PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE STUDY

Acquiring molecular data from many genes is the priority for resolving salticid relationships with greater clarity. However, for many salticid genera, finding more certain placement will require a better understanding of structures of the body and genitalia. While standard illustrations of palps and epigyna (both external and internal) are sufficient for species identification, they have not yet yielded many clear synapomorphies for groups. For that, we need to observe structures at much higher resolution than is usually done; a sketch at 80X magnification is not likely enough for phylogenetic work. We also need to go beyond genitalia to fine structures of the whole body. It is also critical that the morphological data be analyzed cladistically, seeking and explaining synapomorphies clearly and explicitly.

However, our greatest challenge is the size of the group compared to the number of active workers. The great bulk of work this century has been led by just a few people in each major continental area: Proszyriski, Logunov, Marusik, Peng, and Azarkina for Eurasia; Wesolowska, Russell-Smith, Haddad, and van Harten for Africa and adjacent areas; Zabka for Australasia; Ruiz for the Americas; Maddison and Zhang for multiple areas. While each of the above has participated in describing at least 50 new species, the pace is far too slow given the family's size and the continuing loss of habitat. The need to recruit more workers is especially acute in the Neotropics, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Australasia. Perhaps, as the family becomes better described and organized, young arachnologists will find it a less daunting vocation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank David Maddison for sharing his wisdom, always, on systematics. I am grateful to G.B. Edwards for extensive discussion over the years about salticid relationships, and for hastening his publication on freyines on which this paper relied. I thank Gustavo Ruiz for his collaborations on salticid relationships, and for his hard work on various projects that served as prerequisites for this paper. He was generous and helpful with his advice, not only correcting errors but also permitting me to use his unpublished results on the placement of several Neotropical genera. I am grateful to Tamas Szuts for sharing his unpublished photographs of type specimens. Special thanks are due to Suresh Benjamin, Charles Haddad, Shuqiang Li, Jurgen Otto, Michael Schafer, and Vida Van der Walt for permitting me to use their photographs of living spiders. Gustavo Ruiz, Martin Ramirez, Mark Harvey, G.B. Edwards, Michael Rix, and an anonymous reviewer gave helpful comments on the manuscript. I am thankful to Robert Suter, Rick Vetter, and Michael Rix for their extraordinary efforts in guiding this paper to publication. This paper was supported by an NSERC Discovery grant.

LITERATURE CITED

Abraham, H.C. 1925. A marine spider of the family Attidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 95:1357-1363.

Andreeva, E.M., A.P. Kononenko & J. Proszynski. 1981. Remarks on genus Mogrus Simon, 1882 (Aranei, Salticidae). Annales Zoologici (Warszawa) 36:85-104.

Andriamalala, D. 2007. Revision of the genus Padilla Peckham and Peckham, 1894 (Araneae:...