ArticleBMC zoology2022
Solving a running crab spider puzzle: delimiting Cleocnemis Simon, 1886 with implications on the phylogeny and terminology of genital structures of Philodromidae.
Article in BMC zoology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong the 16 Neotropical genera of Philodromidae, Cleocnemis has the most troublesome taxonomic situation. Remarkable morphological differences among several genera historically said to be related to Cleocnemis denote controversial notions and general uncertainty about the genus identity. Thus, to clarify the genus limits and contribute to the understanding of Neotropical Philodromidae, we conducted a morphological analysis, along with Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood molecular phylogenetic analyses focusing on Cleocnemis and related genera of Thanatinae. All of the 14 species previously placed in Cleocnemis were studied, and eight of them included in the molecular analyses based on fragments of 28S rDNA, histone H3, 16S rDNA, and cytochrome oxidase I (COI).
resultsCleocnemis was recovered as polyphyletic. Most of its species are distributed into six lineages allocated into five morphologically recognizable groups: Group I [Cleocnemis heteropoda], representing Cleocnemis sensu stricto and two new junior synonyms, Berlandiella and Metacleocnemis; Group II [Tibelloides bryantae comb. nov., Tibelloides punctulatus comb. nov., Tibelloides reimoseri nom. nov., and Tibelloides taquarae comb. nov.], representing Tibelloides gen. rev., which was not recovered as monophyletic; Group III [Fageia moschata comb. nov., Fageia rosea comb. nov.], representing the genus Fageia; Group IV ["Cleocnemis" lanceolata]; and Group V ["Cleocnemis" mutilata, "Cleocnemis" serrana, and "Cleocnemis" xenotypa]. Species of the latter two groups are considered incertae sedis. Cleocnemis spinosa is maintained in Cleocnemis, but considered a nomen dubium. Cleocnemis nigra is considered both nomen dubium and incertae sedis. We provide a redelimitation of Cleocnemis, redescription, neotype designation, and synonymy of type-species C. heteropoda. Taxonomic notes on composition, diagnosis, and distribution for each cited genus are also provided. Phylogenetic results support the division of Philodromidae into Thanatinae new stat. and Philodrominae new stat. and suggest expansion of their current compositions. Terminology of genital structures of Philodromidae is discussed.
conclusionsOur results bring light to Cleocnemis taxonomy and enhance the understanding of the relationships within Philodromidae, especially through the assessment of neglected Neotropical taxa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.