Modern idea of SITTICINES was developed during 1960ties (and published in installments from 1968 to 1987) by Prószyński accepting all relevant species as a single genus Sitticus, defined by presence of unique cheliceral comb-like tooth (Plate H above), generalized appearance of palp and internal structure of epigyne, additional helpful character was general appearance of live specimens, sufficient for recognition in the field by European collectors. The phylogenic grouping within genus were pronounced by subdivision into group of species (terebratus, floricola, distinguendus, saxicola, penicillatus and absolutus groups). After five decades of following that, a systemic improvement appeared desirable: groups of species within genera are not displayed by the World Spider Catalog, which lists species alphabetically, so readers using WSC are left unaware of phylogenic differences. Discovery by Maddison that Sitticus is Palaearctic (mainly!) representative of South American AMYCINES reduced usefulness of cheliceral dentition (characteristic also for S American relatives) and increased diagnostic importance of genitalic characters. Self-correction of system of SITTICINES was undertaken by Prószyński in Salticidae Database 1995-2016 and formally presented in 2017. The comprehensive genus Sitticus, subdivided since 1968 into "species groups" (which, together with "subgenera" are not recognized in modern Catalogs) was divided into smaller, uniform genera. A novelty in that act was editing their names in a way demonstrating their relationship (and origin from a single genus) by usage of "acronymic" genus names (joining indicative core "Sitti"- with second part indicating representative species). That was met with emotional resistance of several arachnologists (like so many other novelties by Prószyński), well exemplified by publication of Kropf et all. 2019 (see full original text and ensuing publications at Kropf et all. 2019. A particularly harmful interventions were return back to forgotten name combinations by Kropf's coauthors - Blick & Marusik (2018, 2019 - Arachnologische Mitteilungen 57: 89-91 and Arthropoda Selecta 27(3): 237-238 respectively).

A competitive version of systematics of Sitticus s. l. was proposed by Maddison (2020) (see facsimile below), which seems (at least to J. Prószyński) the worse of all. Lumping a number of clearly different genera (see Plate XXX A-U, above) into huge super genus Attulus it hides morphological, ecological and behavioral differences, expressed by the earlier Sitticus "groups of species" into invisible for the Catalog users system of subgenera. That is casting away all clearing advantages of introduced several "acronymic" genera by Prószyński in 2017. Incompetence of emotional attitude, entertained by Maddison since decades, is perfectly visible in lumping under the same heading such different forms as SITTICUS terebratus, SITTIFFLOR floricola and Attulus distinguendus. Classic definition of a genus taxon states that it is - "a group of species sharing similar characters (or genomes if somebody is able to document it), separated from other such groups by a gap of characters" and concerns all kinds of differences. One must be blinded by emotions to not see such striking differences among the genera mentioned above. The taxonomic division should fulfill practical requirements - differentiation it express should be easily visible in the field, as being on variety of parallel differences. Maddison (many papers since 2003) developed a comprehensive system of Salticidae based on molecular arguments, whose application to taxonomic practice is obscure. I propose usage of the Occam's razor principle for this case. And one more formal demand - in biological science dictate of "name priority" principle should be abolished, or at least significantly limited, as largely responsible for present chaos in nomenclature. We deal with living organisms and their natural groupings, not on letters combinations constituting names.