4.5 Article

Phylogenetic position and composition of Zygiellinae and Caerostris, with new insight into orb-web evolution and gigantism

Journal

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 175, Issue 2, Pages 225-243

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12281

Keywords

bark spider; Caerostris; sector web; web building; web gigantism; Zygiellidae; Zygiellinae

Categories

Funding

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [P1-0236, J1-2063]
  2. United States National Science Foundation [IOS-0745379]
  3. National Geographic Society [8655-09]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Orb-weaving spiders are good objects for evolutionary research, but phylogenetic relationships among and within orb-weaving lineages are poorly understood. Here we present the first species-level molecular phylogeny that includes the enigmatic orb weavers 'Zygiellidae' and Caerostris. Zygiellidae is interesting for the evolution of the sector web, and Caerostris is noteworthy for web gigantism and extraordinary silk biomechanics. We assembled a molecular data set using mitochondrial (COI, 16S) and nuclear (H3, 18S, 28S, ITS2) gene fragments for 112 orbicularian exemplars, focusing on taxa with diverse web architecture and size. We show that 'Zygiellidae' contains the Holarctic Zygiella genus group (Leviellus, Parazygiella, Stroemiellus, and Zygiella) and the Australasian Phonognatha and Deliochus. As this clade is placed with Araneidae in all analyses we treat it as a subfamily, Zygiellinae. Using the new phylogeny, we show that the sector web evolved eight times, and coevolved with the silk tube retreat, but that these features are not zygielline synapomorphies. Zygiellinae, Caerostris, and some other araneids form a basal grade of araneids that differ from 'classical' araneids in web-building and preying behaviour. We also confirm that Caerostris represents the most striking case of spider-web gigantism. (C) 2015 The Linnean Society of London.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available