A frican P rotected A rea C onservation and S cience http://www.koedoe.co.za KOEDOE Original Research A rticle #149 (page number not for citation purposes) 17 A checklist of the non-AcArine ArAchnids (chelicerAtA: ArAchnidA) of the de hoop nAture reserve, Western cApe province, south AfricA Authors: Charles r. Haddad1 Ansie s. Dippenaar- schoeman2 Affiliations: 1Department of Zoology & Entomology University of the Free state, south Africa 2Biosystematics: Arachnology ArC - Plant Protection research Institute south Africa 2Department of Zoology & Entomology University of Pretoria south Africa Correspondence to: Charles r. Haddad e-mail: haddadcr.sci@ufs.ac.za Postal address: Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of the Free state, P. O. Box 339, Bloemfontein, 9300, south Africa Keywords: De Hoop Nature reserve; Fynbos Biome; Non- acarine arachnids; species; south African National survey of Arachnida Dates: received: 13 Nov. 2007 Accepted: 08 July 2008 Published: 21 Apr. 2009 How to cite this article: Haddad, C.r. & Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s., 2009, ‘A checklist of the non-acarine arachnids (Chelicerata: Arachnida) of the De Hoop Nature reserve, Western Cape Province, south Africa’, Koedoe 51(1), Art. #149, 9 page. DOI: 10.4102/ koedoe.v51i1.149 This article is available at: http://www.koedoe.co.za © 2009. The Authors. Licensee: OpenJournals Publishing. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 1 of 9 ABSTRACT As part of the south African National survey of Arachnida (sANsA) in conserved areas, arachnids were collected in the De Hoop Nature reserve in the Western Cape Province, south Africa. The survey was carried out between 1999 and 2007, and consisted of five intensive surveys between two and 12 days in duration. Arachnids were sampled in five broad habitat types, namely fynbos, wetlands, i.e. De Hoop Vlei, Eucalyptus plantations at Potberg and Cupido’s Kraal, coastal dunes near Koppie Alleen and the intertidal zone at Koppie Alleen. A total of 274 species representing five orders, 65 families and 191 determined genera were collected, of which spiders (Araneae) were the dominant taxon (252 spp., 174 genera, 53 families). The most species rich families collected were the Salticidae (32 spp.), Thomisidae (26 spp.), Gnaphosidae (21 spp.), Araneidae (18 spp.), Theridiidae (16 spp.) and Corinnidae (15 spp.). Notes are provided on the most commonly collected arachnids in each habitat. Conservation implications: This study provides valuable baseline data on arachnids conserved in De Hoop Nature reserve, which can be used for future assessments of habitat transformation, alien invasive species and climate change on arachnid biodiversity. INTRODUCTION The south African National survey of Arachnida (sANsA) was initiated in 1997 to record the biodiversity of arachnids in south Africa (Dippenaar-schoeman & Craemer 2000). As part of this initia- tive, surveys are underway in various conservancies, agroecosystems, provinces and biomes. so far, only two long-term surveys have been carried out in Western Cape Province conservancies, namely of the spiders of the Karoo National Park, falling within the Nama Karoo biome (Dippenaar-schoeman et al. 1999), and the swartberg Nature reserve, falling within the succulent Karoo biome (Dippenaar-schoe- man et al. 2005). These two surveys indicate a moderately high diversity of spiders in these conservancies, with 116 species (38 families) and 186 species (45 families) recorded from the two reserves, respectively. The Cape Floristic region comprises unique vegetation types such as fynbos, which are characterised by high levels of plant endemism. According to Linder (2005) some 9,000 species can be found in the region in an area of approximately 90,000 km2. Although the factors influencing insect abundance and diversity in this biome have been well studied (e.g. Giliomee 2003; Procheş & Cowling 2006; Wright & Samways 1996, 1999), little is known on the diversity of arachnids in the Fynbos Biome. Coetzee et al. (1990) studied the spiders associated with five proteaceous plant species, Visser et al. (1999) studied the arachnids associated with Protea nitida Mill., and sharratt (2000) included arachnids in their assessment of the conservation status of cave-dwelling arthropods of the Cape Peninsula. The general lack of information regarding arachnid diversity, as well as that for many other invertebrate groups in the Western Cape Province, is a great hindrance to effective conservation planning. Conservation strategies should not only take into account plants and vertebrates, but also need to recognise the role that invertebrates play in ecosystem functioning. Arachnids, with the exception of some phytophagous and parasitic Acari, form an important group of predatory terrestrial arthropods that feed on a wide variety of prey using a range of capture methods, including webs and active hunting strategies. Arachnids are frequently regarded as suitable candidates for studying ecological processes, as 1) they are diverse and abundant, 2) they can be easily sampled, 3) they are functionally significant in ecosystems as predators, and as food for other predators, and 4) they interact with their abiotic and biotic environment in a manner that reflects ecological change (Churchill 1997). Therefore, arachnids can be used to monitor ecosystem stability and changes over time, making them useful organisms in long-term conservation planning. since fynbos vegetation, which is largely endemic to the Western Cape Province, is under increasing threat from urbanisation, agriculture, alien invasive species and climate change (e.g. Picker & Samways 1996; Richardson et al. 1996; McNeely 2001; Midgley et al. 2003; Witt & samways 2004), arachnids provide an alternative taxonomic group to monitor changes in this unique vegetation type. The present paper aims to report on the diversity of arachnids (excluding the Acari) in the De Hoop Nature reserve (DHNr) in the Western Cape, which consists of large areas of pristine fynbos and protected marine habitats. Apart from its value as a biodiversity and conservation tool, this checklist can thus be used as a baseline to assess impacts of the aforementioned effects on biodiversity in areas surrounding the reserve. This study forms part of the south African National survey of Arachnida in conserved areas and the Fynbos Biome, and also contributes towards the checklists of species of the Western Cape Province. STUDy AReA DHNr is situated on the south coast of the Western Cape Province, south Africa, and covers an area of KOEDOE A fr ic an P ro te ct ed A re a C on se rv at io n an d S ci en ce http://www.koedoe.co.za Original Research Haddad & Dippenaar-Schoeman A rt ic le # 14 9 (page number not for citation purposes) 18 Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 2 of 9 figure 1 Location of the De Hoop Nature Reserve along the South Coast of South Africa. Enlarged map shows key sampling points in the reserve figures 2–7 Habitats sampled in the De Hoop Nature Reserve: 2) Fynbos (FB); 3) Eucalyptus plantation at Potberg (EP); 4) Wetland at De Hoop Vlei (WL); 5–6) Coastal dunes at Koppie Alleen (CD), with natural vegetation (5) and dunes covered with invasive alien Acacia species (6); 7) Intertidal zone at Koppie Alleen (IZ) 32,279 hectares terrestrially (Figure 1). In addition, the coastline and adjacent marine areas are also included in the reserve for the protection of the marine environment and its diversity. For the purposes of this survey the reserve was divided into five broad sampling habitats (plant classification follows Germishuizen et al. 2006): Fynbos (FB) – the largest portion of the reserve contains 1. typical fynbos vegetation characteristic of this particular floral biome (Figure 2). An upper vegetative layer consisting primarily of taller Protea spp. (P. aurea potbergensis rourke, P. obtusifolia H.Buek ex Meisn. and P. repens (L.) L.) is found in certain areas, particularly near hills and mountains. The field layer comprises a high diversity of fynbos plants, including Agathosma spp., Cliffortia spp., Leucodendron spp., Phylica spp., Serruria fasciflora salisb. ex Knight and Thamnochortus spp.. Eucalyptus2. plantation (EP) – two large plantations at Potberg and Cupido’s Kraal consist primarily of Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh., with endemic low-growing shrubs (e.g. Carissa bispinosa (L.) Desf. ex Brenan) and other short vegetation (Agaranthus sp., Asparagus falcatus L., Bidens sp., Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. and Sansevieria hyacinthoides (L.) Druce) (Figure 3). Wetlands (WL) – a single inland wetland, i.e. the De Hoop 3. Vlei, is situated in the south-west of the reserve (Figure 4). The wetland is separated from the ocean by coastal dunes, and therefore does not form a lagoon per se. The De Hoop Vlei is fed by water from the Zout river, the catchment of which receives most of its rainfall during the winter rainfall season. The shores of the wetland are dominated by Sarcocornia spp. and Exomis microphylla (Thunb.) Aellen., with scattered patches of the reed Phragmites australis (Cav.) steud.. Beyond the shoreline the dominant vegetation includes Sideroxylon inerme L. trees and a variety of fynbos species. Coastal dunes (CD) – coastal dune vegetation is found 4. along the entire coastline of the reserve (Figure 5). sea- facing dunes consist primarily of endemic shrub species, including Carissa bispinosa, Cynanchum obtusifolium L.f., Euclea racemosa Murray, Passerina rigida Wikstr., Ptaeroxylon spp., Robsonodendon sp., Rhus glauca Thunb. and Secamone spp., interspersed with shorter species such as Arctotheca populifolia (P.J.Bergius) Norl., Asparagus falcatus, Bassia diffusa (Thunb.) Kuntze, Chironia baccifera L., Dasispermum suffruticosum (P.J.Bergius) B.L.Burtt, Gazania krebsiana Less., Limonium scabrum (Thunb.) Kuntze, Plantago crassifolia Forssk., Silene primuliflora Eckl. & Zeyh., Spirobolus sp., Trachyandra ciliata (L.f) Kunth and fynbos vegetation. Many dunes are strongly overgrown with invasive alien plant species such as Acacia cyclops A.Cunn ex G.Don and A. saligna (Labill.) H.L.Wendl. (Figure 6), occasionally interspersed with fynbos elements. Intertidal zone (IZ) – this habitat includes all rocky shores 5. along the coastline and the vegetation immediately associated with the high tide breaker line (Figure 7). On the rocky shores themselves, various marine algae dominate, while plants associated with the high tide mark include scattered fynbos insertions and coastal dune shrubs. SAmplINg peRIOD AND meThODS Intensive sampling for arachnids was carried out during five visits to the reserve. Three of the trips were carried out during early autumn (March 1999 – April 1999, 2004 and 2005) and lasted 10 – 12 days each, the fourth trip was undertaken during the middle of winter (July 2005) and lasted four days, and the last trip took place in spring (september 2007) for two days. sampling was undertaken ad hoc in each of the habitats by active searching under rocks, logs and in leaf litter, beating foliage, sifting leaf litter and sweeping low-growing vegetation. Additional sampling was conducted by searching under bark in the EP, as this was the only habitat in which loose bark was available. Material was preserved in 70% ethanol for sorting and identification. Due to time and logistical constraints during the sampling trips, material was not collected quantitatively (i.e. according to a set sampling protocol). Thus, the sampling intensity varied considerably between habitats with a bias towards collecting in FB and EP, as these were the easiest habitats to access. However, adequate sampling was conducted in the other three habitats using various methods to give a good indication of the arachnid diversity of each. Guilds observed All arachnids were grouped into guilds based on the typical habits known for each family or genus, but also took into consideration the strata in which each species was sampled. Potberg De Hoop Vlei Cupido’s Kraal Western Cape gauteng KwaZulu-Natal Northern Cape eastern Cape Limpopo North West free state Mpumalanga Koppie Alleen Checklist of the non-acarine arachnids Original Research A frican P rotected A rea C onservation and S cience http://www.koedoe.co.za KOEDOE A rticle #149 (page number not for citation purposes) 19Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 3 of 9 All arachnid orders collected, with the exception of spiders, can be classified as wanderers. Spiders can be separated into wandering and web-building guilds. The wandering arachnids can be broadly separated into ground wanderers (GW) and plant wanderers (PW). For the latter group, distinction was made between spiders associated with foliage (PWF) of plants and those associated with the bark of trees (PWB). Web- building spiders can be separated into various guilds based on the types of webs they construct, namely orb-web builders (OWB), funnel-web builders (FWB), sheet-web builders (sWB), space-web builders (spWB), hackle-web builders (HWB) and gum-foot-web builders (GWB). representative specimens of each species are deposited in the institutions of the various specialists listed in the Acknowledgements, who provided identifications for their respective groups. Material of all the remaining taxa is deposited in the National Collection of Arachnida at the Plant Protection research Institute, Pretoria, south Africa. ReSUlTS & DISCUSSION Diversity A total of 274 species of arachnids were collected in DHNr, representing five orders, 65 families and 191 determined genera (Table 1, Appendix 1). The most species rich order was the Araneae, with 252 species in 54 families. This includes one published record of a species that was not collected in the current survey, Nephila fenestrata Thorell (Nephilidae) (Fromhage et al. 2007). The spider family diversity represents the highest from South Africa, exceeding the 46 families collected in the Western soutpansberg in Limpopo Province (Foord et al. 2002) and Ndumo Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal (Haddad et al. 2006). The relatively high spider diversity from fynbos is impressive when compared to more structurally complex habitats such as savanna, where greater species diversity could be expected (see Table 2). The remaining arachnid orders were relatively poorly represented, the most species rich being the Pseudoscorpiones (nine species, five families), followed by Opiliones (eight species, TAbLe 1 Order composition of the non-acarine arachnids of the De Hoop Nature Reserve, Western Cape Province, South Africa OrDer COMMON NAMe fAMiLies geNerA sPeCies Araneae Spiders 53 174 252 Opiliones Harvestmen 3 5 8 Pseudoscorpiones False scorpions 5 7 9 Scorpiones Scorpions 3 4 4 Solifugae Sun spiders 1 1 1 Total 65 191 274 TAbLe 2 Guild composition of spiders collected in the De Hoop Nature Reserve, compared to other surveys carried out in South African conservation areas. Abbreviations: WA – wanderers; WB – web-builders CONserVANCy biOMe sPP. %WA %Wb refereNCe De Hoop Nature Res. Fynbos 252 70.6 29.4 Current study Karoo Nat. Park Nama Karoo 116 66.4 33.6 Dippenaar-Schoeman et al. (1999) Kruger Nat. Park Savanna 152 79.0 21.0 Dippenaar-Schoeman & Leroy (2003) Makalali Game Res. Savanna 268 69.4 30.6 Whitmore et al. (2002) Mountain Zebra Nat. Park Nama Karoo 76 53.9 46.1 Dippenaar-Schoeman (2006) Ndumo Game Res. Savanna 431 74.2 25.8 Haddad et al. (2006) Polokwane Nature Res. Savanna 275 69.5 30.5 Dippenaar et al. (2008) Roodeplaat Dam Nature Res. Savanna 110 65.5 34.5 Dippenaar-Schoeman et al. (1989) Sovenga Hill Savanna 76 83.9 16.1 Modiba et al. (2005) Swartberg Nature Res. Succulent Karoo 186 76.5 23.5 Dippenaar-Schoeman et al. (2005) Western Soutpansberg Savanna 127 63.8 36.2 Foord et al. (2002) three families), scorpiones (four species, three families), and solifugae (one species, one family). One published record of scorpiones, of Parabuthus planicauda (Pocock) (Buthidae), was found in the literature (Prendini 2004). As in several other south Africa surveys, salticidae were the most species rich family (32 spp., 12.7% of spiders), followed by the Thomisidae (26 spp., 10.3%) and Gnaphosidae (21 spp., 8.3%). several other families contributed 5% or more of the spider species: Araneidae (18 spp., 7.1%), Theridiidae (16 spp., 6.3 %) and Corinnidae (15 spp., 6.0%). In contrast to some other reserves previously sampled in South Africa, such as the Ndumo Game reserve in KwaZulu-Natal, the family composition of spiders was considerably less skewed in the current study (Figure 8). At Ndumo, the five dominant spider families contributed 52% of the species, with the salticidae dominant (82 spp., 19.0%) (Haddad et al. 2006). In contrast, the five families dominating the current study contributed 44.7% of the total spiders, with the dominant salticidae only contributing 12.7% of the total. Guilds The majority of the arachnid species collected in DHNr are wanderers (73.0%), while web-builders comprise 27.0%. When spiders alone are considered, 70.6% are wanderers while 29.4% are web-builders. This compares well with several surveys completed in south Africa (Table 2). This indicates that fynbos and associated habitats sampled in this study are sufficiently heterogeneous to support a fauna similar to that found in more structurally complex habitat types, such as savanna. Common taxa by stratum This study was qualitative in its entirety and thus there is no data available on the relative abundance of arachnids. However, based on the frequency of collection and observations made during the study the following species can be recognised as representative of each stratum and guild: Ground wanderers: A large proportion of the species collected are wandering arachnids on the soil surface (Appendix 1). The coastal dune (CD) fauna was largely dominated by Pardosa and Trabea spp. (Lycosidae), Griswoldia robusta (simon) (Zoropsidae), Opopaea speciosa (Lawrence) (Oonopidae), Zelotes anchora Tucker (Gnaphosidae), Natta spp. (salticidae), Diores simoni O. P.-Cambridge (Zodariidae) and Orthobula infima simon (Corinnidae). In the Eucalyptus plantation (EP), various gnaphosids (especially Zelotes, Camillina and Xerophaeus spp.), Caponia capensis Purcell (Caponiidae), Opopaea speciosa, Xysticus lucifugus Lawrence (Thomisidae), Griswoldia robusta and Phanotea digitata Griswold (Zoropsidae), Lepthercus rattrayi Hewitt (Nemesiidae), various lycosids, Fuchiba and Fuchibotulus spp. (Cori n n idae) a nd Drassodella vasivulva Tucker (Gallieniellidae) were common. Original Research Haddad & Dippenaar-Schoeman KOEDOE A fr ic an P ro te ct ed A re a C on se rv at io n an d S ci en ce http://www.koedoe.co.za A rt ic le # 14 9 (page number not for citation purposes) 20 Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 4 of 9 Opistacanthus capensis Thorell (Liochelidae) and Uroplectes lineatus (C. L. Koch) (Buthidae) were often collected under logs and rocks. The fynbos (FB) fauna was dominated primarily by lycosids (particularly Pardosa, Trabea and Zenonina spp.), Drassodella vasivulva, various gnaphosids (Camillina, Xerophaeus and Zelotes spp.), Philodromus guineensis Millot and Suemus punctatus Lawrence (Philodromidae) and Afrilobus sp. (Orsolobidae). Large numbers of Pseudoscorpiones were collected by sifting leaf litter of Protea spp.. The fauna at De Hoop Vlei (WL) was strongly dominated by gnaphosids (Zelotes and Xerophaeus spp., and Drassodes ereptor Purcell), lycosids (Geolycosa and Pardosa spp.), and Heliophanus spp. (salticidae). Various gnaphosids, corinnids and pseudoscorpions were common in sifted leaf litter of Sideroxylon inerme (milkwood) trees near to the wetland. In the intertidal zone (IZ), only two species were particularly common. Amaurobioides africanus Hewitt (Anyphaenidae) was commonly found in retreats constructed in sandstone formations at the back end of the intertidal zone, while Desis formidabilis (O.P.-Cambridge) (Desidae) was occasionally collected from beneath limpet shells and between algae on the rocky shores. These two species are regarded as marine specialists, occurring only in association with the intertidal zone along rocky shores (Lamoral 1968). Ground web-builders: Web-builders were generally uncommon on the ground surface, but several species can be singled out. In CD leaf litter, Hahnia spp. (Hahniidae) were frequently found in their sheet-webs, while in FB leaf litter, Benoitia ocellata (Pocock) (Agelenidae) and various linyphiids were common. Lamaika sp. and Vidole capensis (Pocock) (Phyxelididae) were frequently collected in leaf litter and under logs in the EP. The most common web-builders in the WL were Steatoda capensis Hann and Euryopis sp. 1 (Theridiidae), while very few web-builders were collected from the ground level in IZ. Arachnids associated with bark: Due to the vegetative structure of fynbos, very few large shrubs and trees are found in most of the habitats sampled. Only the EP contained Eucalyptus trees that were large enough to sample arachnids from under bark. Common wandering arachnids collected include Clubiona spp. (Clubionidae), Aneplasa sculpturata Tucker, Poecilochroa anomala (Hewitt) and Upognampa aplanita Tucker (Gnaphosidae), Pseudicius spp. and Menemerus bivittatus (Dufour) (salticidae), Platyoides quinquedentatus Purcell (Trochanteriidae), Cetonana martini (simon) (Corinnidae) and Uroplectes lineatus (Buthidae). Dominant web-dwelling spiders include Theridion spp. (Theridiidae) and Neoscona subfusca (C.L. Koch) (Araneidae). Interestingly, several specimens of the tree trapdoor spider Moggridgea peringueyi simon (Migidae) were collected from their silken burrows under bark. Foliage wanderers: The fauna of CD was dominated by Massagris regina Wesolowska and Heliophanus sp. (salticidae) and predominantly immature Palystes superciliosus L. Koch (sparassidae). Wandering spiders were quite rare in WL, comprising primarily of Heliophanus spp., various philodromids, and ground-dwelling lycosids (particularly Pardosa spp.) that had wandered onto short vegetation. In EP, various salticids (Massagris regina, Thyene and Heliophanus spp.), Oxyopes and Hamataliwa spp. (Oxyopidae), Synema spp. (Thomisidae), immature Tibellus minor Lessert (Philodromidae) and Clubiona spp. (Clubionidae) were collected from short shrubs and creepers. The FB plant-dwellers were considerably more diverse. The most common species collected include Chariobas spp. (Zodariidae), various thomisids (Tmarus, Thomisus and Misumena spp.), and salticids (Thyene and Menemerus spp.). Foliage web-dwellers: Web-dwellers in the CD and FB were particularly dominated by Neoscona and Cyclosa spp. (Araneidae), Theridion spp. and various linyphiids. several rare species were also collected in the FB and EP, particularly. The only common web-dweller near the figure 8 Species diversity of spider families collected in the De Hoop Nature Reserve as ranked from highest to lowest. Black bars indicate wandering spiders and grey bars indicate web-builders Checklist of the non-acarine arachnids Original Research A frican P rotected A rea C onservation and S cience http://www.koedoe.co.za KOEDOE A rticle #149 (page number not for citation purposes) 21Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 5 of 9 IZ was Larinia natalensis (Grasshoff) (Araneidae), which constructs its orb-web in creepers and other vegetation between rocky outcrops surrounding the intertidal zone. CONClUSION This study provides the first intensive data on spider diversity in the Fynbos Biome, although two studies have previously been conducted in this vegetation type (Coetzee et al. 1990; Visser et al. 1999). In total, 274 species of arachnids were collected, with spiders the dominant group (252 species). This diversity represents approximately 12.5% of the currently known south African fauna of approximately 2000 species (Dippenaar- schoeman & Haddad, unpubl.). While the species diversity is slightly lower than surveys conducted in the savanna Biome, it compares favourably with studies conducted in the succulent and Nama Karoo Biomes. The relatively high number of arachnid species collected, and the presence of several fynbos endemics (e.g. 10 of the 15 Corinnidae species), supports the generalised perception that fynbos contains a unique fauna and flora. The only spiders currently considered to be of conservation importance are the baboon spiders, Harpactira cafreriana (Walkenaer) and Harpactirella sp. Both species are relatively common under rocks and within tussocks of Thamnochortis grasses and populations are unlikely to be threatened by occasional collecting. Perhaps also worth noting was the unusual Stasimopes sp. (trapdoor spider), of which only males were collected. These have unusual spine-like tubercles in the eye region, something which could not be traced to any described species in the literature. Consequently, this species may possibly be new or an undescribed male of a described species. The scorpions collected all have a relatively broad distribution within the Western Cape Province (Prendini pers. comm.). For example, Parabuthus planicauda (Pocock) was recorded from DHNr by Prendini (2004), but is widespread throughout the Western and Eastern Cape Provinces. The occurrence of these scorpions within a protected area such as DHNr can be considered important for the conservation of the species, particularly when the growing threats to the Fynbos Biome are considered. In this study several new species and three new genera were collected, some of which have recently been described (Haddad 2006; Haddad & Lyle 2008). This study expanded the distribution ranges known for many species, and provided valuable material for future taxonomic studies. This emphasises the need to expand efforts to survey the arachnid faunas of conservancies throughout south Africa, but particularly within the Western Cape Province, where invertebrate endemism may be relatively high compared to other areas. ACkNOwleDgemeNTS CapeNature is thanked for permits to collect in the reserve. Peter Chadwick and Keith spencer at DHNr are thanked for their support and interest in the project. The following taxonomic specialists are thanked for providing identifications of material of their respective taxa: Lorenzo Prendini, American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.s.A. (scorpiones); Leon Lotz, National Museum, Bloemfontein, south Africa (Miturgidae, Opiliones, sicariidae); rudy Jocqué and Mark Alderweireldt, royal Museum for Central Africa, Tervuren, Belgium (Linyphiidae and Zodariidae, and Lycosidae, respectively); Mark Harvey, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia (some Pseudoscorpiones); Wanda Wesołowska, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland (Salticidae); and Bernhard Huber, Zoological Institute and Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany (Pholcidae). Andor Venter, Johan Venter and Johan du Preez (University of the Free state, Bloemfontein) kindly provided details of the floral composition of the habitats. several records, collected by Norman Larsen and listed on the CapeNature invertebrate species database for DHNr, are also acknowledged. RefeReNCeS Coetzee, J.H., Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s. & Van den Berg, A., 1990, ‘Spider assemblages on five species of proteaceous plants in the fynbos biome of south Africa’, Phytophylactica 22, 443–447. Churchill, T.B., 1997, ‘spiders as ecological indicators: An overview for Australia’, Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 56(2), 331–337. Dippenaar, s.M., Modiba, M.A., Khoza, T.T. & Dippenaar- schoeman, A.s., 2008, ‘A checklist of the spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of the Polokwane Nature reserve, Limpopo Province, south Africa’, Koedoe 50, 10–17. Dippenaar-Schoeman, A.S., 2006, ‘New records of 43 spider species from the Mountain Zebra National Park, south Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)’, Koedoe 49, 23–28. Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s. & Craemer, C., 2000, ‘The south African National survey of Arachnida’, Plant Protection News 56, 11–12. Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s. & Leroy, A., 2003, ‘A checklist of the spiders of the Kruger National Park, south Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)’, Koedoe, 46, 91–100. Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s., Leroy, A, De Jager, M. & Van den Berg, A., 1999, ‘A checklist of the spider fauna of the Karoo National Park, south Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)’, Koedoe 42, 31–42. Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s., Van den Berg, A.M. & Van den Berg, A., 1989, ‘species composition and relative seasonal abundance of spiders from the field and tree layers of the roodeplaat Dam Nature reserve’, Koedoe 32, 25–38. Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s., Van der Walt, A.E., De Jager, M., Le roux, E. & Van den Berg, A., 2005, ‘The spiders of the swartberg Nature reserve in south Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)’, Koedoe 48, 77–86. Foord, s.H., Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s. & Van der Merwe, M., 2002, ‘A checklist of the spider fauna of the Western soutpansberg, south Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)’, Koedoe 45, 35–43. Fromhage, L., Jacobs, K. & schneider, J.M., 2007, ‘Monogynous mating behaviour and its ecological basis in the golden orb spider’, Nephila fenestrata. Ethology 113(8), 813–820. Germishuizen, G., Meyer, N.L., Steenkamp, Y. & Keith, M., 2006, A checklist of South African plants, south African Botanical Diversity Network, Pretoria. Giliomee, J.H., 2003, ‘Insect diversity in the Cape Floristic region’, African Journal of Ecology 41, 237–244. Haddad, C.R., 2006, ‘Spinotrachelas, a new genus of tracheline sac spiders from south Africa (Araneae: Corinnidae)’, African Invertebrates 47, 85–93. Haddad, C.r., Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s. & Wesolowska, W., 2006, ‘A checklist of the non-acarine arachnids (Chelicerata: Arachnida) of the Ndumo Game Reserve, Maputaland, south Africa’, Koedoe 49, 1–22. Haddad, C.r. & Lyle, r., 2008, ‘Three new genera of tracheline sac spiders from southern Africa (Araneae: Corinnidae)’, African Invertebrates 49, 37–76. Lamoral, B.H., 1968, ‘On the ecology and habitat adaptations of two intertidal spiders, Desis formidabilis (O P- Cambridge) and Amaurobioides africanus Hewitt, at The Island (Kommetjie, Cape Peninsula), with notes on the occurrence of two other spiders’, Annals of the Natal Museum 20, 151–193. Linder, H.P., 2005, ‘Evolution of diversity: The Cape Flora’, Trends in Plant Science 10, 536–541. McNeely, J., 2001, ‘Invasive species: A costly catastrophe for native biodiversity’, Land Use and Water Resources Research 1(2), 1–10. Midgley, G.F., Hannah, L., Millar, D., Thuiller, W. & Booth, A., 2003, ‘Developing regional and species-level assessments of climatic change impacts on biodiversity in the Cape Floristic region’, Biological Conservation 112(1/2), 87–97. Original Research Haddad & Dippenaar-Schoeman KOEDOE A fr ic an P ro te ct ed A re a C on se rv at io n an d S ci en ce http://www.koedoe.co.za A rt ic le # 14 9 (page number not for citation purposes) 22 Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 6 of 9 Modiba, M.A., Dippenaar, s.M. & Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s., 2005, ‘A checklist of spiders from sovenga Hill, an inselberg in the savanna Biome, Limpopo Province, south Africa (Arachnida: Araneae)’, Koedoe 48(2), 109–115. Picker, M.D. & Samways, M.J., 1996, ‘Faunal diversity and endemicity of the Cape Peninsula, South Africa – a first assessment’, Biodiversity and Conservation 5(5), 591–606. Prendini, L., 2004, ‘The systematics of southern African Parabuthus Pocock (scorpiones, Buthidae): revisions to the taxonomy and key to the species’, Journal of Arachnology 32(1), 109–186. Procheş, S. & Cowling, R.M., 2006, ‘Insect diversity in Cape fynbos and neighbouring south African vegetation’, Global Ecology and Biogeography 15(5), 445–451. richardson, D.M., Van Wilgen, B.W., Higgins, s.I., Trinder- Smith, T.H., Cowling, R.M. & Mckell, D.H., 1996, ‘Current and future threats to plant biodiversity on the Cape Peninsula, south Africa’, Biodiversity and Conservation 5(5), 607–647. sharratt, N.J., Picker, M.D. & samways, M.J., 2000, ‘The invertebrate fauna of the sandstone caves of the Cape Peninsula (south Africa): Patterns of endemism and conservation priorities’, Biodiversity and Conservation 9(1), 107–143. Visser, D., Wright, M.G., Van den Berg, A. & Giliomee, J.H., 1999, ‘species richness of arachnids associated with Protea nitida (Proteaceae) in the Cape fynbos’, African Journal of Ecology, 37(3), 334–343. Whitmore, C., slotow, r., Crouch, T.E. & Dippenaar-schoeman, A.s., 2002, ‘Diversity of spiders (Araneae) in a savanna reserve, Northern Province, south Africa’, Journal of Arachnology 30(2), 344–356. Witt, A.B.R. & Samways, M.J., 2004, ‘Influence of agricultural land transformation and pest management practices on the arthropod diversity of a biodiversity hotspot, and Cape Floristic region, south Africa’, African Entomology 12(1), 89–95. Wright, M.G. & Samways, M.J., 1996, ‘Gall-insect species richness in African Fynbos and Karoo vegetation: The importance of plant species richness’, Biodiversity Letters 3(4/5), 151–155. Wright, M.G. & Samways, M.J., 1999, ‘Plant characteristics determine insect borer assemblages on Protea species in the Cape Fynbos, and the importance for conservation management’, Biodiversity and Conservation 8(8), 1089–1100. AppeNDIx 1 A checklist of the non-acarine arachnids of the De Hoop Nature Reserve. Guild abbreviations are provided in the text. Habitat abbreviations: CD – coastal dunes; EP – Eucalyptus plantation; FB – fynbos; IZ – intertidal zone; WL – wetlands. symbols: † indicates a new species, ‡ indicates a possible new species, and ? indicates a dubious identification. fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs OrDer: ArANeAe (sPiDers) family: Agelenidae Benoitia ocellata (Pocock 1900) FWB FB family: Anapidae Crozetulus rhodesiensis (Brignoli 1981) OWB FB family: Anyphaenidae Amaurobioides africana (Hewitt 1917) GW IZ fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs family: Araneidae Araneus apricus (Karsch 1884) OWB EP A. nigroquadratus (Lawrence 1937) OWB EP Argiope trifasciata (Forskål 1775) OWB WL Caerostris sexcuspidata (Fabricius 1793) OWB EP, WL Cyclosa insulana (Costa 1834) OWB CD, EP, FB C. oculata (Walckenaer 1802) OWB FB Cyrtophora citricola (Forskål 1775) OWB FB Gea infuscata (Tullgren 1910) OWB WL Ideocaira transversa (Simon 1903) OWB EP Isoxya cicatricosa (C.L. Koch 1844) OWB FB Kilima sp.‡ OWB WL Larinia natalensis (Grasshoff 1971) OWB FB, IZ Lipocrea longissima (Simon 1881) OWB FB, WL Nemoscolus tubicola (Simon 1887) OWB WL Neoscona rufipalpis (Lucas 1858) OWB WL N. subfusca (C.L. Koch 1837) OWB CD, EP, FB Paralarinia bartelsi (Lessert 1933) OWB FB Prasonica sp.? OWB FB family: Caponiidae Caponia capensis (Purcell 1904) GW/PWB CD, EP, FB, WL family: Clubionidae Clubiona abbajensis (Strand 1906) GW/PWB EP, FB, WL Clubiona sp. 2 PWB EP, FB family: Corinnidae Apochinomma sp.† GW FB Castianeira fulvipes (Simon 1896) GW CD, EP, FB Cetonana martini (Simon 1896) GW/PWB EP, FB Cetonana sp. 2† GW EP Cetonana sp. 3† GW FB Cetonana sp. 4† GW FB Copa flavoplumosa (Simon 1885) GW CD, EP, FB Fuchiba capensis (Haddad & Lyle 2008) GW EP, FB, WL Fuchibotulus bicornis (Haddad & Lyle 2008) GW EP, FB, WL Graptartia tropicalis (Haddad 2004) GW CD, EP, FB Orthobula infima (Simon 1897) GW CD, EP, FB, WL Pronophaea natalica (Simon 1897) GW EP Spinotrachelas capensis (Haddad 2006) GW EP, FB, WL Trachelas sp. 1† PWF FB Trachelas sp. 2† PWF FB family: Ctenidae Thoriosa sp.‡ GW EP, FB family: Ctenizidae Stasimopus sp.‡ GW EP, FB family: Cyatholipidae Cyatholipus quadrimaculatus (Simon 1894) GWB EP Cyatholipus sp. 2‡ GWB EP, FB Ulwembua denticulata (Griswold 1987) OWB EP family: Cyrtaucheniidae Homostola reticulata (Purcell 1902) GW EP family: Deinopidae Avellopsis capensis (Purcell 1904) MOWB EP, FB Menneus camelus (Pocock 1902) MOWB EP, FB family: Desidae Desis formidabilis (O.P.-Cambridge 1890) GW IZ family: Dictynidae Archaeodictyna sp. HWB FB Dictyna sp. 1 HWB FB Dictyna sp. 2 HWB FB family: eresidae Dresserus collinus (Pocock 1900) SWB EP, FB Gandanameno spenceri (Pocock 1900) SWB EP, FB APPeNDix 1 (CONT...) Checklist of the non-acarine arachnids Original Research A frican P rotected A rea C onservation and S cience http://www.koedoe.co.za KOEDOE A rticle #149 (page number not for citation purposes) 23Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 7 of 9 APPeNDix 1 (CONT...) fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs family: gallieniellidae Drassodella quinquelabecula (Tucker 1923) GW FB D. vasivulva (Tucker 1923) GW CD, EP, FB family: gnaphosidae Aneplasa sculpturata (Tucker 1923) GW/PWB EP, FB Aphantaulax stationis (Tucker 1923) GW CD Asemesthes sp. imm. GW CD Camillina corrugata (Purcell 1907) GW EP, FB C. pavesii (Simon 1897) GW EP, FB, WL C. procurva (Purcell 1908) GW EP, FB Drassodes ereptor (Purcell 1907) GW WL Echeminae sp. indet. GW PW Echemus sp. imm. GW WL Megamyrmaekion schreineri (Tucker 1923) GW WL Micaria sp. GW CD, FB Poecilochroa anomala (Hewitt 1915) GW/PWB EP, WL Setaphis subtilis (Simon 1897) GW EP Upognampa aplanita (Tucker 1923) GW/PWB EP, WL Xerophaeus capensis (Purcell 1907) GW FB X. crusculus (Tucker 1923) GW CD, EP, FB, WL X. phaseolus (Tucker 1923) GW EP, FB Zelotes anchora (Tucker 1923) GW CD, EP, FB, WL Z. capsula (Tucker 1923) GW EP, WL Z. fuligineus (Purcell 1907) GW EP, FB, WL Z. montanus (Purcell 1907) GW EP, FB family: Hahniidae Hahnia clathrata (Simon 1898) SWB FB H. tabulicola (Simon 1898) SWB CD, EP, FB Hahnia sp. 3‡ SWB EP family: idiopidae Idiopidae sp. GW EP family: Liocranidae Rhaeboctesis sp. GW FB family: Linyphiidae Callitirchia sp. SWB CD, FB Ceratinopsis dippenaari (Jocqué, 1984?) SWB CD, FB Linyphiidae sp. 1 SWB FB Linyphiidae sp. 2 SWB FB Linyphiidae sp. 3 SWB FB Linyphiidae sp. 4 SWB FB Mecynidis sp.† SWB FB Meioneta sp. SWB FB Metaleptyphantes sp. SWB FB Microlinyphia sterilis (Pavesi 1883) SWB EP, FB Ostearius melanopygius (O.P.-Cambridge 1879) SWB WL family: Lycosidae Arctosa sp. GW CD Hogna sp. GW EP, FB, WL Lycosa sp. GW EP Pardosa sp. 1 GW CD Pardosa sp. 2 GW CD Proevippa albiventris (Simon 1898) GW WL Trabea purcelli (Roewer 1951) GW CD, WL T. rubriceps (Lawrence 1952) GW EP, FB, WL Trochosa sp.? GW WL Zenonina sp. GW EP, FB, WL family: Migidae Moggridgea peringueyi (Simon 1903) PWB EP family: Mimetidae Ero sp. PWF EP Mimetus sp. 1‡ PWF EP Mimetus sp. 2‡ PWF WL fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs family: Miturgidae Cheiramiona ansiae (Lotz 2002) PWF FB family: Nemesiidae Lepthercus rattrayi (Hewitt 1917) GW CD, EP, FB, WL Pionothele sp.† GW EP family: Nephilidae Nephila fenestrata (Thorell 1859) OWB FB family: Oecobiidae Oecobius navus (Blackwall 1859) PWB CD, FB family: Oonopidae Gamasomorpha humicola (Lawrence 1947) GW FB Oonopinae sp. GW EP, FB Opopaea speciosa (Lawrence 1952) GW CD, EP, FB, WL family: Orsolobidae Afrilobus sp.† GW CD, EP, FB family: Oxyopidae Hamataliwa kulczynski (Lessert 1915) PWF EP, FB Hamataliwa sp. 2 PWF EP, FB Oxyopes russoi (Caporiacco 1940?) PWF EP Oxyopes sp. 2 imm. PWF EP family: Palpimanidae Palpimanus sp. 1 GW EP, FB, WL Palpimanus sp. 2 GW EP family: Philodromidae Philodromus guineensis (Millot 1941) GW FB Suemus punctatus (Lawrence 1938) GW CD, EP, FB, WL Tibellus minor (Lessert 1919) PWF EP, FB family: Pholcidae Quamtana sp. SpWB CD, FB Smeringopus sp. SpWB EP, FB family: Phyxelididae Lamaika sp.† HWB EP, FB Vidole capensis (Pocock 1900) HWB EP, FB family: Pisauridae Chiasmopes sp. imm. PWF FB Cispius sp. PWF FB Euprosthenopsis sp. imm. PWF FB Rothus purpurissatus (Simon 1898) PWF EP, FB Thallassius spinossissimus (Karsch 1879) GW WL family: Prodidomidae Prodidomus capensis (Purcell 1904) GW FB Theuma ababensis (Tucker 1923) GW EP T. capensis (Purcell 1907) GW FB T. schreineri (Purcell 1907?) GW FB family: salticidae Asemonea sp. PWF EP Baryphas ahenus (Simon, 1902) PWF FB Dendryphantes purcelli (Peckham & Peckham 1903) PWF EP Euophrys purcelli (Peckham & Peckham 1903) GW FB Euophrys sp. 2‡ GW EP, FB Evarcha dotata (Peckham & Peckham 1903) PWF EP Habrocestum sapiens (Peckham & Peckham 1903) GW FB Habrocestum sp. 2 GW EP Heliophanus claviger (Simon 1901) PW FB H. modicus (Peckham & Peckham 1903) GW EP, FB, WL H. patellaris (Simon 1901) GW WL Heliophanus sp. 4 GW/PWF CD, IZ Massagris regina (Wesolowska 1993) GW CD, EP, FB, IZ, WL Menemerus bivittatus (Dufour 1831) PWB EP Menemerus sp. 2 PWF FB Myrmarachne leleupi (Wanless 1978) GW CD, FB Myrmarachne sp. 2 GW FB APPeNDix 1 (CONT...) TAbLe CONTiNues ON THe NexT COLuMN Original Research Haddad & Dippenaar-Schoeman KOEDOE A fr ic an P ro te ct ed A re a C on se rv at io n an d S ci en ce http://www.koedoe.co.za A rt ic le # 14 9 (page number not for citation purposes) 24 Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 8 of 9 fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs family: Thomisidae Avelis hystriculus (Simon 1895)? PWF EP Diaea sp.† PWF EP, FB Firmicus abnormis (Lessert 1923) PWF EP, FB F. bragantinus (Brito Capello 1866) PWF FB Heterogriffus berlandi (Lessert 1938) PWF EP, FB Heterogriffus sp. 2‡ PWF FB Holopelus almiae (Dippenaar-Schoeman 1986) PWF FB Monaeses pustulosus (Pavesi 1895) PWF FB Oxytate argenteooculata (Simon 1886) PWF EP, FB Pactactes obesus (Simon 1895) GW CD, EP, FB, WL Pherecydes tuberculatus (O.P.-Cambridge 1883) PWF FB Pherecydes sp. 2† PWF EP, FB Phrynarachne melloleitoa (Lessert 1933) PWF EP P. rugosa (Latreille 1804) GW EP Runcinia aethiops (Simon 1901) PWF EP, FB Simorcus capensis (Simon 1895) PWF FB Stiphropus sp. GW FB Synema abnorme (Lessert 1923) PWF EP, FB S. decens (Karsch 1878) PWF EP, FB S. nigrotibiale (Lessert 1919) PWF EP, FB Thomisus australis (Comellini 1957) PWF FB T. stenningi (Pocock 1900) PWF FB Tmarus comellinii (Garcia-Neto 1989) PWF EP, FB T. foliatus (Lessert 1928) PWF FB Tmarus sp. 3‡ PWF EP, FB Xysticus lucifugus (Lawrence 1937) GW EP, FB family: Trochanteriidae Platyoides leppanae (Pocock 1902) PWB EP P. quinquedentatus (Purcell 1907) PWB EP family: uloboridae Miagrammopes brevicaudus (O.P.-Cambridge 1882) MOWB EP Uloborus sp. imm. OWB CD, EP, FB family: Zodariidae Caesetius globicoxis (Lawrence 1942) GW EP, FB Chariobas cylindraceus (Simon 1893)? PWF EP, FB Chariobas sp. 2‡ PWF FB Chariobas sp. 3‡ PWF FB Cyrioctea griswoldorum (Platnick & Jocqué 1993) GW EP, FB Diores simoni (O.P.-Cambridge 1904)? GW CD, FB, WL Heradida extima (Jocqué 1987) GW WL Procydrela procursor (Jocqué 2000) GW FB Psammorygma sp. GW FB Ranops sp.? GW CD Rotundrela rotunda (Jocqué 2000) GW EP, FB Systenoplacis sp.‡ GW EP, FB family: Zoridae Voraptus sp. GW/PWF EP, FB family: Zoropsidae Griswoldia robusta (Simon 1898) GW CD, EP, FB, IZ, WL Machadoniinae sp. GW FB Phanotea digitata (Griswold 1994) GW CD, EP, FB OrDer: OPiLiONes (HArVesTMeN) family: Caddidae Caddella sp.† GW CD family: Phalangiidae Rhampsinitus vittatus (Lawrence 1931)? GW CD, EP, FB family: Triaenonychidae Adaeum spatulatum (Lawrence 1931) GW EP, FB, WL Ceratomontia annae (Lawrence 1934) GW FB C. karooensis (Lawrence 1931) GW FB, WL C. minor (Lawrence 1931) GW FB, WL fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs Natta chionogastra (Simon 1901) GW EP, FB N. horizontalis (Karsch 1879) GW CD, EP, FB Pellenes geniculatus (Simon, 1868)? GW FB, WL Phintella aequipes (Peckham & Peckham 1903) GW EP Phlegra sp.? GW EP Pignus sp.‡ GW EP Pseudicius africanus (Peckham & Peckham 1903) PWB EP Pseudicius sp. 2 PWF FB Rhene sp. imm. PWF FB Salticidae sp. indet. 1 PWF FB Salticidae sp. indet. 2 GW CD Thyene inflata (Gerstaecker 1873) PWF EP, FB T. ogdeni (Peckham & Peckham 1903?) PWF EP, FB Thyene sp. 3 PWF FB Thyenula sp.? GW EP family: scytodidae Scytodes cedri (Purcell 1904) GW CD, EP, FB, WL Scytodes sp. 2 GW EP family: segestriidae Ariadna sp. TWB FB family: selenopidae Anyphops capensis (Lawrence 1940) PWB EP, FB Anyphops sp. 2 PWB EP, FB, WL family: sicariidae Loxosceles spinulosa (Purcell 1904) GW EP, FB Loxosceles sp.‡ GW EP Sicarius spatulatus (Pocock 1901) GW EP, FB family: sparassidae Olios sp. 1 PWF FB Olios sp. 2 PWF FB Palystes castaneus (Latrielle 1819) PWF EP, FB P. superciliosus (L. Koch 1875) PWF CD, EP, FB Panaretella sp. PWF FB Pseudomicrommata sp. PWF FB family: Tetragnathidae Leucauge festiva (Blackwall 1866) OWB EP, FB, WL L. levanderi (Kulzcynski 1901) OWB EP, FB, WL Tetragnatha ceylonica (O.P.-Cambridge 1869) OWB EP, FB Tetragnatha sp. 2 OWB EP family: Theraphosidae Harpactira cafreriana (Walkenaer 1837) GW EP, FB Harpactirella sp. GW FB family: Theridiidae Achaearanea sp. GWB EP Anelosimus sp. 1 GWB FB Anelosimus sp. 2 GWB FB Dipoena sp. 1 GWB CD, EP, FB Dipoena sp. 2 GWB FB Dipoenura sp. GWB FB Euryopis sp. 1 GWB FB, WL Euryopis sp. 2 GWB FB Latrodectus geometricus (C.L. Koch 1841) GWB EP, FB L. indistinctus (O.P.-Cambridge 1904) GWB EP Pholcomma sp.? GWB FB Phoroncidia capensis (Simon 1895)? GWB EP Steatoda capensis (Hann 1990) GWB EP, FB, IZ Theridion delicatum (O.P.-Cambridge 1904) GWB EP, FB Theridion sp. 2 GWB EP, FB Theridion sp. 3 GWB EP family: Theridiosomatidae Theridiosomatidae sp. OWB FB APPeNDix 1 (CONT...) APPeNDix 1 (CONT...) Checklist of the non-acarine arachnids Original Research A frican P rotected A rea C onservation and S cience http://www.koedoe.co.za KOEDOE A rticle #149 (page number not for citation purposes) 25Vol. 51 No. 1 Page 9 of 9 APPeNDix 1 (CONT...) fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs Anaulacodithella angustimana (Beier 1955) GW FB OrDer: sCOrPiONes (sCOrPiONs) family: buthidae Parabuthus planicauda (Pocock 1889) GW CD, EP, FB Uroplectes lineatus (C.L. Koch 1844) GW/PWB EP, FB, WL family: Liochelidae Opistacanthus capensis (Thorell 1877) GW EP, FB family: scorpionidae Opistophthalmus macer (Thorell 1877) GW EP OrDer: sOLifugAe (suN-sPiDers) family: solpugidae Solpugema sp. imm. GW FB fAMiLy/geNus/sPeCies guiLDs HAbiTATs Larifuga granulosa (Lawrence 1931) GW EP, FB Triaenonychidae sp. imm. GW EP OrDer: PseuDOsCOrPiONes (fALse sCOrPiONs) family: Atemnidae Cyclatemnus sp. GW IZ family: Cheliferidae Beierius simplex (Beier 1955) GW FB B. walliskewi (Ellingsen 1912) GW FB Hansenius sp. GW EP family: Chernetidae Caffrowithius biseriatus (Mahnert 1983) GW FB C. natalensis (Beier 1947) GW FB Pselaphochernes natalensis (Beier 1947) GW FB family: geogarypidae Geogarypus purcelli (Ellingsen 1912) GW EP, IZ family: Tridenchthoniidae