Morphological and phylogenetic atlas of the orb-weaving spider family Tetragnathidae (Araneae: Araneoidea)

Álvarez-Padilla, Fernando; Hormiga, Gustavo

doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00692.x

Cited by 75 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 206 publications

(608 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PLS AC tartipores can also be seen in published PLS scans from at least six species of Gelanor which is the sister-lineage to all other mimetids, including Australomimetus (Platnick and Shadab 1993. They are also present in many members of related spider families such as Tetragnathidae (Hormiga et al 1995, Yoshida 1999, Ál-varez-Padilla 2007, Álvarez-Padilla and Hormiga 2011 and Arkyidae (Platnick and Shadab 1993). Indeed, on the phylogenies presented in Wheeler et al (2016) and Griswold and Ramírez (2017), PLS T-A AC are distributed, with losses, over a clade (CY spigot clade) that includes all araneomorphs except the Synspermiata, Filistatidae, and Hypochilidae (Platnick et al 1991, Griswold et al 2005, Ramírez 2014.…”

Section: Cylindrical Silk Gland (Cy) Spigotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of spinning field development in two species of araneophagic spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae, Australomimetus)

Townley¹,

Harms²

2017

EvolSyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External studies of spider spinning fields allow us to make inferences about internal silk gland biology, including what happens to silk glands when the spider molts. Such studies often focus on adults, but juveniles can provide additional insight on spinning apparatus development and character polarity. Here we document and describe spinning fields at all stadia in two species of pirate spider (Mimetidae: Australomimetus spinosus, A. djuka). Pirate spiders nest within the ecribellate orb-building spiders (Araneoidea), but are vagrant, araneophagic members that do not build prey-capture webs. Correspondingly, they lack aggregate and flagelliform silk glands (AG, FL), specialized for forming prey-capture lines in araneoid orb webs. However, occasional possible vestiges of an AG or FL spigot, as observed in one juvenile A. spinosus specimen, are consistent with secondary loss of AG and FL. By comparing spigots from one stadium to tartipores from the next stadium, silk glands can be divided into those that are tartipore-accommodated (T-A), and thus functional during proecdysis, and those that are not (non-T-A). Though evidence was more extensive in A. spinosus, it was likely true for both species that the number of non-T-A piriform silk glands (PI) was constant (two pairs) through all stadia, while numbers of T-A PI rose incrementally. The two species differed in that A. spinosus had T-A minor ampullate and aciniform silk glands (MiA, AC) that were absent in A. djuka. First instars of A. djuka, however, appeared to retain vestiges of T-A MiA spigots, consistent with a plesiomorphic state in which T-A MiA (called secondary MiA) are present. T-A AC have not previously been observed in Australomimetus and the arrangement of their spigots on posterior lateral spinnerets was unlike that seen thus far in other mimetid genera. Though new AC and T-A PI apparently form throughout much of a spider's ontogeny, recurring spigot/tartipore arrangements indicated that AC and PI, after functioning during one stadium, were used again in each subsequent stadium (if non-T-A) or in alternate subsequent stadia (if T-A). In A. spinosus, sexual and geographic dimorphisms involving AC were noted. Cylindrical silk gland (CY) spigots were observed in mid-to-late juvenile, as well as adult, females of both species. Their use in juveniles, however, should not be assumed and only adult CY spigots had wide openings typical of mimetids. Neither species exhibited two pairs of modified PI spigots present in some adult male mimetids.

show abstract

Section: Cylindrical Silk Gland (Cy) Spigotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study of spinning field development in two species of araneophagic spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae, Australomimetus)

Townley¹,

Harms²

2017

EvolSyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The family Tetragnathidae includes approximately 1,000 species in 51 genera (Platnick 2013). Most members of this family have large and conspicuous chelicerae, and the female and male generally clasp each other with their chelicerae before and during mating Álvarez-Padilla and Hormiga 2011). It has been argued that cheliceral locking could be a male adaptation that allows the male to anchor himself (and his relatively simple secondary genitalia, his palps) more securely to the female's body during copulation (Levi 1981;Kraus 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hairy kisses: tactile cheliceral courtship affects female mating decisions in Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae)

Aisenberg

Barrantes

Eberhard

2014

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexual selection is thought to be an important force driving the evolution of sexually dimorphic morphology and behavior, but direct experimental tests of the functions of species-specific details of morphology are rare and usually incomplete. The males of most species of the large spider family Tetragnathidae possess large sexually dimorphic chelicerae that are used when the sexes lock together before and during mating. In Leucauge mariana, the female's chelicerae clasp those of the male; mating does not begin until the female's chelicerae seize the male and does not end until they release him. In addition, females contribute material to form genital plugs in the female's genitalia. Male chelicerae have sexually dimorphic and species-specific setae and ledges in areas that contact the female during cheliceral clasps. We tested the hypothesis that stimuli from these structures trigger mating processes that are controlled by the female which could increase male reproductive success. We reduced or eliminated possible stimulation of the female in two ways: removing male cheliceral setae that contact the female, and removing setae on the female's chelicerae and endites that are contacted by and could thus be stimulated by the male's chelicerae and their setae. Both male and female modifications had similar effects that likely reduced the male's chances of paternity: female receptivity to re-mating increased, copulatory plug formation decreased, and interruptions during copulation became more frequent. As expected under the stimulation hypothesis, blocking female sensory abilities generally had greater effects on these responses than modifying male stimulatory structures.

show abstract

“…In the consequent paper dealing with Diphya, Simon (1894) fixed type species, D. macrophthalma and described a "tribe" Diphyeae Simon, 1894 with Diphya and Dolichognatha O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1869. Besides Simon (1889Simon ( , 1894 affinities of genus were considered in Tullgren (1901Tullgren ( , 1902, Tanikawa (1995) and Álvarez-Padilla & Hormiga (2011). Currently 14 species are known in the genus Diphya (Marusik, 2017), but so far only two species are illustrated in detail, namely D. spinifera Tullgren, 1902 from Chile (see Álvarez-Padilla & Hormiga 2011) and Diphya wulingensis Yu, Zhang & Omelko, 2014 from Far East Asia (see Marusik et al, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides Simon (1889Simon ( , 1894 affinities of genus were considered in Tullgren (1901Tullgren ( , 1902, Tanikawa (1995) and Álvarez-Padilla & Hormiga (2011). Currently 14 species are known in the genus Diphya (Marusik, 2017), but so far only two species are illustrated in detail, namely D. spinifera Tullgren, 1902 from Chile (see Álvarez-Padilla & Hormiga 2011) and Diphya wulingensis Yu, Zhang & Omelko, 2014 from Far East Asia (see Marusik et al, 2017). The type species remains known only from the brief descriptions by Nicolet (1849) and Simon (1889) and three figures of epigyne by Tullgren (1902) and Tanikawa (1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

First illustrated description of the male of Diphya macrophthalma, the type species of the genus (Araneae, Tetragnathidae)

Marusik

Omelko

2017

Iheringia, Sér. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Diphya macrophthalma Nicolet, 1849, a type species of the genus and known by only holotype female from Central Chile, is redescribed in details based on recently collected material. The male is described in details and illustrated for the first time. Diphya rugosa Tullgren, 1902 previously considered as junior synonym of D. macrophthalma is revalidated. The known distribution of Diphya species from southern South America is mapped. Comments about status of northernmost populations of D. spinifera Tullgren, 1902 are given.

show abstract

Morphological and phylogenetic atlas of the orb-weaving spider family Tetragnathidae (Araneae: Araneoidea)

Cited by 75 publications

References 206 publications

Comparative study of spinning field development in two species of araneophagic spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae, Australomimetus)

Comparative study of spinning field development in two species of araneophagic spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae, Australomimetus)

Hairy kisses: tactile cheliceral courtship affects female mating decisions in Leucauge mariana (Araneae, Tetragnathidae)

First illustrated description of the male of Diphya macrophthalma, the type species of the genus (Araneae, Tetragnathidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About