Phylogenomics and genital morphology of cave raptor spiders (Araneae, Trogloraptoridae) reveal an independent origin of a flow‐through female genital system

Abstract

The monotypic family Trogloraptoridae was only recently described from caves and old‐growth forest of Oregon and California (Western USA). These enigmatic spiders are characterized by striking raptorial claws, and based on their spinneret morphology, a close relationship to dysderoid spiders, a large clade within Synspermiata, was suggested. Here, we used a phylogenomic framework using transcriptomes to test the phylogenetic position of Trogloraptor marchingtoni. Our analysis placed this taxon within Synspermiata, which is supported by the presence of synspermia. Furthermore, a sister group relationship with Dysderoidea is strongly supported. In a second step, we reinvestigated the female genitalia using a non‐destructive approach. Our data revealed that Trogloraptor has a flow‐through genital system (entelegyne condition) and is not haplogyne as previously described based on dissections. The Trogloraptor female genital system consists of paired large spermathecae, which connect by a fertilization duct to a wide bursa. The copulatory duct arises from the sclerotized anterior margin of the bursa, and its organization is likely related to the organization of the male intromittent organ. Based on our phylogenetic data, we show that the entelegyne condition evolved at least six times independently within spiders. Moreover, our results indicate that the peculiar organization of the dysderoid female genitalia with an additional posterior sperm storage site is a synapomorphy of this Synspermiata clade.

Interrogating Genomic-Scale Data to Resolve Recalcitrant Nodes in the Spider Tree of Life

“…In recently published phylogenomic analyses using amino acid data ( Fernández et al. 2018 ; Michalik et al. 2019 ), Leptonetidae was recovered as monophyletic with all the amino acid data sets, that is the AAUCE , AllAAUCE and also in Fernández et al.…”

Converging on the orb: denser taxon sampling elucidates spider phylogeny and new analytical methods support repeated evolution of the orb web

“…Voucher specimens and tissue for these animals are deposited at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. In addition to material sequenced previously (Bond et al, 2014; Fernández et al, 2014; French et al, 2014; Sanggaard et al, 2014; Sharma et al, 2014; Zhao et al, 2014; Brewer et al, 2015; Hedin, 2015; Meng et al, 2015; Garrison et al, 2016; Rix et al, 2017; Cheng and Piel, 2018; Kallal et al, 2018; Shao and Li, 2018; Fernández et al, 2018a; Michalik et al, 2019), our available taxon sampling includes 272 terminals, of which 263 are spiders (Table S01 in Appendix ). This sums to >100 additional taxa in comparison to the largest published dataset (Fernández et al, 2018a).…”

“…Other changes in Mygalomorphae (a clade including tarantulas and their kin), Synspermiata (a clade of ecribellate spiders with simple genitalia including spitting spiders, cellar spiders and others), and within both Araneoidea and the RTA Clade have led to a critical eye being cast on relationships both old and new (Kallal et al, 2018;Kuntner et al, 2019;Michalik et al, 2019;Opatova et al, 2020).…”

“…The grade of families subtending the RTA Clade—uloborids, deinopids, oecobiids, and hersiliids, together termed the UDOH Grade—has been broadly supported but the relationships therein are inconsistent (Fernández et al, 2018a). Other changes in Mygalomorphae (a clade including tarantulas and their kin), Synspermiata (a clade of ecribellate spiders with simple genitalia including spitting spiders, cellar spiders and others), and within both Araneoidea and the RTA Clade have led to a critical eye being cast on relationships both old and new (Kallal et al, 2018; Kuntner et al, 2019; Michalik et al, 2019; Opatova et al, 2020).…”

“…family‐level) of analyses of spider interfamilial relationships have increased (e.g. Garrison et al, 2016; Cheng and Piel, 2018; Hedin et al, 2018; Kallal et al, 2018; Shao and Li, 2018; Wood et al, 2018; Fernández et al, 2018a; Hedin et al, 2019; Kuntner et al, 2019; Michalik et al, 2019; Kulkarni et al, 2019; Opatova et al, 2020). The increasing consensus has led to more resolved and robust trees at various phylogenetic scales, making comparative questions interpretable in new ways.…”