Abstract
The monotypic genus Cheliceroides Żabka, 1985 is revalidated based on both molecular sequence data (ultra-conserved elements and protein coding genes of mitochondrial genomes) and morphological evidence. Our molecular phylogenetic analyses show that Cheliceroides is not closely related to Colopsus Simon, 1902, not even in the same tribe, and a comparative morphological study also demonstrates significant differences in the genital structures (i.e. in the shape of embolus, and with or without pocket on epigynum) of the two genera. Therefore, we remove Cheliceroides from the synonymy of Colopsus, and its generic status is revalidated.
Key words: Colopsus , mitogenome, morphology, phylogeny, ultra-conserved element
Introduction
The jumping spider genus Cheliceroides Żabka, 1985 originally contained only the type species, Cheliceroideslongipalpis Żabka, 1985, which has been commonly collected from Vietnam and southern China (World Spider Catalog 2024). A second species, Cheliceroidesbrevipalpis Roy, Saha & Raychaudhuri, 2016, was later reported from India (Roy et al. 2016), but it has been transferred to the genus Bathippus Thorell, 1892 (tribe Euophryini Simon, 1901; see Logunov 2021). Based on the results of a molecular phylogenetic study using Sanger-sequenced data (Maddison et al. 2014), Maddison (2015) included Cheliceroides in the tribe Hasariini Simon, 1903 in the phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders. Later, Logunov (2021) synonymized Cheliceroides with Colopsus Simon, 1902 based on similarities of morphological characters, such as the modified and elongate male chelicerae and male palpal characteristics, and transferred its type species to Colopsus, as Colopsuslongipalpis (Żabka, 1985). Colopsus has been placed in the tribe Plexippini Simon, 1901 based on other molecular phylogenetic results (Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2021). However, in a recent comparative mitogenomic study of jumping spiders, Colopsuslongipalpis was not clustered with the other members of the tribe Plexippini on the phylogeny (Zhang et al. 2023a), which challenged Logunov’s taxonomic treatment of Cheliceroides.
Here we thoroughly investigate the phylogenetic placement of Cheliceroides in relation to Colopsus and other putatively related genera using both ultra-conserved element (UCE) and mitochondrial genome datasets. Comparative morphological study on the type species of both Cheliceroides and Colopsus is carried out to further clarify the taxonomic status of Cheliceroides. The implication of phylogenomic results on the classification of salticids is also discussed.
Materials and methods
All specimens are preserved in 85–100% ethanol and stored at −20 °C. The photographs of genitalia were taken under a Leica M205A stereomicroscope. Photographs of palp, epigyne, and spiders were stacked using Helicon Focus v. 7 and retouched in the Adobe Photoshop CC 2022. Specimens were measured by the measuring tool of Leica LAS v. 4.3. Female vulvae were cleared with Pancreatin (BBI Life Sciences) or macerated in clove oil. All specimens studied are deposited in the Museum of Hebei University, Baoding, China (MHBU). Abbreviations used in the study: CD, copulatory duct; CO, copulatory opening; E, embolus; FD, fertilization duct; P, pocket; S, spermatheca; SD, sperm duct; RTA, retrolateral tibial apophysis.
Molecular data were obtained for ultra-conserved elements (UCEs) and mitogenomes to compose the UCE and mitogenomic datasets, each with 46 species (see Table 1 for detailed information). Genomic DNA extraction was performed using the QIAGEN dNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit, and the RNA was removed with 4 μL of rNase A (Solarbio) followed by a 2-minute incubation at room temperature. The library preparation was conducted using the NEXTFLEX Rapid DNA-Seq Kit 2.0 and the NEXTFLEX Unique Dual Index Barcodes (Set C) (Bioo Scientific) following the protocols by Zhang et al. (2023b). UCE enrichment followed the myBaits protocol 5.01 (Daicel Arbor Biosciences) using a modified version of the RTA probes, the “RTA_v3” probe set (42,213 probes targeting 3818 UCE loci) that was proposed by Zhang et al. (2023b). The enriched UCE libraries were then sent to Novogene Co. Ltd for sequencing using the Illumina NovaSeq platform with 150-bp paired-end reads. The UCE loci were extracted from the empirically enriched and sequenced raw reads following the protocols applied in Zhang et al. (2023b) with the PHYLUCE (Faircloth 2016) workflow. For ten species with whole genome sequencing data, the genomes were first assembled using the Phylogenomics from Low-coverage Whole-genome Sequencing (PLWS) pipeline (Zhang et al. 2019), and then the UCEs were harvested using the “RTA_v3” probes and the PHYLUCE workflow (see Zhang et al. 2023b for details).
Table 1.
Information of the representative taxa used in the phylogenetic analyses. Accession numbers with an asterisk (*) indicate newly obtained sequences in this study.
| Subfamily | Tribe | DNA Voucher Code | Species | UCE SRA accession number | Mitogenomes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of PCGs | GenBank accession number | SRA accession number | |||||
| Salticinae | Aelurillini | JXZ714 | Langona sp. | *SRR27541575 | 13 | *OR965550 | *SRR27726447 |
| Salticinae | Aelurillini | JXZ730 | Phlegraaff.amitaii | *SRR27541574 | 13 | *OR965551 | *SRR27726446 |
| Salticinae | Agoriini | JXZ424 | Synagelidesagoriformis | SRR22908234 | 13 | *OR965543 | *SRR27726435 |
| Salticinae | Baviini | JXZ585 | Baviacapistrata | *SRR27541623 | 12 | *OR965559 | *SRR27726427 |
| Salticinae | Baviini | JXZ695 | Maripanthusmenghaiensis | *SRR27541622 | 13 | *OR965549 | *SRR27726426 |
| Salticinae | Chrysillini | JXZ741 | Chrysillaacerosa | *SRR27541611 | 13 | *OR965534 | *SRR27726425 |
| Salticinae | Chrysillini | JXZ574 | Epocilla sp. | *SRR27541600 | 13 | *OR965531 | *SRR27726424 |
| Salticinae | Chrysillini | JXZ745 | Menemerusbivittatus | *SRR27541596 | 12 | *OR965557 | *SRR27541596 |
| Salticinae | Chrysillini | JXZ740 | Phintellacavaleriei | *SRR27541595 | |||
| Salticinae | Chrysillini | Phintellacavaleriei | 13 | NC060328 | |||
| Salticinae | Chrysillini | JXZ738 | Silersemiglaucus | *SRR27541594 | 13 | *OR965552 | *SRR27726423 |
| Salticinae | Dendryphantini | JXZ425 | Marpissamilleri | SRR22908225 | 13 | *OR965544 | *SRR27726422 |
| Salticinae | Dendryphantini | JXZ419 | Mendozanobilis | SRR22908224 | 13 | *OR965541 | *SRR27726421 |
| Salticinae | Dendryphantini | JXZ582 | Rhene sp. | *SRR27541593 | 13 | *OR965545 | *SRR27541593 |
| Salticinae | Euophryini | JXZ358 | Agobarduscordiformis | *SRR27541592 | 13 | *OR965558 | *SRR27541592 |
| Salticinae | Euophryini | JXZ051 | Cobanusextensus | *SRR27541591 | 13 | *OR965529 | *SRR27726445 |
| Salticinae | Euophryini | JXZ418 | Corythaliaopima | SRR22908229 | 13 | OQ281589 | |
| Salticinae | Euophryini | JXZ417 | Parabathippusshelfordi | SRR22908237 | 13 | OQ429315 | |
| Salticinae | Hasariini | JXZ743 | Bristowiaheterospinosa | *SRR27541621 | |||
| Salticinae | Hasariini | Bristowiaheterospinosa | 13 | *PP083709 | DRR297628 | ||
| Salticinae | Hasariini | JXZ584 | Cheliceroideslongipalpis | *SRR27541620 | 13 | *OR965546 | *SRR27726444 |
| Salticinae | Hasariini | Chinattusogatai | 13 | *PP083710 | DRR297852 | ||
| Salticinae | Hasariini | JXZ935 | Chinattustibialis | *SRR27541619 | |||
| Salticinae | Hasariini | JXZ587 | Gedeapinguis | *SRR27541618 | 13 | *OR965547 | *SRR27726443 |
| Salticinae | Hasariini | JXZ693 | Hasarina sp. | *SRR27541617 | 13 | *OR965548 | *SRR27726442 |
| Salticinae | Hasariini | JXZ823 | Hasarina sp. | *SRR27541616 | 10 | *OR987883 | *SRR27541616 |
| Salticinae | Leptorchestini | JXZ940 | Yllenus aff. Arenarius | *SRR27541615 | 13 | *OR965556 | *SRR27541615 |
| Salticinae | Myrmarachnini | JXZ414 | Myrmarachneformicaria | SRR22908238 | 13 | *OR965539 | *SRR27726441 |
| Salticinae | Myrmarachnini | JXZ775 | Myrmarachnegisti | *SRR27541614 | 13 | *OR965555 | *SRR27726440 |
| Salticinae | Nannenini | JXZ578 | Langerracf.oculina | *SRR27541613 | 13 | *OR965560 | *SRR27541613 |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ774 | Bianormaculatus | *SRR27541612 | |||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | NZ19_9864 | Bianormaculatus | 13 | *OR965536 | SRR27728369 | |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ568 | Burmattuspococki | *SRR27541610 | |||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | Burmattuspococki | 13 | *PP083711 | DRR297354 | ||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ795 | cf. Colopsus sp. | *SRR27541609 | 7 | *OR987884 | *SRR27541609 |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ412 | Evarchaalbaria | SRR22908228 | 13 | *OR965538 | *SRR27726439 |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ807 | Harmochirusbrachiatus | *SRR27541608 | |||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | Harmochirusinsulanus | 13 | *PP083708 | DRR297138 | ||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ766 | Pancoriuscrassipes | *SRR27541607 | |||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | Pancoriuscrassipes | 11 | *PP060008 | DRR297706 | ||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | Plexippoidesdoenitzi | 13 | *PP083712 | DRR297761 | ||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ423 | Plexippoidesregius | SRR22908236 | |||
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ436 | Plexippussetipes | *SRR27541606 | 13 | *OR965530 | *SRR27726438 |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ742 | Ptocasiusstrupifer | *SRR27541605 | 13 | *OR965553 | *SRR27726437 |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ748 | Sibianorpullus | *SRR27541604 | 13 | *OR965554 | *SRR27726436 |
| Salticinae | Plexippini | JXZ734 | Yaginumaellacf.medvedevi | *SRR27541603 | 13 | *OR965533 | *SRR27726434 |
| Salticinae | Salticini | JXZ811 | Carrhotussannio | *SRR27541602 | |||
| Salticinae | Salticini | Carrhotusxanthogramma | 13 | NC027492 | |||
| Salticinae | Salticini | JXZ950 | Salticuslatidentatus | *SRR27541601 | |||
| Salticinae | Salticini | YHD043 | Salticuspotanini | 13 | *OR965537 | *SRR27726433 | |
| Salticinae | Sitticini | JXZ416 | Attulusfasciger | SRR22908231 | 13 | *OR965540 | *SRR27726432 |
| Salticinae | Sitticini | JXZ421 | Attulussinensis | SRR22908230 | 13 | *OR965542 | *SRR27726431 |
| Salticinae | Viciriini | JXZ762 | Iruracf.mandarina | *SRR27541599 | 13 | *OR965535 | *SRR27726430 |
| Salticinae | Viciriini | JXZ576 | Nungiaepigynalis | *SRR27541598 | 13 | *OR965532 | *SRR27726429 |
| Spartaeinae | Spartaeini | JXZ415 | Portiaheteroidea | 13 | *OR655300 | *SRR27726428 | |
| Spartaeinae | Spartaeini | JXZ573 | Portiawui | *SRR27541597 | |||
| Spartaeinae | Spartaeini | Spartaeusbani | 11 | *PP083707 | DRR297090 | ||
| Spartaeinae | Spartaeini | JXZ588 | Spartaeusjaegeri | SRR22796423 | |||
The UCEs extracted from genomes and target enrichment data were combined and organized by locus, and then aligned using Mafft v. 7.313 (Katoh and Standley 2013) with the L-INS-I strategy. Poorly aligned regions were initially trimmed by the heuristic method “-automated1” in Trimal v. 1.4.1 (Capella-Gutiérrez et al. 2009). We then applied Spruceup v. 2020.2.19 (Borowiec 2019) to convert the remaining obviously misaligned fragments to gaps in each alignment (cutoff as 0.75). The gappy regions in each alignment were later masked using Seqtools (PASTA; Mirarab et al. 2014) with “masksites = 23”. Loci with trimmed alignment length less than 200 bp or less than 50% of taxon occupancy were removed, which resulted in 2593 loci in the final dataset for phylogenetic inference. All remaining UCE loci were concatenated by FASconCAT v. 1.0 (Kück and Meusemann 2010). The maximum-likelihood (ML) analyses were conducted in IQ-TREE v. 2.0.6 (Minh et al. 2020) with the best-fitting model and optimized partition scheme inferred using the option “-m MF+MERGE”. Ten independent ML tree searches (five with random starting trees and five with parsimonious starting trees) were run with the optimized model and partition scheme, and 5,000 replicates of ultrafast bootstrap analysis was conducted to assess the node supports.
Mitochondrial genomes were assembled and annotated using MitoZ v. 3.4 (Meng et al. 2019) and MITOchondrial genome annotation Server (MITOS; Bernt et al. 2013) from the raw reads of UCEs, WGS (whole genome sequencing), or transcriptomes following the protocols described by Ding et al. (2023) and Zhang et al. (2023b). In addition, two mitochondrial genomes were downloaded from the GenBank. Thirteen mitochondrial protein-coding genes (PCGs) were extracted for phylogenetic analysis. Each of the 13 PCGs was aligned using Mafft v. 7.505 (Katoh and Standley 2013) with the L-INS-i strategy, and then the gaps and misaligned sites were trimmed in Trimal v. 1.2rev57 (Capella-Gutiérrez et al. 2009) with the “automated1” mode. The trimmed alignments were concatenated in PhyloSuite v. 1.2.3 (Zhang et al. 2020), and PartitionFinder2 was used to select the best partition and model. ML analyses were performed in IQ-TREE v. 2.2.0 (Minh et al. 2020) using the optimized model and partition scheme, and an ultrafast bootstrap analysis with 1,000 replicates was conducted to assess the node support.
Results
Molecular phylogeny
The newly sequenced raw reads and assembled mitogenomes were submitted to the GenBank with accession numbers provided in Table 1. The phylogenies resulted from the UCE and 13-mitochondrial-PCG datasets are presented in Figs 1, 2. Both results show that Cheliceroideslongipalpis (JXZ584) is distantly related to Plexippini, including a potential species of Colopsus (JXZ795). In the UCE phylogeny, Cheliceroideslongipalpis is recovered as sister to the clade with Hasariini (excluding Bristowia Reimoser, 1934), Agoriini, and Chrysillini (Fig. 1), whereas in the mitogenomic phylogeny it is clustered as sister to other Hasariini (excluding Bristowia; Fig. 2). Therefore, the molecular phylogenetic results support removing Cheliceroides from the synonymy of Colopsus. Other implications of the molecular phylogenetic results are addressed in the discussion.
Figures 1, 2.
Phylogenetic results 1 maximum-likelihood tree from the UCE dataset 2 maximum-likelihood tree from the 13-mitochondrial-PCG dataset; numbers along the branches indicate bootstrap support.
Taxonomy
. Cheliceroides
Żabka, 1985 stat. rev.
C78D38CA-4147-5880-8E6E-E0C03E4F93EE
Cheliceroides Żabka, 1985: 209.
Type species.
Cheliceroideslongipalpis Żabka, 1985, by monotypy.
. Cheliceroides longipalpis
Żabka, 1985
B5D6AE52-CB7C-59A5-B282-BDE357540F94
Figures 3–15.
Cheliceroideslongipalpis Żabka, 1985 3–6 living photos of male (3–4) and female (5–6) 7–8 male habitus, dorsal (7) and ventral (8) view 9–11 left male palp, prolateral (9), ventral (10) and retrolateral (11) view 12–13 female habitus, dorsal (12) and ventral (13) view 14–15 epigynum, ventral (14) and dorsal (15) view.
Figures 16–21.
Comparison of genital structures of Cheliceroideslongipalpis Żabka, 1985 (16–18) and the type species of Colopsus, Colopsuscancellatus Simon, 1902 (19–21, modified from Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2021) 16, 19 left palp, ventral view 17, 20 epigynum, ventral view 18, 21 epigynum, dorsal view.
Cheliceroides longipalpis Żabka, 1985: 210, figs 76–80; Peng and Xie 1993: 81, figs 5–10; Peng 2020: 62, fig. 25a–h.
Colopsus longipalpis : Logunov 2021: 1024, figs 2–16 (transferred from Cheliceroides).
Diagnosis.
Cheliceroideslongipalpis differs from members of Hasariini by the presence of iridescent scales on the body (Figs 4, 6, 7, 12), the elongate male chelicera, the male palp with long and whip-like embolus originating at 2 o’clock (left palp) and coiling around the rounded tegulum (Figs 9–11, 16), and the female epigynum with anterior window-like structure and relatively long and coiled copulatory ducts (Figs 14, 15, 17, 18). It is similar to Colopsus species in having modified and elongate male chelicera and a relatively long male palpal tibia (equal to or longer than the cymbium) (Żabka 1985: 210; Logunov 2021: 1023–1024; Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2021: 54; Fig. 3), but it can be distinguished by the S-shaped trajectory of the sperm duct on the tegulum of the male palp (vs C-shaped in Colopsus; compare Figs 16, 19), the longer embolus coiling in a circle around the tegulum (vs shorter and coiling in half a circle at most in Colopsus; compare Figs 16, 19), the absence of epigynal coupling pocket on epigynum (vs with two pockets in Colopsus; compare Figs 17, 20), and the long, coiled copulatory ducts (vs short and not obviously coiled in Colopsus; compare Figs 18, 21).
Description.
See the detailed descriptions by Żabka (1985: 210) and Logunov (2021: 1024–1026).
Material examined.
China • 4 ♂, 2 ♀; MHBU-ARA-00025627, MHBU-ARA-00025633; Guizhou, Shiqian County; 27.3342°N, 108.1519°E; 650 m elev.; 8 May 2023; Zhang et al. leg., HBUARA#2023-67.
Distribution.
China, Vietnam.
Natural history.
Arboreal, living on low vegetation.
Discussion
Logunov (2021) synonymized Cheliceroides with Colopsus due to their similarities in body coloration, male chelicerae, and palp features (see Diagnosis above). The type species of Colopsus, C.cancellatus Simon, 1902, as well as two other Colopsus species (C.ferruginus Kanesharatnam & Benjamin, 2021 and C.magnus Kanesharatnam & Benjamin, 2021), were included in the molecular phylogenetic analyses using four gene regions (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, and histone H3), and the results strongly supported the monophyly of Colopsus and its placement within the tribe Plexippini (Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2021). The genitalia structures of Colopsus show clear similarities to those of Evarcha Simon, 1902 and Pancorius Simon, 1902, both typical plexippine genera, which also supports the placement of Colopsus within Plexippini (Kanesharatnam and Benjamin 2021). However, the molecular phylogenetic analyses on both UCE and mitogenomic datasets show that Cheliceroides is not a member of Plexippini, and is therefore not closely related to Colopsus (Figs 1, 2). Comparison of the genital features of Cheliceroideslongipalpis (type species of Cheliceroides) and Colopsuscancellatus Simon, 1902 (type species of Colopsus) reveals significant differences in the trajectory of sperm duct and the shape of embolus of the palp in males, and the pockets and copulatory ducts of the epigynum in females (see Diagnosis above; Figs 16–21). Therefore, both molecular phylogeny and comparative morphology support removing Cheliceroides from the synonymy of Colopsus. The similarities of these genera represent an example of parallel evolution of morphological traits in separate lineages likely due to the adaptation to a similar microhabitat, which is commonly known in jumping spiders.
Cheliceroides was considered to be a member of Hasariini in the phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders (Maddison 2015), which was supported by the mitogenomic phylogeny but with poor support (bootstrap = 77%; Fig. 2). The UCE phylogeny recovered Cheliceroides as sister to the clade containing Hasariini (excluding Bristowia), Agoriini, and Chrysillini with strong support (bootstrap = 100%; Fig. 1). This indicates the placement of Cheliceroides within Hasariini is questionable. Another interesting finding from our study is the phylogenetic placement of Bristowia, which was also earlier included in the tribe Hasariini (Maddison 2015). We included the type species, Bristowiaheterospinosa Reimoser, 1934 (JXZ743 and DRR297628), in our phylogenetic analyses, and the results show that it is not closely related to other Hasariini. The UCE phylogeny suggests it is sister to the clade containing Euophryini, Leptorchestini, Aelurillini, Salticini, and Plexippini (bootstrap = 100%; Fig. 1), and the mitogenomic phylogeny recovered it as sister to the clade composed of Agoriini and Chrysillini, but with low support (bootstrap = 44%; Fig. 2). Further phylogenetic study with an extended taxon sampling of major lineages of jumping spiders is needed to further clarify their phylogenetic placement.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We thank Weihang Wang for providing living spider photographs of Cheliceroideslongipalpis, Dr Wayne P. Maddison for helpful discussion on this topic and sharing UCE raw reads for mitogenome assembly, the reviewers (Dr Cheng Wang, Dr Kiran Marathe, Dr Wayne P. Maddison, Dr Tamás Szűts, and one anonymous reviewer), and editor (Dr Ingi Agnarsson) for valuable comments to improve the manuscript, and the Hebei Basic Science Center for Biotic Interaction for support.
Citation
Lin L, Yang Z, Zhang J (2024) Revalidation of the jumping spider genus Cheliceroides Żabka, 1985 based on molecular and morphological data (Araneae, Salticidae). ZooKeys 1196: 243–253. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1196.117921
Additional information
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Ethical statement
No ethical statement was reported.
Funding
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China to Junxia Zhang (grant no. 32070422), and the Post-graduate’s Innovation Fund Project of Hebei University to Long Lin (grant no. HBU2024SS017).
Author contributions
Conceptualization: JZ. Formal analysis: LL, JZ. Resources: ZY. Supervision: JZ. Visualization: ZY. Writing – original draft: LL. Writing – review and editing: JZ.
Author ORCIDs
Long Lin https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0108-4463
Zhiyong Yang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7610-6843
Junxia Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2179-3954
Data availability
The sequenced raw reads and annotated mitogenomes were submitted to the GenBank with accession numbers provided in Table 1. The alignments of UCE loci and mitochondrial protein-coding genes, the final concatenated UCE and 13-mitochondrial-PCG datasets, and the resulted phylogenetic trees are deposited in the Dryad Data Repository at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.x3ffbg7sp.
References
- Bernt M, Donath A, Jühling F, Externbrink F, Florentz C, Fritzsch G, Pütz J, Middendorf M, Peter F. (2013) MITOS: Improved de novo metazoan mitochondrial genome annotation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 69(2): 313–319. 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Borowiec ML. (2019) Spruceup: Fast and flexible identification, visualization, and removal of outliers from large multiple sequence alignments. Journal of Open Source Software 4(42): 1635. 10.21105/joss.01635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Capella-Gutiérrez S, Silla-Martínez JM, Gabaldón T. (2009) trimAl: A tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25(15): 1972–1973. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ding Y, Zhang F, Zhang J. (2023) Applicability and advantage of mitochondrial metagenomics and metabarcoding in spider biodiversity survey. Diversity 15(6): 711. 10.3390/d15060711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Faircloth BC. (2016) PHYLUCE is a software package for the analysis of conserved genomic loci. Bioinformatics 32(5): 786–788. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kanesharatnam N, Benjamin SP. (2021) Phylogenetic relationships and systematics of the jumping spider genus Colopsus with the description of eight new species from Sri Lanka (Araneae: Salticidae). Journal of Natural History 54(43–44): 2763–2814. 10.1080/00222933.2020.1869335 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Katoh K, Standley DM. (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(4): 772–780. 10.1093/molbev/mst010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kück P, Meusemann K. (2010) FASconCAT: Convenient handling of data matrices. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56(3): 1115–1118. 10.1016/j.ympev.2010.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Logunov DV. (2021) Jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) of the Na Hang Nature Reserve, Tuyen Quang Province, Vietnam. Arachnology 18(9): 1021–1055. 10.13156/arac.2021.18.9.1021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Maddison WP. (2015) A phylogenetic classification of jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae). The Journal of Arachnology 43(3): 231–292. 10.1636/arac-43-03-231-292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Maddison WP, Li D, Bodner M, Zhang J, Xu X, Liu Q, Liu F. (2014) The deep phylogeny of jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae). ZooKeys 440: 57–87. 10.3897/zookeys.440.7891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Meng G, Li Y, Yang C, Liu S. (2019) MitoZ: A toolkit for animal mitochondrial genome assembly, annotation and visualization. Nucleic Acids Research 47(11): e63–e63. 10.1093/nar/gkz173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, Von Haeseler A, Lanfear R. (2020) IQ-TREE 2: New models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37(5): 1530–1534. 10.1093/molbev/msaa015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mirarab S, Nguyen N, Warnow T. (2014) PASTA: ultra-large multiple sequence alignment. In: Sharan R. (Ed.) Research in Computational Molecular Biology.RECOMB 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 177–191. 10.1007/978-3-319-05269-4_15 [DOI]
- Peng XJ. (2020) Fauna Sinica, Invertebrata 53, Arachnida: Araneae: Salticidae. Science Press, Beijing, 612 pp. [Google Scholar]
- Peng XJ, Xie LP. (1993) A new species of the genus Pellenese and a description of the female spider of Cheliceroideslongipalpis Żabka, 1985 from China (Araneae: Salticidae). Acta Arachnologica Sinica 2: 80–83. [Google Scholar]
- Roy TK, Saha S, Raychaudhuri D. (2016) A treatise on the jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) of tea ecosystem of Dooars, West Bengal, India. World Scientific News 53(1): 1–66. [Google Scholar]
- World Spider Catalog (2024) World Spider Catalog. Version 25.0. Natural History Museum Bern. 10.24436/2 [Accessed on 21 February 2024] [DOI]
- Żabka M. (1985) Systematic and zoogeographic study on the family Salticidae (Araneae) from Viet-Nam. Annales Zoologici 39(11): 197–485. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang F, Ding Y, Zhu CD, Zhou X, Orr MC, Scheu S, Luan YX. (2019) Phylogenomics from low-coverage whole-genome sequencing. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10(4): 507–517. 10.1111/2041-210X.13145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang D, Gao F, Jakovlić I, Zou H, Zhang J, Li WX, Wang GT. (2020) PhyloSuite: An integrated and scalable desktop platform for streamlined molecular sequence data management and evolutionary phylogenetics studies. Molecular Ecology Resources 20(1): 348–355. 10.1111/1755-0998.13096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang J, Li Z, Lai J, Zhang Z, Zhang F. (2023b) A novel probe set for the phylogenomics and evolution of RTA spiders. Cladistics 39(2): 116–128. 10.1111/cla.12523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang W, Lin L, Ding Y, Zhang F, Zhang J. (2023a) Comparative mitogenomics of jumping spiders with first complete mitochondrial genomes of Euophryini (Araneae: Salticidae). Insects 14(6): 517. 10.3390/insects14060517 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The sequenced raw reads and annotated mitogenomes were submitted to the GenBank with accession numbers provided in Table 1. The alignments of UCE loci and mitochondrial protein-coding genes, the final concatenated UCE and 13-mitochondrial-PCG datasets, and the resulted phylogenetic trees are deposited in the Dryad Data Repository at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.x3ffbg7sp.