CASENT9012336) internal genitalia B dorsal view C anterior view. D–L male pedipalpal bulbs D–I left bulb (CASENT9004085) J–L left bulb (CASENT9005233): D, G, J prolateral view E, H, K ventral view F, I, L retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.125 mm (B, D). 
Figure 27. Madagascarchaea lotzi sp. n. A male (CASENT9018921) habitus, lateral view, arrow showing posterior invagination of abdomen B–C female (CASENT9012008) internal genitalia B dorsal view C anterior view D–L male pedipalpal bulbs D–F right bulb (CASENT9012004), image reversed, G–L left bulb (CASENT9012330) D, G, J prolateral view E, H, K ventral view F, I, L retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.125 mm (B, D).
Figure 27. Madagascarchaea lotzi sp. n. A male (CASENT9018921) habitus, lateral view, arrow showing posterior invagination of abdomen B–C female (CASENT9012008) internal genitalia B dorsal view C anterior view D–L male pedipalpal bulbs D–F right bulb (CASENT9012004), image reversed, G–L left bulb (CASENT9012330) D, G, J prolateral view E, H, K ventral view F, I, L retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.125 mm (B, D). 
Figure 28. Madagascarchaea moramora sp. n. A male (holotype, USNMENT01377197) habitus, lateral view, image reversed, arrow showing abdomen posterior is straight. B–C female (USNMENT01377198) internal genitalia B dorsal view C anterior view D–I male pedipalpal bulbs (holotype, USNMENT01377197): D–F left bulb, G–I right bulb, expanded, image reversed D, G prolateral view E, H ventral view; F, I retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.125 mm (B, D).
Figure 28. Madagascarchaea moramora sp. n. A male (holotype, USNMENT01377197) habitus, lateral view, image reversed, arrow showing abdomen posterior is straight. B–C female (USNMENT01377198) internal genitalia B dorsal view C anterior view D–I male pedipalpal bulbs (holotype, USNMENT01377197): D–F left bulb, G–I right bulb, expanded, image reversed D, G prolateral view E, H ventral view; F, I retrolateral view. Scale bars: 1 mm (A); 0.125 mm (B, D). 

Other References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Wood H (2008) A revision of the assassin spiders of the Eriauchenius gracilicollis group, a clade of spiders endemic to Madagascar (Araneae : Archaeidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 152: 255–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00359.x
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Wood H, Gillespie R, Griswold C, Wainwright P (2015) Why is Madagascar special? The extraordinarily slow evolution of pelican spiders (Araneae, Archaeidae). Evolution 69: 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12578
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Wood H, Griswold C, Gillespie R (2012) Phylogenetic placement of pelican spiders (Archaeidae, Araneae), with insight into evolution of the “neck” and predatory behaviours of the superfamily Palpimanoidea. Cladistics 28: 598–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00411.x
Retrieved from "https://species-id.net/w/index.php?title=Madagascarchaea&oldid=164523"