Autor Thema: Which genus of Philodromidae? => Philodromus cf. buchari  (Gelesen 213 mal)

Raffaele Falato

  • *
  • Beiträge: 159
Gorgoglione, Province of Matera, Basilicata, southern Italy.

Discovery date: January 8, 2020, around 11:00.
Habitat: 500 m - in the countryside.
Dimensions: about 3-4 mm.

Good evening.
I think the spider is a specimen of Philodromus (male or female? young or adult?), but I doubt about Pulchellodromus, a genus that I don't know yet.
Can you help me?
Thank you.
Raf

pp1.jpg
*pp1.jpg (60.26 KB . 546x586 - angeschaut 84 Mal)

pp2.jpg
*pp2.jpg (32.08 KB . 566x364 - angeschaut 83 Mal)

pp4.jpg
*pp4.jpg (54.28 KB . 692x492 - angeschaut 91 Mal)
« Letzte Änderung: 2020-02-05 13:23:12 von Raffaele Falato »

Simeon Indzhov

  • ****
  • Beiträge: 2723
  • neue E-Mailaddresse
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #1 am: 2020-02-04 20:57:50 »
A sub-subadult male of Philodromus (Philodromus) - the brackets denote subgenus (aureolus group, the type subgenus), maybe Philodromus buchari or Philodromus fuscolimbatus
Simeon

PS I would like to note that in the current definition of Philodromus as accepted by the catalog, Pulchellodromus should not be a valid genus as it groups within the other
species groups (I think, sister to the rufus group) but a subgenus

Raffaele Falato

  • *
  • Beiträge: 159
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #2 am: 2020-02-04 23:43:01 »
Thanks a lot, Simeon.
So, for the forum and for my research, I classify this spider as Philodromus sp. (the most prudent choice) or Philodromus buchari / fuscolimbatus?

Simeon Indzhov

  • ****
  • Beiträge: 2723
  • neue E-Mailaddresse
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #3 am: 2020-02-05 00:32:15 »
Preferably as Philodromus sp aureolus group. Looking at Pierre' s photos, I don't think it is fuscolimbatus (which I, unlike buchari, don' t know in person), but there are likely other Mediterranean species I don't know as well

I would like to ask about habitat of the spider (type of tree/surrounding vegetation)

Raffaele Falato

  • *
  • Beiträge: 159
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #4 am: 2020-02-05 00:53:53 »
Back then, Simeon, the spider stood still, uncovered, on a stone slab behind a fountain, in the open countryside. Around, stones, debris and sparse and very low vegetation, two or three oaks the only trees.

Simeon Indzhov

  • ****
  • Beiträge: 2723
  • neue E-Mailaddresse
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #5 am: 2020-02-05 01:06:00 »
Oaks, aha. Philodromus buchari does show an association with oaks

Raffaele Falato

  • *
  • Beiträge: 159
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #6 am: 2020-02-05 01:36:18 »
Here is the importance of always reporting the surrounding environment.
Philodromus cf. buchari at this point.
Thanks again, also for your availability, Simeon.
A greeting.
Raf

Rainer Breitling

  • Aktive Mitarbeiter
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 1836
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #7 am: 2020-02-05 06:08:55 »
PS I would like to note that in the current definition of Philodromus as accepted by the catalog, Pulchellodromus should not be a valid genus as it groups within the other
species groups (I think, sister to the rufus group) but a subgenus
Absolutely correct. But, to be clear, the catalog does not accept my placement of Pulchellodromus as a subgenus of Philodromus, but instead for mysterious reasons insists on maintaining a paraphyletic Philodromus.
Best wishes,
Rainer

Simeon Indzhov

  • ****
  • Beiträge: 2723
  • neue E-Mailaddresse
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #8 am: 2020-02-05 09:05:04 »
I guess this is because of Kastrygina & Kovblyuk's 2012 paper, which, however, treats Pulchellodromus in the framework established by Wunderlich, which is in turn not accepted in its entirety. So it becomes inconsequential from the side of the Catalog

Tobias Bauer

  • Kerngruppe
  • ******
  • Beiträge: 741
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #9 am: 2020-02-05 11:33:52 »
Yes, but also no, that's mainly because the catalog implemented a policy which favours sometimes obscure or inconsequent "newer" (more recently published) morphological classifications over alternative morphological classifications confirmed by COI (Breitling 2019), in it's essence. Best example: Pirata/Piratula. For a long time all species in both genera were (happily) treated in the genus Pirata until the work of Omelko et al (2011)  re-erected the genus Piratula Roewer, 1960. COI does not confirm this classification, and the re-erection of Piratula in Omelko et al. (2011) is not based on a clear morphological matrix used for an extensive phylogeny, it's based on the impression of single and often variable characters like the size of the tegular apophysis. Even if you reject COI as a problematic gene for phylogenies on a higher scale (which it is), you will find plenty of literature that shows that COI very often reflects morphologically (well!) defined genera very well, and those are again mostly confirmed by other genes etc. etc.. In the light of this findings, rejecting the changes by Breitling (2019) is, in my opinion, not only inconsequent, but it favours a weaker and often error susceptible method for genera classifications over a relatively robust and exact one (which is of course, not perfect). In the Piratula-case it's quite funny that the genus was defined by Roewer, for those who know something about his problematic lycosid research.


https://wsc.nmbe.ch/faq (part 7)

Simeon Indzhov

  • ****
  • Beiträge: 2723
  • neue E-Mailaddresse
Re: Which genus of Philodromidae?
« Antwort #10 am: 2020-02-05 12:07:22 »
Thanks for clarification, Tobias. The "single genital character genus erection" reminds me of Guseinov et al. (2005) treatment of Malthonica/Tegenaria (subsequently rejected on both morphological and genetic grounds) where, again, solely the !embolus length! was taken into account (which can vary within an otherwise obviously homogenous species group, for example, Philodromus aureolus group where we have both marmoratus and buxi with a long and short embolus, respectively). It is unfortunate that a superficially phenetic approach is used at higher level systematics nowadays