Errata to Eskov et al. (2024)

Abstract

While all possible care was exercised during preparation of the article by Eskov et al. (2024), most unfortunate errors crept inadvertently into the caption to Fig. 1 and in the text (p. 94). 

The caption should read (highlighted in bold):
Fig. 1: Clavate trichobothria of Liphistiidae and Mygalomorphae on tarsus III (A–C, E, F) and II, showing also filiform trichobothria (D): (A, C) Liphistius desultor (Liphistiidae), (C) same, enlarged, (D) Hapalopus formosus (Theraphosidae), (E) Ummidia gandjinoi (Halonoproctidae), (F) Ischnocolus meron (Theraphosidae).

The text on page 94 should read (highlighted in bold):
“However, the above-mentioned morphological differences seem overrated. In Liphistius the clavate trichobothria, in fact, are “interspersed among the filiform ones” in the same way as in mygalomorphs (Fig. 1A cf. Fig. 1D). In theraphosids and barychelids “rows of tiny spikes” on setal shaft surface clearly differ from the Liphistius ones, being sufficiently smaller and arranged in longitudinal (non-oblique) rows (Fig. 1C cf. Fig. 1F; Guadanucci 2012, figs 18, 134), whereas the clavate trichobothria of the halonoproctid genus Ummidia Thorell, 1875 (Fig. 1E) and the idiopid genus Prothemenops (Schwendinger & Hongpadharakiree 2014, fig. 1C) seem indistinguishable in this respect from the Liphistius ones (Fig. 1C).”
The authors and editorial office apologise for any inconvenience these mistakes might have caused.

REFERENCES
Eskov, K.Y., Zonstein, S.L. & Marusik, Y.M. 2024. On the liphistiomorph trichobothria and the significance of their structure for tracking the bothria evolution in the order Araneae. Israel Journal of Entomology 53: 93–112. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12790018

To cite: [Editorial Office]. 2024. Errata to Eskov et al. (2024). Israel Journal of Entomology 53: 113. 
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13254196
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:96D556B5-E781-49CF-91BF-37CC8750F1D2