Emertonella Bryant 1945

GenusEmertonellaBryant, 1945 Type species. Emertonella emertoni (Bryant, 1933) from USA. Diagnosis. Emertonella is similar to Euryopis in the absence of conductor, but can be distinguished from Euryopis by the male palpal cymbium without projection or with a small lamellar projection (vs cymbium with a wide projection, almost half as wide as cymbium); for females, the two genera are difficult to distinguish. Distribution. Africa, Asia, Europe, North and South America, and New Guinea. Comments. Yoshida (2002) proposed that the distinction between Emertonella and Euryopis lies in the absence of the cymbial projection. However, Em. deplanata (Schenkel, 1936), comb. nov. and Em. taczanowskii (Keyserling, 1886) exhibit a small lamellar cymbial projection. Accordingly, we re-define Emertonella as above. Yoshida (2002) suggested that species of the emertoni group should be placed in Emertonella; however, no formal taxonomic transfers were made (Levi 1954). Herein, 14 species of the emertoni group are formally transferred from Euryopis to Emertonella: Em. californica (Banks, 1904), comb. nov., Em. coki (Levi, 1954), comb. nov., Em. formosa (Banks, 1908), comb. nov., Em. funebris (Hentz, 1850), comb. nov., Em. lineatipes (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1893), comb. nov., Em. mulaiki (Levi, 1954), comb. nov., Em. pepini (Levi, 1954), comb. nov., Em. quinquemaculata (Banks, 1900), comb. nov., Em. scriptipes (Banks, 1908), comb. nov., Em. spinigera (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1895), comb. nov., Em. spiritus (Levi, 1954), comb. nov., Em. tavara (Levi, 1954), comb. nov., Em. texana (Banks, 1908), comb. nov., and Em. varis (Levi, 1963), comb. nov. In addition, based on original illustrations and descriptions that conform to the delimitation of Emertonella, 16 species previously placed in Euryopis are herein transferred to Emertonella: Em. boliviensis (Rodrigues, Marta & Figueiredo, 2021), comb. nov., Em. camis (Levi, 1963), comb. nov., Em. catarinensis (Rodrigues, Marta & Figueiredo, 2021), comb. nov., Em. cobreensis (Levi, 1963), comb. nov., Em. cyclosisa (Zhu & Song, 1997), comb. nov., Em. emiliae (Lecigne, 2023), comb. nov., Em. episinoides (Walckenaer, 1847), comb. nov., Em. mallah (Zakerzade, Moradmand & Jäger, 2022), comb. nov., Em. nasuta (Rodrigues, Marta & Figueiredo, 2021), comb. nov., Em. nigra (Yoshida, 2000), comb. nov., Em. pickardi (Levi, 1963), comb. nov., Em. quinqueguttata (Thorell, 1875), comb. nov., Em. sexmaculata (Hu, 2001), comb. nov., Em. spinifera (Mello-Leitão, 1944), comb. nov., Em. talaveraensis (González, 1991), comb. nov., and Em. weesei (Levi, 1963), comb. nov. (Levi 1963; González 1990, 1991; Heimer and Nentwig 1991; Zhu 1998; Yoshida 2000; Hu 2001; Chen et al. 2017; Rodrigues et al. 2021; Zakerzade et al. 2022; Lecigne 2023). However, due to unclear illustrations (e. g., Eu. elegans Keyserling, 1890), or misplacements (e. g., Eu. galeiforma Zhu, 1998, belonging to Theridiinae, Liu et al. 2025), sufficient information is lacking to confidently determine their generic placement (Hickman 1967; Rodrigues et al. 2021; Shi et al. 2025). These species are therefore retained in their current placements. Euryopis mingyaoi Yin, 2012 fits the diagnostic characteristics of Physcoa Thorell, 1895 in possessing a prolateral-distal cymbial projection and a retrolaterally positioned paracymbium (cymbial hood). It is similar to Physcoa oxycera (Zhu & Song, 1993) in the shape of the median apophysis, conductor, embolus, and overall habitus colouration. In addition, the presence of two promarginal cheliceral teeth (cf. Yin et al. 2012: fig. 142 a – f and Hu et al. 2026: figs 8 A – D, 13 A, G) indicates this species does not belong to Hadrotarsinae. However, as the holotype of this species appears to be lost, we were unable to study its detailed morphology. Nevertheless, based on the available evidence, we transfer Eu. mingyaoi to Physcoa as a new combination, Physcoa mingyaoi (Yin, 2012), comb. nov.