Research Article
Print
Research Article
A survey of mimetid spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae) from Central Guizhou Province, China
expand article infoJianshuang Zhang‡, Haoshen Zhang‡, Jinxin Liu§, Hao Yu‡, Xiang Xu§
‡ Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, China
§ Hunan Normal University, Changsha Hunan, China

Corresponding author: Xiang Xu ( xux@hunnu.edu.cn )

Academic editor: Danilo Harms
© 2025 Jianshuang Zhang, Haoshen Zhang, Jinxin Liu, Hao Yu, Xiang Xu.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation: Zhang J, Zhang H, Liu J, Yu H, Xu X (2025) A survey of mimetid spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae) from Central Guizhou Province, China. Zoosystematics and Evolution 101(2): 711-734. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.101.146895
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5077B2F5-571B-4836-8B15-D48CAC2D580A
Open Access

Abstract

A survey of the mimetids of Central Guizhou Province, China, is presented. A total of five species are addressed, raising the number of species of the genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832, known from this province from four to eight, making Guizhou the province with the most Mimetus species in China. Two of the taxa are new species: M. guiyang J. S. Zhang, Yu & Xu, sp. nov. and M. lanmeiae Liu, Yu & Xu, sp. nov., both from Guiyang City, provincial capital of Guizhou. The other three known species include two new records from Guizhou, M. caudatus Wang, 1990, and M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993, as well as a species, M. testaceus Yaginuma, 1960, that was previously recorded from the province. The female of M. caudatus is described for the first time, based on the new material from Duyun City. Detailed descriptions, diagnoses, and photographs of the two new species and M. caudatus, as well as photographs of M. sinicus and M. testaceus, are provided. The DNA barcodes of M. lanmeiae sp. nov., M. sinicus, and M. testaceus were obtained for species delimitation, matching of sexes, and future use.

Key Words

DNA barcoding, Guiyang City, morphology, new species, taxonomy

Introduction

Mimetidae is a small-sized spider family, comprising eight genera and 163 valid species distributed worldwide, often referred to as “pirate spiders” or “cannibal spiders”, are named for their araneophagic behaviors and predatory strategies (Harms and Harvey 2009a, b; Benavides et al. 2017; Benavides and Hormiga 2020; WSC 2025; see also Fig. 1A, B). Rather than constructing foraging webs, these spiders invade the webs of other spiders, where they simulate the vibrations of prey caught in the web or mimic the courtship signals of conspecific males. This sophisticated, deceptive, predatory tactic lures the resident spider into proximity, enabling the mimetid to ambush and feed on it, and is a well-documented example of aggressive mimicry (Cutler 1972; Jackson and Whitehouse 1986; Kloock 2001, 2012; see also Fig. 1C, D). Traditionally, mimetids were considered obligate araneophages, preying exclusively on other spiders. However, evidence from previous studies (Cutler 1972; Kloock 2001, 2012) and our own observations (Fig. 1E, F) indicates that these spiders are capable of consuming other arthropods. This may occur through kleptoparasitism, wherein mimetids exploit the webs of other spiders to acquire prey, or through active foraging behavior to locate alternative food sources.

Figure 1. 

Araneophagic behaviors (A, B), predatory strategies (C–F), and rows of raptorial spines of mimetid spiders (A, F) A. Mimetus spp. has attacked and killed another spider of the family Araneidae; B. Mimetidae spp., feeding on an immature spider of an unknown family; C. Mimetidae spp. assaulting the web of a spider of genus Cyclosa; D. Mimetid at the end of a lunge toward and capture of a spider. Prey is held by a ‘basket’ formed by legs I–III of the mimetid. E. Mimetidae spp. had previously driven the resident from the web, thereby gaining exclusive access to the prey remaining on the web F. Mimetidae spp. wrapped up prey and scooped it up in a basket formed by legs I–III. Photographs by Q Lu (Shenzhen). Note: Red arrows in panel A and panel F point at raptorial spines on anterior legs.

Reflecting their highly specialized ecological niche, members of the family Mimetidae exhibit notable morphological adaptations, including prominent rows of raptorial spines on their anterior legs. These spines are strategically arranged to create a basket-like structure, effectively ensnaring prey during capture (Cutler 1972; Jackson and Whitehouse 1986; Harms and Harvey 2009a, b; Benavides et al. 2017; Benavides and Hormiga 2020; see also Figs 1A, F). Clearly, the biology of mimetid spiders is unique, yet our understanding of them remains limited. Moreover, details of novel predatory strategies continue to emerge, highlighting the need for further investigation (Barrantes et al. 2025). However, the family Mimetidae serves as a typical example of how ‘taxonomic ignorance of a group often discourages behavioral studies,’ as highlighted by Jackson and Whitehouse (1986). Although the taxonomy of mimetid spiders has seen some groundbreaking advances in the new century, such as those by Harms and Harvey (2009a, b), Benavides and Hormiga (2016, 2020), and Benavides et al. (2017), there remains a substantial amount of work to be done. For alpha taxonomy, the diversity of Mimetidae remains insufficiently known, as a new genus and several new species have been described in recent years, and further new genera and species are expected to be established or discovered in the future (WSC 2025). For beta taxonomy, there is much dispute historically about the group’s limits and its placement in the spider tree of life (Hormiga and Griswold 2014). Although the family has been revised regionally (Heimer 1986; Harms and Harvey 2009a, b; Benavides et al. 2017; Benavides and Hormiga 2016, 2020), the debate on the internal structure of this family remains open. Meanwhile, due to the lack of foundational data, particularly alpha-taxonomic information such as available specimens, molecular data, detailed descriptions, and high-quality diagnostic illustrations, phylogenetic studies on Mimetidae are somewhat biased both geopolitically and at the genus and species level, as the majority of studies have been carried out using Australian and Neotropical taxa (e.g., Heimer 1986; Harms and Harvey 2009a, b; Benavides et al. 2017; Benavides and Hormiga 2016, 2020), with only very few studies performed in Asia (Liu et al. 2021a, b), and some genera and most species from China were not included in the aforementioned phylogenetic revisions (Benavides and Hormiga 2020; Liu et al. 2021a, b).

Mimetus Hentz, 1832, is the type genus of the family and currently includes 70 extant species that are found worldwide except for the Polar Regions and Oceania, 20 of which are known to occur in China (WSC 2025; Table 1). As the most common genus of mimetids, Mimetus remains inadequately studied, and the species diversity is still insufficiently known. The possible reasons include, but are not limited to, the following: More than half of the species were only described based on a single sex (12 from males, 26 from females) (WSC 2025); most species documented in the 19th and 20th centuries were described based solely on somatic characters, with original descriptions being rather brief, illustrations either absent or inadequate, and lacking subsequent updates (Gan et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2021a, b; WSC 2025); types of some species do not exist (were not designated in original descriptions or are lost) or are difficult to locate or access (WSC 2025); Mimetus has been widely regarded as polyphyletic and will likely be split in the future (Benavides and Hormiga 2020; Liu et al. 2021a, b). In spite of these deficiencies, the majority of Chinese species have been described or redescribed in detail, alongside high-quality illustrations, to allow for easy recognition within this country (Zeng et al. 2016, 2019; Gan et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2021a, b; Wang et al. 2024).

Table 1.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Checklist of Mimetus species from China.

Species and Known sex Distribution in China References
1 M. bucerus Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019 (♂) Guizhou Gan et al. 2019
2 M. caudatus Wang, 1990 (♂♀) Guangxi, Guizhou Wang 1990; Song et al. 1999; female described in present paper
3 M. clavatus Liu, Xu, Hormiga & Yin, 2021 (♂) Guangxi Liu et al. 2021a
4 M. contrarius (Zeng, Irfan & Peng, 2019) (♂♀) Yunnan Zeng et al. 2019
5 M. dentatus Liu, Xu, Hormiga & Yin, 2021 (♂♀) Guangxi Liu et al. 2021a
6 M. echinatus Wang, 1990 (♂♀) Hunan Wang 1990; Song et al. 1999; Yin et al. 2012; Zeng et al. 2019
7 M. juhuaensis (Xu, Wang & Wang, 1987) (♂♀) Anhui, Hunan Xu et al. 1987; Song et al. 1999; Yin et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2021b
8 M. labiatus Wang, 1990 (♀) Hunan Wang 1990; Song et al. 1999; Yin et al. 2012
9 M. lamellaris Zeng, Wang & Peng, 2016 (♂) Guizhou Zeng et al. 2016
10 M. liangkaii Yao & Liu, 2024 (♂♀) Jiangxi Wang et al. 2024
11 M. lingbaoshanensis Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019 (♂♀) Yunnan Gan et al. 2019
12 M. niveosignatus Liu, Xu, Hormiga & Yin, 2021 (♂♀) Guangxi Liu et al. 2021a
13 M. ryukyus Yoshida, 1993 (♂♀) Taiwan Yoshida 1993; Song et al. 1999
14 M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993 (♂♀) Hubei, Guizhou Song and Zhu 1993; Song and Li 1997; Song et al. 1999; present paper
15 M. subulatus Liu, Xu, Hormiga & Yin, 2021 (♂♀) Guangdong, Hunan Liu et al. 2021a
16 M. testaceus Yaginuma, 1960 (♂♀) Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, Guizhou, Guangxi Wang 1990; Chen and Zhang 1991; Song et al. 1999; Yin et al. 2012; present paper
17 M. tuberculatus Liang & Wang, 1991 (♀) Qinghai, Xinjiang Liang and Wang 1991; Song et al. 1999
18 M. uncatus Liu, Xu, Hormiga & Yin, 2021 (♂) Hunan Liu et al. 2021a
19 M. wangi Zeng, Wang & Peng, 2016 (♂♀) Yunnan Zeng et al. 2016
20 M. yinae Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019 (♂♀) Guizhou Gan et al. 2019
21 M. guiyang J. S. Zhang, Yu & Xu, sp. nov. (♀) Guizhou present paper
22 M. lanmeiae Liu, Yu & Xu, sp. nov. (♂) Guizhou present paper

Guizhou Province is recognized for its remarkable biodiversity, ranking among the top provinces in China and boasting the third-largest number of wildlife species nationally (Wang 2021; The People’s Government of Guizhou Province 2022). The province is renowned for its diverse environments and complex topography, encompassing various habitats favored by mimetid spiders, such as subtropical evergreen broadleaf forests and karst landforms (Liu et al. 2021b; Zhao et al. 2021; Zhou et al. 2023). However, the genus Mimetus can be regarded as being poorly represented in Guizhou for a long time, with only two species recorded before 2019: M. testaceus Yaginuma, 1960, and M. lamellaris Zeng, Wang & Peng, 2016 (Wang 1990; Zeng et al. 2016). Until now, only four species have been recorded from Guizhou, including two new species that were described by Gan et al. (2019): M. bucerus Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019, and M. yinae Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019.

While examining spiders collected from Guiyang City (provincial capital of Guizhou) and adjacent areas (Fig. 2A), southwest China, we have found some Mimetus specimens that belong to five species: two species are new to science, one identified as M. caudatus Wang, 1990 (previously described based on male specimens only, new record for Guizhou) based on comparison with the type specimens, and the remaining two are identified as M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993 (new record for Guizhou) and M. testaceus, respectively. Thus, the total number of Mimetus species in Guizhou reaches eight, making Guizhou the province with the most Mimetus species in China (Fig. 2A, B; Table 1).

Figure 2. 

Distribution records of the Mimetus species in Guizhou Province (A) and species distribution pattern of the genus Mimetus in China (B). Note: In panel A, circles of different colors each represent a species. Mimetus caudatus Wang, 1990 (scarlet circle: Dunyun City, Xiaoweizhai Town, Yaolin Cave), M. guiyang sp. nov. (green circle: Guiyang City, Dongfeng Town), M. lanmeiae sp. nov. (yellow circle: Guiyang City, Xinpu Town, Xiangzhigou), M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993 (purple circle: Guiyang City, Xinpu Town, Xiangzhigou), M. testaceus Yaginuma, 1960 (orange circle: 1. Zunyi City; 2. Guiyang City, Shuitian Town, Panlongshan Forest Park), M. bucerus Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019 (cyan circle: Leishan County, Leigongshan National Nature Reserve), M. lamellaris Zeng, Wang & Peng, 2016 (dark blue circle: Yanhe County, Daheba Town, Mayanhe National Nature Reserve), M. yinae Gan, Mi, Irfan, Peng, Ran & Zhan, 2019 (light blue circle: 1. Jiangkou County, Dewang Town, Fanjingshan National Nature Reserve; 2. Shiqian County, Ganxi Town, Fuyan Village; 3. Shibing County, Maxi Town, BajiaopingVillage; In panel B, the shading of each province on the map and the numbers in parentheses after the province names represent species richness.

The goal of this paper is to describe the two new species; to redescribe M. caudatus and report the female for the first time; to provide color photographs of M. sinicus and M. testaceus; and to use DNA barcodes of M. lanmeiae sp. nov., M. sinicus, and M. testaceus for species delimitation, gender matching, and future use in molecular studies.

Materials and methods

Specimens in this study were collected by hand, pitfall trap, and beating vegetation. All examined specimens are deposited in the Museum of Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, China (MGNU), except the holotype of M. caudatus, which is deposited in the College of Life Science, Hunan Normal University (HNU). Specimens were preserved in 75% or 95% alcohol and examined using an Olympus SZX7 stereomicroscope. Left male palps were examined and illustrated after dissection. Epigynes were removed and cleared in a warm 10% potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution. For M. caudatus and M. guiyang sp. nov., the vulvae were also imaged after being embedded in Arabic gum. Images were captured with a Canon EOS 70D digital camera (20.2 megapixels) mounted on an Olympus CX41 compound microscope and assembled using Helicon Focus 3.10.3 image stacking software (Khmelik et al. 2005). All measurements were obtained using an Olympus SZX7 stereomicroscope and are given in millimeters. Eye diameters were measured at the widest part. The total body length does not include the chelicerae and spinnerets. Leg lengths are given as total length (femur, patella + tibia, metatarsus, tarsus). The terminology used in the text and figure legends follows Gan et al. (2019), Benavides and Hormiga (2020), and Liu et al. (2021a, b).

The abbreviations used in the text are: A atrium; AER anterior eye row; ALE anterior lateral eye; AME anterior median eye; BP basal plate; C conductor; CA cymbial apex; CBE cymbial base extension; CD copulatory duct; CEMP cymbial ecto-medial process; CO copulatory opening; Cy cymbium; E embolus; EB embolar base; ET embolar tip; FD fertilisation duct; H hood; MOA median ocular area; Pc paracymbium; PER posterior eye row; PLE posterior lateral eye; PME posterior median eye; Sc scape; Sp spermathecae; St subtegulum; T tegulum; TA tegular apophysis.

The distribution map was generated with ArcGIS 10.5 (ESRI Inc). Locality coordinates for M. lamellaris, M. bucerus, and M. yinae are copied from the original publications (see Zeng et al. 2016 and Gan et al. 2019). Due to a lack of locality coordinates in previous publications, locality coordinates for M. caudatus, M. sinicus, and M. testaceus originated from Google Earth, except for newly examined materials.

In order to obtain the DNA barcodes, a partial fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene was amplified and sequenced using the primers LCOI490 (5’-GGTCAACAAATCATCATAAA-GATATTGG-3’) and HCOI2198 (5’-TAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAAAAAT-3’). However, we were unable to obtain good extractions from M. guiyang sp. nov. and M. caudatus. For additional information on extraction, amplification, and sequencing procedures, see Benavides et al. (2017). All sequences were analyzed using BLAST and are deposited in GenBank. The accession numbers are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Voucher specimen information.

Species Inventory number Voucher code Sex GenBank accession number Sequence length
M. lanmeiae sp. nov. MGNU-2022-MIML001 YHGY096 ♂ PV213438 558 bp
M. sinicus MGNU-2022-MIMS003 YHGY079 ♂ PV213437 558 bp
MGNU-2022-MIMS004 YHGY078 ♀ PV213436 557 bp
M. testaceus MGNU-2022-MIMT001 YHGY102 ♂ PV213440 558 bp
MGNU-2022-MIMT002 YHGY080 ♀ PV213439 558 bp

Taxonomy

Family Mimetidae Simon, 1881

Mimetus Hentz, 1832

Type species.

Mimetus syllepsicus Hentz, 1832, from the USA and Mexico.

Mimetus caudatus Wang, 1990

Figs 2A, 3, 4, 5, 15

Mimetus caudatus Wang 1990: 42, fig. IV.4, 5 (♂, holotype, examined); Song et al. 1999: 73, fig. 30N, O (♂).

Type material.

Holotype • ♂, China: Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region: Nanning City, Damingshan Mt., locality coordinates lacking in the original label, 11 VII 1985, J. Wang and Y. Zhang et al. leg. Examined.

Material examined.

• 1♂1♀ (MGNU-2014-MIMC001 to 002), China: Guizhou Pro.: Duyun City, Xiaoweizhai Town, Yaolin Village, Yaolin Cave, 26.21°N, 107.53°E, c. 820 m, by hand, 18 VI 2014, P. Long et al. leg.

Diagnosis.

Males of M. caudatus resemble those of M. bucerus and M. lingbaoshanensis in having a cylindrical conductor (C) extending outward, and a developed, distinctly prominent cymbial apex (CA) (cymbial apex unobtrusive in all other congeners which with cylindrical conductor distinctly extending, such as M. echinatus, M. juhuaensis, M. lamellaris and M. yinae; as in Zeng et al. 2016: figs 1B, C, 2A, B, 5B, C, 6A, B, Liu et al. 2021b: figs 3A–E, 5A–E and Gan et al. 2019: figs 5A, B, 6C, D), but can be easily differentiated from M. bucerus and M. lingbaoshanensis by: (1) in both pro- and retrolateral views, cymbial apex (CA) triangular (Fig. 3C, D) (vs. subuliform in M. bucerus, handle-like in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: figs 1B, C, 2A, B, 3C, D, 4A, B); (2) in retrolateral view, paracymbium (Pc) consisting of a conical basal outgrowth and a blade-shaped distal outgrowth (Fig. 3A, B, D) (vs. with a beak-like basal outgrowth and a claviform distal outgrowth in M. bucerus, with a claw-shaped basal outgrowth and a subtriangular distal outgrowth in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: figs 1C, 2B, 3D, 4B); and (3) palpal tibia slightly longer than wide, the ratio of length/width being approximately 1.3 (Fig. 3A–D) (vs. distinctly longer than wide, the ratio of length/width is at least 2.8 in M. bucerus and 2.0 in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: figs 1B, C, 2A, B, 3C, D, 4A, B). The female of M. caudatus can be distinguished from all other congeners with the exception of M. lingbaoshanensis by having a proximally biforked scape (Sc) (scape absent, or present but proximally not forked in other Mimetus species, such as M. yinae and M. guiyang sp. nov.; Gan et al. 2019: figs 5C, D, 6F, G and Fig. 6A, C) and similar vulva, but can be recognised by the Y-shaped scape (Sc) in M. caudatus (Fig. 4A, C) (vs. V-shaped in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: figs 3F, 4C) and by the dumbbell-shaped basal plate (Bp) with the posterior margin concave medially in M. caudatus (Fig. 4B, D) (vs. basal plate labiate, posterior margin slightly prominent medially in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: figs 3F, G, 4C, D).

Figure 3. 

Male palp of Mimetus caudatus Wang, 1990 A. Ventral view; B. Dorsal view; C. Prolateral view; D. Retrolateral view. Abbreviations: C = conductor; CA = cymbial apex; CBE = cymbial base extension; Cy = cymbium; E = embolus; EB = embolar base; ET = embolar tip; Pc = paracymbium; St = subtegulum; T = tegulum; TA = tegular apophysis. Scale bar: 0.5 mm (equal for A–D).

Figure 4. 

Mimetus caudatus Wang, 1990, epigyne (A–D) and frontal view of prosoma (E, F). A, B. Macerated epigyne, ventral and dorsal; C, D. Epigyne, macerated and embedded in Arabic gum, ventral and dorsal; E. Male; F. Female. Abbreviations: BP = basal plate; CO = copulatory opening; FD = fertilisation duct; Sc = scape; Sp = spermathecae. Scale bar: 0.2 mm (equal for A–D); 1 mm (equal for E, F).

Description.

Male (MGNU-2014-MIMC001). Measurements. Total length 5.75. Carapace 2.97 long, 2.21 wide. Abdomen 2.78 long, 2.12 wide. Sternum 1.44 long and 0.95 wide. Labium wider than long. Clypeus height 0.26. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.16, ALE 0.14, PME 0.15, PLE 0.15, AME–AME 0.18, ALE–AME 0.21, PME–PME 0.09, PME–PLE 0.30. MOA 0.50 long, anterior width 0.51, posterior width 0.40. Leg measurements: I 17.23 (4.59, 5.54, 5.06, 2.04), II 13.21 (3.73, 4.38, 3.42, 1.68), III 9.01 (2.78, 2.96, 1.95, 1.32), IV 10.37 (3.32, 3.46, 2.39, 1.20).

Habitus (Figs 4E, 5A–C). Carapace nearly pyriform, light yellowish, with a distinctive anchor-shaped pattern starting from behind PER and almost reaching fovea, a pair of small patches on the lateral margins of the carapace near the coxa II, and a pair of large patches on the lateral margins of the carapace near the coxae III and IV; fovea represented by a small pit; ocular region distinctly narrowed, cervical groove and radial grooves indistinguishable; tegument smooth, clothed with short, sparse setae along radial grooves. Sternum light brown, shaped like a shield. Labium nearly oblong, reddish brown. Endites anteriorly white, posteriorly reddish brown, with dense scopulae on inner margin. Chelicerae dark brown, promargin with 11 peg teeth, retromargin with only one normal tooth. Leg color similar to that of carapace, with irregular brown annuli in the middle parts of femur. Abdomen oval, yellowish white, dorsally covered by many small whitish and large black patches, with many weakly ossified hair bases still remaining, but almost all hairs broken off from body and lost; venter basically light brown, centrally with a V-shaped grayish stripe, posteriorly with two irregular-shaped grayish speckles.

Figure 5. 

Habitus of Mimetus caudatus Wang, 1990, male (A–C) and female (D–F). A, D. Dorsal view; B, E. Ventral view; C, F. Lateral view. Scale bar: 2 mm (equal for A–C, equal for D–F).

Palp (Fig. 3A–D). Tibia short, < 1/3 of cymbium length, about 1.3 longer than wide. Cymbium (Cy) with basal extension (CBE) and an elongated apex (CA): cymbial base extension (CBE) represented by a semi-circular flange; cymbial apex (CA) shaped like index finger in ventral and dorsal views and triangular in lateral view, ca. 1/3 of cymbium length, pointing dorsal-retrolaterally. Paracymbium (Pc) broad, consisting of a conical basal outgrowth and a blade-shaped distal outgrowth, ca. 1/3 of cymbium length. Tegulum (T) nearly circular, centrally and apically membranous; sperm duct sinuate, forming a loop along tegular margin. Tegular apophysis (TA) sheet-shaped in ventral view and digitiform in prolateral view, located at proximal-prolateral position of tegulum (ca. 8–9 o’clock position of tegulum). Subtegulum (St) located posteriorly to tegulum, without apophysis. Embolus (E) filiform, arising at approximately the 7–8 o’clock position, terminating at ca. 12 o’clock position, with the tip (ET) hidden by conductor. Conductor (C) large, cylindrical, nearly as long as tegulum diameter, proximally partly membranous, apically disc-shaped and strongly sclerotized, dorsally with two hook-shaped apophyses and a sheet-shaped fold.

Female (MGNU-2014-MIMC002). Measurements. Total length 7.61. Carapace 3.27 long, 2.24 wide. Abdomen 4.34 long, 3.97 wide. Sternum 1.46 long and 1.14 wide. Labium wider than long. Clypeus height 0.35. Chelicerae with 11 teeth on promargin and two on retromargin. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.19, ALE 0.16, PME 0.16, PLE 0.18, AME–AME 0.21, ALE–AME 0.26, PME–PME 0.14, PME–PLE 0.39. MOA 0.55 long, anterior width 0.55, posterior width 0.41. Leg measurements: I 18.10 (4.98, 6.32, 4.83, 1.97), II 14.28 (4.14, 4.92, 3.57, 1.65), III 9.84 (3.05, 3.30, 2.12, 1.37), IV 11.46 (3.68, 3.92, 2.58, 1.68).

Habitus (Figs 4F, 5D–F). Slightly larger and lighter than male, other characters as in male.

Epigyne (Fig. 4A–C). Plate slightly longer than wide, spermathecae (Sp) distinctly visible through transparent integument. Basal plate (BP) broad, ca. 4.5 × wider than its high, with the middle part covered by the scape and with the lateral margins curved and the posterior margin concave medially, shaped like a transverse dumbbell. Scape (Sc) Y-shaped, relatively long, ca. 2/3 of epigyne length, originating near the middle area of epigynal plate, its apex distinctly overpasses the posterior margin of basal plate. Copulatory openings (CO) cambered, located posterior-bilaterally to scape. Copulatory ducts (CD) short barely distinct seen. Spermathecae (Sp) situated anteriorly, balloon-shaped, relatively large, ca. 1.15 ×longer than wide, surface smooth; two spermathecae touching each other. Fertilization duct (FD) membranous, located on dorsal-basal surface of spermathecae.

Natural history.

The new materials of M. caudatus were found in the entrance zone of the Yaoling Cave.

Distribution.

China (Guizhou, Guangxi) (Table 1; Figs 2A, 15).

Mimetus guiyang J. S. Zhang, Yu & Xu, sp. nov.

https://zoobank.org/F13FA58A-1682-4DEB-9509-987FB9FBFBCD
Figs 2A, 6, 14B, 15

Type material.

Holotype • ♀ (MGNU-2017-MIMG001), China: Guizhou Pro.: Guiyang City, Dongfeng Town, 26.64°N, 106.79°E, c. 736 m, pitfall traps, 16 VI 2017–17 VII 2017, H. Yu et al. leg. Paratype • 1♀ (MGNU-2017-MIMG002), same data as holotype.

Etymology.

The specific epithet is derived from the name of the type locality; noun in apposition.

Diagnosis.

The female of M. guiyang sp. nov. can be distinguished from those of all congeners with the exception of M. lingbaoshanensis by having a short and narrow scape (Sc) (scape tip not reaching the posterior margin of the basal plate (Bp), and scape narrower than 1/5 of basal plate width in both species, as in Fig. 6A, C and Gan et al. 2019: 5, figs 3F, 4C, vs. scape tip overpassing the posterior margin of basal plate, such as M. echinatus and M. yinae, or scape tip no less than 1/5 of basal plate width, such as M. juhuaensis and M. labiatus, as in Wang 1990: fig. IV.1, Zeng et al. 2016: figs 3B, 4B, Gan et al. 2019: figs 5C, 6F, and Liu et al. 2021b: figs 4, 6A). The new species can be differentiated by the scape nearly finger-like, proximally not forked (Figs 6A, C) (vs. subtriangular or V-shaped, proximally forked in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: 5, figs 3F, 4C); and the posterior margin of basal plate’s smoothness (Fig. 6A–D) (vs. medially slightly prominent in M. lingbaoshanensis; Gan et al. 2019: 5, figs 3F, G, 4C, D).

Description.

Female (holotype, MGNU-2017-MIMG001). Measurements. Total length 4.65. Carapace 2.29 long, 1.58 wide. Abdomen 2.36 long, 1.87 wide. Sternum 1.02 long and 0.73 wide. Labium wider than long. Clypeus height 0.26. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.13, ALE 0.12, PME 0.13, PLE 0.12, AME–AME 0.11, ALE–AME 0.16, PME–PME 0.08, PME–PLE 0.23. MOA 0.36 long, anterior width 0.37, posterior width 0.33. Leg measurements: I 11.97 (3.57, 4.17, 2.96, 1.27), II 9.06 (2.79, 3.12, 2.15, 1.00), III 5.49 (1.79, 1.80, 1.14, 0.76), IV 6.86 (2.22, 2.38, 1.51, 0.75).

Habitus (Figs 6E–G, 14B). Carapace nearly pyriform, uniformly yellowish white except cephalic region with a distinctive fan-shaped pattern starting from behind PER and almost reaching fovea; fovea nearly invisible; pars cephalica slightly narrowed, cervical groove and radial grooves indistinct; tegument smooth, clothed with short, sparse setae along the margins of cephalic pattern. Sternum yellowish, shaped like a shield. Labium band-shaped, light reddish brown. Endites anteriorly white, posteriorly colored as that of labium. Chelicerae dark, promargin with 11 peg teeth, retromargin with only one normal tooth. Leg yellowish white, with countless grey spots in the distal parts of femur and conspicuous dark brown annuli in the proximal parts of femur and tibia. Abdomen oval, yellowish white, dorsally covered by several relatively large black patches and small whitish spots; dorsum also with many binate hair bases, all hair bases ossified, among them ca. six or seven pairs relatively large and bubble-shaped, located medially; venter basically light brown, with numerous irregular, silver spots of varying sizes, centrally with a black longitudinal stripe, laterally with a black oblique stripe on each side, posteriorly with a pair of arc-shaped stripes forming a bracket-like pattern.

Figure 6. 

Holotype female of Mimetus guiyang sp. nov., epigyne (A–D) and habitus (E–G). A, B. Macerated epigyne, ventral and dorsal; C, D. Epigyne, macerated and embedded in Arabic gum, ventral and dorsal; E. Dorsal view; F. Ventral view; G. Lateral view. Abbreviations: BP = basal plate; CO = copulatory opening; FD = fertilisation duct; H = hood; Sc = scape; Sp = spermatheca. Scale bar: 0.2 mm (equal for A–D); 1 mm (equal for E–G).

Epigyne (Fig. 6A–D). Plate nearly as wide as long, through which large spermathecae (Sp) are clearly visible. Hood (H) hemispherical, distinctly large, as wide as epigyne. Basal plate (Bp) large, ca. 1.9 × wider than its high, nearly trapezoidal, with slightly curved posterior and lateral margins, its anterior part hidden by the hood, and its middle part partly covered by the scape. Scape (Sc) finger-like, approximately 2/5 of epigyne length, originating near anterior margin of hood, with its apex distinctly beyond the posterior margin of hood but not reaching the posterior margin of the basal plate. Copulatory openings (CO) indistinct, hidden by the hood. Copulatory ducts (CD) short and barely visible. Spermathecae (Sp) situated anteriorly, egg-shaped, relatively large, ca. 1.2 × longer than wide, surface slightly wrinkled; two spermathecae closely spaced. Fertilization ducts (FD), membranous and curved, located on dorsal-basal surface of spermathecae.

Male. Unknown.

Natural history.

The types were collected in a pitfall trap set in a masson pine plantation, but the specific biology of M. guiyang sp. nov. is not currently clear.

Distribution.

Known only from the type locality (Table 1; Figs 2A, 15).

Mimetus lanmeiae Liu, Yu & Xu, sp. nov.

https://zoobank.org/126EF2A2-129C-4DFA-87BD-39D0AC121A71
Figs 2A, 7, 8, 14A, 15

Type material.

Holotype • ♂ (MGNU-2022-MIML001), China: Guizhou Pro.: Guiyang City, Xinpu Town, Xiangzhigou, 26.57°N, 106.93°E, c. 1092 m, by hand, 1 VI 2022, L. Qian leg.

Etymology.

The specific name is a matronym in honor of Lanmei Tang, the mother of the collector.

Diagnosis.

Male of M. lanmeiae sp. nov. resembles that of M. contrarius (Zeng et al. 2019: 675, figs 1A–G, 2A–E) in having a C-shaped embolus (E), disc-shaped conductor (C), and elongated, shovel-shaped cymbial apex (CA), but differ by: (1) cymbium (Cy) with an ecto-medial process (CEMP) in the new species (vs. CEMP absent in the latter) (cf. Fig. 7A, B, D and Zeng et al. 2019: figs 1C, E, 2B, C); (2) paracymbium (Pc) shaped like water drop, anteriorly with a highly sclerotized thumb-shaped apophysis in the new species (vs. nearly triangular, medially with a small tooth-shaped apophysis in the latter) (cf. Fig. 7A, B, D and Zeng et al. 2019: figs 1E, 2C); and (3) palpal tibia approximately 1.4 × longer than wide in the new species (vs. palpal tibia distinctly longer than wide, the ratio of length/width is approximately 2.8 in the latter) (cf. Fig. 7A–D and Zeng et al. 2019: figs 1C–E, 2A–C).

Description.

Male (holotype, MGNU-2022-MIML001). Measurements. Total length 2.14. Carapace 0.96 long, 0.86 wide. Abdomen 1.18 long, 1.05 wide. Sternum 0.48 long and 0.49 wide. Labium wider than long. Clypeus height 0.18. Eye sizes and interdistances: AME 0.09, ALE 0.08, PME 0.09, PLE 0.08, AME–AME 0.08, ALE–AME 0.03, PME–PME 0.04, PME–PLE 0.11. MOA 0.24 long, anterior width 0.24, posterior width 0.22. Leg measurements: I 6.2 (1.65, 2.15, 1.61, 0.79), II 4.92 (1.45, 1.65, 1.13, 0.69), III 2.91 (0.85, 0.91, 0.66, 0.50), IV 3.60 (1.12, 2.38, 0.75, 0.53).

Habitus (Figs 8, 14A). Carapace oval, slightly longer than wide, basically yellowish white, with a large black Y-shaped pattern (both lateral margins of pattern are wave-like lines) between ocular area and fovea; fovea inconspicuous; ocular area slightly narrowed, cervical groove and radial grooves invisible; tegument smooth, without setae. Sternum white, heart- or shield-shaped. Labium band-shaped, slightly curved, light reddish brown. Endites anteriorly white, posteriorly colored as that of labium. Chelicerae light reddish brown, promargin with eight peg teeth, retromargin with two small teeth. Leg yellowish white, with several black spots in the distal half of femur. Abdomen round, yellowish white, dorsally with whitish and dark patches, and many weakly ossified hair bases, but almost all hairs have broken off from the body; venter basically yellowish-white, anteriorly with a pair of long, arc-shaped stripes on both sides, extending ca. 1/2 of abdomen length, forming a large, bracket-shaped pattern, posteriorly with a nearly circular black spot.

Palp (Fig. 7A–D). Tibia ca. 1/3 of cymbium length, about 1.4 longer than wide. Cymbium (Cy) with a developed apex (CA), an ecto-medial process (CEMP), and a basal extension (CBE): cymbial apex elongated, ca. 1/3 of cymbium length, nearly triangular in ventral and dorsal views and shovel-shaped in both lateral views, its tip pointing ventro-retrolaterally; ecto-medial process triangular or tooth-shaped, slightly curved, apex sharp and pointing ventro-retrolaterally; cymbial basal extension thumb-like, partly membranous, its tip blunt. Paracymbium (Pc) broad, ca. 2/5 of cymbium length, with a highly sclerotized thumb-shaped apophysis. Tegulum (T) nearly circular, centrally and apically membranous, slightly excavated on prolatero-apical side to accommodate embolus; sperm duct distinct, forming a loop along tegular margin. Tegular apophysis (TA) triangular in ventral view and papilliform in prolateral view, located at proximal-prolateral position of tegulum (ca. 8–9 o’clock position of tegulum). Subtegulum (St) located postero-retrolaterally to tegulum, without apophysis. Embolus (E) C-shaped, arising at 6–7 o’clock position, terminating at ca. 12 o’clock position. Conductor (C) large, disc-shaped, slightly extending outward, membranous centrally and strongly sclerotized marginally, its anterior margin folded to cover the tip of emblous (ET).

Figure 7. 

Male palp of the holotype of Mimetus lanmeiae sp. nov. A. Ventral view; B. Dorsal view; C. Prolateral view; D Retrolateral view. Abbreviations: C = conductor; CA = cymbial apex; CBE = cymbial base extension; CEMP = cymbial ecto-medial process; Cy = cymbium; E = embolus; EB = embolar base; ET = embolar tip; Pc = paracymbium; St = subtegulum; T = tegulum; TA = tegular apophysis. Scale bar: 0.2 mm (equal for A–D).

Figure 8. 

Male holotype of Mimetus lanmeiae sp. nov., habitus (A–D) and living specimen (D–F). A. Dorsal view; B. Ventral view; C. Lateral view; D. Spider on web; E, F. Spider dropped on the ground. Photographs of living specimen by Q Lu (Shenzhen).Scale bar: 1 mm (equal for A–C).

Female. Unknown.

Natural history.

The holotype of Mimetus lanmeiae sp. nov. was found on a spider web (Fig. 8D), which may show a mimicry behavior (mimicking the movements of a prey trapped in the host web to attract, attack, and feed upon the resident spider as mentioned in Liu et al. (2021b)).

Distribution.

Known only from the type locality (Table 1; Figs 2A, 15).

Mimetus sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993

Figs 2A, 9, 10, 11, 14C, D, 15

Mimetus sinicus Song and Zhu 1993: 421, figs 1–5 (♂♀); Song and Li 1997: 400, fig. 1A–E (♂♀); Song et al. 1999: 74, figs 11K, 30H, I, S, T (♂♀).

Material examined.

• 5♂♂5♀♀ (MGNU-2022-MIMS001 to 010), China: Guizhou Pro.: Guiyang City, Xinpu Town, Xiangzhigou, 26.79°N, 106.91°E, c. 1092 m, by beating, 31 V 2022, H. Yu et al. leg.

Diagnosis and description.

See Song and Zhu (1993). Male palp as in Fig. 9A–C, epigyne as in Fig. 9D, E, habitus as in Figs 10, 14C, D, living specimens as in Fig. 11.

Figure 9. 

Male palp (A–C) and female epigyne (D, E) of Mimetus sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993. A–C. Prolateral, ventral, and retrolateral view; D–E. Macerated epigyne, ventral and dorsal. Abbreviations: BP = basal plate; C = conductor; CO = copulatory opening; Cy = cymbium; E = embolus; FD = fertilisation duct; EB = embolar base; ET = embolar tip; Pc = paracymbium; Sp = spermathecae; St = subtegulum; T = tegulum; TA = tegular apophysis. Scale bar: 0.2 mm (equal for A–C, equal for D, E).

Figure 10. 

Habitus of Mimetus sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993, male (A–C) and female (D–F). A, D. Dorsal view; B, E. Ventral view; C, F. Lateral view. Scale bar: 1 mm (equal for A–C, equal for D–F).

Figure 11. 

Mimetus sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993, male (A) and female (B–C), living specimens. Photographs of living specimens by Q Lu (Shenzhen).

Distribution.

China (Guizhou, Hubei) (Table 1; Figs 2A, 15).

Mimetus testaceus Yaginuma, 1960

Figs 2A, 12, 13, 14E, F, 15

Mimetus testaceus Yaginuma 1960: append. 3, plate. 15, fig. 93, fig. 101G (♀); Paik 1967: 190, fig. 3, 16–21 (♂♀); Wang 1990: 40, fig. III.5–11 (♂♀); Chen and Zhang 1991: 182, fig. 179.1–5 (♂♀); Song et al. 1999: 74, fig. 30J, K, U, V (♂♀). For a full list of taxonomic references, see WSC (2025).

Material examined.

• 2♂♂3♀♀ (MGNU-2022-MIMT001 to 005), China: Guizhou Pro.: Guiyang City, Shuitian Town, Panlongshan Forest Park, 26.74°N, 106.88°E, c. 1072 m, by beating, 2 VI 2022; H. Yu et al. leg.

Diagnosis and description.

See Paik (1967). Male palp as in Fig. 12A–C, epigyne as in Fig. 12D, E, habitus as in Figs 13, 14E, F, living specimens as in Fig. 12F, G.

Figure 12. 

Male palp (A–C), female epigyne (D, E) and living specimens (F, G) of Mimetus testaceus Yaginuma, 1960. A–C. Prolateral, ventral, and retrolateral view; D, E. Macerated epigyne, ventral and dorsal; F, G. Male and female Abbreviations: A = atrium; BP = basal plate; C = conductor; CA = cymbial apex; Cy = cymbium; E = embolus; EB = embolar base; ET = embolar tip; Pc = paracymbium; Sp = spermathecae; St = subtegulum; T = tegulum. Photographs of living specimen by Q Lu (Shenzhen). Scale bar: 0.5 mm (equal for A–C); 0.2 mm (equal for D, E).

Figure 13. 

Habitus of Mimetus testaceus Yaginuma, 1960, male (A–C) and female (D–F). A, D. Dorsal view; B, E. Ventral view; C, F. Lateral view. Scale bar: 1 mm (equal for A–C, equal for D–F).

Figure 14. 

Frontal view of the prosoma of Mimetus spp. treated in this paper. A. Mimetus lanmeiae sp. nov.; B. Mimetus guiyang sp. nov.; C, D. Mimetus sinicus, male and female; E, F. Mimetus testaceus, male and female. Scale bars: 0.5 mm (A); 1 mm (B–F).

Distribution.

China (Hunan, Guangxi, Guizhou, Zhejiang) (Table 1; Figs 2A, 15).

Figure 15. 

Distribution records of the Mimetus species treated in this paper: Mimetus caudatus Wang, 1990 (scarlet square: 1. Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Mt. Daming; 2. Guizhou Province, Dunyun City, Xiaoweizhai Town, Yaolin Cave), M. guiyang sp. nov. (green rhombus: Guizhou Province, Guiyang City, Dongfeng Town), M. lanmeiae sp. nov. (yellow circle: Guizhou Province, Guiyang City, Xinpu Town, Xiangzhigou), M. sinicus Song & Zhu, 1993 (purple triangle: 1. Hubei Province, Hefeng County; 2. Hubei Province, Xuanen County; 3. Hubei Province, Xianfeng County; 4. Guizhou Province, Guiyang City, Xinpu Town, Xiangzhigou), M. testaceus Yaginuma, 1960 (orange hexagon: 1. Zhejiang Province, Taizhou City; 2. Zhejiang Province, Lishui City; 3. Hunan Province, Liuyang City; 4. Hunan Province, Mt. Yuelu; 5. Hunan Province, Zhangjiajie City; 6. Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Longsheng County; 7. Guizhou Province, Zunyi City; 8. Guizhou Province, Guiyang City, Shuitian Town, Panlongshan forest park).

Discussion

The genetic barcode technique (DNA barcodes), based on sequencing of the mitochondrial marker cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI), has proven a useful, complementary tool to overcome species limitations and sex matching in taxonomic studies of many spider groups (Barone et al. 2024; Blagoev et al. 2016; Čandek and Kuntner 2015; Xu et al. 2015, 2017; Coddington et al. 2016; Tyagi et al. 2019; Zhang et al. 2021a, b). A preliminary molecular species delimitation was conducted using the DNA barcoding gap method, based on all available COI sequences of the genus Mimetus (including both self-sequenced and all sequences downloadable from NCBI). According to the results (unpublished), a distinct gap was observed between intraspecific and interspecific genetic distances, ranging from 4.18% to 6.85% for K2P and from 4.04% to 6.50% for p-distance, indicating that even single-locus analyses based on the COI barcodes, when integrated with morphological data and collection experience, may provide sufficiently reliable species delimitation for Mimetus.

Therefore, we prioritize using the COI sequence for sex matching in the present paper. However, the lack of fundamental data (currently, we can obtain COI sequences for only eight Mimetus species through NCBI, and among them, only one species, M. testaceus, is from China; NCBI 2025) and the inability to obtain high-quality DNA from some specimens (we were unable to obtain good extractions from M. guiyang sp. nov. and M. caudatus) compel us to seek alternative methods or criteria to solve the issue.

In almost all Mimetus spp., there is no significant sexual dimorphism in body size, pattern, and coloration, such as in M. caudatus (cf. Figs 4E, 5A–C, and Figs 4F, 5D–F), M. sinicus (cf. Figs 10A–C, 11A, 14C, and Figs 10D–F, 11B, C, 14D), and M. testaceus (cf. Figs 12F, 13A–C, 14E, and Figs 12G, 13D–F, 14F). Therefore, this relatively low degree of sexual dimorphism can serve as a reference for determining whether specimens of different sexes are conspecific. Furthermore, we used two criteria for matching the opposite sexes: the combined occurrence of males and females in several samples and compatibility of epigyne and male palpal structure.

Up to now, four described Mimetus species (M. caudatus is excluded) from China are known from males only: M. bucerus, M. clavatus, M. lamellaris, and M. uncatus (WSC 2025; Table 1). However, none of them could be matched with M. guiyang sp. nov. due to their different habitus: the abdomen dorsally with peculiar, large, bubble-shaped, ossified hair bases in M. guiyang sp. nov., but the hair bases are absent or indistinct in M. bucerus, M. clavatus, M. lamellaris, and M. uncatus (Gan et al. 2019: fig. 1A; Liu et al. 2021a: figs 9A, B, 20A, B; Zeng et al. 2016: fig. 9A).

According to the WSC (2025), two described species of Mimetus from China are known from females only: M. labiatus and M. tuberculatus (Table 1). However, neither could be matched with M. lanmeiae sp. nov. due to their different sizes and habitus. M. lanmeiae sp. nov. with a 2.14 mm body length, its abdomen round and smooth, without humps, and the dorsal surface of the abdomen with whitish and dark patches (Fig. 8). In contrast, M. labiatus possesses a 5.80 mm body length, its abdomen is elongate-oval and dorsally with several pairs of diagonal, claviform bands (Yin et al. 2012: 199, fig. 53a), and M. tuberculatus has a 4.80 mm body length, its abdomen with three pairs of tubercles (Liang and Wang 1991: 61).

Both M. guiyang sp. nov. and M. lanmeiae sp. nov. were collected from Guiyang City; however, the two can also be considered as separate species due to their different sizes (female with 4.65 mm body length vs. male with 2.14 mm) and their different habitus (abdomen dorsally with many large bubble-shaped hair bases as in Fig. 6E, G, vs. with many small and indistinct hair bases as in Fig. 8A, C). Moreover, there is a great possibility that two new species will be assigned to different species groups or genera in the future (Mimetus will likely be split when more data is available). Based on the characters of copulatory organs, Liu et al. (2021b: 574) divided the Chinese Mimetus into three types (or groups). It appears that M. guiyang sp. nov. and M. caudatus should belong to the first type, which presents a distinct set of genitalic characters: basal plate (Bp) of epigynum oblong and scape (Sc) of epigynum conspicuous in female (as shown in Figs 4A–D, 6A–D); conductor (C) cylindrical, strongly sclerotized, and extending outward; embolus (E) originating at the position of 6 o’clock and extending along the conductor (C) in male (Fig. 3A–D). Obviously, M. lanmeiae sp. nov. possesses no characters associated with the type (or group), which includes M. guiyang sp. nov. and M. caudatus, due to lacking the features just mentioned. Consequently, it is currently impossible to discern any obvious derived features that could indicate a close relationship between M. guiyang sp. nov. and M. lanmeiae sp. nov.

Acknowledgments

We are especially grateful to Danilo Harms (Hamburg, Germany), the subject editor. We thank Gustavo Hormiga (Washington, USA) and Danniella Sherwood (London, UK) for providing constructive comments on the manuscript. We are grateful to Qianle Lu (Shenzhen, China) for his kind help in collecting the specimens and for agreeing to use his image of live specimens. This work was supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China (NSFC-32360123/32060113/31702006/32070429/31772423), the Natural Science Foundation of Guizhou Province (J [2020] 1Y081), the Project of Biodiversity Survey and Assessment in Guiyang (GZZC-2021-018), the Joint Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Karst Science Research Center of Guizhou Province (Grant No. U1812401), and the Key Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Education (19A320).

References

  • Barone ML, Wilson JD, Zapata L, Soto EM, Haddad CR, Grismado C, Izquierdo M, Arias E, Pizarro-Araya J, Briones R, Barriga JE, Peralta L, Ramírez MJ (2024) Genetic barcodes for species identification and phylogenetic estimation in ghost spiders (Araneae: Anyphaenidae: Amaurobioidinae). Invertebrate Systematics 38(11): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS24053
  • Benavides LR, Hormiga G (2016) Taxonomic revision of the Neotropical pirate spiders of the genus Gelanor Thorell, 1869 (Araneae, Mimetidae) with the description of five new species. Zootaxa 4064(1): 1–72. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4064.1.1
  • Benavides LR, Hormiga G (2020) A morphological and combined phylogenetic analysis of pirate spiders (Araneae, Mimetidae): evolutionary relationships, taxonomy, and character evolution. Invertebrate Systematics 34(2): 144–191. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS19032
  • Benavides LR, Giribet G, Hormiga G (2017) Molecular phylogenetic analysis of “pirate spiders” (Araneae, Mimetidae) with the description of a new African genus and the first report of maternal care in the family. Cladistics 33(4): 375–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12174
  • Blagoev GA, deWaard JR, Ratnasingham S, deWaard SL, Lu LQ, Robertson J, Telfer AC, Hebert PDN (2016) Untangling taxonomy: a DNA barcode reference library for Canadian spiders. Molecular Ecology Resources 16(1): 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12444
  • Čandek K, Kuntner M (2015) DNA barcoding gap: reliable species identification over morphological and geographical scales. Molecular Ecology Resources 15(2): 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12304
  • Chen ZF, Zhang ZH (1991) Fauna of Zhejiang: Araneida. Zhejiang Science and Technology Publishing House, Hangzhou, 356 pp.
  • Coddington JA, Agnarsson I, Cheng R, Čandek K, Driskell A, Frick H, Gregorič M, Kostanjšek R, Kropf C, Kweskin M, Lokovšek T, Pipan M, Vidergar N, Kuntner M (2016) DNA barcode data accurately assign higher spider taxa. PeerJ 4: e2201. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2201
  • Cutler B (1972) Notes on the biology of Mimetus puritanus Chamberlin (Araneae: Mimetidae). The American Midland Naturalist 87: 554–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/2423592
  • Gan JH, Mi XQ, Irfan M, Peng XJ, Ran S, Zhan Y (2019) Three new species of the genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 (Araneae: Mimetidae) from Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau of China. European Journal of Taxonomy 525: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2019.525
  • Harms D, Harvey MS (2009a) A review of the pirate spiders of Tasmania (Arachnida, Mimetidae, Australomimetus) with description of a new species. Journal of Arachnology 37(2): 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1636/A08-35.1
  • Harms D, Harvey MS (2009b) Australian pirates: systematics and phylogeny of the Australasian pirate spiders (Araeae: Mimetidae), with a description of the Western Australian fauna. Invertebrate Systematics 23(3): 231–280. https://doi.org/10.1071/IS08015
  • Heimer S (1986) Notes on the spider family Mimetidae with description of a new genus from Australia (Arachnida, Araneae). Entomologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 49: 113–137.
  • Jackson RR, Whitehouse MEA (1986) The biology of New-Zealand and Queensland pirate spiders (Araneae, mimetidae) – aggressive mimicry, araneophagy and prey specialization. Journal of Zoology 210: 279–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1986.tb03635.x
  • Liang TE, Wang JF (1991) A new species of spiders of the genus Mimetus in Xinjiang (Araneae: Mimetidae). Journal of August 1st Agricultural College 14(1): 61–62.
  • Liu JX, Xu X, Hormiga G, Yin HQ (2021a) New species of the pirate spider genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from China with a cladistic hypothesis on their phylogenetic placement (Araneae, Mimetidae). Zootaxa 5020(1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5020.1.1
  • NCBI (2025) National Library of Medicine. The National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ [accessed on 19 January 2025]
  • Paik KY (1967) The Mimetidae (Araneae) of Korea. Theses collection of Kyungpook University, Korea, 11: 185–196.
  • Song DX, Li SQ (1997) Spiders of Wuling Mountains area. In: Song DX (Ed.) Invertebrates of Wuling Mountains Area, Southwestern China. Science Press, Beijing, 400–448.
  • Song DX, Zhu MS (1993) A new species of the genus Mimetus from China (Araneae: Mimetidae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 18: 421–423.
  • Song DX, Zhu MS, Chen J (1999) The spiders of China. Hebei Science and Technology Publishing House, Shijiazhuang, 640 pp.
  • Tyagi K, Kumar V, Kundu S, Pakrashi A, Prasad P, Caleb John TD, Chandra K (2019) Identification of Indian Spiders through DNA barcoding: Cryptic species and species complex. Scientific Reports 9(14033). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50510-8
  • Wang JF (1990) Study on the spiders of family Mimetidae from south China (Arachnida: Araneae). Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 15: 36–47.
  • Wang YB (2021) The Guizhou Model for Biodiversity Conservation. Contemporary Guizhou 43: 18–19.
  • Wang ZJ, Huang SH, Yao YB, Liu KK (2024) A new species of the genus Mimetus Hentz, 1832 from South China (Araneae: Mimetidae). Acta Arachnologica Sinica 33(2): 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-024-2451-3
  • WSC (2025) World Spider Catalog. version 25.5. Natural History Museum, Bern. http://wsc.nmbe.ch [accessed on 10 January 2025]
  • Xu YJ, Wang L, Wang JF (1987) A new species of the genus Ero from China (Araneae: Mimetidae). Journal of the Hangzhou Teachers College 1987(2): 65–67.
  • Xu X, Liu F, Chen J, Li D, Kuntner M (2015) Integrative taxonomy of the primitively segmented spider genus Ganthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae): DNA barcoding gap agrees with morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 175(2): 288–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12280
  • Xu X, Liu F, Chen J, Kuntner M, Ono H, Li D (2017) Targeted sampling in Ryukyus facilitates species delimitation of the primitively segmented spider genus Ryuthela (Araneae: Mesothelae: Liphistiidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 181(4): 867–909. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx024
  • Yaginuma T (1960) Spiders of Japan in colour. Hoikusha, Osaka, 186 pp.
  • Yin CM, Peng XJ, Yan HM, Bao YH, Xu X, Tang G, Zhou QS, Liu P (2012) Fauna Hunan: Araneae in Hunan, China. Hunan Science and Technology Press, Changsha, 1590 pp.
  • Yoshida H (1993) A new species of the genus Mimetus (Araneae: Mimetidae) from the Ryukyus and Taiwan. Proceedings of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology 49: 30–32. https://doi.org/10.2476/asjaa.30.21
  • Zeng C, Irfan M, Peng XJ (2019) First record of the spider genus Phobetinus (Araneae: Mimetidae) in China, with the description of a new species. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 12(4): 674–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2019.09.003
  • Zhang JS, Yu H, Li SQ (2021b) On the clubionid spiders (Araneae, Clubionidae) from Xishuangbanna, China, with descriptions of two new genera and seven new species. ZooKeys 1062: 73–122. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1062.66845
  • Zhao FF, Zhang XY, Liao LF, Nie SH (2021) Variation of soil moisture of its response to climate change in different geomorphological types of Guizhou province. Research of Soil and Water Conservation 28(6): 217–225.
  • Zhou J, Luo T, An J, Song LX, Lan CT, Yu J, Deng HQ, Xiao N (2023) Advances in amphibian research in Guizhou: A review of 36 years of amphibian diversity and systematic taxonomy. Journal of Guizhou Normal University (Natural Sciences) 41(4): 1–35.
login to comment