One term that you may come across in discussions of phylogeny is the concept of a "wastebasket" taxon. As the name suggests, a wastebasket taxon is one into which authors tend to throw everything that they can't really deal with. Often, a wastebasket will include the members of a group that are relatively unspecialised, often primitive, and united less by their shared characters than their lack of distinct features to connect them to one or another of the specialised subgroups that the author may recognise within the parent group. Phalangodidae among short-legged harvestmen, Sylviidae among passerine birds and Perciformes among spiny-finned fishes are all examples of taxa that have become wastebaskets in the past. Some wastebasket taxa are explicitly established as such, like the 'Deuteromycota' that included asexual fungi before techniques were developed that made it significantly easier to relate asexual and sexual fungal taxa. More often, though, a taxon originally based on a certain combination of features will develop into a wastebasket over time as phylogenetic studies show that the original basis characters for that taxon represent plesiomorphies (ancestral characters). This week's highlight taxon, the spider superfamily Amaurobioidea, perhaps belongs to the latter group.
In an earlier post, I included a quick overview of basal spider phylogeny, going as far down as the clade Araneoclada that unites those spiders that have only a single pair of book lungs (ancestrally, at least - many families of Araneoclada have lost the book lungs entirely, or evolved tracheae in their place). Members of the Araneoclada are further divided between the Haplogynae and the Entelegynae, originally based on the presence (Entelegynae) or absence (Haplogynae) in females of paired copulatory ducts opening on a sclerotised plate called the epigyne. While the absence of such ducts in the Haplogynae is obviously a primitive character and no longer regarded as uniting them, the group has funnily enough been supported as monophyletic based on a number of other characters (except for a small number of 'haplogyne' taxa that are phylogenetically entelegynes) (Coddington & Levi, 1991). However, the Amaurobioidea belong to the Entelegynae, which is by far the larger of the two clades. Within the Entelegynae, the primary division was long based on whether or not a species possessed a cribellum, a plate-like structure among the spinnerets that bears hundreds of tiny silk-producing spigots. As these spigots exude silk simultaneously, the spider uses a specialised arrangement of bristles on the fourth pair of legs to weave them together to form a woolly thread (see here for a more detailed description). Because this woolly thread is composed of multiple tangled strands, it can effectively entangle prey such as small insects that get caught among the strands. Unfortunately, as knowledge of entelegyne spiders improved it became clear that possession of a cribellum did not define a phylogenetically coherent group. A number of cases were identified of pairs of taxa clearly related by other characters in which one taxon possessed a cribellum and the other did not. The eventual conclusion was that the cribellum was an ancestral character for the Entelegynae (as also supported by its presence in one haplogyne family, the Filistatidae) that had been lost on numerous occassions.
In general, the Amaurobioidea included cribellate spiders with unbranched abdominal median tracheae, as opposed to Dictynoidea with branched abdominal median tracheae (Coddington & Levi, 1991). Families that have been assigned to Amaurobioidea include (among others) Amaurobiidae, Agelenidae, Ctenidae, Amphinectidae and Nicodamidae, but relatively little unites these families. Most of them are generally ground-dwellers (which may explain the common name of one of the best-known members, the hobo spider Tegenaria agrestis). Many members build small sheet-webs, but others are active hunters. Both the characters referred to above have since been shown to represent plesiomorphies of larger clades, with the alternative conditions arising multiple times. The phylogenetic analysis of entelegyne spiders by Griswold et al. (1999) found the 'Amaurobioidea' to fall within a clade that was sister to the clade including the orb-weavers, but the same clade included the Dictynoidea and Lycosoidea (wolf spiders and such) nested within 'amaurobioids'. Indeed, not even the type family of Amaurobiidae was monophyletic, with some members closer to the lycosoids while others were closer to the agelenoids. The Amaurobioidea, it seems, was a bust.
Coming up - science and art, whether taxonomy is science, why family names are so awful, micro-spiders, and Parapseudoleptomesochrella almoravidensis.
REFERENCES
Coddington, J. A., & H. W. Levi. 1991. Systematics and evolution of spiders (Araneae). Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22: 565-592.
Griswold, C. E., J. A. Coddington, N. I. Platnick & R. R. Forster. 1999. Towards a phylogeny of entelegyne spiders (Araneae, Araneomorphae, Entelegynae). Journal of Arachnology 27: 53-63.
I wonder (idly, I assure you!) what might be the Latin for "wastebasket", and how well known it is among biologists...
ReplyDeleteMy dictionary offers [i]sirpiculus[/i].
ReplyDeleteI haven't been able to find a word for "wastebasket" but apparently the word "cibarius", used in relation to food, could be used to indicate the lower-grade stuff that was left over when the higher-quality stuff had already been taken. Funnily enough, the first use I can find of this word in a scientific name is for Cantharellus cibarius, the chanterelle, apparently one of the best edible mushrooms.
ReplyDeletePerseus Tools can't find an entry for "sirpiculus".
Hmm, so "sirpiculus" means "wastebasket", but doesn't appear in most Latin dictionaries?
ReplyDelete(Rubbing hands together) Excellent!
I see an inside joke in the making.
I'm thrilled to find your web site and your posts on spider phylogeny, of which I know little but am trying to learn. In Spiders of North America (Ubick et al. 2005), chapter 2, Jonathan Coddington writes that the monophyly of amaurobioidea "is tenuous at best." However, I wasn't able to follow your treatment. I was wondering if you might clarify, though I see that this post is nearly four years old.
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be saying that your research found amaurobioidea defined by the simulatenous presence of a cribellum and unbranched abdominal medial tracheae. You also say that the clade included both amaurobioidea and agelenidae, but the former of which is cribellate, the latter of which is not. So I'm confused about how the group could ever have been defined by these plesiomorphies.
Coddington's paper defines things differently. In his paper, the amaurobioidea also include the lycosidae and oxyopidae, for example, though I'm not sure if you're saying that you found people placing lycosidae here as well. Coddington says that what now tentatively defines this group is "a few small changes in spinneret spigot morphology only visible with the scanning electron microscope."
In any case, it appears that amaurobioidea remains ill-defined. I'm just missing the story you're giving about plesiomorphies.
You appear to be saying that your research found amaurobioidea defined by the simulatenous presence of a cribellum and unbranched abdominal medial tracheae.
ReplyDeleteNot my own research, just what I'd found elsewhere. I don't work directly on spiders myself.
You also say that the clade included both amaurobioidea and agelenidae, but the former of which is cribellate, the latter of which is not. So I'm confused about how the group could ever have been defined by these plesiomorphies.
I suspect what happened here was something like this: Amaurobioidea was originally defined by one author by the presence of a cribellum and other characters. Then a later author identifies a supposed relationship with Agelenidae on the basis of other features, and expands Amaurobioidea to include agelenids, despite agelenids not having the characters regarded by the original author as defining the Amaurobioidea. Go through a couple of iterations of this, and you end up with a taxon in which no one character is shared by all members.
Not my own research, just what I'd found elsewhere. I don't work directly on spiders myself.
DeleteGotcha. That's actually what I meant: whatever research you did to write the post.
I suspect what happened here was something like this: Amaurobioidea was originally defined by one author by the presence of a cribellum and other characters. Then a later author identifies a supposed relationship with Agelenidae on the basis of other features [...]
Okay. Thanks. What a mess!