Next Article in Journal
Review of Kissing Bugs (Hemiptera: Reduviidae: Triatominae) from China with Descriptions of Two New Species
Next Article in Special Issue
Duration of Cattle Ranching Affects Dung Beetle Diversity and Secondary Seed Removal in Tropical Dry Forest Landscapes
Previous Article in Journal
Trade-Offs between Temperature and Fitness in Euschistus heros (Fabricius) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae): Implications for Mass Rearing and Field Management
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interaction Networks Help to Infer the Vulnerability of the Saproxylic Beetle Communities That Inhabit Tree Hollows in Mediterranean Forests
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/insects14050449
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Case for Below-Ground Dispersal? Insights into the Biology, Ecology and Conservation of Blind Cave Spiders in the Genus Troglodiplura (Mygalomorphae: Anamidae)

by
Jessica R. Marsh
1,2,3,*,
Steven J. Milner
4,
Matthew Shaw
2,
Andrew J. Stempel
5,
Mark S. Harvey
6,7 and
Michael G. Rix
6,8
1
Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
2
Biological Sciences, South Australian Museum, GPO Box 234, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
3
Invertebrates Australia, Osborne Park, WA 6017, Australia
4
School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, Engineering and Technology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
5
Independent Researcher, Port Adelaide, SA 5015, Australia
6
Collections & Research, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, WA 6106, Australia
7
School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
8
Biodiversity and Geosciences Program, Queensland Museum Collections & Research Centre, Hendra, QLD 4011, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(5), 449; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050449
Submission received: 7 April 2023 / Revised: 5 May 2023 / Accepted: 5 May 2023 / Published: 10 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Invertebrate Conservation: Challenges and Ways Forward)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Blind cave spiders of the genus Troglodiplura are large, enigmatic spiders, which show a number of adaptations to an underground existence, including elongated limbs and a complete lack of eyes. They are known only from the Nullarbor Plain, Australia and prior to this study the species were only known from juveniles or fragments of dead spiders. We investigated the distribution of Troglodiplura in South Australia, providing detailed observations of the behaviour of living adult and juvenile spiders in their natural habitat and in captivity. Given the adaptations of the spiders to an underground existence, plus the barriers to above-ground dispersal posed by the arid climate of the Nullarbor Plain, we expected species to be confined to single caves. However, our molecular evidence showed that the species T. beirutpakbarai was distributed across multiple caves in South Australia, each separated by between 10–27 km, and that there had been connection between the caves in recent history. These findings provide intriguing evidence for subterranean between-cave dispersal mechanisms for these spiders. A number of threats to cave fauna and the fragile cave ecosystem are posed, and we recommend further research to better define the distribution of vulnerable cave taxa and their conservation profiles.

Abstract

Previously described from only fragments of exoskeleton and juvenile specimens, the cave spider genus Troglodiplura (Araneae: Anamidae), endemic to the Nullarbor Plain, is the only troglomorphic member of the infraorder Mygalomorphae recorded from Australia. We investigated the distribution of Troglodiplura in South Australia, collecting and observing the first (intact) mature specimens, widening the number of caves it has been recorded in, and documenting threats to conservation. Phylogenetic analyses support the placement of Troglodiplura as an independent lineage within the subfamily Anaminae (the ‘Troglodiplura group’) and provide unequivocal evidence that populations from apparently isolated cave systems are conspecifics of T. beirutpakbarai Harvey & Rix, 2020, with extremely low or negligible inter-population mitochondrial divergences. This is intriguing evidence for recent or contemporary subterranean dispersal of these large, troglomorphic spiders. Observations of adults and juvenile spiders taken in the natural cave environment, and supported by observations in captivity, revealed the use of crevices within caves as shelters, but no evidence of silk use for burrow construction, contrasting with the typical burrowing behaviours seen in other Anamidae. We identify a range of threats posed to the species and to the fragile cave ecosystem, and provide recommendations for further research to better define the distribution of vulnerable taxa within caves and identify actions needed to protect them.

1. Introduction

Caves, with near uniform annual temperature and humidity [1], low light levels, low energy inputs, and low diversity and abundance of organisms, represent extreme natural ecosystems. Many organisms living within caves are able to also exist in epigean habitats, and are termed eutroglophiles; however, others are only able to exist strictly within caves and these are termed troglobionts or troglobites [2]. Many troglobionts have specifically evolved in response to these extreme environs and show a range of morphological features, including loss or reduction of eyes, thinning or changes in the structure of the cuticle, loss of pigmentation, and elongation of appendages [3,4,5]. The repeated evolution of such phenotypes, collectively known as troglomorphisms, across diverse lineages provides models that offer insights into the developmental and genetic basis of evolutionary change.
In Australia, troglobiont spiders have been recorded from a number of families, including Anapidae [6]; Mysmenidae [7]; Pholcidae [8]; Ctenidae [9,10]; Desidae [9]; Gradungulidae [11]; Zoropsidae [10]; Linyphiidae [12]; Stiphidiidae [9]; Symphytognathidae [13]; Trachycosmidae [14]; and, the subject of this paper, the Anamidae [15]. While all of these examples are regarded as troglobionts, for many this is inferred from their location in cave systems, with only some actually showing evident troglomorphic features. Of these, the genus Troglodiplura Main, 1969 (Anamidae), endemic to the Nullarbor Plain or Nullarbor Divide, is clearly troglomorphic and is the only lineage of troglomorphic Mygalomorphae [15] known from Australia. The Nullarbor Plain (part of the biogeographic Nullarbor Divide) is an extensive arid landscape in southern Australia [16], covering an area of around 200,000 km2, and containing hundreds of caves [17]. The region is remarkable for its harsh environment, with a mean annual rainfall of 250 mm near the coast, temperatures spanning from a minimum of around −2 °C in winter to above 40 °C in summer [18]; inland there is a conspicuous lack of large woody vegetation and therefore shade. The cave environs provide a stark contrast to the extreme climes of the surface, with many caves recording near uniform annual temperatures and relative humidity deep in the cave systems, with temperatures stable around 16 °C to 18 °C depending on their locality, and relative humidity ranging between 50% and 90%, depending on the cave structure [1,19].
Spiders of the infraorder Mygalomorphae have a range of traits that make them especially vulnerable to threatening processes, such as habitat specificity, reduced physiological tolerance to changes in abiotic factors (for example sensitivity to desiccation), longevity, low vagility and a tendency towards short-range endemism, and as such are recognised for their conservation significance [20,21]. Troglodiplura are large spiders, showing a number of adaptations to a hypogean existence, including complete loss of eyes or eye spots, and elongate appendages [12]. Species of Troglodiplura are enigmatic both biologically and ecologically; prior to this study, all mature specimens in collections were known from only fragments of exoskeleton, with fresh specimens having only been collected for one species, T. beirutpakbarai Harvey & Rix, 2020, all of which were juveniles.
Troglomorphic adaptations can render troglobiont organisms unable to survive in the epigaeic environment [22] and so restrict above-ground dispersal from cave systems. Thus, in the absence of subterranean dispersal, cave systems can act as habitat islands which present allopatric barriers to gene flow [23,24]. Organisms restricted to such isolated systems are typically characterised by extreme genetic divergence between neighbouring sub-populations, and high levels of species endemism to particular cave systems [25,26,27,28,29]. Several examples of extremely limited dispersal have been found for spiders of the family Nesticidae [30,31], for example the troglomorphic Nesticus barri Gertsch, 1984 [27], which had no shared COI haplotypes between individuals from caves at distances of greater than 12 km [28]. Similar patterns of isolation were found for the troglomorphic spider Troglohyphantes vignai Brignoli, 1971 (Linyphiidae) of the Italian Alps [32], and in Telema cucurbitina (Wang & Lee, 2010) (Telemidae) in South China karst [33], suggesting highly restricted or no dispersal. Even for spiders with a broad range, such as the troglomorphic spider Parastalita stygia (Joseph, 1882) (Dysderidae), which occurs across an area of 240 km2 in the Dinarides mountain range in the Balkans, molecular analyses revealed deep population structuring and pronounced patterns of isolation, suggesting any dispersal is highly limited [34,35]. The foregoing case studies correspond to a “caves as islands” model [36,37]. In contrast to this model, some cave systems have variable amounts of physical linkage between caverns including via lava tubes, meso- or micro caverns, and subterranean pathways in cavernicolous limestone and/or groundwater, which may act as pathways through which troglobiont organisms can disperse [22,23]. Dispersal potential through these pathways is influenced by the presence of stratigraphic or fluvial barriers to dispersal, by the organism’s vagility, or relative dispersal ability [22,23,38,39], and by its level of troglomorphism, with more highly troglomorphic species having a lower dispersal ability [32,34]. Subterranean dispersal is more commonly recorded in stygofauna and aquatic troglobionts than in terrestrial troglobionts, where water dwelling organisms may face fewer barriers to dispersal [27,38,39,40,41]. Despite being less common, evidence of subterranean dispersal of terrestrial troglobionts has been recorded for a range of invertebrate taxa, including cave beetles of the tribe Trechini (Carabidae) in North America [38], and of the tribe Leptodirini (Leiodidae) in the Pyrenees [41,42,43]. In arachnids, evidence of subterranean dispersal was used to explain the distribution of the troglomorphic pseudoscorpion Protochelifer naracoortensis Beier, 1968 across multiple caves, albeit separated by only small distances [26]. Arnedo et al. (2007) collected troglobiont spiders of the genus Dysdera Latreille, 1804 (Dysderidae) from cracks and voids between lava tubes in the Canary Islands, providing direct evidence of dispersal of spiders through micro and meso caverns [44]. Shared haplotypes between isolated cave populations of troglomorphic species of Cicurina Menge, 1871 (Dictynidae), provide indirect evidence of gene flow between populations [5]. Furthermore, different Cicurina clade members normally only found in caves many kilometres apart have appeared sympatrically, associated with certain fractures [45]. A similar pattern of shared haplotypes was seen in troglobiont species of Neoleptoneta Brignoli, 1972 (Leptonetidae) [46]. Where subterranean pathways exist and where organisms are capable of dispersing, it is conceivable that instead of acting as isolated islands, caves can be viewed as a part of a broader, but still restricted, network of connected fissures and cracks, with ample potential dispersal pathways for fauna [47].
Cave environments are fragile ecosystems, which face a range of threats from anthropogenic sources including mining, groundwater extraction and contamination, impacts from above-ground development, and climate change [48]. Theoretical modelling predicts an increase in cave temperatures with increasing global temperatures, albeit with a lag time between surface increases and hypogean increases [49,50,51,52,53]. Having evolved in a hypogean environment, with more or less stable temperatures and humidity, it is likely that troglomorphic organisms have a substantially reduced tolerance to abiotic changes to the cave environment [5]. This, coupled with the limited dispersal potential of troglomorphic organisms [54], and the challenges associated with dispersal to other subterranean environs, means troglomorphic species are at a heightened risk of climate-change-induced extinction events [52,55]. The extinction risks facing troglomorphic mygalomorph spider lineages, such as Troglodiplura, are likely compounded by the ecological and life history traits of mygalomorph spiders more generally and such species can be considered of prime conservation concern [20,56].
Whilst surveys of the Nullarbor Plain to date have revealed a biologically intriguing, and vulnerable endemic biota (Table 1), many of the caves are yet to be surveyed. In this study we present data on surveys conducted in some South Australian caves of the Nullarbor Plain, with notes on the ecology, biology, and conservation of T. beirutpakbarai, and discuss findings in relation to the likely conservation status of other troglobiont spiders. Given that Troglodiplura is highly troglomorphic, combined with the inherent tendency towards low vagility and short-range endemism shown by mygalomorph spiders, and the barriers to dispersal presented by the harsh, arid surface environment, we hypothesise that above-ground dispersal of Troglodiplura is severely (if not entirely) restricted and dispersal in total is low, supported by the absence of any historical collections of Troglodiplura in non-karst environments. Given this, we predicted that populations of Troglodiplura from neighbouring caves would exhibit high levels of genetic divergence.
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of caves where Troglodiplura have been previously collected. ** indicates results collected during the present study.
Table 1. Characteristics of caves where Troglodiplura have been previously collected. ** indicates results collected during the present study.
SpeciesCaveGeomorphic Characteristics Habitat Where Troglodiplura Observed
T. beirutpakbarai Harvey & Rix, 2020N-253 Eagles Rest Cave (SA)Complex cave ca. 250 m long under calcrete pavement. Single roof hole leads to a spacious chamber 60 m × 40 m × 12 m high and to a maze of passages. Ephemeral stream with ponding and significant speleothem development (calcite and halite). Some sediments have not received water ingress for some considerable time (Milner, pers. obs.).** Adult: dark zone on sediments.
** Adult desiccated fragments: dark zone on rocky boulder slope.
** Juveniles: diffused daylight zone near entrance, also on sediments in dark zone near live adult population.
T. challeni Harvey & Rix, 2020N-83 Old Homestead Cave (WA)Highly complex cave with over 20 km passages. Cave is now very dry with desiccated sediments and rock piles. Abundant scattered speleothem development including calcite, gypsum, and halite. The cave shows geological evidence of former extensive ponding of still water (Milner, pers. obs.).Dark zone up to 2 km from entrance [15]
T. harrisi Harvey & Rix, 2020N-327 Encompassing Cave (WA)Complex cave, over 1 km long with mostly low passages. Calcite and other speleothem development. Tree roots penetrate the cave [57]Habitat shared with Tartarus sp. in a sealed dark zone. Temperature 17.8–18.2 °C and humidity 80–90% [57]
T. lowryi Main 1969N-58 Roaches Rest Cave (WA) (Figure 1)Large collapse chamber under doline lip with two roof holes. Cave is a 30° inclined chamber 90 m × 50 m × 13 m high. The cave floor is generally rocky, with reflected daylight reaching most aspects of the cave (Milner, pers. obs.).Dark zone [15].
T. samankunani Harvey & Rix, 2020N-49 Pannikin Plains Cave (WA)Overhanging doline with very steep talus slope descends to the water table. Several kilometres of underwater passage development leads to air chambers accessible only by cave divers [58]Dark zone in air chamber ca. 3 km north of cave entrance [15].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Nullarbor Plain, located in southern Australia, is a vast, approx. 240,000 km2 arid limestone plateau that constitutes the world’s largest area of exposed karst, and hosts thousands of shallow cave and karst features [17,58]. The study area is located in the South Australian part of the IBRA 7.0 Nullarbor bioregion (Figure 2) [59]. Caves and karsts in Australia are numbered using the Australian Speleological Federation numbering system to aid identification [60]; in this manuscript we quote the cave number name the first time a cave is mentioned and henceforth refer to the cave by the cave number.
The majority, but not all of the shallow caves, blowholes and anastomosing tubes across the Nullarbor were formed underwater around 6 million years ago [61,62] and because of continental uplift, lowering of the water table, or regional uplift of limestone, are now full of air. The result is a horizontal plane of rubbly perforated limestone with a high volume of air space. Anastomosing tube development is observed in limestone all over the world [62,63] and on the Nullarbor it is an abundant and extensive form of perforation in the upper levels of Nullarbor limestone arising from epiphreatic solution (a zone of intense solution just below the top of the water table) [17,63]. In the subsurface of the plain there are many voids, ranging in size from small tubules through to large caves; the small tubules are irregular cavities, generally <20 cm in diameter, with narrow sinuous anastomosing tubes that follow bedding planes and joint surfaces [63] (Figure 3a–e). These honeycomb the limestone close to the surface of the plain, providing connectivity beneath the hard calcrete capstone and are connected to the surface via thousands of blowholes scattered across the Nullarbor [17].
The typical blowhole cave on the Nullarbor Plain is formed upwards to the surface from voids beneath by crystal weathering processes [64] and consists of a round vertical shaft (ranging from 0.5 m to 3 m diameter and up to 7 m depth), which may or may not intersect with chambers or passages of other cave types at depth; however, they consistently intersect with anastomosing tubes. Blowholes and associated shallow caves are distributed across the Nullarbor Plain in a 25–30-km-wide band located approx. 75 km inland and are evident in the study area [61]. The density of blowholes is up to 43 per 25 km2 [61]; in the study area encompassing N-253, N-6838, and N-5896, there are 138 known shallow caves and karst features [58], and an estimated 688 blowholes [61] with an average of 520 m between two karst features if randomly distributed.

2.2. Site Selection

The geomorphic characteristics of caves in which Troglodiplura spiders from the Nullarbor Plain have been collected are diverse (Table 1), with individual caves being up to 475 km apart. Many hundreds of caves on the Nullarbor Plain share features of those where Troglodiplura have been observed. In this study, we therefore focused surveys on caves which were proximal to, or shared similar features with, N-253 Eagles Rest Cave in which T. beirutpakbarai was previously collected (Figure 1) [15]. Based on the geomorphic characteristics of N-253, nearby caves with a moist and extensive sediment floor away from the daylight zone, with ephemeral ingress of water, were selected.
In order to protect these systems, following established practice with Australian cave data, we do not intend to publicly release, or generalise, cave data. Thus, these location data are considered as Category 1 under recommendations published by the GBIF Secretariat [65].

2.3. Survey Methods

Surveys were conducted by hand, with searches focusing on the sediment floor, cave walls, inter-rock crevices, and rock surfaces. Initial surveys were conducted using a Petzl Duo 6000k at 400 Lumens (approx.), or a Scurion 3000K at 400 Lumens (approx.) caving light attached to the caving helmet; however, to reduce the possibility of disturbance of Troglodiplura caused by vibration and light, later surveys employed red LED lights and swift but gentle movements to minimise vibrations. On collection, fresh specimens were transferred to 100% ethanol; fragments of spiders were stored dry. Given the conservation significance of Troglodiplura, collection of live specimens was conducted sensitively, and minimal specimens were collected to allow analysis of genetic diversity within a cave. Two adults (females) were collected alive from each of N-6838 (SAMA NN30812–13) and N-253 (NN 30806, NN30808). Other adults were observed or caught and released. On a subsequent entry to N-253, two already dead “mummified” females were found in N-253 and collected too (NN31721–22). Immatures were also collected from each cave. N-253 was surveyed on three dates, N-6838 on two, and the remainder of caves on one date. Survey times in each cave were variable and dependent on the size and complexity of each cave. As a rule, surveys were conducted until all suitable habitats and chambers had been inspected.

2.4. Site Characterisation

Relative humidity and temperature were recorded at each cave site using a Kestrel 3000 (Nielsen-Kellerman City: Boothwyn. State: PA, USA) handheld temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed instrument. The instrument was allowed to equilibrate with the cave environment for at least 30 minutes before measurements were taken during falling atmospheric barometric pressure to be therefore representative of typical environmental conditions. Descriptions were made of the general structure of each cave site, noting evidence of water and relevant characteristics.

2.5. Molecular and Phylogenetic Methods

The methods used to generate molecular nucleotide sequence data follow [15], with the following genes targeted as per previous phylogenetic analyses on Anamidae: cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI), 12S rRNA (12S), 16S rRNA (16S), Histone H3 (H3), elongation factor 1-gamma (EF-1γ), 18S rRNA (18S) and 28S rRNA (28S). We added five new specimens to the original 84-taxon dataset of Harvey et al. [15] (Table 2), including one specimen of Aname salina Wilson, Rix & Harvey, 2023, one specimen of Kwongan wonganensis (Main, 1977), and three newly collected specimens of Troglodiplura from three separate karst systems (N-253, N-5896, N-6838).
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of the 89-taxon (seven gene) ‘expanded’ dataset replicated Harvey et al. (2020) [15], with 11 partitions applied to the 5373 bp matrix, and four Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) chains run for 40 million generations, with the first 10% of sampled trees discarded as ‘burn-in’ (see Supplementary Materials File S1). For a full breakdown of analysis software and parameters see [15,66].

3. Results

3.1. Survey Results

We conducted surveys of 23 caves and found Troglodiplura in three caves: N-253, from which T. beirutpakbarai was known prior to this study [15]; N-6838 Wedge Cave, located around 18 km NE. from N-253; and N-5896 Mitey Cave located around 10 km SW. of N-253 and around 27 km SW. of N-6838 (Figure 4, Table 3).
Caves N-5894, N-5895, and N-238 were within 20 km of N-253 and also received water from rainfall events. However, they differed from N-253 by not retaining a damp sediment floor as water sank deeper into unexplorable parts of the cave, or if there was some dampness or a flat floor, the cave was subject to external temperature and humidity close to the entrance, or the chamber was in the daylight zone. Troglodiplura was not observed in these caves during surveys.
Table
Table 3. Survey results, geomorphic characteristics, and notes on the cave environment for the caves in which Troglodiplura were observed. Specimens were living unless otherwise stated. Abbreviations: rh = relative humidity.
Table 3. Survey results, geomorphic characteristics, and notes on the cave environment for the caves in which Troglodiplura were observed. Specimens were living unless otherwise stated. Abbreviations: rh = relative humidity.
CaveTroglodiplura
beirutpakbarai
Records 		Geomorphic CharacteristicsCave Environment Where Troglodiplura Observed
N-253 Eagles Rest Cave (SA)adult female (n = 2); juvenile (n = 11); desiccated, whole mature females (n = 3); fragments of exoskeleton, mature male (n = 4). Figure 5a,b.Refer notes in Table 1. N-253 clearly takes a stream after rainfall events leaving ephemeral pools and calcite deposits; evidence of significant water flow and historical ponding in western passage. The deep cracks in the clay of the southern chamber floor suggest some considerable time since the last flood in that chamber.Southern Chamber: 17.8 °C, 90% rh (8 March 2022)
Western Passage where adults observed: 18.2 °C, 80% rh (8 March 2022)
N-6838 Wedge Cave (SA)adult female (n = 2); juvenile (n = 8).N-6838 is 18 km NE. from N-253. The collapse doline entrance rockpile descends to flat, wide, damp, hard, mud floor, ca. 10 m beneath the surface of limestone. Chamber is ca. 50 m × 30 m with a passage height of around 1.2 m (average). An occasional stream washes in with evidence of historical floods to 0.5 m deep.17.3 °C, 95% rh (7 March 2022)
17.5 °C, 90% rh (11 March 2022)
N-5896 Mitey Cave (SA)juvenile (n = 2).N-5896 is 10 km SW. from N-253. The 6 m deep entrance tube leads to a 60 m × 40 m chamber, 2–3 m high, with a flat floor. There is evidence of significant water ingress since 2015.18.5 °C, 76% rh (9 March 2022)

3.2. Phylogenetic Analysis

Phylogenetic analysis of the 89-taxon ‘expanded’ dataset (Table 2) revealed that Troglodiplura specimens collected from caves N-253, N-6838 and N-5898 represent separate but unequivocally conspecific populations of T. beirutpakbarai (Figure 6). In COI there were only slight differences among the caves, with a maximum uncorrected pairwise divergence of 1.5% between caves N-253/N-5896 and N-6838. Specimens from caves N-5896 and N-253 were more similar genetically, with an uncorrected pairwise divergence of only 0.3%, reflecting the closer geographical proximity of these two caves (Figure 4). However, the 16S haplotypes were identical for all three caves.

3.3. Intraspecific Variation

Available adult females (SAMA NN30806, NN30808, NN30812–13, NN31721–22, n = 6) were from two widely separated caves (N-253 and N-6838) and showed minimal variation in form and size.
Measurements were taken in mm, and given as mean (range): Carapace width 10.6 (9.8–11.7), carapace length 12.5 (11.8–13.4); Leg I: femur 12.8 (12.5–14.0), patella 6.7 (5.5–7.7), tibia 12.2 (11.8–12.9), metatarsus 12.3 (11.4–13.5), tarsus 6.3 (5.7–6.9); Leg IV: femur 13.2 (11.8–14.4), patella 5.2 (5.4–5.6), tibia 13.2 (12.5–14.2), metatarsus 18.5 (17.5–19.9), tarsus 5.7 (5.2–6.9). All measurements taken for N-6838 females lay within those found for N-253 females, except for three leg measurements indicated in bold type. Maxillary cuspule counts (left/right) taken from freshly collected females (n = 4) were higher in Cave N-253: NN30806 (38/40) NN30808 (35/35), than from Cave N-6838: NN30812 (27/25), NN30813 (33/31/).

3.4. Biology

Live adult spiders were observed within a few minutes of entering a chamber, and were located in the ‘open’ on the cave floor, or on the underside of overhanging rocks. Spiders were typically slow moving and easily caught, but moved quickly if disturbed. Smaller juvenile spiders were observed at the interface between the flat cave floor and the rock wall, and on the cave floor, close to entrances in the twilight zone. Juveniles were observed retreating into crevices and holes in the rock, or into mud holes. In N-6838, a spider was seen squeezing into a mud hole, with an opening of 4 mm × 6 mm, and another into a natural rock hole ca. 10 mm in diameter (Figure 7a,b). Fragments of mature male exoskeletons were located in small piles outside of crevices in the rock wall, or on top of rocks. No such piles of exoskeleton were found for females; however, two large, desiccated whole (‘mummified’) mature females and one presumably sub-adult juvenile, based on size, were observed on rock and substrate surfaces within cave N-253.
Potential prey items detected during cave surveys were cave crickets, beetles and other spiders, the three most commonly observed invertebrates detected in our surveys. One juvenile T. beirutpakbarai was caught whilst consuming a ground beetle (family Carabidae).

3.5. Conservation

Fox scats and dens were detected in two caves identified as potentially suitable habitat for T. beirutpakbarai; in one cave these were extensive, extending throughout accessible passages and into the dark zone. Recent damage caused by humans was also detected in one cave, with stalagmites broken and skulls of skeletal animal remains removed.

3.6. Behaviour in Captivity

A female T. beirutpakbarai from Cave N-253 and an immature from Cave N-6838 were kept in captivity in separate Perspex containers, with a layer of silt derived from N-253. Folded cardboard and plastic and glass tubes of various diameters were provided as shelters. However, the spiders almost never entered these and did not reside in them. Silk production was only observed when moulting—the immature spider from Cave N-6838 constructed a fine silk moulting web on the substrate, situated at one end of the enclosure, in which moulting occurred. Moulting occurred ‘out in the open’, with the spider lying on its back. Posture when standing still varied. Sometimes the adult female would stand for long periods with her body elevated above the substrate and at other times would have her body touching the substrate. Posture did not obviously correlate with exposure to stimulation, light, time of feeding or hydration state. At times, both spiders had active periods, roaming about their enclosures, extending legs and trying to climb the smooth sides of their containers.
One adult cave cricket, Pallidotettix sp., ca 16 mm in body length, was offered to the adult female T. beirutpakbarai, which was subdued quickly and consumed. No trace of the cricket was detectable after consumption. The same spider would not accept a wild-caught Brises sp. cave beetle (a large tenebrionid) three days later despite repeated re-introduction of this item. It would also not accept adult or immature cultured crickets, Acheta domesticus, despite the offered immature crickets being only ca. 25% of the spider’s body length and provided after a month of no food. The spider appeared aware of crickets moving in its enclosure and would withdraw from where a cricket was moving. On one occasion, an offered adult A. domesticus cricket moved directly towards Troglodiplura; the spider evidently detected this at a distance > 5 cm and raised its body high above the substrate, and allowed the cricket to walk completely under it three times. In contrast to the feeding behaviour of the adult, two immature spiders accepted small A. domesticus crickets whenever they were offered.
Overall, the spiders made minimal movements. When evasive movements were undertaken, they were slow and conservative. Conversely, on a couple of occasions the female was accidentally exposed to minor but sudden vibrations, and it would then lurch forward rapidly and run very fast. Gentle blowing on the spider never elicited a flight response.

3.7. Symbiotic Mite

A new and undescribed symbiotic mite species (Imparipes sp.: Scutacaridae) was found living on adult T. beirutpakbarai specimens from both caves in which adult spiders were collected. All the mites recovered from spider bodies were found in between coxae III and IV or between both coxa IV.

4. Discussion

Our findings of extremely low genetic divergence (≤1.5% for COI and identical haplotypes for 16S rRNA) between populations of T. beirutpakbarai from separate caves situated between 10 and 27 km apart implies recent or contemporary gene transfer between these populations. The morphology of T. beirutpakbarai—the absence of eyes, their gracile body form, and large size—in combination with observed behavioural responses suggest that the species is a troglobiont, truly restricted to the cave environment. Some spiders are known to disperse aerially, through a mechanism known as ballooning; however, ballooning has never been recorded in the Anamidae and is apparently rare in Mygalomorphae, having been recorded from only few families [67]. This, in combination with the extreme troglomorphism shown by Troglodiplura, the tendency for low vagility of mygalomorph spiders generally, the absence of any epigean records of Troglodiplura anywhere in Australia, and the stark contrast between the surface climate and the cave environs of the Nullarbor Plain, indicates that subterranean dispersal provides the best explanation for the observed genetic pattern. Previous studies have found direct evidence for dispersal by spiders through subterranean meso- or micro caverns in the Canary Islands [44] and the presence of shared haplotypes between spider species in isolated cave populations [46,68], which could provide indirect evidence of inter-population connectivity and gene flow. Nonetheless, our findings of extremely low genetic divergence and thus apparently interconnected populations over distances of up to 27 km are unexpected. The structure of the cave systems of the Nullarbor Plain, and the potential for inter-cave connectivity via anastomosing tubes and blowholes (Figure 2), may be implicated in the patterns of divergence in T. beirutpakbarai. Each karst feature provides a possible entry point for ingress of water, and energy inputs (food); this, in conjunction with extant or historic anastomosing tube connectivity between larger caves, presents a possible mechanism for genetic exchange for T. beirutpakbarai in this area. Two caves where Troglodiplura have been observed in apparently ‘sealed’ environments, distant from surface entry points including obvious blowholes, are T. harrisi in N-327 [57], and T. samankunani in N-49 [15]. The presence of these species in apparently ‘sealed’ environments provides further evidence for a cryptic but extant pathway for the flow of energy (food) into these systems, and thus potentially for genetic exchange.
Historically, the ocean retreated for the last time around 14 million years ago, after which there was a gentle uplift of the Nullarbor region [17,69]. The climate became increasingly dry with vegetation similar to that found on the Nullarbor Plain today, except that the dry eucalypt woodland extended farther inland and probably covered much of the Nullarbor Plain [17]. A warm, wet episode occurred around ~5–3 million years ago, and the climate reached its present level of dryness around one million years ago [17]. The three caves in which we detected populations of T. beirutpakbarai are located in Nullarbor limestone laid down 16–14 million years ago; it was a warm sea limestone, evidenced by the large marine fossils that are embedded in the walls of each of the caves [70]. Cave development of N-253 is different from the other two caves where Troglodiplura were observed in that the cavernous void beneath the caprock has been created by the collapse of deeper voids in Oligocene limestone during the late Miocene, in a process observed elsewhere on the Nullarbor [35]. N-6838 and N-5896 appear different from N-253 in that they are shallow caves with flank margin characteristics, forming around 6 million years ago [61].
The ancestor of Troglodiplura probably entered Nullarbor cave systems sometime during or after the Miocene [15]. This entry can be accounted for by two distinct models, representing two sides of a debate in cave biology, which have implications for resolving the paradox of Troglodiplura diversity. Firstly, Troglodiplura might have evolved parapatrically based on restricted gene flow between adjacent cave-dwelling and surface-dwelling subpopulations. If so, this might have occurred at any time after caves became available to colonise (i.e., up to approx. 14 million years ago) which includes a relatively early time including a climatically subtropical period. This would correspond to the parapatric/ecological speciation model. Secondly, following the climate relict model [41], Troglodiplura might have evolved allopatrically as a climate relict [71]. If so, this would be likely to occur after aridification stranded an anamid ancestor in a cave, surrounded by a drying landscape, with an above-ground habitat matrix considered increasingly impermeable to dispersal. If so, troglomorphic Troglodiplura could have evolved later, with the pulse of aridification commencing ca. 3 million years ago a key possibility. Testing the generality of this latter model is feasible due to some highly distinct arthropods that cohabit N-253. For example, at least three mesic-adapted mite taxa in different families occur here, yet these taxa are otherwise essentially known from wet forests. They are clearly mesic-restricted and are geographically separated from known relatives by distances ranging up to 2,500 km (Geogamasus cf howardi (Ologamasidae); Castriidinychidae; Hybalicus (Lordalychidae)) [72,73,74]. While overlapping predictions can make these models difficult to disentangle, there are opportunities for future molecular work to infer the mode and tempo of Troglodiplura diversification. Outcomes of such analyses could have implications for conservation as, for under a climate relict model, intolerance of a deteriorating climate is then directly associated with Trogodiplura biogeography.
There are other distinct arthropods that co-occur with Troglodiplura which provide extra research potential for these cave systems. One unusual example that could add to our understanding of Troglodiplura spp is the scutacarid mite Imparipes sp. found upon T. beirutpakbarai females. Scutacarids frequently show high host-specificity and are clear candidates for co-phylogenetic analysis. They are regarded as harmless commensals that feed on fungi, with males living off-host in nest-like situations. Interestingly, the only other scutacarids known from spiders are three species also from nemesioid hosts and these also inhabit the intercoxal space between coxae III and IV. These latter scutacarid species are specific to three congeneric pycnothelid hosts from Argentina [75].
As hypothesised by Harvey et al. [15] based on morphology, Troglodiplura was recovered as an independent lineage within the subfamily Anaminae, here referred to as the ‘Troglodiplura group’ (Figure 6). Our observations taken in the natural cave environment and in captivity indicate that T. beirutpakbarai does not construct burrows, or utilise silk for shelters, even though these behaviours are typical of other Anamidae. Troglodiplura beirutpakbarai were most often first located in ‘the open’, on the surface of rocks or substrate and when disturbed retreated to small crevices in the cave wall, close to ground level. Our results indicate that the species is an opportunistic generalist (and likely cursorial) predator, feeding on mid-sized cave beetles (Carabidae), cave crickets (Rhaphidophoridae) and with juveniles accepting cultured small epigean A. domesticus crickets (Gryllidae) in captivity. The presence of several large, whole, desiccated mature females and a large juvenile on rock and substrate surfaces illustrates the preservative nature of the cave environment, and indicates a scarcity of scavengers (at least in areas used by large Troglodiplura).
Whilst our findings that T. beirutpakbarai is not isolated to a single cave has positive conservation implications in that the species is not an extreme short-range endemic, the known range of the species still remains highly restricted and substantial threats exist across all of its known populations. Troglomorphic organisms, which have a substantially reduced tolerance to abiotic changes to the cave environment [5], are likely to be of elevated vulnerability to fluctuations in temperatures and humidity caused by anthropogenic climate change [49,50,51,52,53], and the latter will likely present a key threat to Troglodiplura. In addition to these indirect climatic threats, humans potentially pose direct threats to troglomorphic spiders, both from damage to the cave environment e.g., [76], as evidenced during our surveys, and through the potential collection of specimens for the pet trade [77]. Collection of wild animals for the pet trade is a major threat to wildlife around the world and whilst data on the impacts on invertebrates are lacking [78], it likely represents a key threat [79,80], especially for large and charismatic organisms, such as mygalomorph spiders [78,81]. Access into the caves is sometimes difficult, so this may provide a barrier to some collectors, but the importance of keeping the location details of caves that contain Troglodiplura out of the public realm is high. Caves are fragile environments and careless visitation, or even looting, can easily cause irreparable harm to the cultural values, biological integrity, and the archaeological and palaeontological record [82].
During cave surveys, we detected a high level of evident fox activity, both in the form of scats and dens, which in one cave extended throughout accessible passages. Gut content analysis studies have shown that both foxes and feral cats consume invertebrates [83,84,85], and predation by foxes has been identified as a possible threat to mygalomorph spiders [20], indicating that foxes are likely a key threatening process for Troglodiplura, especially for cave systems that are easily accessible from the surface, such as Cave N-58.
This study provides important baseline data for these spiders. However, a large number of caves of the Nullarbor Plain are yet to have had biological surveys and the potential for them to harbor similarly rare, endemic, and vulnerable biota is high. Dedicated surveys for Troglodiplura are recommended to better elucidate the distribution of species, to detect new species, identify which are likely to be at threat and the conservation actions needed to protect them. Collection and analysis of eDNA from cave sediment has been shown to be successful in detecting arthropods in cave environs [86] and provides increased opportunity to detect these species. Additionally, the use of passive surveillance, such as camera traps, has been documented as a successful method for monitoring populations of mygalomorph spiders and for collecting ecological and behavioural data [21]. The use of non-destructive survey techniques such as these is especially important in fragile habitats, such as caves and in combination, they may facilitate the detection and subsequent long-term monitoring of Troglodiplura populations, providing important conservation-relevant data to aid in their protection.

5. Conclusions

The findings we have presented in this study provide insights into the biology and ecology of this enigmatic species of spider and open up new avenues for research and investigation. Our molecular findings of little to no divergence between individuals from apparently separate cave systems were unexpected and provide intriguing evidence for a possible below-ground dispersal mechanism for these spiders. However, this hypothesis requires testing in further studies. Caves of the Nullarbor Plain vary in their geomorphic characteristics, abiotic conditions, and biota. Understanding which combinations of cave environments and geological history correlate with the presence of rare troglobionts such as Troglodiplura is recommended as an important goal for both biodiscovery and conservation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/insects14050449/s1, Supplementary File S1: Nexus file.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.M., M.S., A.J.S., S.J.M., M.S.H. and M.G.R.; Formal analysis, M.G.R.; Funding acquisition, M.S. and M.S.H.; Investigation, J.R.M., S.J.M., M.S. and A.J.S.; Methodology, J.R.M., S.J.M., M.S., A.J.S. and M.G.R.; Project administration, M.S.; Visualization, J.R.M. and M.S.; Writing—original draft, J.R.M., S.J.M. and M.S.; Writing—review & editing, J.R.M., S.J.M., M.S., M.S.H. and M.G.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This fieldwork component of this research was funded by Bush Blitz, the species-discovery program run by the Australian Government in partnership with Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (BHP) and EarthWatch Australia, during the Yalata Bush Blitz Expedition 2021.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Supplementary File S1.

Acknowledgments

We offer sincere thanks to the Traditional Owners and Indigenous Rangers from the Far West Coast Aboriginal Corporation and the Yalata Anangu community—on the lands of which we conducted our surveys. We thank permit granters for allowing us to conduct this work and to the Australian Speleological Foundation for sharing data that helped determine the caves used in these surveys. We thank Julia Baumann, Karl-Franzens-Universität, Graz for identifying the scutacarid mite. We are grateful to Melissa Danks and Nerida Wilson of the Western Australian Museum’s Molecular Systematics Unit for generating the new sequence data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that this study received funding from Australian Government in partnership with Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (BHP) and EarthWatch Australia. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

References

  1. Lipar, M.; Ferk, M. Bihourly subterranean temperature and relative humidity data from the Nullarbor Plain, Australia (November 2019–March 2021). Data 2022, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sket, B. Can we agree on an ecological classification of subterranean animals? J. Nat. Hist. 2008, 42, 1549–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Miller, J.A. Cave adaptation in the spider genus Anthrobia (Araneae, Linyphiidae, Erigoninae). Zool. Scr. 2005, 34, 565–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Howarth, F.G. High-stress subterranean habitats and evolutionary change in cave-inhabiting arthropods. Am. Nat. 1993, 142, S65–S77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mammola, S.; Isaia, M. Spiders in caves. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 284, 20170193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rix, M.G.; Harvey, M.S. The spider family Micropholcommatidae (Arachnida, Araneae, Araneoidea): A relimitation and revision at the generic level. ZooKeys 2010, 36, 1–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eberhard, S.M.; Richardson, A.; Swain, R. The Invertebrate Cave Fauna of Tasmania; Zoology Department, University of Tasmania: Hobart, Australia, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  8. Huber, B.A. Cave-dwelling pholcid spiders (Araneae, Pholcidae): A review. Subterr. Biol. 2018, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gray, M. Cavernicolous spiders from the Nullarbor Plain and south-west Australia. Aust. J. Entomol. 1973, 12, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gray, M.R.; Thompson, J.A. New lycosoid spiders from cave and surface habitats in southern Australia and Cape Range peninsula (Araneae: Lycosoidea). Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 2001, 64, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kulkarni, S.; Hormiga, G. Hooroo mates! Phylogenomic data suggest that the closest relatives of the iconic Tasmanian cave spider Hickmania troglodytes are in Australia and New Zealand, not in South America. Invertebr. Syst. 2021, 35, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Millidge, A. Three new species of the spider family Linyphiidae from Australia (Araneae). Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 1993, 16, 211–219. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harvey, M.S. Notes on the spider genus Symphytognatha (Araneae: Symphytognathidae) in Western Australia. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 2001, 20, 345–348. [Google Scholar]
  14. Platnick, N.I. A new subterranean ground spider genus from Western Australia (Araneae: Trochanteriidae). Invertebr. Syst. 2008, 22, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Harvey, M.S.; Rix, M.G.; Hillyer, M.J.; Huey, J.A. The systematics and phylogenetic position of the troglobitic Australian spider genus Troglodiplura (Araneae: Mygalomorphae), with a new classification for Anamidae. Invertebr. Syst. 2020, 34, 799–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rix, M.G.; Edwards, D.L.; Byrne, M.; Harvey, M.S.; Joseph, L.; Roberts, J.D. Biogeography and speciation of terrestrial fauna in the south-western Australian biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Rev. 2015, 90, 762–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Webb, J.A.; James, J.M. Karst evolution of the Nullarbor plain, Australia. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am 2006, 404, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Station Number 018106. Climate Statistics for. Australian Locations; Australian Government: Canberra, Australia, 2021. Available online: www.bom.gov.au/climate/average/tables/cw_200288_All.shtml (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  19. Richards, A.M. An ecological study of the cavernicolous fauna of the Nullarbor Plain Southern Australia. J. Zool. 1971, 164, 1–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rix, M.G.; Huey, J.A.; Main, B.Y.; Waldock, J.M.; Harrison, S.E.; Comer, S.; Austin, A.D.; Harvey, M.S. Where have all the spiders gone? Highlighting the decline of a poorly known invertebrate fauna in the agricultural and arid zones of southern Australia. Austral. Entomol. 2017, 56, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rix, M.G.; Wilson, J.D.; Laidlaw, M.J.; Harvey, M.S.; Rix, A.G.; Rix, D.C. Demography, passive surveillance and potential habitat modelling of an Australian giant trapdoor spider (Idiopidae: Euoplos grandis) from the Queensland Brigalow Belt: Half a decade of population monitoring for conservation outcomes. Austral. Entomol 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Howarth, F.G. Ecology of cave arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1983, 28, 365–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Culver, D.C.; Pipan, T. The Biology of Caves and Other Subterranean Habitats; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Matthews, T.J. On the biogeography of habitat islands: The importance of matrix effects, noncore species, and source-sink dynamics. Q. Rev. Biol. 2021, 96, 73–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Culver, D.C.; Master, L.L.; Christman, M.C.; Hobbs, H.H., III. Obligate cave fauna of the 48 contiguous United States. Cons. Biol. 2000, 14, 386–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moulds, T.A.; Murphy, N.; Adams, M.; Reardon, T.; Harvey, M.S.; Jennings, J.; Austin, A.D. Phylogeography of cave pseudoscorpions in southern Australia. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 951–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Balogh, A.; Ngo, L.; Zigler, K.S.; Dixon, G. Population genomics in two cave-obligate invertebrates confirms extremely limited dispersal between caves. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Snowman, C.V.; Zigler, K.S.; Hedin, M. Caves as islands: Mitochondrial phylogeography of the cave-obligate spider species Nesticus barri (Araneae: Nesticidae). J. Arachnol. 2010, 38, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Derkarabetian, S.; Paquin, P.; Reddell, J.; Hedin, M. Conservation genomics of federally endangered Texella harvester species (Arachnida, Opiliones, Phalangodidae) from cave and karst habitats of central Texas. Conserv. Genet. 2022, 23, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hedin, M.C. Molecular phylogenetics at the population/species interface in cave spiders of the southern Appalachians (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus). Mol. Biol. Evol. 1997, 14, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cesaroni, D.; Allegrucci, G.; Caccone, A.; Cobolli Sbordoni, M.; De Matthaeis, E.; Di Rao, M.; Sbordoni, V. Genetic-variability and divergence between populations and species of Nesticus cave spiders. Genetica 1981, 56, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mammola, S.; Isaia, M.; Arnedo, M.A. Alpine endemic spiders shed light on the origin and evolution of subterranean species. PeerJ 2015, 3, e1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, Y.; Li, S. A spider species complex revealed high cryptic diversity in South China caves. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2014, 79, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pavlek, M.; Gauthier, J.; Tonzo, V.; Bilat, J.; Arnedo, M.A.; Alvarez, N. Life-history traits drive spatial genetic structuring in Dinaric cave spiders. Front. Ecol. 2022, 10, 932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pavlek, M.; Mammola, S. Niche-based processes explaining the distributions of closely related subterranean spiders. J. Biogeogr. 2021, 48, 118–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. May, R.M. Caves as islands. Nature 1977, 268, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Culver, D.C. Analysis of simple cave communities.1. Caves as islands. Evolution 1970, 24, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Barr, T.C.; Holsinger, J.R. Speciation in cave faunas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1985, 16, 313–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moldovan, O.T.; Meleg, I.N.; Persoiu, A. Habitat fragmentation and its effects on groundwater populations. Ecohydrology 2012, 5, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Malard, F.; Capderrey, C.; Churcheward, B.; Eme, E.; Kaufmann, B.; Konecny-Dupré, L.; Léna, J.-P.; Liébault, F.; Douady, C.J. Geomorphic influence on intraspecific genetic differentiation and diversity along hyporheic corridors. Freshw. Biol. 2017, 62, 1955–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Juan, C.; Guzik, M.T.; Jaume, D.; Cooper, S.J. Evolution in caves: Darwin’s ‘wrecks of ancient life’ in the molecular era. Mol. Ecol. 2010, 19, 3865–3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Faille, A.; Ribera, I.; Deharveng, L.; Bourdeau, C.; Garnery, L.; Quéinnec, E.; Deuve, T. A molecular phylogeny shows the single origin of the Pyrenean subterranean Trechini ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2010, 54, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ribera, I.; Fresneda, J.; Bucur, R.; Izquierdo, A.; Vogler, A.P.; Salgado, J.M.; Cieslak, A. Ancient origin of a Western Mediterranean radiation of subterranean beetles. BMC Evol. Biol. 2010, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Arnedo, M.A.; Oromí, P.; Múrria, C.; Macías-Hernández, N.; Ribera, C. The dark side of an island radiation: Systematics and evolution of troglobitic spiders of the genus Dysdera Latreille (Araneae: Dysderidae) in the Canary Islands. Invertebr. Syst. 2007, 21, 623–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hedin, M.; Derkarabetian, S.; Blair, J.; Paquin, P. Sequence capture phylogenomics of eyeless Cicurina spiders from Texas caves, with emphasis on US federally-endangered species from Bexar County (Araneae, Hahniidae). ZooKeys 2018, 769, 49–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ledford, J.; Paquin, P.; Cokendolpher, J.; Campbell, J.; Griswold, C. Systematics of the spider genus Neoleptoneta Brignoli, 1972 (Araneae: Leptonetidae) with a discussion of the morphology and relationships for the North American Leptonetidae. Invertebr. Syst. 2011, 25, 334–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mammola, S. Finding answers in the dark: Caves as models in ecology fifty years after Poulson and White. Ecography 2019, 42, 1331–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mammola, S.; Cardoso, P.; Culver, D.C.; Deharveng, L.; Ferreira, R.L.; Fišer, C.; Galassi, D.M.; Griebler, C.; Halse, S.; Humphreys, W.F.; et al. Scientists’ Warning on the Conservation of Subterranean Ecosystems. Bioscience 2019, 69, 641–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Badino, G. Cave temperatures and global climatic change. Int. J. Speleol. 2004, 33, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Covington, M.D.; Perne, M. Consider a cylindrical cave: A physicist’s view of cave and karst science. Acta Carsologica 2015, 44, 1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Domínguez-Villar, D. Heat Flux; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mammola, S.; Goodacre, S.L.; Isaia, M. Climate change may drive cave spiders to extinction. Ecography 2018, 41, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mammola, S.; Piano, E.; Cardoso, P.; Vernon, P.; Domínguez-Villar, D.; Culver, D.C.; Pipan, T.; Isaia, M. Climate change going deep: The effects of global climatic alterations on cave ecosystems. Anthr. Rev. 2019, 6, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ribera, I.; Cieslak, A.; Faille, A.; Fresneda, J. Historical and ecological factors determining cave diversity. In Cave Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pallarés, S.; Colado, R.; Botella-Cruz, M.; Montes, A.; Balart-García, P.; Bilton, D.T.; Millán, A.; Ribera, I.; Sánchez-Fernández, D. Loss of heat acclimation capacity could leave subterranean specialists highly sensitive to climate change. Anim. Conserv. 2021, 24, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rix, M.G.; Wilson, J.D.; Huey, J.A.; Hillyer, M.J.; Gruber, K.; Harvey, M.S. Diversification of the mygalomorph spider genus Aname (Araneae: Anamidae) across the Australian arid zone: Tracing the evolution and biogeography of a continent-wide radiation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2020, 160, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Poulter, N. Troglobitic Spiders of the Nullarbor Plain. In Under Way 2003: 24th Biennial Conference of the Australian Speleological Federation; Speleological Research Group Western Australia Inc.: East Victoria Park, Australia, 2003; pp. 83–85. [Google Scholar]
  58. Australian Speleological Federation, Karst Index Database. Available online: www.kid.caves.org.au/kid (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  59. Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. Australia’s Bioregiions (IBRA). Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/land/nrs/science/ibra (accessed on 28 August 2022).
  60. Australian Speleological Federation. ASF Cave & Karst Numbering Code. 2006. Available online: www.caves.org.au/administration/codes-and-standards/send/8-codes-and-standards/50-asf-caves-and-karst-numbering-code. (accessed on 29 April 2023).
  61. Burnett, S.; Webb, J.A.; White, S. Shallow caves and blowholes on the Nullarbor Plain, Australia—Flank margin caves on a low gradient limestone platform. Geomorphology 2013, 201, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Farrant, A.R.; Smart, P.L. Role of sediment in speleogenesis; sedimentation and paragenesis. Geomorphology 2011, 134, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Calic-Ljubojevic, J. Bedding-plane anastomoses as one of the early stages of karst evolution. Acta Geol. Pol. 2002, 52, 111–115. [Google Scholar]
  64. Davey, A.G.; Gray, M.; Grimes, K.G.; Hamilton-Smith, E.; James, J.M.; Spate, A.P. World Heritage Significance of Karst and Other Landforms in the Nullarbor Region; Report; Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories: Canberra, Australia, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  65. Chapman, A.; Grafton, O. Guide to Best Practices for Generalising Sensitive Species Occurrence Data, Version 1.0; GBIF Secretariat: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rix, M.G.; Wilson, J.D.; Harvey, M.S. First phylogenetic assessment and taxonomic synopsis of the open-holed trapdoor spider genus Namea (Mygalomorphae: Anamidae): A highly diverse mygalomorph lineage from Australia’s tropical eastern rainforests. Invertebr. Syst. 2020, 34, 679–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Buzatto, B.A.; Haeusler, L.; Tamang, N. Trapped indoors? Long-distance dispersal in mygalomorph spiders and its effect on species ranges. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2021, 207, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Paquin, P.; Hedin, M. The power and perils of ‘molecular taxonomy’: A case study of eyeless and endangered Cicurina (Araneae: Dictynidae) from Texas caves. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13, 3239–3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Byrne, M.; Yeates, D.K.; Joseph, L.; Kearney, M.; Bowler, J.; Williams, M.A.J.; Cooper, S.; Donnellan, S.C.; Keogh, J.S.; Leys, R.; et al. Birth of a biome: Insights into the assembly and maintenance of the Australian arid zone biota. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17, 4398–4417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. O’Connell, L.G.; James, N.P.; Bone, Y. The Miocene Nullarbor Limestone, southern Australia; deposition on a vast subtropical epeiric platform. Sediment. Geol. 2012, 253–254, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hampe, A.; Jump, A.S. Climate Relicts: Past, Present, Future. In Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics; Futuyma, D.J., Shaffer, H.B., Simberloff, D., Eds.; Annual Reviews: San Mateo, CA, USA, 2011; Volume 42, pp. 313–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, D.C. The Rhodacaridae (Acari: Mesostigmata): Classification, external morphology and distribution of genera. Rec. South. Aust. Mus. 1970, 16, 1–219. Available online: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127009#page/1/mode/1up (accessed on 29 April 2023).
  73. Beaulieu, F.; Walter, D.E.; Proctor, H.C.; Kitching, R.L. The canopy starts at 0.5 m: Predatory mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) differ between rainforest floor soil and suspended soil at any height. Biotropica 2010, 42, 704–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dylewska, M.; Błoszyk, J.; Halliday, R.B. Three new species of mites in the genus Castriidinychus. Hirschmann from Tasmania (Acari: Uropodidae). Zootaxa 2010, 2546, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ebermann, E.; Goloboff, P.A. Association between Neotropical Burrowing Spiders (Araneae: Nemesiidae) and Mites (Acari: Heterostigmata, Scutacaridae). Acarologia 2002, 42, 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  76. Doran, N.E.; Kiernan, K.; Swain, R.; Richardson, A.M.M. Hickmania troglodytes, the Tasmanian cave spider, and its potential role in cave management. J. Insect. Conserv. 1999, 3, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Marshall, B.M.; Strine, C.T.; Fukushima, C.S.; Cardoso, P.; Orr, M.C.; Hughes, A.C. Searching the web builds fuller picture of arachnid trade. Commun. Biol. 2022, 5, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Morton, O.; Scheffers, B.R.; Haugaasen, T.; Edwards, D.P. Impacts of wildlife trade on terrestrial biodiversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 540–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. New, T. ‘Inordinate fondness’: A threat to beetles in south east Asia? J. Insect. Conserv. 2005, 9, 147–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Losey, J.E.; Chen, C.; Davis, A.E.; Deitsch, J.F.; Gertin, J.G.; Gorneau, J.A.; Hallock, E.M.; Jordán, J.P.; Kim, Z.J.; Kubinski, E.G.; et al. Insects and spiders on the web: Monitoring and mitigating online exploitation of species and services. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 36, e02098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Branco, V.V.; Cardoso, P. An expert-based assessment of global threats and conservation measures for spiders. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Osborne, R.A.L. Saving and conserving the caves: Reflections on 37 years of listings, disputes, submissions and court cases. Aust. J. Earth. Sci. 2019, 66, 767–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Doherty, T.S.; Davis, R.A.; van Etten, E.J.; Algar, D.; Collier, N.; Dickman, C.R.; Edwards, G.; Masters, P.; Palmer, R.; Robinson, S. A continental-scale analysis of feral cat diet in Australia. J. Biogeogr. 2015, 42, 964–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fleming, P.A.; Crawford, H.M.; Stobo-Wilson, A.M.; Dawson, S.J.; Dickman, C.R.; Dundas, S.J.; Gentle, M.N.; Newsome, T.M.; O’Connor, J.; Palmer, R.; et al. Diet of the introduced red fox Vulpes vulpes in Australia: Analysis of temporal and spatial patterns. Mammal. Rev. 2021, 51, 508–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kutt, A.S. The diet of the feral cat (Felis catus) in north-eastern Australia. Acta Theriol. 2011, 56, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lunghi, E.; Valle, B.; Guerrieri, A.; Bonin, A.; Cianferoni, F.; Manenti, R.; Ficetola, G.F. Environmental DNA of insects and springtails from caves reveals complex processes of eDNA transfer in soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 826, 154022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Insects 14 00449 g001 550
Figure 1. Entrance to N-58, Roaches Rest Cave, Western Australia from which Troglodiplura lowryi has been recorded; the entrance is around 25 m wide and up to 3 m high (Milner, pers. obs.). The species was in a dark zone of a chamber associated with a large collapse doline (Main, 1969). Photo by Steve Milner.
Figure 1. Entrance to N-58, Roaches Rest Cave, Western Australia from which Troglodiplura lowryi has been recorded; the entrance is around 25 m wide and up to 3 m high (Milner, pers. obs.). The species was in a dark zone of a chamber associated with a large collapse doline (Main, 1969). Photo by Steve Milner.
Insects 14 00449 g001
Insects 14 00449 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution of described Troglodiplura species on the Nullarbor Plain. The study area is located in South Australia, outlined using a red rectangle, an area remote from other recorded Troglodiplura species.
Figure 2. Distribution of described Troglodiplura species on the Nullarbor Plain. The study area is located in South Australia, outlined using a red rectangle, an area remote from other recorded Troglodiplura species.
Insects 14 00449 g002
Insects 14 00449 g003 550
Figure 3. Blowholes and anastomosing tubes, photos S. Milner. (a) Typical small Nullarbor blowhole, approx. 40 cm diameter, 2 m deep; (b) exposure of anastomosing tubes in small cliff adjacent to a Western Australian Nullarbor cave entrance (arrowed); (c) large Nullarbor blowhole, 6 m deep; (d) caves may be formed by the collapse of anastomosing tubes leaving remnant blocks on the floor; (e) shallow South Australian Nullarbor cave showing flat floor, anastomosing tubes in wall, and remnant tubes in ceiling (arrowed).
Figure 3. Blowholes and anastomosing tubes, photos S. Milner. (a) Typical small Nullarbor blowhole, approx. 40 cm diameter, 2 m deep; (b) exposure of anastomosing tubes in small cliff adjacent to a Western Australian Nullarbor cave entrance (arrowed); (c) large Nullarbor blowhole, 6 m deep; (d) caves may be formed by the collapse of anastomosing tubes leaving remnant blocks on the floor; (e) shallow South Australian Nullarbor cave showing flat floor, anastomosing tubes in wall, and remnant tubes in ceiling (arrowed).
Insects 14 00449 g003
Insects 14 00449 g004 550
Figure 4. The relative positions of the three caves in which specimens of Troglodiplura were detected during surveys for this project—N-6838 Wedge Cave, N-253 Eagles Nest Cave and N-5896 Mitey Cave. Inset map indicates the position of the caves in South Australia. All caves were located within the study area, which was indicated by a red rectangle outline in Figure 2.
Figure 4. The relative positions of the three caves in which specimens of Troglodiplura were detected during surveys for this project—N-6838 Wedge Cave, N-253 Eagles Nest Cave and N-5896 Mitey Cave. Inset map indicates the position of the caves in South Australia. All caves were located within the study area, which was indicated by a red rectangle outline in Figure 2.
Insects 14 00449 g004
Insects 14 00449 g005 550
Figure 5. Live mature females of T. beirutpakbarai in the cave environment (a) habitus; N-253 Eagles Rest Cave; (b) detail of cephalothorax showing absence of eyes; N-253 Eagles Rest Cave (c) habitus; N-6838 Wedge Cave, scale bar = 5 cm. Photos by S. Milner.
Figure 5. Live mature females of T. beirutpakbarai in the cave environment (a) habitus; N-253 Eagles Rest Cave; (b) detail of cephalothorax showing absence of eyes; N-253 Eagles Rest Cave (c) habitus; N-6838 Wedge Cave, scale bar = 5 cm. Photos by S. Milner.
Insects 14 00449 g005
Insects 14 00449 g006 550
Figure 6. Phylogeny of Anamidae (outgroups excluded) inferred from a partitioned Bayesian analysis of the seven-gene ‘expanded’ dataset (89 taxa, 5373 bp, 50% majority-rule consensus tree), with genera and major clades of Anamidae labelled. For ‘backbone’ nodes at the level of genera or higher, posterior probabilities are all ≥0.99 unless otherwise stated. Note the position of the three newly sequenced specimens of Troglodiplura beirutpakbarai (SAM), and the previously sequenced specimen (AMKS30823) from Harvey et al. (2020) [15], all highlighted in blue.
Figure 6. Phylogeny of Anamidae (outgroups excluded) inferred from a partitioned Bayesian analysis of the seven-gene ‘expanded’ dataset (89 taxa, 5373 bp, 50% majority-rule consensus tree), with genera and major clades of Anamidae labelled. For ‘backbone’ nodes at the level of genera or higher, posterior probabilities are all ≥0.99 unless otherwise stated. Note the position of the three newly sequenced specimens of Troglodiplura beirutpakbarai (SAM), and the previously sequenced specimen (AMKS30823) from Harvey et al. (2020) [15], all highlighted in blue.
Insects 14 00449 g006
Insects 14 00449 g007 550
Figure 7. Usage of crevices in the cave environ; photos by S. Milner: (a) mud holes into which juvenile T. beirutpakbarai were observed retreating, ca. 100 mm above the sediment floor; yellow arrows indicate holes, scale bars indicate 10 mm; (b) spider entering natural hole in rock ca. 10 mm diameter.
Figure 7. Usage of crevices in the cave environ; photos by S. Milner: (a) mud holes into which juvenile T. beirutpakbarai were observed retreating, ca. 100 mm above the sediment floor; yellow arrows indicate holes, scale bars indicate 10 mm; (b) spider entering natural hole in rock ca. 10 mm diameter.
Insects 14 00449 g007
Table
Table 2. GenBank accession numbers for 89 specimens used in the molecular analyses. Third-party sequences are indicated (#). AM = Australian Museum; QMB = Queensland Museum; SAM = South Australian Museum; WAM = Western Australian Museum. The square brackets indicate number of specimens.
Table 2. GenBank accession numbers for 89 specimens used in the molecular analyses. Third-party sequences are indicated (#). AM = Australian Museum; QMB = Queensland Museum; SAM = South Australian Museum; WAM = Western Australian Museum. The square brackets indicate number of specimens.
Specimen &
Depository		COI12S16SH318S28SEF-1γ
ARANEOMORPHAE
HYPOCHILIDAE
Hypochilus Marx, 1888 [1] Outgroup
H. pococki (#chimera)AF303512KY015437KY015913–KY016493KY017132–
MYGALOMORPHAE—ATYPOIDEA
ATYPIDAE
Atypus Latreille, 1804 [2]
A. affinis (#ARANS000021)KY017595KY015315KY015750–KY016328KY016939–
A. karschi (#ARAMY002283)––KY015751–DQ639769KY016940DQ680323
Sphodros Walckenaer, 1835 [1]
S. atlanticus (#ARAMY000643)KY017596KY015316KY015752KY018126–KY016941–
MYGALOMORPHAE—AVICULARIOIDEA (NON-NEMESIOIDINA)
EUAGRIDAE
Australothele Raven, 1984 [1]
A. jamiesoni (#ARAMY002084)––––JX069739KY017061JQ358731
Cethegus Thorell, 1881 [1]
C. fugax (WAM T129260)KY295227KY320448KY320451KY295101KY294840KY294963–
PORRHOTHELIDAE
Porrhothele Simon, 1892 [1]
P. sp. indet. (QMB S111386)–MT280964MT281032MT281253MT281107MT281179–
MYGALOMORPHAE—AVICULARIOIDEA (NEMESIOIDINA)
ANAMIDAE
Aname L. Koch, 1873 [20]
A. aragog (WAM T95409)KJ745403KY214181KY241234KY241287KY241250KY241265MG800219
A. ellenae (WAM T98890)KJ745484KY214186KY241238KY241291KY241255KY241270–
A. exulans (WAM T121042)MG800165MG799896MG799962MG800298MG800035MG800112MG800236
A. grothi (WAM T133820)MN635075MN634958MN634775MN635127MN634925MN634748–
A. lorica (WAM T113826)KJ744825MN634945MN634841MN635093MN634935MN634733MN635140
A. mainae (WAM T144398)MN635077MN634938MN634859MN635092–MN634735–
A. marae (WAM T98424)KJ745450KY214185–KY241290KY241254KY241269–
A. mccleeryorum (WAM T53979)MT611168MT603527MT604146MT623663MT604125MT604135–
A. mellosa (WAM T107182)KJ745440KY214184KY241237MG800294KY241253KY241268MG800231
A. pallida (QMB S86817)KY241278KY214179KY241230KY241283–––
A. phillipae (WAM T110142)––MT604160MT623668MT604128MT604141MT623659
A. salina (WAM T148204)OQ922000OQ925882OQ925872OQ924319OQ925885OQ925881OQ924318
A. simoneae (WAM T110261)MT611175–MT604158MT623669MT604129MT604144MT623660
A. sinuata (WAM T129020)MN635073MN634957MN634758MN635099MN634924MN634745MN635131
A. vernonorum (WAM T98767)MG800161MG799887MG799953MG800290MG800025MG800102MG800226
A. watsoni (WAM T96018)KJ745407MN634960MN634776MN635125MN634929MN634750–
A. whitei (WAM T127202)KJ745174–MN634900MN635108MN634928MN634726MN635134
A. sp. ‘Goodnight’ (QMB S111402)––MT281027MT281268MT281106MT281182MT281249
A. sp. ‘Goodnight’ (QMB S111405)MT280892–MT281026MT281267MT281105MT281181MT281248
A. sp. ‘Paluma’ (QMB S111473)–MT280963MT281028MT281266MT281104MT281180–
Chenistonia Hogg, 1901 [3]
C. sp. ‘MYG348′ (WAM T72687)KJ745221KY214180KY241231KY241284KY241247KY241262MG800196
C. sp. ‘MYG348′ (WAM T81017)MG800151MG799878MG799940MG800276MG800011MG800088MG800210
C. sp. ‘MYG348′ (WAM T81018)MG800152MG799879MG799941MG800277MG800012MG800089MG800211
Hesperonatalius Castalanelli, Huey, Hillyer & Harvey, 2017 [2]
H. langlandsi (WAM T108988)KJ744689KY214189KY241243–KY241258KY241274MG800232
H. maxwelli (WAM T108989)KJ744690KY214190KY241244KY241293KY241259KY241275MG800233
Kwonkan Main, 1983 [11]
K. turrigera (WAM T134203)MG800182MG799911–MG800313MG800056MG800134MG800254
K. wonganensis (WAM T157120)OQ922001OQ925883OQ925873OQ924322OQ925884OQ925877OQ924317
K. sp. ‘MYG088’ (WAM T54237)KJ745206MG799864MG799923MG800267MG799994MG800071MG800191
K. sp. ‘MYG165’ (WAM T99672)KJ745512KY214187KY241239KY241292KY241256KY241271MG800229
K. sp. ‘MYG195’ (WAM T132749)MG800177MG799906–MG800308MG800049MG800127MG800250
K. sp. ‘MYG197’ (WAM T130375)MG800166–MG799963MG800301MG800038MG800116MG800239
K. sp. ‘MYG343’ (WAM T57563)KJ745210MG799866MG799925–MG799996MG800073MG800193
K. sp. ‘MYG390’ (WAM T132361)MG800173MG799902MG799970MG800304MG800045MG800123MG800247
K. sp. ‘MYG392’ (WAM T132363)MG800175MG799904MG799972MG800306MG800047MG800125–
K. sp. ‘MYG458’ (WAM T88514)MG800155MG799880MG799944MG800280MG800015MG800092MG800213
K. sp. ‘MYG650’ (WAM T145316)MT656266MT656258–––––
Namea Raven, 1984 [9]
N. brisbanensis (QMB S111356)MT280866MT280912MT281000–MT281078MT281155MT281223
N. flavomaculata (WAM T133310)KY241282KY214192KY241246KY241294KY241261KY241277MG800253
N. salanitri (QMB S111396)MT280830MT280924MT280977–MT281057MT281119MT281224
N. dahmsi (QMB S111381)MT280891–MT281022MT281262MT281056MT281173MT281244
N. jimna (QMB S111410)MT280875–MT281011–MT281093MT281132MT281236
N. excavans (QMB S111535)MT280884MT280941MT281025––––
N. sp. ‘Goomboor.’ (QMB S11135)MT280881MT280950MT281013MT281261MT281089MT281139MT281238
N. sp. ‘Kroombit’ (QMB S111330)MT280887MT280960––MT281051MT281171MT281231
N. sp. ‘Ravensb.2’ (QMB S111445)MT280883MT280942MT281019MT281264MT281043MT281175MT281228
Proshermacha Simon, 1908 [9]
P. sp. ‘MYG344’ (WAM T132981)MG800181–MG799978MG800311MG800054MG800132MG800251
P. sp. ‘MYG346’ (WAM T80952)MG800150–MG799939MG800275MG800010MG800087MG800209
P. sp. ‘MYG349’ (WAM T72701)KJ745222–MG799928–MG799999MG800076MG800197
P. sp. ‘MYG357’ (WAM T78535) KY241279–KY241232KY241285KY241248KY241263MG800206
P. sp. ‘MYG465’ (WAM T132960)MG800180–MG799977–MG800053MG800131–
P. sp. ‘MYG467’ (WAM T131982)MG800169–MG799966–MG800041MG800119MG800242
P. sp. ‘MYG468’ (WAM T96060)MG800158–MG799948MG800285MG800020MG800097MG800220
P. sp. ‘MYG469’ (WAM T94765)MG800156–MG799945MG800281MG800016MG800093MG800214
P. sp. ‘MYG471’ (WAM T132903)–MG799907MG799974MG800309MG800050MG800128–
Swolnpes Main & Framenau, 2009 [4]
S. darwini (WAM T97003)KY241280KY214183KY241236KY241289KY241252KY241267MG800223
S. darwini (WAM T97503)MG800160MG799884MG799950MG800287MG800022MG800099MG800224
S. sp. ‘MYG234’ (WAM T114056)–MG799894––MG800032MG800109–
S. sp. ‘MYG415’ (WAM T53579)MG800145MG799863–MG800266MG799993MG800070–
Teyl Main, 1975 [9]
T. damsonoides (WAM T137482)MG800187MG799915MG799984–MG800061–MG800259
T. heuretes (WAM T91918)MN101151MN104643MN104652–MN104658MN104650MN101153
T. luculentus (WAM T141133)MN101147––––––
T. meridionalis (WAM T147625)MT280814MT280897MT280969–MT281039MT281115MT281188
T. vancouveri (WAM T16804)–MN104644MN104653––––
T. sp. ‘MYG012’ (WAM T96062)KJ745412KY214182KY241235KY241288KY241251KY241266MG800221
T. sp. ‘MYG053’ (WAM T96326)MG800159MG799883MG799949MG800286MG800021MG800098MG800222
T. sp. ‘MYG358’ (WAM T78529)KJ745277MG799875MG799936MG800274MG800007MG800084MG800205
T. sp. ‘MYG412’ (WAM T116018)MG800164MG799895MG799961MG800297MG800034MG800111MG800189
Teyloides Main, 1985 [1]
T. bakeri (SAM NN29525)MG800144MG799861–MG800265MG799991MG800068MG800190
Troglodiplura Main, 1969 [4]
T. beirutpakbarai (AM KS30823)––MT656259––––
T. beirutpakbarai (SAM NN30808)OQ922002–OQ925874–OQ925886OQ925878OQ924314
T. beirutpakbarai (SAM NN30809)OQ922003–OQ925875OQ924320OQ925887OQ925880OQ924315
T. beirutpakbarai (SAM NN30810)OQ922004–OQ925876OQ924321OQ925888OQ925879OQ924316
DIPLURIDAE
Linothele Karsch, 1879 [1]
L. sp. indet. (#ZSMA20170069)–MG273475MG273475MG273544MG273579MG273624–
MICROSTIGMATIDAE
Ixamatus Simon, 1887 [1]
I. sp. indet. (#ARAMY002102)KY017807–KY015981KY018321DQ639831KY017212JQ358747
Kiama Main & Mascord, 1969 [1]
K. lachrymoides (#ARAMY002094)––KY015982KY018322DQ639796DQ639884JQ358748
Xamiatus Raven, 1981 [2]
X. rubrifrons (QMB S111351)MT656265–MT656260MT656268MT656262MT656264–
X. sp. indet. (QMB S111284)–––MT656267MT656261MT656263–
PYCNOTHELIDAE
Acanthogonatus Karsch, 1880 [1]
A. campanae (#ARAMYCAS539)KY017803–KY015977–DQ639843KY017208JQ358720
Stanwellia Rainbow & Pulleine, 1918 [4]
S. nebulosa (SAM NN28449)MG800186MG799858MG799983–MG800060MG800138MG800258
S. sp. indet. (QMB S111338)MT280818–MT281031–MT281096MT281178MT281251
S. sp. indet. (QMB S111388)––MT281030–MT281095MT281177–
S. sp. indet. (QMB S111428)MT280817–MT281029MT281252MT281094MT281176MT281250
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marsh, J.R.; Milner, S.J.; Shaw, M.; Stempel, A.J.; Harvey, M.S.; Rix, M.G. A Case for Below-Ground Dispersal? Insights into the Biology, Ecology and Conservation of Blind Cave Spiders in the Genus Troglodiplura (Mygalomorphae: Anamidae). Insects 2023, 14, 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050449

AMA Style

Marsh JR, Milner SJ, Shaw M, Stempel AJ, Harvey MS, Rix MG. A Case for Below-Ground Dispersal? Insights into the Biology, Ecology and Conservation of Blind Cave Spiders in the Genus Troglodiplura (Mygalomorphae: Anamidae). Insects. 2023; 14(5):449. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050449

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marsh, Jessica R., Steven J. Milner, Matthew Shaw, Andrew J. Stempel, Mark S. Harvey, and Michael G. Rix. 2023. "A Case for Below-Ground Dispersal? Insights into the Biology, Ecology and Conservation of Blind Cave Spiders in the Genus Troglodiplura (Mygalomorphae: Anamidae)" Insects 14, no. 5: 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050449

APA Style

Marsh, J. R., Milner, S. J., Shaw, M., Stempel, A. J., Harvey, M. S., & Rix, M. G. (2023). A Case for Below-Ground Dispersal? Insights into the Biology, Ecology and Conservation of Blind Cave Spiders in the Genus Troglodiplura (Mygalomorphae: Anamidae). Insects, 14(5), 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050449

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop