Figure 9. Fig. 8 continued. Scale bar = 2.0 mm.Published as part of Magalhães, Ivan L. F. & Santos, Adalberto J., 2012, Phylogenetic analysis of Micrathena and Chaetacis spiders (Araneae: Araneidae) reveals multiple origins of extreme sexual size dimorphism and long abdominal spines, pp. 14-53 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 166 (5) on page 24, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2012.00831.x, http://zenodo.org/record/540830
FIGURE 8. Coptoprepes bellavista new species. a–d male holotype (a dorsal habitus; b prosoma, dorsal...
FIGURE 9. Actinopus tarsalis Perty, 1833 (drawings from Miglio et al., 2012), male: A–C MPEG 11717: ...
FIGURE 8. Dictis soeur (Saaristo, 1997) comb. n. A–C (MRAC 177156, female holotype); D, F–G (ZMUT, m...
Figure 8. Fig. 7 continued. Scale bar = 2.0 mm.Published as part of Magalhães, Ivan L. F. & Santos, ...
Figure 7. Character optimizations of the discrete data set in the tree obtained through implied-weig...
Extreme sexual body size dimorphism (SSD), in which males are only a small fraction of the size of t...
FIGURE 8. Aysenia barrigai Izquierdo & Ramírez (MACN-Ar 13430 y MACN-Ar 13432). a female dorsal habi...
FIGURE 9. Mecynogea buique Levi, 1997 from Serra Talhada, Pernambuco, Brazil: A, female habitus, dor...
FIG. 8. — Linothele gaujoni (Simon, 1889): A, B, D, Uruchus gaujoni Simon, 1889 female syntypes (MNH...
Contrasting phylogenetic topologies: A, cladogram from Kuntner et al. (2008) with no branch length i...
FIGURES 117–120. Genital morphology of Micaria bimaculata sp. nov.: 117 female epigyne, ventral view...
FIGURE 7. Aysenia araucana Ramírez. a female dorsal habitus; b epigyne, ventral view; c male left pa...
FIGURE 9. Coptoprepes bellavista new species. a–d female paratype (a dorsal habitus; b prosoma, dors...
FIG. 9. — Linothele jelskii (F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896): A-D, Neodiplura jelskii F. O. Pickard-C...
FIGURES 9–14. Stenosfemuraia parva, ZFMK Ar 18251. 9–10. Left pedipalp, prolateral and retrolateral ...
FIGURE 8. Coptoprepes bellavista new species. a–d male holotype (a dorsal habitus; b prosoma, dorsal...
FIGURE 9. Actinopus tarsalis Perty, 1833 (drawings from Miglio et al., 2012), male: A–C MPEG 11717: ...
FIGURE 8. Dictis soeur (Saaristo, 1997) comb. n. A–C (MRAC 177156, female holotype); D, F–G (ZMUT, m...
Figure 8. Fig. 7 continued. Scale bar = 2.0 mm.Published as part of Magalhães, Ivan L. F. & Santos, ...
Figure 7. Character optimizations of the discrete data set in the tree obtained through implied-weig...
Extreme sexual body size dimorphism (SSD), in which males are only a small fraction of the size of t...
FIGURE 8. Aysenia barrigai Izquierdo & Ramírez (MACN-Ar 13430 y MACN-Ar 13432). a female dorsal habi...
FIGURE 9. Mecynogea buique Levi, 1997 from Serra Talhada, Pernambuco, Brazil: A, female habitus, dor...
FIG. 8. — Linothele gaujoni (Simon, 1889): A, B, D, Uruchus gaujoni Simon, 1889 female syntypes (MNH...
Contrasting phylogenetic topologies: A, cladogram from Kuntner et al. (2008) with no branch length i...
FIGURES 117–120. Genital morphology of Micaria bimaculata sp. nov.: 117 female epigyne, ventral view...
FIGURE 7. Aysenia araucana Ramírez. a female dorsal habitus; b epigyne, ventral view; c male left pa...
FIGURE 9. Coptoprepes bellavista new species. a–d female paratype (a dorsal habitus; b prosoma, dors...
FIG. 9. — Linothele jelskii (F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896): A-D, Neodiplura jelskii F. O. Pickard-C...
FIGURES 9–14. Stenosfemuraia parva, ZFMK Ar 18251. 9–10. Left pedipalp, prolateral and retrolateral ...
FIGURE 8. Coptoprepes bellavista new species. a–d male holotype (a dorsal habitus; b prosoma, dorsal...
FIGURE 9. Actinopus tarsalis Perty, 1833 (drawings from Miglio et al., 2012), male: A–C MPEG 11717: ...
FIGURE 8. Dictis soeur (Saaristo, 1997) comb. n. A–C (MRAC 177156, female holotype); D, F–G (ZMUT, m...