Arachnologische Mitteilungen 55

Supraspecific names in spider systematics 43 which is currently placed in Tegenaria C.L. Koch, 1837 (Agelenidae C.L. Koch, 1837). – Avicularioidea (as an infraorder), based on Aviculariidae Simon, 1874, a junior synonym of Theraphosidae. There are a number of non-typified names of unclear taxono- mic rank, which can be considered infraorders (not regulated by the ICZN) or superfamilies, for example: – Argiopoidea, based on Argiopidae Simon, 1890 (a junior synonym of Araneidae Clerck, 1757). – Drassiformes, based on Drassus Walckenaer, 1805 (a junior synonym of Gnaphosa Latreille, 1804) and DrassoidaeTho- rell, 1870. – Epeiriformes, based on Epeira Walckenaer, 1805 (a juni- or synonym of Araneus Clerck, 1757) and Epeiridae Fitch, 1882, a junior synonym of Araneidae Clerck, 1757, which is the oldest name in zoological systematics (ICZN 2012: Article 3.1). There are many more names from family groups or a higher rank. An almost complete list of typified names for spider taxa higher than the family group is provided by Kluge (2017). Non-typified names There are many non-typified arachnological names, for in- stance (the currently used names are given in bold): Ap- neumanatae, Artionycha, Cribellatae, Deuterotracheata, Dionycha , Dipneumonatae, Ecribellatae, Entelegynae , Hap- logynae , Hypodemata, Labidognatha, Mesothelae , Nelipoda, Neocribellatae, Octostiatae, Opisthothelae (= Opistothelae), Orbicularia, Orthognatha, Palaeocribellatae (= Paleocribel- latae), Perissonycha, Proterotracheata, Quadrostiatae, Sexois- tiatae, Synspermiata , Tetrapulmonata, Trionycha, etc. Almost a complete list of non-typified names suggested for spider taxa higher than the family group are provided by Kluge (2017). Although some of these names are widely used, they are subject to much confusion. But why? For instance, the name Haplogynae Simon, 1893 was described to accommodate six families Caponiidae, Dysderidae, Hadrotarsidae, Lep- tonetidae, Oonopidae and Sicariidae. Hadrotarsidae are now treated as a subfamily of Theridiidae (Entelegynae), whereas Leptonetidae remain apart from other haplogynes (Wheeler et al. 2017).The remaining families currently included in the Haplogynae have different types of female copulatory organs: viz., Caponiidae, Dysderidae, Oonopidae and Telemidae have unpaired receptacles, whereas Filistatidae, Scytodidae and Sicariidae have paired receptacles. The single receptacle of Telemidae strongly differs from those of all other spider fami- lies in having the weakly sclerotized sac-like tube and there- fore this family is likely to be excluded from the Haplogynae. Simon’s haplogyne families are currently split into more families, and many new families (e.g., Drymusidae, Ochy- roceratidae, Orsolobidae, Segestriidae, Telemidae, etc.) have been added. Since the very beginning, Haplogynae had been a polyphyletic taxon due to the inclusion of Hadrotarsidae. Since Haplogynae is a non-typified name having no desig- nated type family, it is impossible to properly discuss its li­ mits and relationships. For instance, Lehtinen (1967) placed Filistatidae in the Haplogynae, although this taxon was origi- nally placed in Mygalomorphae, then moved to Cribellatae, and later placed among the “classical Haplogynae (including the cribellate family Filistatidae)” (Platnick et al. 1991: p. 1). Now it is impossible to meaningfully discuss what the true Haplogynae is, or which of the families it currently contains should be excluded, because this taxon is not associated with any designated type family name. A similar situation exists with Dionycha Petrunkevitch, 1928, the taxon uniting spider families having two tarsal claws. Recently, M.J. Ramírez, in his presentation on the 20th Congress of Arachnology (cf. Ramírez et al. 2016), argued that Sparassidae should not be a member of the Dionycha, although all sparassids have two claws and the family was in- cluded in this group by Petrunkevitch, the original author of this taxon. Yet, as the Dionycha has no designated type family, it is impossible to prove or refute the statement by Ramírez and his co-authors. At the first glance, Mesothelae Pocock, 1892 (= Liphis- tiomorphae) looks like a well-defined taxon consisting of the single family Liphistiidae, which would be true if only extant spider families were considered. Yet, there are at least six fos- sil families in the group: Arthrolycosidae Frič, 1904, Arthro- mygalidae Petrunkevitch, 1923, Pyritaraneidae Petrunkevitch, 1953, Burmathelidae Wunderlich, 2017, Cretaceothelidae Wunderlich, 2017 and Parvithelidae Wunderlich, 2017. Al- though the Mesothelae is a non-typified name, it is clear what family was used as its “type” (by original monotypy).The same holds true with Palaeocribellatae Caporiacco, 1938, the group that was originally proposed for Hypochilidae Marx, 1888 only, and therefore Hypochilidae could be considered in some respects the type family of Palaeocribellatae. There is another major problem associated with non-typi- fied names: they are largely based on morphological characters and hence their names are often homonymous (= equivalent) with morphological terms. For example, the term ‘haplogy- nes’ can be either used for a taxon, or for spiders without an epigyne; the ‘dionychans’ can refer to either a taxon, or to the morphological trait seen in Sparassidae, which according to M.J. Ramírez do not belong to the Dionycha. Often it is not clear whether an author wrote about a taxonomic or morpho- logical group. For instance, the fundamental work by Platnick et al. (1991) is entitled as follows: “Spinneret morphology and the phylogeny of haplogyne spiders”. However, in the abstract (Ibid.: p. 1), the authors wrote: “Scanning electron microscopy is used to survey the spinneret morphology of representatives of 47 genera of araneomorph spiders with haplogyne female genitalia. ... but including those palpimanoid and orbicularian taxa with haplogyne females”. Both, the taxonomic name and the morphological term, are mixed up in the abstract. Based on this quote, there are no differences between ‘haplogyne female genitalia’ and ‘haplogyne females’, although the au- thors dealt both with the Haplogynae genera and with those of the Entelegynae having a haplogyne (the morphological term without a strict definition) type of copulatory organs. The same authors used the terms ‘haplogyne spinneret mor- phology’, although the female copulatory organs have no spinnerets. Some authors write about ‘secondary haplogynes’ spiders or ‘haplogyne palp’ meaning the male palp, although the prefix ‘gyne’ refers either to a female or to a female repro- ductive organ. Some spider families outside of the Dionycha (sensu Ramirez et al. 2016) have two claws. The family Pholcidae