taxonID	type	description	language	source
03900C6CBF37FF9427F0FCBAFEBD2F63.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. According to Simon (1901), Gypogyna differs from Scopocira by having an elongate and low carapace, almost vertical posteriorly, while Scopocira has a high carapace, with a smooth slope from the posterior eyes to the posterior border (see Simon 1901: 442: figs 497, 500). Gypogyna differs from Scopocira by having a round bulb with long looping embolus (Figs 35 – 36), compared to an elliptical and twisted bulb in Scopocira (see Costa & Ruiz 2014: figs 71 – 75) with much shorter, and often strangely shaped, embolus (see Costa & Ruiz 2014: figs 80 – 107). Gypogyna also has a reduced RTA in the male palp (Figs 22 – 24) (longer in Scopocira). In females, the epigynal ducts are longer and more coiled than Scopocira (probably related to the longer embolus in males), and the Bennett’s gland in Gypogyna is everted, while in Scopocira it is superficial (compare our Fig. 39 with “ np ” in Costa & Ruiz 2014: figs 58 – 59).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF37FF9427F0FCBAFEBD2F63.taxon	description	Description. The genus includes medium-sized, delicate jumping spiders with yellowish to orange bodies with a variable number of pairs of dark marks dorsally on abdomen (Figs 1 – 3, 53 – 56). Carapace is granulated and the fovea is reduced (Figs 10 – 11). The male chelicerae are enlarged and projected forwards (Figs 4 – 6, 14 – 20) (for a descriptive comparison of the male chelicerae among the species, see discussion below). Females have small, vertical, plurident chelicerae (Figs 7 – 9, 12 – 13) (see also discussion below). Legs bear a reduced number of spines in both sexes: femur I – III d 0 - 1 - 1 (or d 1 - 1 - 1, or d 0 - 1 - 0), p 0 - 0 - 1 (or p 0), r 0 (or r 0 - 0 - 1), IV d 0 - 1 - 1; patella I – IV 0; tibia I v 2 - 0 - 2 - 2 (or v 2 - 2 - 0), II v 1 r- 1 r- 0, III – IV 0; metatarsus I v 2 - 2, II v 1 r- 1 p (or v 1 r- 2), III – IV 0. The male palp is simple (Figs 21 – 24, 34 – 37, 40 – 42), with an unmodified, slightly curved femur, and short patella and tibia; tibia with a dorsally-placed, hooked, well-sclerotized RTA, and a wide, lobular, poorly-sclerotized RvTA (not grooved); cymbium spoon-shaped, with an elongated retrolateral cymbial groove (rCG) and a proximal retrolateral cymbial lobe (CL) near RTA; tegulum with granulations, roundish and reduced; the embolus is fixed to the tegulum and emerges prolaterally (at least in the three known species) and curls one-and-a-half times around tegulum; retrolaterally, embolus extends to the base of the cymbium, folds back and rests its tip at the apex of the cymbial groove on the retrolateral side. The epigyne externally is simple and poorly sclerotized (Figs 25, 38, 43); internally there are spiraled copulatory ducts and anteriorly-placed spermathecae (Figs 26 – 27, 39) (see discussion on epigynal morphology below). Spinnerets (Figs 28 – 33; examined only in G. forceps, male): the ALS has one major ampullate gland spigot (MAP) and one nubbin (n) surrounded by about twenty-one piriform (pi) gland spigots (Figs 28 – 29); the PMS has a single minor ampullate gland spigot (mAP) and three aciniform (ac) gland spigots, one anterior to mAP and a posterior pair; these aciniform gland spigots have a long cylindrical base and a short fusule at the tip (Figs 30 – 31); the PLS has about nine or ten aciniform gland spigots (Figs 32 – 33), shaped as in PMS. Phylogenetic relationships. The close relationship between Gypogyna and Scopocira Simon, 1900 was corroborated by Ruiz & Maddison (2015). Presently the two genera are included in the tribe Scopocirini (Maddison 2015). Males of both genera are typically stouter and larger than females (Ruiz & Maddison 2015), especially regarding cephalothorax, which can be related to the enlarged chelicerae. Composition. Three species: G. forceps Simon, 1900; G. amazonica Ruiz sp. nov.; and G. mexicana Ruiz & Bustamante sp. nov.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF35FF9127F0F8C6FE302879.taxon	description	Figs 1 – 43, 51, 63	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF35FF9127F0F8C6FE302879.taxon	materials_examined	Additional material examined. COLOMBIA: Córdoba: Montería: 1 ♂ [photos given in Bedoya-Róqueme, Galvis & Martínez (2018)], 23. XI. 2017, E. Bedoya-Róqueme (CZUC-OARA- 074). ECUADOR: Sucumbíos: Reserva Faunística Cuyabeno (Laguna Grande): 1 ♀, 26. IV. 1994, W. P. Maddison (WPM # 94 - 030) (UBC-SEM). BRAZIL: Pará: Belém: 1 ♀, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, research campus, unknown date, C. A. C. Favacho (photographed, Fig. 1); Sergipe: São Cristóvão: 1 ♂, Universidade Federal do Sergipe campus, unknown date, UFSE students (IBSP 10349); Mato Grosso do Sul: Corumbá, Passo do Lontra: 43 ♂, 93 ♀ and 5 juveniles, VI. 1998 – XI. 1999, J. Raizer et al. (IBSP 63, 413, 423, 425, 484, 529, 531, 564, 576 – 577, 587, 706, 792, 801, 859, 875, 888, 906, 908, 937, 968, 979 – 980, 983, 990, 1061, 1082, 1084, 1097, 1107, 1136, 1168, 1212, 1219, 1366, 1572, 1594, 1628, 1685, 1791, 1795, 1841, 1863, 2536, 2572, 2643, 2687, 2690, 2830, 3248, 3371, 3396, 3452, 3741, 4029, 4308 – 4309, 4313, 5351, 5353, 5509, 5511, 5520, 5527, 5560 – 5565, 5567 – 5569, 5571 – 5572, 5574 – 5575, 5577 – 5578, 5639, 5641, 5889, 5991, 7336, 8056, 8523, 18083, 20888, 26819, 30210, 30968, 38966, 81117 – 81129, 87192); Rio Pardo, 1 ♂, 22 – 25. V. 2001, F. S. Cunha & R. Souza (IBSP 53390); Santa Rita do Pardo: 2 ♂, 02 – 05. VII. 2001, D. Candiani & F. Lini (IBSP 53292); Anaurilândia: 5 ♀ and 1 juvenile, 05 – 19. III. 2001, F. S. Cunha & C. R. Souza (IBSP 53335, 53364); São Paulo: Presidente Epitácio, Usina Hidrelétrica Sérgio Motta: 7 ♂ and 28 ♀, 1999 – 2002, Equipe IBSP (IBSP 53083, 53122, 53166, 53270, 53305, 53393, 53433); Rio Grande do Sul: Cachoeira do Sul (S 30.0219 °, W 52.9178 °): 1 ♂ (MCTP 9725) and 1 ♀ (MCTP 3554), R. G. Buss, 14. XI. 1992. Palmares do Sul, Buraco Quente: 5 ♂ and 14 ♀, 11. XI. 2003, Equipe Probio (MCN 36806). PARAGUAY: Ñeembucu, Estancia Santa Ana (26.8434 ° S, 58.0360 ° W): 1 ♂ [photos given in Pett (2019)], 14. IX. 2019, M. Richardot (CCPLT-Ar 240). ARGENTINA: Misiones: Oberá: 1 ♂, G. Rubio (photos sent by G. D. Rubio).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF35FF9127F0F8C6FE302879.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Among the three species, G. forceps is more similar to G. amazonica sp. nov. In these two, male chelicerae extend almost parallelly forward (they are more divergent in G. mexicana sp. nov.), and the distal pair of promarginal teeth (DPT) is located near the articulation of the fang (Fig. 51) (DPT is more basal in G. mexicana; Fig. 52). Also, the abdominal color pattern is simpler in G. forceps and G. amazonica, with fewer details (Figs 1 – 3), while there are more dorsal pairs of dark spots in G. mexicana (Figs 53 – 56). However, both sexes of G. forceps can be immediately recognized by the unusual abdominal color pattern, with a pair of oblique long dark lines anteriorly and a pair of strongly stained dark spots near the spinnerets (Figs 1 – 9) (absent in G. amazonica; multiple stain pairs in G. mexicana). The male palp is very similar among the three species, but in G. forceps it is much wider at the middle portion of the cymbium, while the cymbial borders are more parallel in the other two species. Copulatory openings in the epigyne of G. forceps are more conspicuous (Fig. 43), copulatory ducts are less compact, and the spermathecae are more rounded (Fig. 39), in comparison to those of G. mexicana (Figs 44, 50) (the female of G. amazonica is unknown).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF35FF9127F0F8C6FE302879.taxon	description	Description. Male (MCTP 9725). Total length: 4.22. Carapace orange, 1.97 long, 1.37 wide, 0.84 high; intestinal diverticula can be seen within cephalic area through translucent cuticle. Ocular quadrangle 1.03 long. Anterior eye row 1.13 wide and posterior 1.10 wide. Labium, endites and sternum clear. Chelicera orange. Palp as described for the genus (Figs 34 – 37). Legs 1423, yellow. Length: I 3.97 (1.10 + 1.62 + 1.25), II 3.00 (0.91 + 1.13 + 0.96), III 2.94 (0.88 + 1.04 + 1.02), IV 3.49 (1.07 + 1.28 + 1.14). Abdomen with a pair of oblique long dark lines anteriorly and a pair of strongly stained dark spots near the spinnerets (Figs 1 – 9). Spinnerets brown. Description. Female (MCTP 3554). Total length: 4.38. Carapace as in male, 1.95 long, 1.23 wide, 0.75 high. Ocular quadrangle 1.05 long. Anterior eye row 1.14 wide and posterior 1.20 wide. Labium, endites, palps and sternum clear. Chelicera orange. Legs 4132, yellow. Length: I 3.26 (0.98 + 1.30 + 0.98), II 2.57 (0.81 + 0.94 + 0.82), III 2.73 (0.84 + 0.96 + 0.93), IV 3.44 (1.05 + 1.28 + 1.11). Abdomen as in male. Spinnerets clear. Variation. Additional variation in spines: most specimens examined have only the d 0 - 1 - 1 pattern of spines on all femora, but a few specimens have d 1 - 1 - 1, as in the holotype of G. amazonica sp. nov.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF35FF9127F0F8C6FE302879.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known from tropical localities in northern South America (Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil: Pará), coastal northeastern Brazil (Brazil: Sergipe), midwestern / southwestern Brazil (Mato Grosso do Sul, São Paulo), and temperate localities in northeastern Argentina (Misiones), Southern Paraguay (Ñeembucu) and southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul) (Fig. 63). Note. The posterior pair of dark brown spots on the dorsum of the abdomen (Figs 4 – 9) is obvious in all specimens examined and in the syntypes of G. forceps [“ Abdomen ... in parte apicali maculis nigris binis obliquis supra ornatum ” (Simon 1900: 387)].	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF31FF9F27F0F929FC9D29F2.taxon	description	Figs 45 – 46, 63	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF31FF9F27F0F929FC9D29F2.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Holotype: ♂ from Rio Tarumã-Mirim, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil, 05. VIII. 1979, J. Adis (IBSP 67104).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF31FF9F27F0F929FC9D29F2.taxon	etymology	Etymology. The epithet is to be treated as a Latin adjective and refers to the Amazon forest, where the holotype was found.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF31FF9F27F0F929FC9D29F2.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Among the three species, G. amazonica sp. nov. is more similar to G. forceps. In these two, male chelicerae extend almost parallelly forward (they are more divergent in G. mexicana sp. nov.), and the distal pair of promarginal teeth (DPT) is located near the articulation of the fang (as in Fig. 51) (DPT is more basal in G. mexicana; Fig. 52). Also, the abdomen in these two species does not have several pairs of dorsal dark spots, as in G. mexicana (Figs 53 – 56). The male of G. amazonica can be distinguished from that of G. forceps by the clear abdomen, without the typical color pattern of G. forceps, and by having a narrower cymbium (middle portion of cymbium is much wider in G. forceps). The female of G. amazonica is unknown.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF31FF9F27F0F929FC9D29F2.taxon	description	Description. Male (holotype). Total length: 4.60. Carapace orange, 2.27 long, 1.54 wide, 0.97 high; intestinal diverticula can be seen within cephalic area through translucent cuticle. Ocular quadrangle 1.15 long. Anterior eye row 1.24 wide and posterior 1.19 wide. Labium, endites and sternum clear. Chelicera orange, as described to G. forceps. Palp as described for the genus (Figs 45 – 46). Legs 4312, yellow. Length: I 3.99 (1.32 + 1.15 + 1.52), II 3.73 (1.09 + 1.49 + 1.15), III 4.20 (1.45 + 1.61 + 1.14), IV 4.46 (1.65 + 1.38 + 1.43). Abdomen entirely clear, only with a pair of light areas in the middle, almost giving the impression of a constriction, and a small dark spot over the anal tubercle. Spinnerets brown. Female. Unknown.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF31FF9F27F0F929FC9D29F2.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality (Fig. 63).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	description	Figs 44, 47 – 50, 52 – 62, 64	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Holotype: ♂ from Estero el Salado, Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico, 20.662 to 20.667 ° N, 105.240 to 105.241 ° W, 2014, W. P. Maddison (WPM # 14 - 002, JAL 14 - 8565), deposited in UBC-SEM. Paratype: 1 ♀ from Chachalaca Trail, Estación de Biología Chamela, Jalisco, Mexico, 19.4966 ° N, 105.0404 to 105.0426 ° W, 2014, W. P. Maddison (WPM # 14 - 017, JAL 14 - 9187), deposited in UBC-SEM.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	etymology	Etymology. The epithet is to be treated as a Latin adjective and refers to the country where specimens listed herein were collected.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	materials_examined	Additional material examined. MEXICO: Jalisco (Estación de Biología Chamela, Viveros, 19.499 ° N, 105.043 ° W): 1 ♀, 28. II – 1. III. 2014, W. P. Maddison (WPM # 14 - 042, UBC-SEM); (Chamela, Xametla, beach and mangroves, 19.5376 ° N, 105.0815 ° W): 1 ♂ and 1 ♀, 22 – 27. II. 2014, H. Proctor & W. P. Maddison (WPM # 14 - 037, UBC-SEM); (Puerto Vallarta, Estero el Salado, 20.662 to 20.667 ° N, 105.240 to 105.241 ° W): 1 ♂, 5. II. 2014, Maddison, Proctor, Navarro & Cupul (WPM # 14 - 002, UBC-SEM).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Among the three species, G. mexicana sp. nov. can be immediately recognized by having three pairs of dark spots on the dorsum of abdomen (the anterior pair is fused with the oblique anterior dark lines in males) (Figs 53 – 56), while the two anterior pairs of dark spots are always absent in G. forceps and G. amazonica sp. nov. Also, male chelicerae of G. mexicana sp. nov. are divergent (almost parallelly extended forward in G. forceps and G. amazonica sp. nov.), with the distal pair of promarginal teeth (DPT) being located close to the remaining cheliceral teeth (Fig. 52), while this pair is placed near the articulation of the fang in the other two species (Fig. 51). In comparison with G. forceps, the membranous window of the epigynal plate is narrower (Fig. 44) and copulatory ducts are more compact in G. mexicana; spermathecae are tubular in G. mexicana (Fig. 50), but more rounded in G. forceps (Figs 39, 43) (the female of G. amazonica is unknown).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	description	Description. Male (holotype). Total length: 3.25. Carapace orange, 1.53 long, 1.12 wide, 0.81 high; intestinal diverticula can be seen within cephalic area through translucent cuticle; area around anterior median eyes is reddish in live specimens (Figs 53 – 54); faded dark lines extend from posterior eyes and converge to posterior border (Fig. 57). Ocular quadrangle 0.66 long. Anterior eye row 0.92 wide and posterior 0.89 wide. Labium, endites and sternum clear (Fig. 59). Palp as described for the genus (Figs 47 – 48), with parallel cymbial borders. Chelicera orange, divergent (Fig. 53); the cheliceral promargin has three teeth, all gathered proximally; of the three, the most distal (DPT) is larger than the other two (sPT) (Fig. 52); the retromargin has a small tooth proximally, and a rounded distal apophysis (RDA) near the articulation of the fang; the fang is sinuous and bears a ventral bump proximally (fvb in Fig. 52) (see also discussion below). Legs 1234, yellow. Length: I 2.73 (0.69 + 1.19 + 0.85), II 2.38 (0.73 + 0.91 + 0.74), III 2.20 (0.68 + 0.81 + 0.71), IV 2.15 (0.66 + 0.94 + 0.55). Abdomen clear, anteriorly with an oblique dorsal pair of longitudinal dark lines (these are fused with the first pair of dark spots seen in the female), followed by two pairs of dark spots and a small dark spot over the anal tubercle. There are three pairs of tufts of white setae, one anterior and two others between the second and third pairs of dorsal dark spots (Figs 53, 57); laterally with a thin dark brown line (Fig. 58); ventrally clear (Fig. 59). Anterior spinnerets brown, posterior clear. Female (paratype). Total length: 3.68. Carapace as in male, but lighter and with a median longitudinal stripe of white setae (Figs 55 – 56) and pair of stripes of white setae laterally; 1.42 long, 1.04 wide, 0.49 high (Fig. 60). Ocular quadrangle 0.67 long. Anterior eye row 0.89 wide and posterior 0.87 wide. Clypeus densely covered with white setae (Fig. 56). Labium, endites and sternum clear (Fig. 62). Chelicera yellow. Legs 4312, yellow. Length: I 2.11 (0.67 + 0.87 + 0.57), II 2.03 (0.66 + 0.70 + 0.67), III 2.02 (0.59 + 0.70 + 0.73), IV 2.25 (0.67 + 0.80 + 0.78). Abdomen clear with three pairs of dark brown spots dorsally, and a small dark spot over the anal tubercle; white setae form a median longitudinal stripe and a pair of lateral stripes (Figs 55 – 56, 60 – 61); laterally with faded brown line (Fig. 61); ventrally clear (Fig. 62). Epigyne as described for the genus, mostly poorly sclerotized and hard to visualize (inconspicuous copulatory openings on membranous area — only seen in great magnification; inconspicuous glandular portions) (Figs 44, 49 – 50). Spinnerets clear.	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
03900C6CBF3DFF9B27F0F9E0FB2029C5.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the state of Jalisco, Mexico (Fig. 64). Note. This species was treated as “ Gypogyna sp. [JAL 14 - 8565] ” in Ruiz & Maddison (2015).	en	Ruiz, Gustavo R. S., Costa, Erika L. S., Bustamante, Abel A. (2021): Revision of Gypogyna Simon, 1900 (Araneae: Salticidae). Zootaxa 5057 (2): 241-259, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5057.2.5
