20th International Congress of Arachnology

149 / 232

Student - oral presentation
Multilocus phylogeny of Bonnetina and
related tarantulas reveals extensive mor-
phological homoplasy
*David Ortiz1, Oscar F. Francke1, Jason E. Bond2
1Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, Mexico City, Mexico; 2 Department of Biologi-
cal Sciences and Auburn University Museum of Natural
History, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA.
Theraphosidae systematics has long been considered
problematic. It has relied mostly on morphological
features, which have proven to be relatively conserved and
often homoplastic across the family. Several morphology-
based attempts to clarify the phylogeny of the New World
subfamily Theraphosinae, with more than 50 nominal
genera, have been only moderately successful. Approaches
based on molecular data have the potential provide better
resolution with robust support in situations where
morphological characters have proven problematic,
thereby providing a phylogenetic framework for evaluating
phenotypic evolution. Here we conduct a multilocus phy-
logenetic analysis of the Theraphosinae genus Bonnetina
and related lineages, employing one mitochondrial
(COI) and four nuclear (ITS1, EF1G, Mid1 and MRPL44)
loci. We included all 17 valid Bonnetina species, as well
as 26 additional species placed in 12 nominal genera and
other undetermined lineages. Phylogenetic inference
and divergence time estimation were performed using
Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian methods. Central and
North American tarantulas with only type III urticating
setae, including Bonnetina, were recovered as monophy-
letic; this lineage appears to have undergone noticeable
diversification in sexual features until the Middle Miocene.
Bonnetina juxtantricola is grouped with Schizopelma.
The remaining Bonnetina taxa form a monophyletic group
with two morphologically divergent undescribed species.
Morphological homoplasy is extensive across the phylogeny.
For instance, one of the features that diagnose Bonnetina
seems to be plesiomorphic for a larger group and have been
lost in several lineages while retained in others; the other
diagnostic feature seems to be homoplastic. Our results
challenge the reliability of morphological characters for
phylogenetic reconstruction in Bonnetina, and indicate
caution when interpreting Theraphosidae supra-specific
classification in absence of a solid phylogenetic framework.
Keywords: tarantulas, new markers, molecular phylogeny,
morphological homoplasy, divergence time, Miocene
Oral presentation
Phylogeny and classification of ground
spiders of the family Gnaphosidae (Araneae):
historical and contemporary approaches
Vladimir Ovtcharenko1, Boris Zakharov 2
1Hostos CC of the City University of New York, 500 Grand
Concourse, Bronx, New York 10451, USA; 2 LaGuardia
CC of the City University of New York, 31-10 Thomson
Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101, USA
The first complete classification of gnaphosids was pre-
sented by Eugene Simon (1893). He included these spiders
in the family Drassidae, which contained four subfami-
lies. The subfamily Drassodinae, according to E. Simon,
included nine groups, and four of them, Gnaphoseae, Laro-
neae, Drassodea and Echemeae still belong to Gnaphosidae.
To classify these spiders, Simon used two major character-
istics: cheliceral dentition (keel, separated tooth, rounded
lobe or the complete loss of any tooth or any projections)
and the shapes of the labium and maxilla. In 1919, L.
Berland described a new characteristic: preening comb in
Gnaphosidae (Zelotes, Camillina) and eventually created a
new large group with this characteristic. Ute Grimm (1985)
in her book Central European Gnaphosidae divided the
family into three subfamilies: Gnaphosinae, Laroniinae,
and Drassodinae. Ovtcharenko (1989) used the structure of
different setae to classify Gnaphosidae and included “tribe”
as a new taxonomical rank in gnaphosids. In 1990, N.
Platnick relimited the classification of Gnaphosidae on the
basis of the structure of spinnerets and spigots of ground
spiders and restricted Gnaphosidae to five subfamilies.
Murphy (2007) eventually accepted Simon-Platnick clas-
sification and divided gnaphosids into 14 groups in order
to simplify the identification process. An additional classi-
fication of gnaphosids was proposed by Wunderlich (2011).
148 DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS | No. 3, July 2, 2016
Cushing