Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2019 Oct 1;9:14033. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50510-8

Identification of Indian Spiders through DNA barcoding: Cryptic species and species complex

Kaomud Tyagi 1, Vikas Kumar 1,✉, Shantanu Kundu 1, Avas Pakrashi 1, Priya Prasad 1, John T D Caleb 1, Kailash Chandra 1
PMCID: PMC6773733  PMID: 31575965

Abstract

Spiders are mega diverse arthropods and play an important role in the ecosystem. Identification of this group is challenging due to their cryptic behavior, sexual dimorphism, and unavailability of taxonomic keys for juveniles. To overcome these obstacles, DNA barcoding plays a pivotal role in spider identification throughout the globe. This study is the first large scale attempt on DNA barcoding of spiders from India with 101 morphospecies of 72 genera under 21 families, including five endemic species and holotypes of three species. A total of 489 barcodes was generated and analyzed, among them 85 novel barcodes of 22 morphospecies were contributed to the global database. The estimated delimitation threshold of the Indian spiders was 2.6% to 3.7% K2P corrected pairwise distance. The multiple species delimitation methods (BIN, ABGD, GMYC and PTP) revealed a total of 107 molecular operational taxonomic units (MOTUs) for 101 morphospecies. We detected more than one MOTU in 11 morphospecies with discrepancies in genetic distances and tree topologies. Cryptic diversity was detected in Pardosa pusiola, Cyclosa spirifera, and Heteropoda venatoria. The intraspecies distances which were as large as our proposed delimitation threshold were observed in Pardosa sumatrana, Thiania bhamoensis, and Cheiracanthium triviale. Further, shallow genetic distances were detected in Cyrtophora cicatrosa, Hersilia savignyi, Argiope versicolor, Phintella vittata, and Oxyopes birmanicus. Two morphologically distinguished species (Plexippus paykulli and Plexippus petersi) showed intra-individual variation within their DNA barcode data. Additionally, we reinstate the original combination for Linyphia sikkimensis based on both morphology and DNA barcoding. These data show that DNA barcoding is a valuable tool for specimen identification and species discovery of Indian spiders.

Subject terms: Taxonomy, Entomology

Introduction

Spiders are an ancient group of arthropods with their fossil records dating back to the Devonian period (~400 million years ago)1–3. They are one of the most diverse groups with 48,248 extant species and can be found everywhere except Antarctica4,5. Due to their high abundance and rich diversity, spiders have been studied as model organisms for ecological6, developmental7, evolutionary8,9, and behavioral10 studies. They are natural predators and play an important role in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in agriculture and horticulture ecosystems11,12. Spiders have been used as bio-control agents for various diseases causing mosquitoes13 and act as indicator species for environmental monitoring14. The silk produced by spiders has potential applications in biomedical, and defense avenues15. As compared with the global diversity, approximately 3.72% (1,799 species) are currently known from India4. Taxonomic research on spiders is rapidly progressing with many new species being described every year (on an average ~813 new species have been described each year from 2010 to 2018). However, a recent study predicted that the species richness of spider could be at least 120,000 worldwide3; hence, a large proportion of spider diversity remains yet to be discovered or described.

The morphological identification of this group is time consuming and challenging due to (i) sexual dimorphism (ii) polymorphism, and (iii) lack of identification keys for juveniles16,17. Considering these obstacles, it is important to use additional tools, which, may help in rapid species identification and resolving the taxonomic ambiguities. DNA barcoding has been widely used in the last decade in biodiversity research for accurate species identification18, resolving taxonomic questions19, detection of cryptic species and species complexes20, population estimation21, food adulteration22, wildlife forensics23, and invasive species detection24. The DNA barcode data can also be integrated in the phylogenetic studies25. The utility of DNA barcoding is also evidenced in spider identification from all life stages across the globe26–33. A recent DNA barcoding study of spiders from India included 17 morphologically identified species34. However, the present study is to date the largest barcoding attempt from India, including 101 morphologically identified species. We investigate the efficacy of DNA barcoding in species identification of specimens collected from eight different states of India. This work contributes 85 novel sequences of 22 morphologically identified species and establishes a comprehensive DNA barcode library of spiders from India to enrich the global database for future taxonomic research.

Materials and Methods

Sample collection and taxonomic identification

A total of 489 spider specimens were sampled from various locations across India, including eight states; Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, and West Bengal (Fig. S1). Specimens were collected during 2015–2018 by various collection methods like hand picking, sweep netting, vegetation beating, and pitfall traps. The study does not involve any endangered or protected spider species. Thus, no prior permission was required for the collection. Specimens were preserved in molecular grade, 90% ethanol and stored in −20 °C. All the studied voucher specimens have been deposited in the National Zoological Collections (NZC), Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Kolkata (Fig. S2, Table S1). The enlarged photographs of the genitalia of possible cryptic species and species complexes were also provided in Fig. S3. The morphological examination of all the specimens was done by using a Leica EZ4 HD stereomicroscope. All images were processed with the aid of the LAS core software (LAS EZ 3.0). The specimens were identified through available morphological keys and literatures (Table S2). Further, the genital characters (male pedipalps and the female epigyne) were dissected with the help of sterilized surgical scalpel blades and acquired the photographs by using Leica M205A for further confirmation. Photographs of the voucher specimens, male genitalia (dorsal and ventral view), and female genitalia (external and internal epigyne) used here were taken by the authors (JTDC, PP, AP). The collection locality map was prepared using Natural Earth public domain base maps (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/), with sampling points (yellow-red dots) added manually in Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0. Photographs of the studied specimens are linked with their pruned phylogenetic position by sharing coloured boxes.

DNA extraction, PCR amplification and sequencing

For genomic DNA extraction, one leg of each specimen was removed and processed by using the QIAamp DNA Investigator Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). The genomic DNA was quantified by using a Qubit fluorometer (Life Technologies, USA) and stored at −20 °C in Centre for DNA Taxonomy, ZSI, Kolkata. DNA barcode region of mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (mtCOI) gene was amplified using the primer pairs: LCO1490 and Chelicerate Reverse 1; LCO1490 and Chelicerate Reverse 227,35,36. Total 25 μl reaction volume containing 10 picomoles of each primer, 2.0 mM MgCl2, 0.25 mM of each dNTP, and 1U of Taq polymerase (Takara BIO Inc., Japan) with the following thermal profile: 5 min at 95 °C; followed by 5 cycles of 30 s at 95 °C, 40 s at 47 °C, 1 min at 72 °C and 30 cycles of 30 sec at 95 °C, 40 sec at 51 °C and 1 min at 72 °C and final extension for 7 min at 72 °C. The amplified PCR products were checked in 1% agarose gel and purified by using the QIAquick Gel Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) following the manufacturer’s protocols. For bi-directional sequencing, the cycle sequencing was performed with BigDye®Terminator ver. 3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Inc.) Using 3.2 picomoles of both PCR primer pairs on the ABI Multiplex Thermal Cycler with following thermal profile: 96 °C for 1 min, then followed by 25 cycles of 96 °C for 10 s, 50 °C for 5 s and a final extension at 60 °C for 1 min 15 s. The cycle sequencing products were cleaned by using BigDye X-terminator kit (Applied Biosystems Inc.) and used in-house facilities (48 capillary ABI 3730 Genetic analyzer) for sequencing.

To obtain the consensus sequences, both forward and reverse chromatograms were checked by the SeqScape software version 2.7 (Applied Biosystems Inc.). Further, the sequences were screened through nucleotide BLAST program (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and ORF finder (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/orffinder/) to assure the absence of gaps, indel (insertion/deletions) and stop codons. The generated sequences were submitted to GenBank through Bankit submission tool (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/WebSub/?tool=genbank) and Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) under the project ‘DNA barcoding of Spiders of India’ for acquiring the accession numbers and BOLD-IDs. The mite (Arachnida: Acari) sequence (BOLDMSACA57112_OG_Acari) was used as an out-group in the present dataset31.

Genetic distance, haplotyping, and tree analysis

The dataset was aligned using MAFFT algorithm in the CIPRES web portal (http://www.phylo.org/)37 and the noisy parts were trimmed from both the ends to make a uniform sequence length. MEGAX38 with Kimura-2 parameter (K2P) was used to calculate the pairwise genetic distances within families, genera, and species. The representation of genetic distances of within and between the species was plotted by BoxPlotR (http://shiny.chemgrid.org/boxplotr/). The haplotype data were generated using DnaSP5.1039. Two tree building methods, Neighbor-Joining (NJ), and Bayesian analysis (BA) were applied to examine the tree based species identification with reciprocal monophyly criteria. The NJ tree was generated in MEGAX with Kimura-2 parameter (K2P) model and 1000 bootstrap supports. Partition Finder version 1.1.14440 and jModel test41 were used to choose the best fit model for the dataset. Both computational methods suggested ‘GTR + I + G’ for all three codon positions with the lowest BIC value. The BA tree was constructed in Mr. Bayes 3.1.242 by selecting nst = 6 and four (one cold and three hot) metropolis-coupled Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), was run for 50,000,000 generations with 25% burn in and trees saving at every 100 generations. The MCMC analysis was used to generate the convergence metrics, till the standard deviation (SD) of split frequencies reached under 0.01 and the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) for all parameters approached 1.0. To represent the generated tree topologies, the web based iTOL tool (https://itol.embl.de/)43 was used.

Species delimitation and MOTUs estimation

To estimate the Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs), four species delimitation methods: Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD)44, the General Mixed Yule-coalescent (GMYC)45, Poisson-Tree-Processes (PTP)46, and Barcode Index Number (BIN)47 (http://www.boldsystems.org) were applied. The ABGD analysis was performed on the web server (www.abi.snv.jussieu.fr/public/abgd/) with the Jukes-Cantor (JC69) and p-distance with relative gap width (X = 1.5). For GMYC analysis, the ultrametric tree was generated in BEAST48 by using the Yule model, relaxed lognormal clock, GTR + I + G model and run for 50 million generations, with a sampling frequency of every 100 generations. Further, the Tree Annotator48 was used for analyzing the output tree with following settings; 10% burn-in, 0.5 posterior probability limits, and the node heights of the target tree. Both single and multiple thresholds of GMYC analysis were carried out in RStudio (https://www.r-project.org/) using packages like ‘ape’49 and ‘splits’50. For bPTP analysis (http://species.h-its.org/ptp/), ML tree was constructed in RAxML51 based on the haplotype data with GTR + I + G. The BINs were estimated on BOLD workbenchv3.6 (http://www.boldsystems.org).

Results and Discussion

Morphospecies identification

A total of 489 specimens of 72 genera under 21 families in two suborders (Araneomorphae and Mygalomorphae) was examined in this study. Among them, 468 specimens were represented by 85 morphospecies in 58 genera under 18 families. The remaining 21 specimens were identified only up to genus level representing 14 genera due to the unavailability of morphological keys for juveniles and sub-adults (Fig. S2). Therefore, the present study generated the DNA barcode data of 101 morphospecies for further analysis. This data also include three recently described species (Epocilla sirohi Caleb, Chatterjee, Tyagi, et al.; Mogrus rajasthanensis Caleb, Chatterjee, Tyagi, et al.; Pseudopoda cheppe Caleb)52,53 and two published new records (Psechrus inflatus Bayer and Menemerus nigli Wesołowska & Freudenschuss)54,55 from India.

Delimitation threshold analysis and haplotyping

We generated and analyzed 489 barcode sequences in the current study. Among them, 85 sequences of 22 morphospecies were a new contribution to the global databases (GenBank and BOLD). The genetic distance between the two suborder Araneomorphae and Mygalomorphae was 28.4%. The intergeneric genetic distances were ranged from 8.69% to 28.59%. The interspecific genetic distances were ranged from 2.11% (Plexippus) to 22.30% (Scytodes) with a mean of 9.32%. The intraspecific genetic distances were ranged from 0% to 10.09% with mean 1.04% (Table 1). The intraspecies genetic distance was high due to the possible cryptic diversity in Pardosa pusiola (10.09%), Cyclosa spirifera (7.7%), and Heteropoda venatoria (7.6%). Excluding these species, the maximum intraspecies genetic distance of the dataset drops down to 2.6%. Previously, the DNA delimitation threshold of arachnids was estimated from 2% to 3.6%26,27,31,33,34, however, in the current study, we propose a delimitation threshold between ‘2.6% to 3.7%’ (lowest interspecies > highest intraspecies genetic distance) (Fig. 1). Although several studies discussed the delimitation threshold of the spider fauna across the globe, the recent estimation would be helpful to detect distinct spider species from India. The haplotype analysis revealed a total of 247 unique haplotypes for the dataset (Table S1).

Table 1.

Genetic distance (K2P) of the 101 studied spider species in the present study. The genetic distance marked with star showed incongruence.

Comparisons Min Distance (%) Mean Distance (%) Max Distance (%)
Within Species 3438 0.00 1.04 10.09*
Within Genus 2906 2.11* 9.32 22.30
Within Family 13892 8.69 16.26 28.59
Open in a new tab

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

DNA barcoding gaps (marked by peach color) for Spider, based on the intra- and interspecies K2P genetic distances. Center lines show the medians; whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values. Cryptic species and morphospecies with incongruent genetic distances showed in different colors. Singleton species are excluded from the data analysis. The representation of genetic distances of within and between the species was plotted by BoxPlotR (http://shiny.chemgrid.org/boxplotr/) and edited manually in Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0.

Tree analysis and MOTU estimation

Both BA and NJ tree building methods yielded similar topologies. The BA and NJ trees showed cohesive clustering for 88 morphospecies with high posterior probabilities and bootstrap supports (Figs 2 and S4). The remaining 13 morphospecies showed topological discrepancies in both NJ and BA. To estimate the genetic diversity by using single mitochondrial gene sequences, we used multiple species delimitation methods. The taxon below the species level is indicated by the Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs)20. Four species delimitation methods: BIN, ABGD, GMYC, and PTP yielded almost similar results and identified 111, 103, 120, and 106 MOTUs respectively (Fig. S5, Tables S1, S3 and S4). Therefore, by superimposing the multiple delimitation methods, and reciprocal monophyly criteria, a total 107 MOTUs were detected in the studied dataset.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Bayesian inference tree with delineated MOTUs of the studied 101 spider species. The 21 families were highlighted by color corresponding to the clade. Color bars indicate delineated MOTUs by different methods (Morphospecies, ABGD, GMYC, BIN, and PTP). The tree topologies were plotted by web based iTOL tool (https://itol.embl.de/itol.cgi) and edited manually in Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0. The iTOL web server was used with proper guidelines of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) under the following attribution: https://www.embl.de/aboutus/privacy_policy/index.html.

Cryptic species with deep genetic distance

Recent molecular studies on spiders have revealed cryptic speciation from different geographical regions26,31,34. In the present study, we detected three species with high genetic distances and more than one clade in both NJ and BA trees, which speculates a possibility for cryptic diversity (Table 2). Cyclosa spirifera is endemic to India, which was originally described by Simon56 from the Uttarakhand state of the western Himalayas. After a long gap of 118 years, the species was reported from the other parts of central (Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra) and eastern (West Bengal) India4. We examined 11 specimens from Assam state of northeast India showed two distinct clades (Clade-1 and Clade-2) corresponding to two separate MOTUs with 7.4% genetic distance. All the species delimitation methods showed concordant results with the tree based analysis and correspond with their collection localities in opposite banks of the Brahmaputra River. Morphologically, C. spirifera shows variation in the length of the caudal protrusion (longer in Clade-1 and shorter in Clade-2), but we could not find any other morphological difference between the specimens of these two clades. (Fig. 3A,D).

Table 2.

Number of Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units (MOTUs) in 11 morphospecies detected by multiple species delimitation methods.

Sl No. Species BIN ABGD GMYC PTP
1 Cyclosa spirifera 2 2 2 2
2 Pardosa pusiola 2 2 2 2
3 Heteropoda venatoria 2 2 3 2
4 Pardosa sumatrana 4 1 2 1
5 Cheiracanthium triviale 2 2 2 2
6 Thiania bhamoensis 3 1 3 2
7 Oxyopes birmanicus 4 1 3 1
8 Hersilia savigyni 1 1 2 2
9 Phintella vittata 1 1 1 2
10 Argiope versicolor 1 1 2 1
11 Cyrtophora cicatrosa 1 1 2 1
Open in a new tab

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

(A) The collection localities of the studied spiders in northeastern region, (B) West Bengal, (C) Gujarat state in India. (D) Pruned BA tree showing cryptic diversity of Cyclosa spirifera, (E) Pardosa pusiola, and (F) Heteropoda venatoria.

The lycosid species, Pardosa pusiola was described by Thorell57 from Sumatra in Southeast Asia. The species is widely distributed in the Oriental region from India to China, Java, and Sumatra4. A total of 16 specimens of P. pusiola were collected from two distant geographical regions in India, among them four from Gujarat state (western region) and 12 from Assam state (northeastern region). The studied specimens of P. pusiola showed two distinct clades (Clade-1 and Clade-2) in both NJ and BA trees with 9.8% genetic distance. The four species delimitation methods revealed two MOTUs in concordance with the tree based analysis. Previous morphological studies observed few minor variations in the internal structure of female genitalia in P. pusiola58. We also studied the similar morphological variations in the Indian specimens. The specimens of Clade-1 (Gujarat) and Clade-2 (Assam) can be distinguished by the following morphological characters: body is highly pigmented in Clade-1 (brown in Clade-2); sternum with the median longitudinal band in Clade-1 (absent in Clade-2); epigynal pockets are diverging anteriorly in Clade-1 (parallel in Clade-2) (Fig. 3A,C,E).

The cosmopolitan species, Heteropoda venatoria (Sparassidae) was originally described as Aranea venatoria from Asia by Linneaus59. Later on, this species was described under various names by several authors4. We examined nine specimens from Assam and two from West Bengal. The NJ and BA tree showed two clades (Clade-1 and Clade-2) with 7.4% genetic distance. The ABGD, BIN and PTP analysis indicate two MOTUs which are concordant to the tree topologies, while GMYC showed three MOTUs. The external and internal morphological examination of genitalia (illustrations provided by Jäger60) was found to be similar for all specimens under two clades (Fig. 3A,B,F). The similar morphology of the studied specimens with high genetic distance revealed two distinct populations of H. venatoria from two distant localities of Assam and West Bengal state.

The observed genetic diversity in C. spirifera, P. pusiola, and H. venatoria is worthy of future investigation to evaluate the presence of cryptic species within these taxa. This research will require the comparison of specimens of the distinct clades with the type specimens for the species and synonyms and molecular data from specimens collected from type localities, in order to reveal which clades represent the nominal taxa.

Morphospecies with higher intraspecies genetic distance

A previously defined genetic distance can be used as a delimitation threshold for species discrimination27,61. This study detected three morphospecies, Thiania bhamoensis, Pardosa sumatrana, and Cheiracanthium triviale, which had intraspecific genetic distances which were around our proposed delimitation threshold (2.6% to 3.7%).

The salticid species, T. bhamoensis was first described by Thorell62 from Bhamo, Myanmar. This species is widely distributed from India to Myanmar, China, Thailand, Laos and up to Indonesia4. A total of nine specimens were collected from the opposite banks of the Brahmaputra River in Assam. Both NJ and BA trees infer well-defined clades (Clade-1, Clade-2, and Clade-3). Clade-1 showed 2.2% and 3.6% genetic distance between Clade-2 and Clade-3 respectively, while 3.5% genetic distance was detected between Clade- 2 and Clade-3 (Fig. 4A,D). Two species delimitation methods (BIN and GMYC) showed three MOTUs, which was concordant with the tree topologies, however ABGD and PTP showed one and two MOTUs respectively.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

(A) The collection localities of the studied spiders in northeastern region, (B) West Bengal, (C) Gujarat state in India. (D) Pruned BA topologies of Thiania bhamoensis, (E) Pardosa sumatrana, and (F) Cheiracanthium triviale with higher intraspecies genetic distance. (G) Pruned BA topologies of Cyrtophora cicatrosa, and (H) Hersilia savignyi with shallow genetic distance.

The lycosid species, P. sumatrana was described by Thorell63 from Sumatra in Southeast Asia. The species is widely distributed in the Oriental region from India to China, Java, and Sumatra. Five specimens of P. sumatrana were collected from the narrow geographical locations of Assam. All the studied specimens showed two clades (Clade-1 and Clade-2) in both NJ and BA trees with 3.2% genetic distance. Two species delimitation methods (ABGD and PTP) revealed one MOTUs which is concordant, while BIN and GMYC showed four and two MOTUs respectively, which is discordant to the tree analysis results and morphology (Fig. 4A,E). Further, the morphological characters of all the specimens were similar and resemble with ‘Type IV’ genital morph as suggested earlier64.

The cheiracanthiid species, C. triviale was originally described by Thorell65 as Eutittha trivialis from Burma based on the female. Later on, several authors studied the types as well as Indian collections and confirmed the distribution of C. triviale across India (Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal)66–68. In the present study, out of six C. triviale specimens, four were collected from Gujarat and two from Assam. Both NJ and BA trees showed two distinct clades (Clade-1 and Clade-2) with 3.6% genetic distance. All species delimitation methods showed two MOTUs which are concordant to tree based analysis. We observed variation in the posterior margin of epigyne, which has a deep cleft in Clade-1 (Gujarat specimens) and shallow in Clade-2 (Assam specimens) (Fig. 4A,C,F).

Considering the observed higher intraspecies genetic distance within these three morphospecies, we assumed that the populations might incline to acquire genetic modifications rather than morphological variation. These genetic alterations may trigger to the morphology and evolution of possible new or cryptic species in near future.

Morphospecies including possibly cryptic species

In the present study, five morphospecies (Cyrtophora cicatrosa, Hersilia savignyi, Argiope versicolor, Phintella vittata and Oxyopes birmanicus) showed shallow genetic distance with more than one MOTU by at least one species delimitation method. Both NJ and BA topologies were consistent to morphology based identification. Further, no significant morphological variations were observed in these species. A total of 16 specimens of C. cicatrosa were collected from Assam and West Bengal showed two MOTUs by GMYC method with 2% genetic distance (Fig. 4A,B,G). Eight specimens of H. savignyi were collected from Assam and West Bengal showed two MOTUs (GMYC and PTP) with 2.3% genetic distance between them (Fig. 4A,B,H). A total of 23 specimens of A. versicolor were collected from Assam and West Bengal showed two MOTUs (GMYC) with 1.6% genetic distance (Fig. 5A,B,D). Two specimens of P. vittata each from Assam and Gujarat revealed two MOTUs (PTP) with 1.8% genetic distance (Fig. 5A,C,E). A total of 47 specimens of O. birmanicus were collected from Assam and West Bengal showed three and four MOTUs with 1.8% to 3.4% and 2% to 2.9% genetic distance in BIN and GMYC methods respectively (Fig. 5A,B,F). The presence of multiple MOTUs with shallow genetic distance in these morphospecies demand more samples from wide geographical regions to conclude the possibility of cryptic species.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

(A) The collection localities of the studied spiders in northeastern region, (B) West Bengal, (C) Gujarat state in India. (D) Pruned BA topologies of Argiope versicolor, (E) Phintella vittata, and (F) Oxyopes birmanicus with shallow genetic distance.

Incongruence between morphology and DNA barcoding

Two salticid species, Plexippus paykulli (Audouin)69 and Plexippus petersi (Karsch)70 were originally described from Africa and have wide distribution in the tropics. A total of three specimens of P. paykulli and 14 specimens of P. petersi were collected from West Bengal and Assam. The intraspecies genetic distances of morphologically identified P. paykulli and P. petersi were 0% to 1.2% and 0% to 0.8% respectively. The species were separated by a mean genetic distance of 2.6% (range = 2.1% to 3.6%), which is below the estimated delimitation threshold. Both NJ and BA tree had low bootstrap support for these clades (Fig. 6A–C). All four species delimitation methods showed these two morphospecies into a single MOTU. Thus, the DNA barcode data cannot clearly distinguish these two distinct morphospecies. However, these two morphospecies can be distinguished by their color pattern, and genital structures. The following distinguishable characters of both sexes are as follows, Male: Cephalothorax with median longitudinal white stripe in paykulli (absent in petersi), broad white band present in lateral side of clypeus or in front of anterior lateral eyes in paykulli (narrow in petersi), tibial apophysis shorter and reaching up to the half of the tegulum height in paykulli (longer and reaching up to the ¾ of the tegulum height in petersi), and embolus shorter in paykulli (longer in petersi). Female: epigyne wider in paykulli (narrower in petersi), copulatory opening crevices U-shaped in paykulli (V-shaped in petersi), insemination ducts long in paykulli (short in petersi), and central pocket small and located posteriorly to the copulatory openings in paykulli (large and located anteriorly in petersi)71. This kind of ambiguities between DNA barcoding and morphology has also been observed in other insect groups20,72. The possible reasons for this incongruency may be due to the introgression of mitochondrial DNA through interspecific hybridization73 and incomplete lineage sorting of ancestral mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms74.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

(A) The collection localities of the studied spiders in northeastern region, and (B) West Bengal in India. (C) Pruned BA topologies of Plexippus paykulli, and Plexippus petersi showed incongruence between morphology and DNA data (D) NJ tree showing the relationship of Linyphia sikkimensis with other Theridiids and Linyphiids species.

Linyphia sikkimensis Tikader, 1970 comb. rev

Linyphia sikkimensis was originally described in the Linyphiidae by Tikader75 based on 13 females and three males collected from the Sikkim state of India. Later on, Breitling76 transferred L. sikkimensis under the genus Chrysso based on distribution patterns and behaviour without any morphological evidences. Simultaneously, he also clearly stated that the generic as well as family level replacements of ‘sikkimensis’ from Linyphia (Linyphiidae) to Chrysso (Theridiidae) are tentative and doubtful. The morphological examination of five female specimens showed the resemblance towards the family Linyphiidae, which can be distinguished from Theridiidae by the following characters: tarsi IV without a comb, rebordered labium, and chelicerae usually with stridulating file. Further, the specimens were examined by the available generic keys provided by Helsdingen77 and fit to the couplet 1 (Neriene) with the distinguishing characters; large and conspicuous opening of epigyne, spirally coiled groove in the atria, absence of spiral tubes, and simple scape. However, the genus Neriene was earlier considered to be a synonym of Linyphia until it was reassessed thoroughly (van Helsdingen, 1969). Later on, some recent authors placed the genus Neriene as a subgenus of Linyphia4. A total of five specimens of Linyphia sikkimensis were collected from Assam state (four from Dehing-Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary and one from Dibru-Saikhowa National Park) with 0% to 1.9% intraspecies genetic distance. The haplotype analysis also revealed four distinct haplotypes within these two clades. All species delimitation methods showed two MOTUs, concordant to tree topologies. To test the generic placement of L. sikkimensis, 24 DNA barcode sequences (five generated sequences of L. sikkimensis, 10 GenBank sequences of five Neriene species, six GenBank sequence of two Linyphia species, three GenBank sequences of two Chrysso species) were further analysed (Table S5). The genetic distance of Neriene was 15.4% and 16.5% as compared with Linyphia and Chrysso respectively. The genera Linyphia and Chrysso showed 18.1% genetic distance from each other. Further, the generated sequences of L. sikkimensis showed 15.6% and 15.7% genetic distances with the congeners of Neriene and Linyphia respectively. The congeners of Neriene and Linyphia also maintained 15.8% genetic distance with each other. The BA tree showed distinct clade of Chrysso as compared with both sister genera Linyphia and Neriene. However, the studied species L. sikkimensis closely clustered with Linyphia + Neriene clade (Fig. 6A,D). On the basis of above mentioned morphological conflicting facts, high genetic dissimilarities, and low posterior probability support in BA tree, we proposed the generic replacement of ‘sikkimensis’ from Chrysso to the original genus in which it was described. We recommend to generate the sequences of more mitochondrial and nuclear markers with large scale sampling effort to determine the actual relationship and systematic position of L. sikkimensis.

In the recent past, DNA barcoding evidenced as an effective supplementary tool for accurate species identification and biodiversity research. However, this emerging technique often shows defects to resolve several biological questions due to the lack of appropriate experimental design78. To overcome the methodological deficiencies, we sampled the broader geographical regions in India, and accurately identified the specimens through taxonomic characters. The generated DNA barcode data were further analysed by multiple species delimitation methods, and revisited the genetic distance and topology for estimating the reliable and accurate outcomes of species delimitation threshold. Large scale barcode reference library of spiders can provide an open access gateway for researchers from different arenas of biodiversity studies such as taxonomy, ecology, and behaviour etc. Hence, this integrated approach by both morphology and DNA barcoding, evidenced as a useful approach for spider identification, detection of cryptic species, identify the species complexes, and description of the reinstatement of original combination. The current study also enriches the global database with DNA barcode data of Indian spiders and valuable information on the genetic diversity and delimitation threshold. The present effort also provides new insights to the taxonomic research on spiders from India by contributing novel barcodes to the global database, cryptic species detection indicating possible new species, and reinstates the original combination of Linyphia sikkimensis. The aimed study with the contemporary methodological approach is not only help to the arachnological community, but also useful to the broader readers associated with the biodiversity and systematics research.

Supplementary information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFO (32.8MB, docx)

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, for providing constant support, necessary facilities, and encouragement throughout the study. The study is financially supported by the NMHS large grant project entitled ‘Biodiversity Assessment through long-term monitoring plots in the Indian Himalayan Landscape’ (Ref. No. NMHS/LG-2016/0011) and Core funding of Zoological Survey of India (ZSI), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), India.

Author Contributions

K.T., S.K., A.P., K.C. collected specimens V.K. and K.T. conceived and designed the experiment, J.T.D.C., P.P., A.P. performed taxonomic identification and captured photographs, K.C. and V.K. contributed chemicals, K.T., S.K., A.P. and P.P. generated DNA data, V.K., S.K., K.T. and A.P., analyzed the sequence data, V.K., K.T., S.K. and K.C. wrote the manuscript, K.T. and S.K. prepared the figures, all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1038/s41598-019-50510-8.

References

  • 1.Foelix, R. F. Biology of Spiders. Oxford University Press, New York (2011).
  • 2.Shear WA, Palmer JM, Coddington JA, Bonamo PM. A Devonian spinneret: Early evidence of spiders and silk use. Science. 1989;246:479–481. doi: 10.1126/science.246.4929.479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Agnarsson, I., Coddington, J. A. & Kuntner, M. Systematics: progress in the study of spider diversity and evolution. In Spider Research in the 21st Century: Trends and Perspectives, edited by Penney, David., 58–111. Siri Scientific Press (2013).
  • 4.World Spider Catalog. Version 20. Natural History Museum Bern, online at, http://wsc.nmbe.ch, (accessed on 15 June 2019).
  • 5.Turnbull AL. Ecology of the true spiders (Araneomorphae) Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1973;18:305–348. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.18.010173.001513. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pruitt JN, Riechert SE. The ecological consequences of temperament in spiders. Curr. Zool. 2012;58:589–596. doi: 10.1093/czoolo/58.4.589. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hilbrant M, Damen WG, McGregor AP. Evolutionary crossroads in developmental biology: the spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum. Development. 2012;139:2655–2662. doi: 10.1242/dev.078204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.McGregor AP, et al. Cupiennius salei and Achaearanea tepiadorium: spider models for investigating evolution and development. BioEssaya. 2008;30:487–498. doi: 10.1002/bies.20744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Morehouse NI, Buschbeck EK, Zurek DB, Steck M, Porter ML. Molecular Evolution of Spider Vision: New Opportunities, Familiar Players. The Biological Bulletin. 2017;233:21–38. doi: 10.1086/693977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.George WU, Clark DL, Roberts JA. Multimodal Communication in Wolf Spiders (Lycosidae)-An Emerging Model for Study. In Advances in the Study of Behavior. 2016;48:117–159. doi: 10.1016/bs.asb.2016.03.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Michalko R, Pekár S, Entling MH. An updated perspective on spiders as generalist predators in biological control. Oecologia. 2018;189:21–36. doi: 10.1007/s00442-018-4313-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yang TB, et al. Molecular identification of spiders preying on Empoasca vitis in a tea plantation. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7784. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07668-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ndava J, Llera SD, Manyanga P. The future of mosquito control: The role of spiders as biological control agents: A review. Int. J. Mosquito Res. 2018;5:6–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ossamy S, Elbanna SM, Orabi GM, Semida FM. Assessing the potential role of spider as bioindicators in Ashtoum el Gamil Natural Protected Area, Port Said, Egypt. Indian J. Arachnol. 2016;5:100–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vendrely C, Scheibel T. Biotechnological production of spider‐silk proteins enables new applications. Macromol. Biosci. 2007;7:401–409. doi: 10.1002/mabi.200600255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Coddington JA, Levi HW. Systematics and evolution of spiders Araneae. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1991;22:565–592. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.22.110191.003025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Magalhaes IL, Martins PH, Nogueira AA, Santos AJ. Finding hot singles: matching males to females in dimorphic spiders (Araneidae: Micrathena) using phylogenetic placement and DNA barcoding. Invert. Syst. 2017;31:8–36. doi: 10.1071/IS15062. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2003;270:313–321. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Laskar BA, Kumar V, Kundu S, Tyagi K, Chandra K. Taxonomic quest: validating two mahseer fishes (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) through molecular and morphological data from biodiversity hotspots in India. Hydrobiologia. 2018;815:113–124. doi: 10.1007/s10750-018-3555-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tyagi K, et al. DNA Barcoding studies on Thrips in India: Cryptic species, Species complexes. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:4898. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05112-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Khalili Samani N, Esa Y, Amin SMN, Fatin Mohd Ikhsan N. Phylogenetics and population genetics of Plotosus canius (Siluriformes: Plotosidae) from Malaysian coastal waters. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1930. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1930. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Willette DA, et al. barcoding to track seafood mislabeling in Los Angeles restaurants. Conserv. Biol. 2017;31:1076–1085. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Khedkar GD, Abhayankar SB, Nalage D, Ahmed SN, Khedkar CD. DNA barcode based wildlife forensics for resolving the origin of claw samples using a novel primer cocktail. Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp. Seq. Anal. 2016;27:3932–3935. doi: 10.3109/19401736.2014.987270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Singha D, et al. Molecular footprint of Frankliniella occidentalis from India: a vector of Tospoviruses. Mitochondrial DNA Part B: Resources. 2018;4:39–42. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2018.1536446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wheeler WC, et al. The spider tree of life: phylogeny of Araneae based on target-gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling. Cladistics. 2017;33:576–616. doi: 10.1111/cla.12182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Robinson EA, Blagoev GA, Hebert PDN, Adamowicz SJ. Prospects for using DNA barcoding to identify spiders in species-rich genera. ZooKeys. 2009;16:27–46. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.16.239. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Barrett RD, Hebert PD. Identifying spiders through DNA barcodes. Can. J. Zool. 2005;83:481–491. doi: 10.1139/z05-024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Blagoev GA, Nikolova NI, Sobel CN, Hebert PD, Adamowicz SJ. Spiders (Araneae) of Churchill, Manitoba: DNA barcodes and morphology reveal high species diversity and new Canadian records. BMC Ecology. 2013;13:44. doi: 10.1186/1472-6785-13-44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Blagoev GA, et al. Untangling taxonomy: a DNA barcode reference library for Canadian spiders. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2016;16:325–341. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Coddington J, et al. DNA barcode data accurately assign higher spider taxa. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2201. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Astrin JJ, et al. Towards a DNA barcode reference database for spiders and harvestmen of Germany. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0162624. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Naseem S, Tahir HM. Use of mitochondrial COI gene for the identification of family Salticidae and Lycosidae of spiders. Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp. Seq. Anal. 2016;29:96–101. doi: 10.1080/24701394.2016.1248428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Candek K, Kuntner M. DNA barcoding gap: reliable species identification over morphological and geographical scales. Mole. Ecol. Resour. 2015;15:268–277. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gaikwad S, Warudkar A, Shouche Y. Efficacy of DNA barcoding for the species identification of spiders from Western Ghats of India. Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp Seq Anal. 2016;28:638–644. doi: 10.3109/24701394.2016.1166219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Folmer O, Hoeh WR, Black MB, Vrijenhoek RC. Conserved primers for PCR amplification of mitochondrial DNA from different invertebrate phyla. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 1994;3:294–299. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Miller JA, Belgers MJDM, Beentjes MKK, Zwakhals MK, van Helsdingen P. Spider hosts (Arachnida, Araneae) and wasp parasitoids (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ephialtini) matched using DNA barcodes. Biodivers. Data J. 2013;1:e992. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.1.e992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Miller, M. A., Pfeiffer, W. & Schwartz, T. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees in Proceedings of the Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE 2010), New Orleans, 1–8 (2010).
  • 38.Kumar S, Stecher G, Li M, Knyaz C, Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018;35:1547–1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Librado P, Rozas J. DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1451–1452. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lanfear R, Calcott B, Simon Y, Ho W, Stephane GS. PartitionFinder: Combined Selection of Partitioning Schemes and Substitution Models for Phylogenetic Analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012;29:1695–1701. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Posada D. jModelTest: Phylogenetic Model Averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2008;25:1253–1256. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1572–1574. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v3: an online tool for the display and annotation of phylogenetic and other trees. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(W1):W242–245. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw290. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Puillandre N, Lambert A, Brouillet S, Achaz G. ABGD, Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery for primary species delimitation. Mol. Ecol. 2012;21:1864–1877. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05239.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fujisawa T, Barraclough TG. Delimiting species using single-locus data and the Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent approach: a revised method and evaluation on simulated data sets. Syst. Biol. 2013;62:707–724. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syt033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhang J, Kapli P, Pavlidis P, Stamatakis A. A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:2869–2876. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN. A DNA-Based Registry for All Animal Species: The Barcode Index Number (BIN) System. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e66213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol. Biol. 2007;7:214. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:289–290. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ezard, T., Fujisawa, T. & Barraclough, T. G. Splits: SPecies’ LImits by Threshold Statistics. R package version 1.0-14/r31, http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/splits/ (2009).
  • 51.Stamatakis A. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:2688–2690. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Caleb JTD, Chatterjee S, Tyagi K, Kundu S, Kumar V. Two new jumping spiders of the genera Epocilla Thorell, 1887 and Mogrus Simon, 1882 from India (Araneae: Salticidae) Arthropoda Sel. 2017;26:329–334. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Caleb JTD, Mondal K, Kumar V. A new species of the huntsman spider genus Pseudopoda Jäger (Araneae: Sparassidae) from the Eastern Himalayas, India. Halteres. 2018;9:170–175. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Chatterjee S, Caleb JTD, Tyagi K, Kundu S, Kumar V. First report of Psechrus inflatus Bayer (Araneae: Psechridae) from India. Rec. Zool. Surv. India. 2018;117:391–393. doi: 10.26515/rzsi/v117/i4/2017/121294. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chatterjee S, Caleb JTD, Tyagi K, Kundu S, Kumar V. First report of Menemerus nigli (Araneae: Salticidae) from India. Halteres. 2017;8:109–111. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Simon E. Arachnides de l’Himalaya, recueillis par MM. Oldham et Wood-Mason, et faisant partie des collections de l’Indian Museum. Première partie. J. As. Soc. Beng. 1889;58:334–344. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Thorell T. Spindlar från Nikobarerna och andra delar af södra Asien. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar. 1891;24:1–149. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wang D, Zhang ZS. Two new species and a new synonym in the Pardosa nebulosa-group (Lycosidae: Pardosa) from China. Zootaxa. 2014;3856:227–240. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3856.2.4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Linnaeus, C. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio duodecima, reformata. Holmiae 533–1327 (1767).
  • 60.Jäger P. Heteropoda Latreille, 1804: new species, synonymies, transfers and records (Araneae: Sparassidae: Heteropodinae) Arthropoda Sel. 2014;23:145–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hebert PDN, Penton EH, Burns JM, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2004;101:14812–14817. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406166101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Thorell T, Viaggio di L. Fea in Birmania e regioni vicine. II. Primo saggio sui ragni birmani. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova. 1887;25:5–417. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Thorell T. Diagnoses aranearum aliquot novarum in Indo-Malesia inventarum. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova. 1890;30:132–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Buchar J. Lycosidae aus dem Nepal-Himalaya. II. Die Pardosa nebulosa- und P. venatrix-Gruppe (Araneae: Lycosidae: Pardosinae) Senckenb. Biol. 1980;61:77–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Thorell, T. Descriptive catalogue of the spiders of Burma. London, pp. 1–406 (1895).
  • 66.Gravely FH. Some Indian spiders of the families Ctenidae, Sparassidae, Selenopidae and Clubionidae. Rec. Indian Mus. Calcutta. 1931;33:211–282. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Dankittipakul P, Beccaloni J. Validation and new synonymies proposed for Cheiracanthium species from South and Southeast Asia (Araneae, Clubionidae) Zootaxa. 2012;3510:77–86. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3510.1.5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Majumder SC, Tikader BK. Studies on some spiders of the family Clubionidae from India. Rec. Zool. Surv. India. Occasional Paper. 1991;102:1–175. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Audouin V. Explication sommaire des planches d’arachnides de l'Égypte et de la Syrie. In: Description de l'Égypte, ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée franҫaise, publié par les ordres de sa Majesté l’Empereur Napoléon le Grand. Histoire Naturelle. 1826;1:1–339. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Karsch F. Übersicht der von Peters in Mossambique gesammelten Arachniden. Monatsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. 1878;1878:314–338. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Żabka M, Gardzińska J. Salticidae of Thailand. Part 1, genera Plexippus C. L. Koch, 1846 and Burmattus Prószyński, 1992. Ann. Zool. Warszawa. 2017;67:229–242. doi: 10.3161/00034541ANZ2017.67.2.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Han T, Lee W, Lee S, Park IG, Park H. Reassessment of Species Diversity of the Subfamily Denticollinae (Coleoptera: Elateridae) through DNA Barcoding. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0148602. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Dowling TE, Secor CL. The role of hybridization and introgression in the diversification of animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1997;28:593–619. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.593. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Page RDM, Charleston MA. Tree within tree: phylogeny and historical associations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998;13:356–359. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01438-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Tikader BK. Spider fauna of Sikkim. Rec. Zool. Surv. India. 1970;64:1–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Breitling R. Linyphia bilobata Roy & al., 2015, is a junior synonym of Chrysso scintillans (Thorell, 1895) (Araneae: Linyphiidae, Theridiidae). Contrib. Nat. Hist. 2015;30:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.van Helsdingen PJ. A reclassification of the species of Linyphia Latreille based on the functioning of the genitalia (Araneida, Linyphiidae), I. Zool. Verhandel. 1969;105:1–303. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Collins RA, Cruickhank RH. The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2013;13:969–975. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

SUPPLEMENTARY INFO (32.8MB, docx)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES