Arachnologische Mitteilungen 55

44 Y. M. Marusik is assigned to Synspermiata (Wheeler et al. 2017), although that synspermia was found only in a single genus of the eight studied (Michalik & Ramirez 2014). Lamponidae belonging to Opisthothelae have their spinnerets situated close to the epigastral furrow, close to the middle part of the venter, viz. in the same way as in Mesothelae. Orb webs (cf. Orbicularia) are known in the unrelated Araneoidea and Uloboridae (cf. Wheeler et al. 2017), and this is why these groups have been united in Orbicularia for a long time. Another problem connected with non-typified names is the lack of a hierarchy and a principal impossibility to estab- lish it. For example, it is not clear what taxon has a higher rank, Haplogynae or Synspermiata, because both groups have no distinct or rigorously specified limits. Does Haplogynae include Synspermiata, or vice versa, is Haplogynae a taxon of Synspermiata? Finally, non-typified names cannot be synonymized with other names, unless they are monotypic. Non-taxonomic names These are a kind of technical or conventional names that are not-Latinized and in most cases consist of several words. Non-taxonomic names are common in the contemporary taxonomy, including arachnology, especially in cladistics/ phylogenetic studies (as clade names), although they are not regulated by any rules. These names lack a hierarchy and sometimes carry no meaningful information. A clade name can refer to a species group or to a phylum. Such names can derive from a particular character (e.g., RTA- clade, Lost Trachea clade, Cylindrical Gland Spigot clade, Oval Calamistrum clade, Oblique Median Tapetum clade) or lack any indication as to which spider group it could be re- ferred (e.g., the Pedipalpi or Marronoid clade sensu Wheeler et al. 2017). As with non-typified names, clade names are not fixed with a certain taxon (type). The most common clade name in arachnology is the RTA- clade, uniting spiders having the retrolateral tibial apophysis (RTA) in the male palp with those (e.g., Lycosidae) lacking it. Furthermore, there are subfamilies/genera that are not included in the RTA-clade but possess the RTA: e.g., Diphya Nicolet, 1849 (Tetragnathidae,Dyphyinae); many Erigoninae (Linyphi- idae); Pikelinia Mello-Leitão, 1946, Lihuelistata Ramírez & Grismado, 1996 (Filistatidae). Incidentally, the oldest taxonom- ic name for the RTA-clade seems to be Lycosoformes Simon, 1864, which is based on the family lacking the RTA. The most unusual clade name seems to be the Marronoid clade (spelled either as Marronoid or marronoid, with adding ‘clade’ or ‘group’) “grouping together several spider families lacking striking characters” (Wheeler et al. 2017: p. 23). In fact, this clade was suggested to accommodate spider families which cannot be united by any other character(s). Some arachnologists specify that they deal with a clade by just adding the word ‘clade’, while others manipulate with names without reference to their status. In contrast to scientific names, non-taxonomic names have no authorship and they can (dis)appear without any justification. To describe/introduce a new typified name, an author should provide a detailed justification following the specify ICZN regulations, but it seems that there is no need to specify why a clade has its name and what is its etymology? For instance, here are the clade names introduced and used in the latest spider phylogeny (Wheeler et al. 2017): viz., Divid- ed Cribellum clade, Canoe Tapetum clade, Reduced Piriform clade, Spineless Femur clade, Araneoid Sheet Web Weavers (the word ‘clade’ is not used for this group). Some arachnological clade names introduced in cladistic/ phylogenetic studies have a hybrid status: e.g., Distal Erigo- nines, Higher Araneoids, Higher Lycosoids, Derived Arane- oids. These names contain a taxon name, but have no infor- mation on what could be their type groups, and thus they are non-typified names. Furthermore, these as well as clade names such as RTA-clade, Divided Cribellium clade, Canoe Tapetum clade, Reduced Piriform clade, Spineless Femur clade and many others cannot be treated as taxonomic names because they are not uninominal as required by the ICZN (2012: Article 4.1). Discussion What could be a possible approach for sorting out non-typi- fied names? There is no universal rule, and several suggestions can be considered regarding different cases. 1. In fact, several non-typified names do have senior sy­ nonyms, which are often more advantageous than those currently used. Although the ICZN does not formally re­ gulate names higher than family groups, the conventional principle of priority seems to be applicable in such cases as well. Below, some examples of non-typified names that have senior synonyms are discussed: Araneae, Dionycha, Haplogynae, Entelegynae. Aranei is based on Araneus Clerck, 1757 and Araneidae Clerck, 1757, the two oldest names in zoology (ICZN 2012, Kluge 2007, 2016). Araneae Linnaeus, 1758, is based on the suppressed name Aranea Linnaeus, 1758, of which the type species is Araneus domesticus Clerck, 1757 (= Tege- naria d ., Agelenidae) (see Kluge 2007, ICZN 2009). In ad- dition, the Latin words ‘araneus’ and ‘aranea’ have the same root meaning ‘spider’, but they are of a different gram- matical gender. Originally, in the ancient Latin “araneus meant ‘spider’ and aranea meant ‘spider web’, but the first century B.C. poet Catullus (68.49) already used aranea to mean ‘spider’” (Cameron 2005: p. 279). An additional point in favour of Aranei (not connected with any rules) could be that it is shorter than Araneae and easier to spell and pronounce. Despite the name ‘Araneae’ was convention- ally accepted by a vote on the XIII International Congress of Arachnology (Genève, Switzerland) (see also Savory 1972), this act alone does not suppress the use of ‘Aranei’, which is the correct grammatical form for the order of spi- ders (Aranei is a plural from Araneus ). Yet, in my opinion, the XIII Congress of Arachnology (see CIDA 1996) had no authority to establish special nomenclatural rules and thus ‘Aranei’ is to be treated as a valid taxonomic name. Thomisiformes Simon, 1864 is an older name than Di- onycha Petrunkevitch, 1928, whereas the scope of this ta­ xon is identical to the classical definition of Dionycha (see above).Therefore, in my opinion, the name ‘Thomisiformes’ has an advantage over ‘Dionycha’ and can easily substitu- te for it. For instance, Dionycha makes it difficult or even impossible to discuss the problem of a correct assignment of the Sparassidae, which according to M.J. Ramírez (his presentation on the 20th Congress of Arachnology) do not belong to Dionycha (see above for more details).The end-