The group of genera and species referred to in this chapter was originally named in years 1901-2015 Thiodineae Simon, 1901: 405-409 (amended later to subfamily Thiodininae by Petrunkevitch, 1928), the name was "taken out" from the genus and it relative group and conferred 114 years later, on false premises, to unrelated tribus Thiodinini Bustamante, Maddison,& Ruiz, 2015: 181-190, leaving the genus and group nameless.
It happened that Simon himself has designated in 1900, as the obligatory reference - type specimen ("neme bearer") of Thiodina a species described 51 years earlier, presumably known to him only from the literature - .judging from perfunctory description by Simon, unlike his other detailed descriptions.That type specimen was officially declared lost by Roewer, 1952, so it is quite possible that was also unavailable to Simon. Recently a new specimen resembling externally s9imilar to the lost type has fallen into hands of Maddison and his colleagues - they have quicly declared it heir of the picture of the type specimen and designated neotype (name bearer) of the name Thiodina and related. It was unfortunate that the new type species had nothing in common with remaining 20 species of Thiodina and Thiodineae. In the taxonomy the legal base of belonging to a genus having similar genotype, evolved from th mutual ancestor in the process of speciation and expressed by similar diiagnostic character. Unrelated genotype exclude mutual speciation, so species differing from actual - name bearer had to be cast off from the gnus - and also lost their name. What worse, research disclosed a whole circle of relatives of the new name bearer - and these become new Thiodina and its new higher taxon - Thiodinini. The bastards become new King and His Aristocracy, their disposed predecessors become outlaws. The fate of names of Thiodina and related llustateillustrates

. In 201deescrsecimhe known from the presumably known to him from the literature and never seen).erroneously
The entire orphaned subfamily was renamed "Gophoini" with type genus Colonus F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1901. The procedure of designating replacement type species (name bearer) was carred out incorrectly, with breaking spirit of nomenclaturical rules and disregarding common sense, oblicatory in biological research. The natural candidate for new As its new name bearer should be designated one of 20 species species classified to the genus thrThiodina and/or higher taxon Thiodinae, with similar diagnostic characters (testifying to relationship of their gcnotpesT. That would preserve original delimitation of the genera in questions.
Instead authors of stealing names Thiodina and Thiodunae conferred them on entirely unrelated group of species and genera on the pretext that 1849 drawing of the external appearance of the lost name bearer ( This caused nomenclatorical earthquake when Maddison got in his hand a new specimen similar to old illustration, but unfortunately unrelated to 20 species (4 genera) studied and described by Simon as genus Thiodina used by specimen Simon erroneusly designated, which caused nomenclatorivcal earthquuake of watched magnitude. In my opinion the erroneous shifting of genus aand higher taxon name should be reversed to the status quo ante. Until that will hapen ( I doubt he present generation of arachnologist is incqapable to draw conclusion wrom the developed situation) I use denote orphaned group, using temporary name COLONINES, discarding with that alco incorrectly used name "Gophopneaeae"). To read about mare detail sof the of that affair - open link Merits of the research by Simon, leading to orignaal conferred na.deploing never . originally erroneously designatet name bearer(and later lost) bearerdesignated.ed so of course unwelcome .