DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Status of New Zealand Araneae (Spiders), 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Status of New Zealand Araneae (Spiders), 2020 2021 NEW ZEALAND THREAT CLASSIFICATION SERIES 34 Conservation status of New Zealand Araneae (spiders), 2020 Phil J. Sirvid, Cor J. Vink, Brian M. Fitzgerald, Mike D. Wakelin, Jeremy Rolfe and Pascale Michel Cover: A large sheetweb sider, Cambridgea foliata – Not Threatened. Photo: Jeremy Rolfe. New Zealand Threat Classification Series is a scientific monograph series presenting publications related to the New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS). Most will be lists providing NZTCS status of members of a plant or animal group (e.g. algae, birds, spiders). There are currently 23 groups, each assessed once every 5 years. From time to time the manual that defines the categories, criteria and process for the NZTCS will be reviewed. Publications in this series are considered part of the formal international scientific literature. This report is available from the departmental website in pdf form. Titles are listed in our catalogue on the website, refer www.doc.govt.nz under Publications. The NZTCS database can be accessed at nztcs.org.nz. For all enquiries, email [email protected]. © Copyright August 2021, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISSN 2324–1713 (web PDF) ISBN 978–1–99–115291–6 (web PDF) This report was prepared for publication by Te Rōpū Ratonga Auaha, Te Papa Atawhai/Creative Services, Department of Conservation; editing and layout by Lynette Clelland. Publication was approved by the Director, Terrestrial Ecosystems Unit, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand Published by Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai, PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence, you are free to copy, distribute and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Crown and abide by the other licence terms. To view a copy of this licence, www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Please note that no departmental or governmental emblem, logo or Coat of Arms may be used in any way that infringes any provision of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. Use the wording ‘Department of Conservation’ in your attribution, not the Department of Conservation logo. CONTENTS Abstract 1 1. Summary 2 2. Conservation status of New Zealand Araneae (spiders) 6 2.1 Assessments 6 2.2 NZTCS categories, criteria and qualifiers 3. References 33 Conservation status of New Zealand Araneae (spiders), 2020 Phil J. Sirvid1, 3*, Cor J. Vink2, 3, Brian M. Fitzgerald1, Mike D. Wakelin4, Jeremy Rolfe5 and Pascale Michel5 1 Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand *Email: [email protected] 2 Canterbury Museum, Rolleston Avenue, Christchurch 8013, New Zealand 3 Department of Pest Management and Conservation, PO Box 85084, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand 4 47 Hunt Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013, New Zealand 5 Biodiversity Group, Department of Conservation, PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143, New Zealand Abstract The conservation status of 1156 New Zealand Araneae (spider) taxa was assessed using the New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS). A list of these taxa is presented, along with a statistical summary and brief notes on the most important changes. This list replaces all previous NZTCS lists for Araneae. Of the Araneae taxa assessed in this review, 4 are Threatened, 182 are At Risk and 428 are Not Threatened; 49 are Introduced and Naturalised and 493 Data Deficient because insufficient information is available to assess their conservation status. In addition, 24 ‘taxa’ are listed as taxonomically unresolved. These include 7 ‘taxa’ that are believed to be multiple species. Of these 7 ‘taxa’, 3 are listed as formally described and named species. Keywords: New Zealand Threat Classification System, NZTCS, conservation status, Arachnida, Araneae, spider © Copyright August 2021, Department of Conservation. This paper may be cited as: Sirvid, P.J.; Vink, C.J.; Fitzgerald, B.M.; Wakelin, M.D.; Rolfe, J.; Michel, P. 2020: Conservation status of New Zealand Araneae (spiders), 2020. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 34. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 33 p. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 34 1 1. Summary In 2010, Sirvid et al. (2012) assessed the conservation status of 1130 New Zealand Araneae (spider) taxa using the criteria specified in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (NZTCS) manual (Townsend et al. 2008). Here we report on a new assessment of 1156 Araneae taxa which includes 37 species being assessed for the first time (Table 1). Four of the taxa that were assessed by Sirvid et al. (2012) are not included in this report, as they are now considered to be conspecific with other taxa assessed here (Table 2). One taxon that was assessed by Sirvid et al. (2012) – Nanometa gentilis – has been rejected from this report because it is now known that it does not occur in New Zealand and its previous assessment was based on misidentifications. Table 1. Araneae taxa assessed for the first time in this report. NAME AND AUTHORITY FAMILY Adoxotoma forsteri Zabka, 2004 Salticidae Artoriopsis expolita (L. Koch, 1877) Lycosidae Coleosoma octomaculatum (Bösenberg & Strand, 1906) Theridiidae Cryptachaea gigantipes (Keyserling, 1890) Theridiidae Cyclosa fulignata (L. Koch, 1872) Araneidae Dolomedes dondalei Vink & Dupérré, 2010 Pisauridae Dolomedes facetus L. Koch, 1876 Pisauridae Nanometa forsteri Álvarez-Padilla, Kallal & Hormiga, 2020 Tetragnathidae Opisthoncus polyphemus (L. Koch, 1867) Salticidae Pahoroides aucklandica Fitzgerald & Sirvid, 2011 Physoglenidae Pahoroides balli Fitzgerald & Sirvid, 2011 Physoglenidae Pahoroides confusa Fitzgerald & Sirvid, 2011 Physoglenidae Pahoroides forsteri Fitzgerald & Sirvid, 2011 Physoglenidae Pahoroides gallina Fitzgerald & Sirvid, 2011 Physoglenidae Pahoroides kohukohu Fitzgerald & Sirvid, 2011 Physoglenidae Philoponella congregabilis (Rainbow, 1916) Uloboridae Sidymella trapezia (L. Koch, 1874) Thomisidae Taraire oculta Álvarez-Padilla, Kallal & Hormiga, 2020 Tetragnathidae Tawhai arborea (Urquhart, 1891) Tetragnathidae Tingotingo aho Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Tingotingo porotiti Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Tingotingo pouaru Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Tingotingo tokorera Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Trite pollardi Patoleta & Zabka, 2017 Salticidae Uliodon hawkesi Hogg, 1911 Zoropsidae Whakamoke guacamole Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Whakamoke heru Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Whakamoke hunahuna Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Whakamoke orongorongo Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Whakamoke paoka Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Whakamoke rakiura Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Whakamoke tarakina Hormiga & Scharff, 2020 Malkaridae Diaea CMNZ heautosyntypes vial Diaea sphaeroides Thomisidae Orepukia sp. 1 (Hawke’s Bay) Cycloctenidae Pianoa sp. 1 (Richmond Ranges) Gradungulidae Sidymella sp. 1 “snouty” (LUNZ; Three Kings) Thomisidae Sidymella sp. 2 (MONZ AS.003611; “dwarf”) Thomisidae 2 Sirvid et al.— Conservation status of New Zealand Araneae (spiders), 2020 Table 2. Taxa that were assessed by Sirvid et al. (2012) but that, in this report, are treated as conspecific with other taxa that they assessed TAXON IN SIRVID ET AL. (2012) CONSPECIFIC TAXON IN THIS REPORT FAMILY Sidymella benhami (Hogg, 1911) Sidymella angulata (Urquhart, 1885) Thomisidae Synema suteri Dahl, 1907 Diaea ambara (Urquhart, 1885) Thomisidae Uliodon cervinus L. Koch, 1873 Uliodon albopunctatus (L. Koch, 1873) Zoropsidae Uliodon frenatus L. Koch, 1873 Uliodon albopunctatus (L. Koch, 1873) Zoropsidae The names of 22 taxa in this report have changed since the 2010 assessment (Sirvid et al. 2012) (Table 3). Table 3. Name changes affecting New Zealand Araneae taxa between the publication of Sirvid et al. 2012 and this document. NAME AND AUTHORITY IN SIRVID NAME AND AUTHORITY IN THIS REPORT FAMILY ET AL. (2012) Arianme triangulatus (Urquhart, 1887) Ariamnes triangulatus (Urquhart, 1887) Theridiidae Cheiracanthium stratioticum L. Koch, 1873 Eutittha stratiotica (L. Koch, 1873) Cheiracanthiidae Cosmophasis archeyi Berland, 1931 Clynotis archeyi (Berland, 1931) Salticidae Drapetisca australis Forster, 1955 Diploplecta australis (Forster, 1955) Linyphiidae Dunstania angustiae (Marples, 1959) Dunstanoides angustiae (Marples, 1959) Desidae Dunstania hesperis Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides hesperis (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Dunstania hinawa Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides hinawa (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Dunstania hova Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides hova (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Dunstania kochi Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides kochi (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Dunstania mira Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides mirus (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Dunstania montana Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides montanus (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Dunstania nuntia (Marples, 1959) Dunstanoides nuntius (Marples, 1959) Desidae Dunstania salmoni Forster & Wilton, 1973 Dunstanoides salmoni (Forster & Wilton, 1973) Desidae Eryciniolia purpurapunctata (Urquhart, 1889) Nanometa purpurapunctata (Urquhart, 1889) Tetragnathidae Hypoblemum albovitattum (Keyserling, 1882) Maratus griseus (Keyserling, 1882) Salticidae Marpissa arenaria Urquhart, 1888 Euophrys arenaria (Urquhart, 1888) Salticidae Meta rufolineata (Urquhart, 1889) Taraire rufolineata (Urquhart, 1889) Tetragnathidae Orsinome lagenifera (Urquhart, 1888) Nanometa lagenifera (Urquhart, 1888) Tetragnathidae
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cravens Peak Scientific Study Report
    Geography Monograph Series No. 13 Cravens Peak Scientific Study Report The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. Brisbane, 2009 The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. is a non-profit organization that promotes the study of Geography within educational, scientific, professional, commercial and broader general communities. Since its establishment in 1885, the Society has taken the lead in geo- graphical education, exploration and research in Queensland. Published by: The Royal Geographical Society of Queensland Inc. 237 Milton Road, Milton QLD 4064, Australia Phone: (07) 3368 2066; Fax: (07) 33671011 Email: [email protected] Website: www.rgsq.org.au ISBN 978 0 949286 16 8 ISSN 1037 7158 © 2009 Desktop Publishing: Kevin Long, Page People Pty Ltd (www.pagepeople.com.au) Printing: Snap Printing Milton (www.milton.snapprinting.com.au) Cover: Pemberton Design (www.pembertondesign.com.au) Cover photo: Cravens Peak. Photographer: Nick Rains 2007 State map and Topographic Map provided by: Richard MacNeill, Spatial Information Coordinator, Bush Heritage Australia (www.bushheritage.org.au) Other Titles in the Geography Monograph Series: No 1. Technology Education and Geography in Australia Higher Education No 2. Geography in Society: a Case for Geography in Australian Society No 3. Cape York Peninsula Scientific Study Report No 4. Musselbrook Reserve Scientific Study Report No 5. A Continent for a Nation; and, Dividing Societies No 6. Herald Cays Scientific Study Report No 7. Braving the Bull of Heaven; and, Societal Benefits from Seasonal Climate Forecasting No 8. Antarctica: a Conducted Tour from Ancient to Modern; and, Undara: the Longest Known Young Lava Flow No 9. White Mountains Scientific Study Report No 10.
    [Show full text]
  • I/'Mei1can %Mllselim
    i/'meI1can %MllselIm Ntats PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. I0024 NUMBER 2292 APRIL 24, I967 Descriptions of the Spider Families Desidae and Argyronetidae BY VINCENT D. ROTH1 The marine spiders of the genus Desis Walckenaer and the Eurasian water spider Argyroneta aquatica (Clerck) have been considered by most arachnologists to be aberrant members of the family Agelenidae. The family Desidae was established in 1895 for Desis but since has been ignored. The family Argyronetidae, proposed in 1870, has been used as follows: exclusively for the genus Argyroneta Latreille; for Argyroneta and certain genera of cybaeinids as an expanded family; and for Argyroneta and the entire agelenid subfamily Cybaeinae. None of the revisers offered adequate reasons for his placement of the genera in the family Argyro- netidae. The present study was initiated because of the uncertain status of Desis and Argyroneta and the lack of published evidence supporting place- ment of them. As a result, I herein propose that each again be elevated to family status. The remaining genera previously associated with the family Argyronetidae belong to the subfamily Cybaeinae of the family Agelenidae (see Roth, 1967a, p. 302, for a description of the family). The differences among the three families of spiders are listed in table 1. 1 Resident Director, Southwestern Research Station of the American Museum of Natural History, Portal, Arizona. 0~~~~ 0.) 0Cc S- c .)00 0 0n Cd C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.) 0~~~~ C- 0.) 4 C0 U, 0~ z-o0 ID -~~~~0c - 4 Z 4.) 0 bID D < < ~~~~ 0~~C0.) -o C~~~~..4 C .0 v C bID ~~~"0 0 ~ 0 d 4-'.~~~~~4 + + 2 O 4.) ID 2 0 10 u0r 0 -o 6U 4- 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Salticidae (Arachnida, Araneae) of Islands Off Australia
    1999. The Journal of Arachnology 27:229±235 SALTICIDAE (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE) OF ISLANDS OFF AUSTRALIA Barbara Patoleta and Marek ZÇ abka: Zaklad Zoologii WSRP, 08±110 Siedlce, Poland ABSTRACT. Thirty nine species of Salticidae from 33 Australian islands are analyzed with respect to their total distribution, dispersal possibilities and relations with the continental fauna. The possibility of the Torres Strait islands as a dispersal route for salticids is discussed. The studies of island faunas have been the ocean level ¯uctuations over the last 50,000 subject of zoogeographical and evolutionary years, at least some islands have been sub- research for over 150 years and have resulted merged or formed land bridges with the con- in hundreds of papers, with the syntheses by tinent (e.g., Torres Strait islands). All these Carlquist (1965, 1974) and MacArthur & Wil- circumstances and the human occupation son (1967) being the best known. make it rather unlikely for the majority of Modern zoogeographical analyses, based islands to have developed their own endemic on island spider faunas, began some 60 years salticid faunas. ago (Berland 1934) and have continued ever When one of us (MZ) began research on since by, e.g., Forster (1975), Lehtinen (1980, the Australian and New Guinean Salticidae 1996), Baert et al. (1989), ZÇ abka (1988, 1990, over ten years ago, close relationships be- 1991, 1993), Baert & Jocque (1993), Gillespie tween the faunas of these two regions were (1993), Gillespie et al. (1994), ProÂszynÂski expected. Consequently, it was hypothesized (1992, 1996) and Berry et al. (1996, 1997), that the Cape York Peninsula and Torres Strait but only a few papers were based on veri®ed islands were the natural passage for dispersal/ and suf®cient taxonomic data.
    [Show full text]
  • Redescriptions of Nuisiana Arboris (Marples 1959) and Cambridgea Reinga Forster & Wilton 1973 (Araneae: Desidae, Stiphidiidae)
    Zootaxa 2739: 41–50 (2011) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2011 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Reuniting males and females: redescriptions of Nuisiana arboris (Marples 1959) and Cambridgea reinga Forster & Wilton 1973 (Araneae: Desidae, Stiphidiidae) COR J. VINK1,2,5, BRIAN M. FITZGERALD3, PHIL J. SIRVID3 & NADINE DUPÉRRÉ4 1Biosecurity Group, AgResearch, Private Bag 4749, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] 2Entomology Research Museum, PO Box 84, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand. 3Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 4Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York New York 10024, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] 5Corresponding author Abstract Two New Zealand endemic spider species, Nuisiana arboris (Marples 1959) (Desidae) and Cambridgea reinga Forster & Wilton 1973 (Stiphidiidae), are redescribed, including notes on their distribution and DNA sequences from the mitochon- drial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1. Based on morphological evidence and mitochondrial DNA sequences, Mata- chia magna Forster 1970 is a junior synonym of Nuisiana arboris, and Nanocambridgea grandis Blest & Vink 2000 is a junior synonym of Cambridgea reinga. Two forms of male morph in C. reinga are recorded. Key words: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI), DNA, Matachia, new synonymy, New Zealand, Nanocambridgea Introduction New Zealand’s spider fauna is diverse with an estimated 1990 species, of which 93% are endemic (Paquin et al. 2010). Most of the 1126 named species were described during the last 60 years and about 60% were described by one man, Ray Forster (Patrick et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Specificity, Dispersal and Burning Season: Recovery
    Biological Conservation 160 (2013) 140–149 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Habitat specificity, dispersal and burning season: Recovery indicators in New Zealand native grassland communities ⇑ Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte a, , Barbara I.P. Barratt b, Cor J. Vink c,d,1, Adrian M. Paterson a, Robert H. Cruickshank a, Colin M. Ferguson b, Diane M. Barton b a Department of Ecology, Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand b AgResearch Invermay, Puddle Alley, Private Bag 50034, Mosgiel 9053, Dunedin, New Zealand c AgResearch Lincoln, Private Bag 4749, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand d Entomology Research Museum, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand article info abstract Article history: Restoration programs for human-disturbed ecosystems rely on a good understanding of how recovery Received 3 October 2012 occurs. This requires elucidating the underlying succession process, which depends on species adapta- Received in revised form 27 December 2012 tions, their interactions, and the spatiotemporal characteristics of the disturbance. Using spiders, we Accepted 7 January 2013 aim to identify the drivers of succession after burning, commonly used in New Zealand native tussock Available online 28 February 2013 grasslands, test the hypothesis of post-burning dominance of generalists over specialists, and test the presumption that managed summer burns are more detrimental than spring burns. We established a Keywords: 7-year experiment, with spring and summer burn treatments and unburned control plots, and sampled Colonisers annually before and after the burning. We identified changes in spider assemblages and their drivers Habitat specificity Indicators using clustering and indicator value analyses, and we analysed the response of spider diversity and taxa Native grasslands through linear mixed-effect models.
    [Show full text]
  • A Protocol for Online Documentation of Spider Biodiversity Inventories Applied to a Mexican Tropical Wet Forest (Araneae, Araneomorphae)
    Zootaxa 4722 (3): 241–269 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2020 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4722.3.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6AC6E70B-6E6A-4D46-9C8A-2260B929E471 A protocol for online documentation of spider biodiversity inventories applied to a Mexican tropical wet forest (Araneae, Araneomorphae) FERNANDO ÁLVAREZ-PADILLA1, 2, M. ANTONIO GALÁN-SÁNCHEZ1 & F. JAVIER SALGUEIRO- SEPÚLVEDA1 1Laboratorio de Aracnología, Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Biología Comparada, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito Exterior s/n, Colonia Copilco el Bajo. C. P. 04510. Del. Coyoacán, Ciudad de México, México. E-mail: [email protected] 2Corresponding author Abstract Spider community inventories have relatively well-established standardized collecting protocols. Such protocols set rules for the orderly acquisition of samples to estimate community parameters and to establish comparisons between areas. These methods have been tested worldwide, providing useful data for inventory planning and optimal sampling allocation efforts. The taxonomic counterpart of biodiversity inventories has received considerably less attention. Species lists and their relative abundances are the only link between the community parameters resulting from a biotic inventory and the biology of the species that live there. However, this connection is lost or speculative at best for species only partially identified (e. g., to genus but not to species). This link is particularly important for diverse tropical regions were many taxa are undescribed or little known such as spiders. One approach to this problem has been the development of biodiversity inventory websites that document the morphology of the species with digital images organized as standard views.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary List of Fossil Spiders
    A summary list of fossil spiders compiled by Jason A. Dunlop (Berlin), David Penney (Manchester) & Denise Jekel (Berlin) Suggested citation: Dunlop, J. A., Penney, D. & Jekel, D. 2010. A summary list of fossil spiders. In Platnick, N. I. (ed.) The world spider catalog, version 10.5. American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html Last udated: 10.12.2009 INTRODUCTION Fossil spiders have not been fully cataloged since Bonnet’s Bibliographia Araneorum and are not included in the current Catalog. Since Bonnet’s time there has been considerable progress in our understanding of the spider fossil record and numerous new taxa have been described. As part of a larger project to catalog the diversity of fossil arachnids and their relatives, our aim here is to offer a summary list of the known fossil spiders in their current systematic position; as a first step towards the eventual goal of combining fossil and Recent data within a single arachnological resource. To integrate our data as smoothly as possible with standards used for living spiders, our list follows the names and sequence of families adopted in the Catalog. For this reason some of the family groupings proposed in Wunderlich’s (2004, 2008) monographs of amber and copal spiders are not reflected here, and we encourage the reader to consult these studies for details and alternative opinions. Extinct families have been inserted in the position which we hope best reflects their probable affinities. Genus and species names were compiled from established lists and cross-referenced against the primary literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Site Choice by the Intertidal Spider Desis Formidabilis (Araneae: Desidae) and Nest Utilisation by Its Hymenopteran Egg Parasitoid
    This is a repository copy of Nest site choice by the intertidal spider Desis formidabilis (Araneae: Desidae) and nest utilisation by its hymenopteran egg parasitoid. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/139051/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Owen, CA, van Noort, S, Compton, SG orcid.org/0000-0002-1247-8058 et al. (1 more author) (2019) Nest site choice by the intertidal spider Desis formidabilis (Araneae: Desidae) and nest utilisation by its hymenopteran egg parasitoid. Ecological Entomology, 44 (1). pp. 62-70. ISSN 0307-6946 https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12675 (c) 2018, The Royal Entomological Society. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: 'Owen, CA, van Noort, S, Compton, SG, and Coetzee, JA (2018). Nest site choice by the intertidal spider Desis formidabilis (Araneae: Desidae) and nest utilisation by its hymenopteran egg parasitoid. Ecological Entomology,' which has been published in final form at [https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12675]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
    [Show full text]
  • Communications from the Mammal Society ± No. 77
    J. Zool., Lond. (1998) 246, 443±486 # 1998 The Zoological Society of London Printed in the United Kingdom Communications from the Mammal Society ± No. 77 Edited by M. L. Gorman J. Zool., Lond. (1998) 246, 443±445 # 1998 The Zoological Society of London DNA ®ngerprinting reveals high levels of genetic diversity within British populations of the introduced non-native grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) Z. K. David-Gray 1*, J. Gurnell2 and D. M. Hunt3 1 Department of Biology, Imperial College, University of London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BB, U.K. 2 School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary and West®eld College, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, U.K. 3 Department of Molecular Genetics, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL, U.K. INTRODUCTION genetic diversity as a result of recent population bottle- necks. We have used DNA ®ngerprinting (Jeffreys, In general, if populations are founded by very small Wilson & Thein, 1985a), a technique which provides a numbers of individuals, low levels of genetic diversity good indication of genome variability (Jeffreys et al., amongst subsequent generations known as founder 1985b; Kuhnlein et al., 1990; Kunieda et al., 1993) to effects, can be predicted to occur as a result of genetic assess overall levels of genetic diversity in two British drift (Franklin, 1980; Lacy, 1997). A loss of genetic grey squirrel populations; Alice Holt Forest on the variation has been reported in several species that have borders of Hampshire and Surrey in southern England experienced genetic bottlenecks because of habitat and Thetford Forest in East Anglia.
    [Show full text]
  • Funnel Weaver Spiders (Funnel-Web Weavers, Grass Spiders)
    Colorado Arachnids of Interest Funnel Weaver Spiders (Funnel-web weavers, Grass spiders) Class: Arachnida (Arachnids) Order: Araneae (Spiders) Family: Agelenidae (Funnel weaver Figure 1. Female grass spider on sheet web. spiders) Identification and Descriptive Features: Funnel weaver spiders are generally brownish or grayish spiders with a body typically ranging from1/3 to 2/3-inch when full grown. They have four pairs of eyes that are roughly the same size. The legs and body are hairy and legs usually have some dark banding. They are often mistaken for wolf spiders (Lycosidae family) but the size and pattern of eyes can most easily distinguish them. Like wolf spiders, the funnel weavers are very fast runners. Among the three most common genera (Agelenopsis, Hololena, Tegenaria) found in homes and around yards, Agelenopsis (Figures 1, 2 and 3) is perhaps most easily distinguished as it has long tail-like structures extending from the rear end of the body. These structures are the spider’s spinnerets, from which the silk emerges. Males of this genus have a unique and peculiarly coiled structure (embolus) on their pedipalps (Figure 3), the appendages next to the mouthparts. Hololena species often have similar appearance but lack the elongated spinnerets and male pedipalps have a normal clubbed appearance. Spiders within both genera Figure 2. Adult female of a grass spider, usually have dark longitudinal bands that run along the Agelenopsis sp. back of the cephalothorax and an elongated abdomen. Tegenaria species tend to have blunter abdomens marked with gray or black patches. Dark bands may also run along the cephalothorax, which is reddish brown with yellowish hairs in the species Tegenaria domestica (Figure 4).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix P SRE and Targeted Invertebrate Survey
    SRE and targeted invertebrate survey Phoenix Environmental Sciences, March 2010. Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project. Unpublished report prepared for South Metro Connect, Perth, WA. ...........................................................................Appendix P SRE and targeted invertebrate survey ........................................................................... Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project Prepared for South Metro Connect Final Report March 2010 Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1 Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project South Metro Connect Final Report Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project Prepared for South Metro Connect Final Report Authors: Volker W. Framenau and Conor O’Neill Reviewers: Melanie White and Karen Crews Date: 8 March 2011 Submitted to: Jamie Shaw and Peter Magaro (South Metro Connect) © 2011 Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd The information contained in this report is solely for the use of the Client for the purpose in which it has been prepared and Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility for use beyond this purpose. Any person or organisation wishing to quote or reproduce any section of this report may only do so with the written permission of Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd or South Metro Connect. Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 1/511 Wanneroo Road BALCATTA WA 6023 P: 08 9345 1608 F: 08 6313 0680 E: [email protected] Project code: 942-ROE-AEC-SRE Phoenix Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd i Short-range Endemic and Targeted Invertebrate Baseline Surveys for the Roe Highway Extension Project South Metro Connect Final Report Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Spiders 27 November-5 December 2018 Submitted: August 2019 Robert Raven
    Bush Blitz – Namadgi, ACT 27 Nov-5 Dec 2018 Namadgi, ACT Bush Blitz Spiders 27 November-5 December 2018 Submitted: August 2019 Robert Raven Nomenclature and taxonomy used in this report is consistent with: The Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/home Page 1 of 12 Bush Blitz – Namadgi, ACT 27 Nov-5 Dec 2018 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of contributors ................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site selection ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Survey techniques ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Methods used at standard survey sites ................................................................... 5 2.3 Identifying the collections .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]