Clubionidae

Breitling, Rainer, 2021, A completely resolved phylogenetic tree of British spiders (Arachnida: Araneae), Ecologica Montenegrina 46, pp. 1-51 : 8-9

Clubionidae

The backbone of the topology within this family largely follows Breitling (2019c). Microclubiona sensu Wunderlich (2011) , i.e., the trivialis group sensu Mikhailov (1995) , is considered monophyletic (as in some of the barcode analysis results). Euryclubiona sensu Wunderlich (2011) is also considered monophyletic, and is recovered as such in most of the barcode results; the internal topology within this group is based on morphological affinities. For the reasons discussed in Breitling (2019d), none of these subgenera is formally recognised here, but a future subdivision of Clubiona into well-defined sub genera, as promoted by Mikhailov (1995), would certainly be highly preferable over a splitting of this homogeneous and obviously monophyletic group into separate genera.

The position of C. rosserae as sister of C. stagnatilis is based on the original description and Wiehle (1965), while the position of C. subtilis and C. juvenis is based on morphological similarities to their proposed sister species. C. corticalis is placed basally within the genus, in agreement with its unique morphology and most barcode analyses.

Clubiona facilis , which is also listed as a member of the British spider fauna is possibly a synonym of C. phragmitis , based on a malformed specimen, analogous to the case of Philodromus depriesteri discussed in Breitling et al. (2015). The close morphological similarity to C. phragmitis discussed in the original description (sub C. holosericea ), as well as the “atrophic” appearance of the epigynum in the accompanying illustration, would seem to support this interpretation. Examination of the type material in the Pickard-Cambridge collection in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History (Bottle 2312.1) could provide further insights, but for now the name is considered a nomen dubium and is not included in the tree.