Talk:Araneoidea

Update needed

It's been on my "to do" list for some time to update this to include the large Wheeler et al. (2017) study (cladogram on p. 11). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading Wheeler et al (2017) yesterday. Is this what you want? I've yet to determine what the pluses indicate. Jts1882 | talk 12:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicodamoidea

	Megadictynidae

	Nicodamidae

Araneoidea

Theridiidae

	Theridiosomatidae

	Mysmenidae

	Symphytognathidae

	Anapidae (incl. Micropholcommatidae)

Araneidae (including Nephilidae as Nephilinae)

Malkaridae

Mimetidae

	Arkyidae

	Tetragnathidae

Nesticidae +

	Cyatholipidae

	Physoglenidae

	Pimoidae +

	Linyphiidae +

Saved me some work! Yes, plus some explanatory text. The "+"s mean that the clade does not consist solely of the usual circumscription of the family. Thus if you look at the cladogram on p. 584 of the published 2017 version (I'd downloaded the online 2016 version in which it's p. 11), "Nesticidae +" includes Synotaxus/Synotaxidae. "Linyphiidae +" includes Weintrauboa yele/Pimoidae. So where the family is still recognized by the World Spider Catalog, the "+"s need expanding with the other family names. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the first overall summary cladogram, which I want to use elsewhere, is at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Spiders#Wheeler 2016/2017. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote change

The footnote says "including Textricellidae, treated as a separate family by Shear (1986)". This seems to be indicating that Micropholcommatidae includes Textricellidae in all treatments except Shear (1986). As Shear (1986) is the one study treating Textricellidae separately, it is the one treatment where "including Textricellidae" doesn't apply. Either the footnote needs to be on Micropholcommatidae, applying to the whole row and noting the exception, or it should say "excluding Textricellidae", as that is where Shear (1986) is different from the others. Jts1882 | talk 11:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that isn't how I meant it or read it, but I see the issue. Is the revised note clearer? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]