Iardinis, SIMON 1899

Lopardo, Lara & Hormiga, Gustavo, 2015, Out of the twilight zone: phylogeny and evolutionary morphology of the orb-weaving spider family Mysmenidae, with a focus on spinneret spigot morphology in symphytognathoids (Araneae, Araneoidea), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 173 (3), pp. 527-786 : 627-631

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.1111/zoj.12199

persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name



GENUS IARDINIS SIMON 1899   ( FIGS 135A, B View Figure 135 , 144C View Figure 144 )

Iardinis Simon, 1899: 87   . Type species by original designation: Iardinis weyersi Simon 1899: 87   (nomen dubium, female type and only specimen lost); Levi & Levi, 1962: 22 (considered incertae sedis); Forster & Platnick, 1977: 5 (considered nomen dubium); Brignoli, 1970: 1426; 1978: 250; 1980: 731 (provisional transfer to Mysmenidae   ).

Iardinus, Gertsch, 1960a: 8 (lapsus calami, transferred from Theridiidae   to Symphytognathidae   s.l.).

Familial placement: Symphytognathidae   . The type and only specimen of the type species (Iardinus weyersi   ) from Sumatra was described by Simon in 1899, but has been considered lost by the arachnologists that have tried to examine the type material ( Gertsch, 1960a; Levi & Levi, 1962; Brignoli, 1970, 1978, 1980; Forster & Platnick, 1977). The vial from the Paris   Museum ( MNHN) with the original label that should have housed the type material is actually empty (L. Lopardo & G. Hormiga, pers. observ.). Nevertheless, two additional species have been described for the genus: Iardinus martensi Brignoli, 1978   from Nepal, and Iardinus mussardi Brignoli 1980   from India (holotype examined, see also Figs 135A, B View Figure 135 , 144C View Figure 144 ). Both species are exclusively known from their male type specimens. To add to the enigmatic status of the genus, the original vial containing the type and only specimen of I. martensi   instead contained a female anapid (L. Lopardo & G. Hormiga, pers. observ.), and therefore its morphology had to be scored from the literature.

Nonetheless, both Iardinis species   included in the 65- and 70-taxa data sets (i.e. I. martensi   and I. mussardi   ) are more closely related to Symphytognathidae   than to Mysmenidae   . Morphologically these species have none of the synapomorphic features of Mysmenidae   , and thus, as with Crassignatha   , their placement in a different family was expected. They differ from Mysmenidae   in the absence of femoral spots (at least in I. mussardi   ), absence of tibial or metatarsal clasping spines on leg I, dorsal (instead of ventral) cymbium, absence of cymbial structures (e.g. primary conductor, process, and paracymbium), and presence of median apophysis. They further share with Symphytognathidae   the loss of anterior median eyes, thick setae on the dorsal part of the abdomen, absence of cheliceral denticles, loss of colulus, and absence of palpal patellar or tibial apophyses.


( FIGS 135C View Figure 135 , 144B View Figure 144 )

Phricotelus Simon, 1895a: 919   . Type species by original designation and monotypy: Phricotelus stelliger Simon, 1895a: 919   (type specimen examined); Levi, 1972: 534 (transferred from Theridiosomatidae   to Symphytognathidae   ); Brignoli, 1980: 731, 1981: 14 (provisional transfer to Mysmenidae   ).

Familial placement: Araneoidea incertae sedis. Alternative equally parsimonious placements of Phricotelus   imply various relationships to Synaphridae   , Anapidae   , or Symphytognathidae   ; therefore, its placement becomes unresolved in the strict consensus cladogram. In the resulting three MPTs, Phricotelus   is placed as the most basal species of Anapidae   , Anapidae   + Symphytognathidae   , or Synaphridae   . Although much of the morphology for P. stelliger   needs to be properly scored, the type species of this genus, only known by females, was not placed within or closely related to Mysmenidae   . Furthermore, its placement within symphytognathoids also remains uncertain. Morphologically, Phricotelus   has none of the synapomorphic features that diagnose Mysmenidae   , and thus its placement in a different family was expected. Although females have long scape, no epigynal plate ( Fig. 135C View Figure 135 ), no pore-bearing depression on lateral edges of the carapace, and a narrow posterior respiratory spiracle located in front of the spinnerets, the species differs from Mysmenidae   in the absence of femoral spots, two pairs of spermathecae, and abdomen extremely projected posteriorly (see Figs 135C View Figure 135 , 144B View Figure 144 ; further morphological details not observed).


Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle













Lopardo, Lara & Hormiga, Gustavo 2015


Brignoli P 1980: 731
Brignoli P 1978: 250
Forster R & Platnick NI 1977: 5
Brignoli P 1970: 1426
Levi H & Levi L 1962: 22
Simon E 1899: 87
Simon E 1899: 87


Brignoli P 1981: 14
Brignoli P 1980: 731
Levi H 1972: 534
Simon E 1895: 919
Simon E 1895: 919