22.06.2015 Views

Savory - Arachnida 1977

Savory - Arachnida 1977

Savory - Arachnida 1977

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

164 HI. PROLES ARACIINES<br />

There are still no records of fossil spiders from the southern hemisphere.<br />

CLASSIFICATION<br />

The classification of spiders has always presented the difficulties that<br />

are provided by any large group of animals in which the number of<br />

known species and genera is rapidly increasing, and in which the course<br />

of evolution is so obscure that it can be traced only in outline.<br />

Many systematists have agreed in recognizing three sub-orders, the<br />

first or most primitive of which is the Liphistiomorphae, containing the<br />

Asiatic Liphistiidae. The second sub-order contains the Theraphosomorphae,<br />

previously known as the M ygalomorphae: the character of<br />

these two groups is outlined above. All other spiders were placed in the<br />

third sub-order, Arachnomorphae or Araneomorphae or Gnaphosomorphae.<br />

The breaking up of the second sub-order into eight or nine families<br />

has not proved to be difficult; not so the many families in the third suborder.<br />

It has not proved easy to construct a truly phylogenetic system,<br />

so that schemes proposed have been purely artificial ones, based on<br />

external characteristics, and valuable chiefly because it made easier the<br />

identification of any specimen under examination. This is the practical<br />

value of any system of classifying objects of any sort.<br />

One classification stands out above all the others, that of Petrunkevitch<br />

in 1933, a courageous attempt to include internal structures<br />

among the characteristics used.<br />

As a result of cutting sections of all representative Petrunkevitch<br />

based his first divisions on the number of ostia through which<br />

the heart communicated with the pericardium. There is no doubt that<br />

the basic idea that all the organs of an animal should be considered in<br />

making a natural system of classification is theoretically so sound as to be<br />

beyond criticism; it is equally undoubted that very few practising<br />

systematists have both the time and the skill needed to or to<br />

section all the animals they are asked to name, and as a result Petrunke~<br />

vitch's system has beer: universally admired and simultaneously<br />

neglected.<br />

Other systems have in general been attempts to improve on their<br />

predecessors: all made use of external features easily visible-the<br />

presence or absence of a cribellum, the simplicity or complexity of the<br />

sex organs, tbe existence of two or of three claws on the tarsi-and it<br />

be readily understood that the systems suggested have become ever<br />

more complex.<br />

In the latest system, that of Bonnet ( 1959), in the second volume of his<br />

18. THE ORDER ARANEAE 165<br />

"Bibliographia Araneorum", there is a summary of the characteristics<br />

of its predecessors, criticizes them where criticism is necessary, and adds<br />

that, with the objections now clearly seen, "c'est le fruit mur qui ne<br />

demande qu'a etre cueilli".<br />

The result contains nine taxa above the genus, namely sub-order,<br />

legion, sub-legion, super-cohort, cohort, sub-cohort, super-family,<br />

family and sub-family. It also gives a number of new names to some of<br />

the taxa which do not come under the notice of the International Rules<br />

of Zoological Nomenclature, and which were revised for various<br />

reasons, some of them merely linguistic.<br />

Bonnet's is the most elaborate and detailed classification of spiders as<br />

yet published, and would probably have received universal acceptance<br />

and approval had it not appeared at the end of his encyclopaedic<br />

Bibliographia Araneorum, whose circle of readers could not be a wide<br />

one. In outline it was as follows:<br />

Sub-order Mesothelae<br />

Legion Liphistiomorphae<br />

Sub-order Opisthothelae<br />

Super-legion Orthognatha<br />

Legion Theraphosomorphae<br />

Super-legion Labidognatha<br />

Legion Gnaphosomorphae<br />

Sub-legion Cribellatae<br />

Ecribellatae<br />

Super-cohort Apneumonatae<br />

Cohort Telemoidea<br />

Super-cohort Dipneumonatae<br />

Cohort Sicarioidea<br />

Cohort Argiopoidea<br />

Sub-cohort Trionycha<br />

Sub-cohort Dionycha<br />

2 families<br />

9 families<br />

12 families<br />

3 families<br />

6 families<br />

16 families<br />

12 families<br />

This scheme embraces a total of 60 families, to which several newly<br />

established families may be added. These include the Toxopidae,<br />

Gradungulidae, Textricellidae, Micropholcommatidae and Austrochilidae<br />

from the southern hemisphere; some new families produced by<br />

a splitting of the Sicariidae, and at least seven fossil families from amber.<br />

KEY GIVING PARTIAL SEPARATION OF THE ABOVE GROUPS<br />

Spinnerets in mid-ventral region of opisthosoma<br />

(~fesotheJae)<br />

LIPHISTIOMORPHAE<br />

2 ( 1) Spinnerets at posterior end of opisthosoma<br />

(Opisthothelae) 3<br />

3 ( 4) Chelicerae striking vertically and parallel<br />

(Orthognatha)<br />

THERAPHOSOMORPHAE

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!