Arachnologische Mitteilungen 55

Supraspecific names in spider systematics 45 ing of this taxon name can be modified, as it is not regu- lated by the ICZN, and be either Thomisidaeformes or Thomisoidea. Scytodiformes Simon, 1864 is the oldest typified name for Haplogynae Simon, 1893 (and also for Synspermiata) and as such, in my opinion, should be given a priority, de- spite this act not being regulated by the ICZN. The oldest name for Entelegynae should be based on Araneidae, for instance, Araneiformes. Hypochilomorphae Petrunkevitch, 1933 is a senior sy­ nonym of Palaeocribellatae Caporiacco, 1938 (originally monotypic, based on Hypochilidae, this name is often used in current classifications). However, there are two more synonyms: Hypochiloidea Lameere, 1933 and Umbellite- lariae Marx, 1890 (non-typified name, suggested without any explanations). In my opinion, the name of Petrunkev- itch should be further used, because it was given in a family covering all spiders. 2. Although there is no priority rule for taxa higher than a fami­ ly group name, if a non-typified name is a senior “synonym”, in my opinion, the oldest typified name is to be used. For in- stance, in my opinion, the younger name Liphistiomorphae Petrunkevitch, 1923 could be used instead of Mesothelae Pocock, 1892, because the latter name has no clear limits. In the future, an alternative possibility could be feasible: viz., if an author utilizes a non-typified name, a clear reference to a family that is seen by this author as the type would be ex- tremely helpful to avoid ambiguity in interpretation of that non-typified name. For instance, the type family of Mygalo- morphae could be either Theraphosidae, or any other family currently included in it; yet, such ambiguity could have been avoided, if the type family was clearly selected by the author who introduced the name in first place. 3. Although clade names are not scientific/taxonomic, poor- ly technical and hence there is no formal way to regulate them, some clade names are very popular and accepted by the majority of arachnologists, for instance, the RTA-clade. The oldest taxonomic name that, in my opinion, could be a suitable replacement for the name ‘RTA-clade’ is Lyco- siformes Simon, 1864. Although Thomisiformes also be- longs to the RTA-clade, they account only for its part (= Dionycha; see above for more details) and therefore cannot be used as a typified name for the entire RTA-clade. 4. There is another, a rather radical solution on how to ope­ rate with non-typified names, for instance, to apply rules of the circumscriptional nomenclature which has many advantages over the traditional nomenclature. Although to date this nomenclature has not yet been employed in the spider systematics, its effectiveness has been demonstrated for insects and their classification (e.g., Kluge 2000). Fur- ther details about this nomenclature can be found in Kluge (2010, 2017). Acknowledgements I wish to thank Seppo Koponen (Turku, Finland), Mykola Kovblyuk (Simferopol, Ukraine),David Court (Singapore) and Ivan L. F.Magal- haes (Buenos Aires,Argentina) for commenting on the earlier draft and Nikita J.Kluge (St. Petersburg, Russia) for a helpful discussion on some essential matters.Many thanks to two anonymous referees who indicated a number of errors and defects in the typescript,helping eliminate them. Special thanks go to Dmitri V. Logunov (Manchester, UK), the guest editor of this volume, whose comments helped me to improve the text. References Anonymous 1968 [How to work with terminology. Basics and meth- ods]. Nauka, Moscow. 76 pp [in Russian] CIDA [Centre International de Documentation Arachnologique] 1996 Report of the Nomenclature Committee. In: Report on the XIII International Congress of Arachnology, Genève, Suisse. – Arachnologia 13: 4-5 Cameron HD 2005 An etymological dictionary of North American spider genus names. In: Ubick D, Paquin P, Cushing PE & Roth V (eds) Spiders of North America: an identification manual. American Arachnological Society. pp. 274-330 ICZN [International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature] 2009 Opinion 2224 (Case 3371).Araneidae Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. – Bulletin of zoological Nomenclature 66: 192-193 – doi: 10.21805/bzn.v66i2.a9 ICZN 2012 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth edition (1999). The International Trust for Zoological Nomen- clature, London, UK. 306 pp. [Incorporating Declaration 44, amendments of Article 74.7.3,with effect from 31 December 1999 and the Amendment on e-publication, amendments to Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78, with effect from 1 January 2012]. – Internet: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code ( January 30, 2018) Kluge NJ 2000 [Modern insect systematics.Principle of the systematic of live organisms and a general system of insects, with the clas- sification of Apterygota and Palaeoptera]. St. Petersburg, Lan’. 332 pp [in Russian] Kluge NJ 2007 Case 3371. Araneidae Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille,1804 (Arachnida,Araneae): proposed conservation. ‒ Bulletin of zoological Nomenclature 64: 15-18 Kluge NJ 2010 Circumscriptional names of higher taxa in Hexapoda. ‒ Binomina 1: 15-55 – doi: 10.11646/bionomina.1.1.3 Kluge NJ 2017 Nomina circumscribentia insectorum. – Internet: http://www.insecta.bio.spbu.ru/z/nom ( January 20, 2018). Lehtinen PT 1967 Classification of the cribellate spiders and some allied families, with notes on the evolution of the suborder Ara- neomorpha. ‒ Annales Zoologici Fennici 4: 199-468 Lotte DS 1961 [Basics for constructing scientific and technical termi- nology.Thoughts about theory and methodology].USSRAcademy of Sciences Press, Moscow. 159 pp. [in Russian] Michalik P & Ramírez MJ 2014 Evolutionary morphology of the male reproductive system,spermatozoa and seminal fluid of spiders (Araneae, Arachnida) – current knowledge and future directions. ‒ Arthropod Structure and Development 43: 291-322 – doi: 10.1016/j.asd.2014.05.005 Platnick NI,Coddington JA, Forster RR&Griswold CE 1991 Spin- neret morphology and the phylogeny of haplogyne spiders (Ara- neae,Araneomorphae).‒ AmericanMuseumNovitates 3016: 1-73 Petrunkevitch A 1933 An inquiry into the natural classification of spiders based on a study of their internal anatomy. – Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 31: 299-389 Ramírez MJ, Griswold C & Wheeler W 2016 The phylogeny of dionychan spiders: a combined analysis of sequences and morpho­ logy. ‒ Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports 3 [abstracts of the “20th International Congress of Arachnology”]. p. 157 SavoryT 1972 On the names of the orders of Arachnida.– Systematic Zoology 21: 122-125 – doi: 10.2307/2412265 Wheeler WC, Coddington JA, Crowley LM, Dimitrov D, Goloboff PA,Griswold CE,Hormiga G, Prendini L,Ramírez MJ, Sierwald P,Almeida-Silva L,Alvarez-Padilla F,ArnedoMA,Benavides LR, Benjamin SP, Bond JE, Grismado CJ, Hasan E, Hedin M, Izqui- erdo MA, Labarque FM, Ledford J, Lopardo L, Maddison WP, Miller JA, Piacentini LN, Platnick NI, Polotow D, Silva-Dávila D, Scharff N, Szűts T, Ubick D, Vink CJ, Wood HM & Zhang J 2017The spider tree of life: Phylogeny of Araneae based on target- gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling. ‒ Cladistics 33: 576-616 – doi: 10.1111/cla.12182