[Taxacom] "Masteria mystery" solved?

[John Grehan]

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:29 PM
> But in any case, I have little doubt that Masteriinae (assuming that
its three genera
> form a holophyletic taxon) arose in South America (although Michael
Heads might 
> disagree).  In any case, I am increasingly doubtful about
panbiogeographic suggestions
>  that any of these spider taxa spread from the mid-Pacific to South
America via floating
> terranes.

If course anyone is entitled to any personal opinion, but in the absence
of any empirical evidence (which seems to always be the case for Ken's
biogeography) that is all it is.     

 > Granted, it could have dispersed directly from New Guinea to the
Philippines, 

Or it could not have. This is typical waffle found in many dispersal
papers (might have, could have, may have etc.)

> but island hopping in between would not surprise me in the least.  

Actual biogeography has little to do with what might surprise someone.

John Grehan


                                  Ken Kinman             
----------------------------------------------------------

Stuart longhorn wrote:       
Hi all., Re: Masteria mystery
Having actually stared down a dissecting microscope at diplurid spiders
this week, i feel that rather than needing complex scenarios to explain
unusual biogeography, perhaps instead the combination of few
poorly-defined putative synapomorphies and series of poor taxonomic
judgements have simply converged to make yet another genus urgently in
need of serious revision with modern tools and techniques. As with any
taxonomic group, it's probably very valuable to first consider if the
genus is actually monophyletic, and whether the few characters alleged
to support the group (such as reduction from 8 to 6 eyes) are actually
robust synapomorphies, for example considering whether eye reduction
actually commonly appears convergently... as i think most of us know for
cave adapted invertebrates. As for Euagrus in Taiwan, it appears nobody
has looked much at E. formosanus Saito 1933 nor E. atropurpureus Purcell
1903 since their initial descriptions (see below* which probably
explains the ? in Platnick's catalog), nor at I.indicola Tikader 1969,
and as none of these original authors were exactly luminaries in the
world of mygalomorphs, nor flawless in other generic placements, i'm
just suggesting some revision of type specimens (if they even exist or
can be found - see *) and consideration of generic definitions might be
needed before anyone rushes off to the caves of Borneo in a desperate
bid to explain some alleged unusual biogeography. I think careful
reconsideration of old rogue species with exceptional localities might
actually solve such mysteries ** - I just can't believe this needs
saying to some on a mailing list full of taxonomists! Regardsstuart
longhorn *See Coyle (1988), on p223 he says: "MISPLACED SPECIES: As I
have previously demonstrated (Coyle, 1984), Evagrus atropurpureus
Purcell
(1903) is neither a species of Euagrus nor of Allothele. Both Evagrus
caffer Pocock (1902) and Evagrus regnardi Benoit (1964) are species of
Allothele (Coyle, 1984). The holotype of Euagrus formosanus Saito
(1933), a female, was apparently "lost in Hokkaido during world War II"
(T.Yaginuma, personal commun.). The published description and
illustrations are not very informative (there is no information on the
spermathecae), but are sufficient to show that this spider is not a
species of Euagrus." In Coyle (1988). A Revision of the American
funnel-web mygalomorph spider genus Euagrus (Araneae, dipluridae). Bull.
Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 187(3):203-292** Why Coyle just didn't say nomen
dubium or at least species inquirenda at some point is beyond me... 
>
>----------------------------------------------------------->-----------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:05:07 -0500
> From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Masteria mystery" solved? 
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Message-ID: 
>        <26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE799028263A4 at 
>bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;      charset="iso-8859-1" 
> 
> There is no empirical basis for this or any such 'center >of origin'
for Masteria. Might as well suggest they came >from Mars. 
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at
mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 12:34 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] "Masteria mystery" solved? 
> 
> Hi Michael,
> ??????Well, I suggested that the center of origin of Masteria was in 
> the Antarctica area.  Antarctica itself >was
relatively 
> warm in the Mesozoic, but might have not been warm enough >for
Masteria, 
> unless they retreated into caves during the winter months >(which is 
> possible, since many Masteria seem to like caves).    
>    
>       However, I would lean more toward an origin a bit >further north

> (perhaps Argentina).  Argentina is likely where the entire >Subfamily
> Masteriinae would have originated.              
>               --------Ken 
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?    
> P.S. I wonder if anyone has explored any caves in Borneo >looking for 
> Masteria. ?
> ----------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here