In synonymy:
Cyrtosternum Ausserer, 1875 = Cyrtopholis Simon, 1892 (Simon, 1892a: 143, preoccupied, replacement name)
Lyroscelus F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901 = Cyrtopholis Simon, 1892 (Simon, 1903a: 931)
Homonym replaced:
Cyrtosternum Ausserer, 1875 -- see Cyrtopholis Simon, 1892 - in Simon, 1892a
Transferred to other genera:
Cyrtopholis angustata Kraus, 1955 -- see Stichoplastoris
Cyrtopholis cyanea Rudloff, 1994 -- see Citharacanthus
Cyrtopholis longistyla Kraus, 1955 -- see Stichoplastoris
Cyrtopholis lycosoides Tullgren, 1905 -- see Acanthoscurria
Cyrtopholis media Chamberlin, 1917 -- see Nesipelma
Cyrtopholis palmarum Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1945 -- see Umbyquyra
Cyrtopholis pernix (Ausserer, 1875) -- see Hemirrhagus
Cyrtopholis sargi Strand, 1907 -- see Citharacanthus
Cyrtopholis schmidti Rudloff, 1996 -- see Umbyquyra
Cyrtopholis schusterae Kraus, 1955 -- see Stichoplastoris
Cyrtopholis zorodes Mello-Leitão, 1923 -- see Acanthoscurria
In synonymy:
Cyrtopholis acutispina Strand, 1907 = Cyrtopholis bartholomaei Latreille, 1832 (Petrunkevitch, 1929a: 519)
Cyrtopholis antillana Thorell, 1894 = Cyrtopholis bartholomaei Latreille, 1832 (Petrunkevitch, 1929a: 519)
Cyrtopholis debilis Franganillo, 1931 = Cyrtopholis unispina Franganillo, 1926 (Franganillo, 1931a: 170)
Cyrtopholis debilis bispinosa Franganillo, 1931 = Cyrtopholis major Franganillo, 1926 (Franganillo, 1931a: 171)
Cyrtopholis gypsator (Becker, 1879, T from Crypsidromus) = Cyrtopholis bartholomaei Latreille, 1832 (Petrunkevitch, 1929a: 519)
Cyrtopholis incana (C. L. Koch, 1842, T from Mygale) = Cyrtopholis bartholomaei Latreille, 1832 (Petrunkevitch, 1929a: 519)
Cyrtopholis pelus Chamberlin, 1917 = Cyrtopholis bartholomaei Latreille, 1832 (Petrunkevitch, 1929a: 519)
Nomen dubium:
Cyrtopholis meridionalis (Keyserling, 1891: 6, f, Brazil, originally in Cyrtosternum) -- Gargiulo, Brescovit & Lucas, 2018: 44
Nomen nudum:
Cyrtopholis respina Franganillo, 1935, Cuba, after Roewer, 1942a: 230: "Belen Habana Cuba 9 (51-52), p. 45 (D)" [urn:lsid:nmbe.ch:spidersp:001988] -- Fabiano-da-Silva et al., 2020, as there is apparently no description, it is evaluated as nomen nudum; probably a lapsus by Roewer