Solenysa Simon, 1894

Wang, Fang, Ono, Hirotsugu & Tu, Lihong, 2015, A review of Solenysa spiders from Japan (Araneae, Linyphiidae), with a comment on the type species S. mellotteei Simon, 1894, ZooKeys 481, pp. 39-56 : 42

Taxon classification Animalia Araneae Linyphiidae

Solenysa Simon, 1894

Type species.

Solenysa mellotteei Simon, 1894.

Composition.

Fourteen species including two new species: Solenysa geumoensis Seo, 1996, Solenysa lanyuensis Tu, 2011, Solenysa longqiensis Li & Song, 1992, Solenysa macrodonta sp. n., Solenysa mellotteei Simon, 1894, Solenysa ogatai Ono, 2011, Solenysa partibilis Tu, Ono & Li, 2007, Solenysa protrudens Gao, Zhu & Sha, 1993, Solenysa reflexilis Tu, Ono & Li, 2007, Solenysa retractilis Tu, 2011, Solenysa tianmushana Tu, 2011, Solenysa trunciformis sp. n., Solenysa wulingensis Li & Song, 1992 and Solenysa yangmingshana Tu, 2011.

Diagnosis.

Solenysa species can be distinguished from all other linyphiids by the four lobes at the sides of carapace, the rounded pits scattered on the carapace and the tubular-shaped petiole (Fig. 1 A–B). Females are also diagnosed by the presence of a long membranous solenoid, connecting between the epigyne and the abdomen (Fig. 1D), males by the presence of Solenysa tegular triangle in male palp (Fig. 2A).

Description.

See Tu and Li (2006) and Tu and Hormiga (2011).

Distribution.

Japan, Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Korea.

Comments.

The subfamily placement of Solenysa remains controversial as its complex type of male palp with well developed lamella characteristica and terminal apophysis is like those in Micronetinae Hull, 1920, but the simple type of epigyne is like those in Erigoninae Emerton, 1882. Based on the movable epigyne, Saaristo (2007) included it in his new subfamily Ipainae Saaristo, 2007. However, the results of a phylogenetic analysis of Linyphiidae queried the monophyly of “ipaines”, and suggested that “micronetines” and erigonines form a monophyletic group ( Arnedo et al. 2009). Furthermore, the results of a phylogenetic analysis of erigonines based on morphological data showed that all Solenysa species form a monophyly robustly supported by a long list of synapomorphies, and other synapomorphies suggested its close relationship with erigonines although its sister group remained unresolved ( Tu and Hormiga 2011). Accordingly, the well-developed lamella characteristica and terminal apophysis in Solenysa should be regarded as homologous to those of “micronetines” and secondarily lost in erigonines; their simple type epigyne also derived from the complex type of “micronetines”. The morphology of solenoid in Solenysa is different from the extensive basal parts in Acanoides beijingensis Sun, Marusik & Tu, 2014 and Acanoides hengshanensis (Chen & Yin, 2000) ( Sun et al. 2014: figs 4G, 5G), and in Wubanoides uralensis (Pakhorukov, 1981), Epibellowia enormita (Tanasevitch, 1988) and Epibellowia septentrionalis (Oi, 1960) ( Tanasevitch 1996: figs 7-9). Whether the movable epigyne has a single origin or independently evolved multiple times in linyphiids needs to be tested in future studies.

A phylogenetic analysis based on morphological data ( Tu and Hormiga 2011) suggested that the twelve known Solenysa species are divided into four clades. Among them, the four species occurring in Japan formed a monophyletic clade, unambiguously supported by the following synapomorphies: the presences of hook shaped cymbial probasal process, half rounded Solenysa tegular triangle and copulatory grooves enter the spermathecae from the outer sides.