Register      Login
Invertebrate Systematics Invertebrate Systematics Society
Systematics, phylogeny and biogeography
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > IS > IS07044
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 22(2)

The fundamental importance of taxonomy in conservation biology: the case of the eyeless Cicurina bandida (Araneae : Dictynidae) of central Texas, including new synonyms and the description of the male of the species

Pierre Paquin A E , Nadine Dupérré B , James C. Cokendolpher C , Kemble White A and Marshal Hedin D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Cave and Endangered Invertebrate Research Laboratory, SWCA Environmental Consultants, 4407 Monterey Oaks Boulevard, Building 1, Suite 110, Austin, Texas 78749, USA.

B Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA.

C Natural Science Research Laboratory, Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, USA.

D Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182-4614, USA.

E Corresponding author. Email: ppaquin@swca.com

Invertebrate Systematics 22(2) 139-149 https://doi.org/10.1071/IS07044
Submitted: 24 August 2007  Accepted: 7 March 2008   Published: 12 May 2008

Abstract

Three eyeless species belonging to the spider genus Cicurina Menge are known from five caves located south of Austin, Travis County (Texas, United States). Because adult female cave-dwelling Cicurina are not common, and adult males rarely collected, these species were described from a very small sample of individuals (nine females). Recent collections have allowed the examination of a larger series of specimens, providing an opportunity to assess intraspecific variability. This has resulted in the synonymy of C. cueva Gertsch and C. reyesi Gertsch with Cicurina bandida Gertsch. The synonymy is supported by both female and male morphology; the male of the species is described for the first time. Cicurina bandida is now known from ~20 caves, restricted to a 10 km × 30 km area. Cicurina cueva was proposed to be listed as an endangered species. Because of the special conservation status of troglobitic Cicurina, modifications of the original species hypothesis are fertile grounds for confrontation between conservationists and proponents of development. Taxonomy is a dynamic science that progresses by proposing new scientific hypotheses and this conflicts with conservation principles that are embedded in a static framework. The criteria used to assign species a particular conservation status should be based on the best available evidence, and not limited by political considerations. Long-term conservation goals can only be achieved when based on a robust taxonomy, which is still largely unavailable for most Texas cave arthropods.

Additional keywords: cave fauna, Cicurina cueva, Cicurina reyesi, conservation policies, endangered species, species hypothesis, species limits, troglobite.


Acknowledgements

We would like to first thank the Texas Department of Transportation, particularly Cal Newnam, for providing financial support for this study. We are also grateful to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for financial support (Contract No. 201814G959 to M. Hedin). The salary of the first author was provided by a post-doctoral grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (N.S.E.R.C.). We would also wish to thank Norman I. Platnick and Lou Sorkin from the American Museum of Natural History (New York) for the warm welcome at the museum and their help to locate the Cicurina types, and James Reddell from the Texas Memorial Museum (Austin, Texas) for the loan of precious specimens that were examined by Gertsch. We are also grateful to J. Reddell for the illuminating discussions regarding the working habits and mindset of Gertsch at the time that he completed the seminal work on eyeless Cicurina. We are also grateful to Anne Danielson-François for her review. Comments by David Culver and Jason Bond helped to improve an earlier version of the manuscript. The review of Mark Harvey was greatly appreciated as well as the grammatical improvements of Cor Vink. Finally, we would like to mention the numerous people, cavers and scientists who expressed interest for cave spiders and cave conservation and provided help of several kinds in the numerous steps of this project, particularly Mark Sanders and Cyndee Watson. This is publication no. 9 of the Karst Biosciences and Environmental Geophysics Research Laboratories, SWCA Environmental Consultants.


References


Agnarsson I., Kuntner M. (2007) Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Systematic Biology 56(3), 531–539.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | open url image1

Barr T. C., Holsinger J. R. (1985) Speciation in cave faunas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16, 313–337.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Bender S., Shelton S., Bender K. C., and Kalmbach A. (2005). ‘Texas comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy (TWAP).’ (Texas Park and Wildlife: Austin, TX, USA.)

Bennett R. G. (1992) The spermathecal pores of spiders with special reference to Dictynoids and Amaurobioids (Araneae, Araneomorphae, Araneoclada). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 123, 1–21. open url image1

Bennett R. G. (2005). Dictynidae. In ‘Spiders of North America. An Identification Manual’. (Eds D. Ubick, P. Paquin, P. Cushing and V. Roth.) pp. 95–101. (American Arachnological Society.)

Berg D. J., Berg P. H. (2000) Conservation genetics of freshwater mussels: comments on Mulvey et al. Conservation Biology 14(6), 1920–1923.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Brignoli P. M. (1979) On some cave spiders from Guatemala and United States (Araneae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 86(2), 435–443. open url image1

Brown K. S. (2000) A new breed of scientist-advocate emerges. Science 287, 1192–1195.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | open url image1

Chamberlin R. V., and Ivie W. (1940). Agelenid spiders of the genus Cicurina. Bulletin of the University of Utah 30(13). Biological Series 5(9), 1–108.

Cokendolpher J. C. (2004). Cicurina spiders from caves in Bexar County, Texas. In ‘Studies on the Cave and Endogean Fauna of North America. Vol. IV’. (Eds J. R. Reddell and J. C. Cokendolpher.) pp. 13–58. Texas Memorial Museum Speleological Monographs 6. (Texas Memorial Museum: Austin, TX, USA.)

Collins E. W., Laubach S. E. (1990) Faults and fractures in the Balcones Fault Zone, Austin region, central Texas. Austin Geological Survey Guidebook 13, 1–34. open url image1

Eberhard W. G. (1986). Why are genitalia good species characters? In ‘Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Arachnology, Panama, 1983’. (Eds Y. D. Lubin, W. G. Eberhard and B. C. Robinson.) pp. 333. (Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA.)

Gertsch W. J. (1992). Distribution patterns and speciation in North American cave spiders with a list of the troglobites and revision of the cicurinas of the subgenus Cicurella. In ‘Studies on the Cave and Endogean Fauna of North America. Vol. II’. (Ed. J. R. Reddell.) pp. 75–122. Texas Memorial Museum Speleological Monographs 3. (Texas Memorial Museum: Austin, TX, USA.)

Jackman J. A. (1997). ‘A Field Guide to Spiders and Scorpions of Texas.’ (Gulf Publishing Company: Houston, TX, USA.)

Longacre C. (2000) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Final rule to list nine Bexar County, Texas Invertebrate species as endangered. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR part 17, RIN 1018–AF33.  Federal Register 65(248), 81419–81433. open url image1

Mulvey M., Lydeard C. (2000) Let’s not abandon science for advocacy: reply to Berg and Berg. Conservation Biology 14(6), 1924–1925.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Noss R. F. (2007) Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 21(1), 18–20.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | open url image1

Paquin P. (2005) The genus from hell. The Canadian Arachnologist 6, 11–18. open url image1

Paquin P., Hedin M. (2004) The power and perils of ‘molecular taxonomy’: a case study of eyeless and endangered Cicurina (Araneae: Dictynidae) from Texas caves. Molecular Ecology 13, 3239–3255.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | open url image1

Platnick N. I. (2007). The World Spider Catalog. Version 7.5. (American Museum of Natural History: New York, USA.) Available at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html. [Verified 1 June 2007].

Reddell J. R. (1994). The cave fauna of Texas with special reference to the western Edwards Plateau. In ‘The Caves and Karst of Texas’. (Eds W. R. Elliott and G. Veni.) pp. 31–50. (National Speleological Society: Huntsville, AL, USA.)

Reddell J. R. (2005). Spiders and related groups. In ‘Encyclopedia of Caves’. (Eds D. C. Culver and W. B. White.) pp. 254–264. (Academic Press: New York, USA.)

Sbordoni V., Allegrucci G., and Cesaron D. (2000). Population genetic structure, speciation and evolutionary rates in cave-dwelling organisms. In ‘Subterranean Ecosystems: Ecosystems of the World 30’. (Eds H. Wilkens, D. C. Culver and W. F. Humphreys.) Chapter 24. pp. 459–483. (Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.)

Shrader-Frechette K., McCoy E. D. (1999) Molecular systematics, ethics, and biological decision making under uncertainty. Conservation Biology 13(5), 1008–1012.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Small T. A., Hanson J. A., and Hauwert N. M. (1996). ‘Geological framework and hydrogeologic characteristics of the Edwards Aquifer outcrop (Barton Springs Segment), northeastern Hays and Southwestern Travis Counties, Texas.’ (Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and the Texas Water Development Board: Austin, TX, USA.)

Ubick D., Paquin P., Cushing P., and Roth V. (Eds) (2005). ‘Spiders of North America. An Identification Manual.’ (American Arachnological Society.)

Woodruff C. M., Abbott P. L. (1979) Drainage-basin evolution and aquifer development in a karstic limestone terrain south-central Texas, U.S.A. Earth Surface Proceedings 4, 319–334.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1