This phylogenetic analysis of 3 1 exemplar taxa treats the 12 families ofhaneoidea (Anapidae, Araneidae, Cyatholipidae, Linyphiidae, Mysmenidae, Nesticidae, Pimoidae, Symphytognathidae, Synotaxidae, Tetragnathidae, Theridiidae, and Theridiosomatidae). The data set comprises 93 characters: 23 from male genitalia, 3 from female genitalia, 18 from cephalothorax morphology, 6 from abdomen morphology, 14 from limb morphology, 15 from the spinnerets, and 14 from web architecture and other behaviour. Criteria for tree choice were minimum length parsimony and parsimony under implied weights. The outgroup for Araneoidea is Deinopoidea (Deinopidae and Uloboridae). The preferred shortest tree specifies the relationships ((Uloboridae, Deinopidae) (Araneidae (Tetragnathidae ((Theridiosomatidae (Mysmenidae (Symphytognathidae, Anapidae))) ((Linyphiidae, Pimoidae) ((Theridiidae, Nesticidae) (Cyatholipidae, Synotaxidae))))))). The monophyly of Tetragnathidae (including metines and nephilines), the symphytognathoids, theridiid-nesticid lineage, and Synotaxidae are confirmed. Cyatholipidae are sister to Synotaxidae, not closely related to either the Araneidae or Linyphiidae, as previously suggested. Four new clades are proposed: the cyatholipoids (Cyatholipidae plus Synotaxidae), the 'spineless femur clade' (theridioid lineage plus cyatholipoids), the 'araneoid sheet web builders' (linyphioids plus the spineless femur clade), and the 'reduced piriform clade' (symphytognathoids plus araneoid sheet web builders). The results imply a coherent scenario for web evolution in which the monophyletic orb gives rise to the monophyletic araneoid sheet, which in turn gives rise to the gumfoot web of the theridiid-nesticid lineage. While the spinning complement of single pairs of glands does not change much over the evolution of the group, multiple sets of glands are dramatically reduced in number, implying that derived araneoids are incapable of spinning many silk fibers at the same time. 0 1998 The 1,innean Society of London ADDITIONAL

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...

We present the first cladistic analysis focused at the tribal and subfamily level of the orhweaving spider family Aranridac. The data matrix of 82 characters scored for 57 arancid genera of 6 subfamilies and 19 tribes (and 13 genera from 8 outgroup families) resulted in 16 slightly different, most parsimonious trees. Successive weighting corroborated 62 of thc 66 informative nodcs on these cladograms; one is recomtncnded as the 'working' aranrid phylogeny. 'l'he sister group of Araneidae is all other Araneoidra. Araneidae comprises two major clades: the subfamily Araneinar, and the 'argiopoid' clade, which includes all other subfdmilies and most trihcs (( (Gastcr.acanthiiiae, Caerostrear), (( (Micratheninac, Xylcthreae), Enizgosaccw), (Eui-ycorniinae, Arciinar)), Cyrtaracliriinae), ((Argiopinac, Cyrtopliorinac), Arachnureae)). Cyrtarachneac and hlastophorear are united in a ncw subfamily, Cyrtarachninae. The spiny orb-weavers alone (Gasteracanthinae and PYIicrathcninar) arc not monophyletic. The minirtid subfamily Arciinac and the 'tetragnathid' genus agie/la are araneids, but .Nebhila (and othrr tctragiiathids) arc not. On thc preferred tree, web drc-orations (stabilimenta) cvolved 9 times within 1. 5 gencra, and were I O S~ once. The use ofsilk to subduc prey evolved oncc in crihrllatr and four times in ecribillate orb weavers. Sexual size dimorphism evolved oncc in nephilines, twicc in araneids, and reverted to monomorphism five tirncs. Evolution in other genitalic and somatic characters is also assessrd; hchavioral and spinnerrt fcaturcs arc most consistent (male genitalia, lcg and prosomal learims least consistent) on the phylogcny.

The evolutionary diversification of spiders is attributed to spectacular innovations in silk. Spiders are unique in synthesizing many different kinds of silk, and using silk for a variety of ecological functions throughout their lives, particularly to make preycatching webs. Here, we construct a broad higher-level phylogeny of spiders combining molecular data with traditional morphological and behavioral characters. We use this phylogeny to test the hypothesis that the spider orb web evolved only once. We then examine spider diversification in relation to different web architectures and silk use. We find strong support for a single origin of orb webs, implying a major shift in the spinning of capture silk and repeated loss or transformation of orb webs. We show that abandonment of costly cribellate capture silk correlates with the 2 major diversification events in spiders (1). Replacement of cribellate silk by aqueous silk glue may explain the greater diversity of modern orb-weaving spiders (Araneoidea) compared with cribellate orb-weaving spiders (Deinopoidea) (2). Within the ''RTA clade,'' which is the sister group to orb-weaving spiders and contains half of all spider diversity, >90% of species richness is associated with repeated loss of cribellate silk and abandonment of prey capture webs. Accompanying cribellum loss in both groups is a release from substrate-constrained webs, whether by aerially suspended webs, or by abandoning webs altogether. These behavioral shifts in silk and web production by spiders thus likely played a key role in the dramatic evolutionary success and ecological dominance of spiders as predators of insects.Araneidae ͉ behavioral evolution ͉ cribellate silk ͉ orb web ͉ speciation S piders are exceptionally diverse and abundant in terrestrial ecosystems. In contrast to megadiverse orders of insects, evolutionary diversification of spiders is not coupled with major trophic shifts. All spiders are predators of arthropods, and spiders are dominant consumers at intermediate trophic levels (1, 2). Spider diversification is instead linked to key innovations in silk use (3-7). For instance, the araneoid orb web (Fig. 1) with stretchy capture spirals, coated by adhesive viscid silk secretions, provides access to abundant flying insects (3,8). However, many spiders produce cribellate silk, a radically different dry adhesive that adheres to prey, using van der Waals interactions and hygroscopic forces (9). Some cribellate spiders also construct aerial orb webs, whereas most spin sheet-like webs on the substrate (Fig. S1) or have abandoned capture webs altogether. Furthermore, the most diverse families within ''orb-weavers'' (Orbiculariae) no longer build orb webs, but instead spin aerial sheet webs (Linyphiidae) or cobwebs (Theridiidae) (Fig. S2). Thus, discovering the pattern of evolution of web spinning behaviors is essential for understanding spider diversification.Orb webs possessing dry cribellate capture spirals are architecturally similar to those spun from aqueous viscid silk ( Fig. 1 ...