Macrobunidae Petrunkevitch, 1928

Gorneau, Jacob A., Crews, Sarah C., Cala-Riquelme, Franklyn, Montana, Katherine O., Spagna, Joseph C., Ballarin, Francesco, Almeida-Silva, Lina M. & Esposito, Lauren A., 2023, Webs of intrigue: museum genomics elucidate relationships of the marronoid spider clade (Araneae), Insect Systematics and Diversity 7 (5), pp. 1-18 : 10

Family Macrobunidae Petrunkevitch, 1928 (new rank)

Type genus: Macrobunus Tullgren, 1901 (type species: Myro backhauseni Simon, 1896 ).

Diagnosis. Macrobunidae new rank can be distinguished from other families by usually having multiple apophysis (e.g., VTA, RvTA, RdTA, DTA) on the male palpal tibiae, including an RTA bearing an internal branch related to a stridulatory area at the cymbium; reduced anterior median eyes (Griswold et al. 2005, Almeida-Silva et al. 2015 ( Figures 1A , 2A–B ), Wheeler et al. 2017); retromarginal side of cheliceral fang furrow with 1 to several differential denticles (Griswold et al. 2005, Almeida-Silva et al. 2015); chilum, when present, entire or divided; single row of tarsal trichobothria with bases smooth to longitudinally striate (Griswold et al. 2005 (Figure 151C, 156E), Almeida-Silva et al. 2015), except in Chumma Jocqué, 2001 in which it is transversely striate; one or more tegular apophyses plus a tegular median apophysis, and in some cases an embolar apophysis. Additionally, some genera have an enlarged male palpal tibiae, sometimes bearing an internal gland suspected to be connected to an opening on the DTA ( Wheeler et al. 2017). Typical cribellate Macrobunidae have an entire cribellum; however, in some representatives, the cribellum is divided into 2 fields of strobilate spigots (Griswold et al. 2005 (Figures 88A, 96A–B)). In the ecribellate Macrobunidae , the cribellum is lost and a colulus is present (e.g., Emmenomma Simon, 1884 , Chresiona Simon, 1903 , Chumma , Hicanodon Tullgren, 1901 , some Macrobunus , Neoporteria Mello-Leitão, 1943 , Naevius Roth, 1967 , Rubrius Simon, 1887 , Urepus Roth, 1967 , and some Yupanquia Lehtinen, 1967 ).

Figures

Fig. 1. Recent phylogenetic hypotheses of family relationships within the marronoid clade (in color) from 1991 to 2020 (Platnick et al. 1991, Griswold et al. 1999, 2005, Spagna and Gillespie 2008, Miller et al. 2010, Spagna et al. 2010, Wheeler et al. 2017, Crews et al. 2020).

Fig. 2. Timeline depicting significant rearrangements in the marronoid clade from the inception of each family. Families currently contained in the marronoid clade are indicated by the same colors as in Fig. 1. Solid lines indicate movements by the indicated author, arrows, and colors indicate the destination family. Dotted lines indicate families originally described as subfamilies, or taxonomic suggestions that did not result in a formal taxonomic action. Movements in red indicate taxonomic changes that were not accepted by subsequent authors. Positions are illustrative and not to scale.Any papers referenced in this figure and not in the main text are referenced in Appendix A.