Lycosidae Sundevall, 1833

Family |   ACCEPTED
N.B.: according to Brignoli, 1983c: 432, "Guy (1966, 1969) has proposed many synonymies and has downgraded many genera to subgenus rank; as this author based his conclusions more on nomenclature than on the study of material (or even of the original descriptions)", Platnick (WSC 15.0) did not accept Guy's conclusions; the changes by Guy, 1966 are noted (except where more recent work has superseded them); Guy, 1969 is merely a literature compilation that reflects those changes and is not cited separately; several genera of Lycosidae have been found not to be monophyletic (Murphy et al., 2006). Piacentini & Ramírez, 2019: 233-237 confirm ten valid subfamilies of Lycosidae: Venoniinae Lehtinen & Hippa, 1979, Zoicinae Lehtinen & Hippa, 1979 (= Piratinae Zyuzin, 1993), Evippinae Zyuzin, 1985, Sosippinae Dondale, 1986 (= Hygrolycosinae He & Song, 1996), Artoriinae Framenau, 2007, Tricassinae Alderweireldt & Jocqué, 1993 (= Arctosinae He & Song, 1996), Hippasinae Simon, 1898, Allocosinae Dondale, 1986, Pardosinae Simon, 1898 (= Wadicosinae Zyuzin, 1985) and Lycosinae Sundevall, 1833; the family is not monophyletic per Kulkarni, Wood & Hormiga, 2023: 518, f. 17-18.
Gen. Phonophilus Ehrenberg, 1831 urn:lsid:nmbe.ch:spidergen:01649
Phonophilus portentosus Ehrenberg, 1831 | ? | Libya urn:lsid:nmbe.ch:spidersp:019050
Phonophilus portentosus Ehrenberg, 1831: 9 (D; N.B.: apparently omitted by Roewer, described as "Habitus Lycosaea" and presumably therefore listed by Bonnet as "Lycosidae ?" but the eyes are in two transverse, parallel rows, and the animal may be a sparassid) Original description

Sponsors