Spider Eye Arrangement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

B. Bockhahn Spider Eye Arrangement • Before digital cameras the best way to ID spider families was by EYE arrangement. • Print copies of page 2 and then use the following pages as quizzes Spider Eye Arrangement 1. Family Lycosidae – the Wolf Spiders 2. Family Salticidae – the Jumping Spiders 3. Family Salticidae, genus Lyssomanes – the Magnolia Green Jumpers 4. Family Araneidae – the Orbweavers 5. Family Pisauridae, genus Dolomedes – the Fishing Spiders 6. Family Pisauridae, genus Pisaurina – the Nursery Web Spiders 7. Family Ctenidae – the Wandering Spiders 8. Family Oxyopidae – the Lynx Spiders 9. Family Philodromidae – the Running Crab Spiders 10. Family Dysderidae – the Woodlouse Hunters 11. Family Tetragnathidae, genus Tetragnatha – the Longjawed Orbweavers 12. Family Thomisidae, genus Xysticus – the Ground Crab Spiders 13. Family Agelenidae, genus Tegenaria – the Funnel Weavers 14. Family Agelenidae, genus Agelenopsis – the Grass Spiders (aka Funnel Weavers) 15. Family Selenopidae, genus Selenops – the Flatties (aka Crab Spiders) 16. Family Sparassidae, genus Heteropoda – the Huntsman (aka Giant Crab Spiders) 17. Family Sparassidae, genus Olios – Giant Crab Spiders (aka Huntsman) 18. Family Sicariidae, genus Loxosceles – the Brown Spiders (includes the Brown Recluse) 19. Family Uloboridae, genus Hyptiotes – the Triangle Weavers 20. Family Zoropsidae, species Zoropsis spinimana – the False Wolf Spider 21. Family Deinopidae, species Deinopis spinosa – the Net-casting Spider (aka Ogre-faced Spider); note that the four other eyes are not visible from the front. 22. Family Diguetidae, genus Diguetia – the Desertshrub Spiders 23. Family Antrodiaetidae, genus Antrodiaetus – the Folding-door Spiders (aka Turret Spiders); these are primitive spiders (mygalomorphs). 24. Family Segestriidae – the Tube Web Spiders 25. Family Scytotidae – the Spitting Spiders 11. Tetragnathidae 1. Lycosidae 14. Agelenidae 2. Salticidae 8. Oxyopidae 23. Antrodiatidae 4. Araneidae .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Biogeography of the Caribbean Cyrtognatha Spiders Klemen Čandek1,6,7, Ingi Agnarsson2,4, Greta J
www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Biogeography of the Caribbean Cyrtognatha spiders Klemen Čandek1,6,7, Ingi Agnarsson2,4, Greta J. Binford3 & Matjaž Kuntner 1,4,5,6 Island systems provide excellent arenas to test evolutionary hypotheses pertaining to gene fow and Received: 23 July 2018 diversifcation of dispersal-limited organisms. Here we focus on an orbweaver spider genus Cyrtognatha Accepted: 1 November 2018 (Tetragnathidae) from the Caribbean, with the aims to reconstruct its evolutionary history, examine Published: xx xx xxxx its biogeographic history in the archipelago, and to estimate the timing and route of Caribbean colonization. Specifcally, we test if Cyrtognatha biogeographic history is consistent with an ancient vicariant scenario (the GAARlandia landbridge hypothesis) or overwater dispersal. We reconstructed a species level phylogeny based on one mitochondrial (COI) and one nuclear (28S) marker. We then used this topology to constrain a time-calibrated mtDNA phylogeny, for subsequent biogeographical analyses in BioGeoBEARS of over 100 originally sampled Cyrtognatha individuals, using models with and without a founder event parameter. Our results suggest a radiation of Caribbean Cyrtognatha, containing 11 to 14 species that are exclusively single island endemics. Although biogeographic reconstructions cannot refute a vicariant origin of the Caribbean clade, possibly an artifact of sparse outgroup availability, they indicate timing of colonization that is much too recent for GAARlandia to have played a role. Instead, an overwater colonization to the Caribbean in mid-Miocene better explains the data. From Hispaniola, Cyrtognatha subsequently dispersed to, and diversifed on, the other islands of the Greater, and Lesser Antilles. Within the constraints of our island system and data, a model that omits the founder event parameter from biogeographic analysis is less suitable than the equivalent model with a founder event.
[Show full text]
Cryptic Species Delimitation in the Southern Appalachian Antrodiaetus
Cryptic species delimitation in the southern Appalachian Antrodiaetus unicolor (Araneae: Antrodiaetidae) species complex using a 3RAD approach Lacie Newton1, James Starrett1, Brent Hendrixson2, Shahan Derkarabetian3, and Jason Bond4 1University of California Davis 2Millsaps College 3Harvard University 4UC Davis May 5, 2020 Abstract Although species delimitation can be highly contentious, the development of reliable methods to accurately ascertain species boundaries is an imperative step in cataloguing and describing Earth's quickly disappearing biodiversity. Spider species delimi- tation remains largely based on morphological characters; however, many mygalomorph spider populations are morphologically indistinguishable from each other yet have considerable molecular divergence. The focus of our study, Antrodiaetus unicolor species complex which contains two sympatric species, exhibits this pattern of relative morphological stasis with considerable genetic divergence across its distribution. A past study using two molecular markers, COI and 28S, revealed that A. unicolor is paraphyletic with respect to A. microunicolor. To better investigate species boundaries in the complex, we implement the cohesion species concept and employ multiple lines of evidence for testing genetic exchangeability and ecological interchange- ability. Our integrative approach includes extensively sampling homologous loci across the genome using a RADseq approach (3RAD), assessing population structure across their geographic range using multiple genetic clustering analyses that include STRUCTURE, PCA, and a recently developed unsupervised machine learning approach (Variational Autoencoder). We eval- uate ecological similarity by using large-scale ecological data for niche-based distribution modeling. Based on our analyses, we conclude that this complex has at least one additional species as well as conﬁrm species delimitations based on previous less comprehensive approaches.
[Show full text]
Comparative Functional Morphology of Attachment Devices in Arachnida
Comparative functional morphology of attachment devices in Arachnida Vergleichende Funktionsmorphologie der Haftstrukturen bei Spinnentieren (Arthropoda: Arachnida) DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor rerum naturalium (Dr. rer. nat.) an der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel vorgelegt von Jonas Otto Wolff geboren am 20. September 1986 in Bergen auf Rügen Kiel, den 2. Juni 2015 Erster Gutachter: Prof. Stanislav N. Gorb _ Zweiter Gutachter: Dr. Dirk Brandis _ Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 17. Juli 2015 _ Zum Druck genehmigt: 17. Juli 2015 _ gez. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang J. Duschl, Dekan Acknowledgements I owe Prof. Stanislav Gorb a great debt of gratitude. He taught me all skills to get a researcher and gave me all freedom to follow my ideas. I am very thankful for the opportunity to work in an active, fruitful and friendly research environment, with an interdisciplinary team and excellent laboratory equipment. I like to express my gratitude to Esther Appel, Joachim Oesert and Dr. Jan Michels for their kind and enthusiastic support on microscopy techniques. I thank Dr. Thomas Kleinteich and Dr. Jana Willkommen for their guidance on the µCt. For the fruitful discussions and numerous information on physical questions I like to thank Dr. Lars Heepe. I thank Dr. Clemens Schaber for his collaboration and great ideas on how to measure the adhesive forces of the tiny glue droplets of harvestmen. I thank Angela Veenendaal and Bettina Sattler for their kind help on administration issues. Especially I thank my students Ingo Grawe, Fabienne Frost, Marina Wirth and André Karstedt for their commitment and input of ideas.
[Show full text]
The Common Spiders of Antelope Island State Park
THE COMMON SPIDERS OF ANTELOPE ISLAND STATE PARK by Stephanie M Cobbold Web-building Spiders ______________________________________________________________________________ Family Araneidae (orb web spiders) Build a circular spiral web on support lines that radiate out from the center The spider is often found waiting for prey in the center of its web Typical eye pattern: 4 median eyes clustered in a square shape Eye pattern Orb web SMC SMC Neoscona (back and front views) Banded Garden Spider (Argiope) 1 ______________________________________________________________________________ Family Theridiidae (cob web spiders) Abdomen usually ball or globe-shaped Have bristles on legs called combs. These combs are used to fling silk strands over captive prey. Web is loose, irregular and 3-dimensional commons.wikimedia.org Black Widow (Latrodectus hesperus) Theridion ________________________________________________________________________ Family Linyphiidae (sheet web spiders) Build flat, sheet-like or dome-shaped webs under which the spider hangs upside- down. Abdomen is usually longer than wide SMC Sheet web spider hanging under its web 2 ________________________________________________________________________ Family Dictynidae (mesh web spiders) Make small, irregular webs of hackled threads Often found near the tips of plants SMC ________________________________________________________________________ Family Agelenidae (funnel web spiders) Web is a silk mat with a funnel-shaped retreat at one end in which the spider waits in ambush
[Show full text]
Untangling the Web… Spiders in Arizona Fields! Ayman Mostafa, Lydia M
Untangling the Web… Spiders in Arizona Fields! Ayman Mostafa, Lydia M. Brown, Tim Vandervoet, Peter C. Ellsworth (University of Arizona), Vonny Barlow (University of California) & Steven E. Naranjo (USDA-ARS, ALARC) Spiders are beneficial inhabitants of agricultural fields because of Lygus nymph prey their important contributions to biological control of pest insects, consuming tons of small arthropods every year. Spiders eat anything they can catch, even prey larger than themselves. When they are abundant, they contribute to the control of many insect pests in A Arizona crop fields including whiteflies, Lygus bugs, fleahoppers, Leafhopper and lepidopteran larvae. Field studies in Arizona demonstrate that the prey B crab spider, Misumenops celer (Family Thomisidae, Fig. 1A, B) and Dictyna spider, Dictyna reticulata (Family Dictynidae, Fig. 1C, D) are common in Arizona cotton fields and can be influential predators. Unlike other spiders that spin webs to capture their food, crab spiders rely on stealth and surprise. They actively search plant surfaces, litter, and debris for prey. They hide in flowers or foliage and ambush their prey. Their common name derives from the fact that they look like and walk like crabs. Dictyna are small, brownish, web-making E spiders that trap whitefly adults and other insects in their webs (Fig. 1C). Examining their webs enables easy identification of what D species of whitefly are in the field (sweetpotato or banded-winged). C Jumping spiders (Family Salticidae, Fig. 1E) are generally less abundant in cotton fields but, like crab spiders, ambush their prey. They have stout bodies and long front legs adapted for jumping, as well as four pairs of eyes with one very large set in the middle of their face.
[Show full text]
The Supposed Giant Spider Mongolarachne Chaoyangensis, from the Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China, Is a Crayﬁsh
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336925980 The supposed giant spider Mongolarachne chaoyangensis, from the Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China, is a crayﬁsh Article · October 2019 DOI: 10.11646/palaeoentomology.2.5.15 CITATIONS READS 0 456 6 authors, including: Paul A Selden Chungkun Shih University of Kansas Capital Normal University 202 PUBLICATIONS 3,396 CITATIONS 344 PUBLICATIONS 2,660 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Fossil arthropods View project Evolution of wing colour patterns in fossil insects View project All content following this page was uploaded by Chungkun Shih on 25 December 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Palaeoentomology 002 (5): 515–522 ISSN 2624-2826 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/pe/ PALAEOENTOMOLOGY Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 2624-2834 (online edition) PE https://doi.org/10.11646/palaeoentomology.2.5.15 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FD4260C9-09DA-45D1-8B83-58A6A4E372C6 The supposed giant spider Mongolarachne chaoyangensis, from the Cretaceous Yixian Formation of China, is a crayfish PAUL A. SELDEN1, 2, 3,*, ALISON N. OLCOTT2, matt R. DOWNEN2, DONG REN1, CHUNGKUN SHIH1, 4 & XIAODONG CHENG5 1College of Life Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, 100048, China. 2Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1475 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA. 3Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. 4Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA. 5Dalian Natural History Museum, Dalian 116023, Liaoning, China.
[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]
Tarantulas and Social Spiders
Tarantulas and Social Spiders: A Tale of Sex and Silk by Jonathan Bull BSc (Hons) MSc ICL Thesis Presented to the Institute of Biology of The University of Nottingham in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Nottingham May 2012 DEDICATION To my parents… …because they both said to dedicate it to the other… I dedicate it to both ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Sara Goodacre for her guidance and support. I am also hugely endebted to Dr Keith Spriggs who became my mentor in the field of RNA and without whom my understanding of the field would have been but a fraction of what it is now. Particular thanks go to Professor John Brookfield, an expert in the field of biological statistics and data retrieval. Likewise with Dr Susan Liddell for her proteomics assistance, a truly remarkable individual on par with Professor Brookfield in being able to simplify even the most complex techniques and analyses. Finally, I would really like to thank Janet Beccaloni for her time and resources at the Natural History Museum, London, permitting me access to the collections therein; ten years on and still a delight. Finally, amongst the greats, Alexander ‘Sasha’ Kondrashov… a true inspiration. I would also like to express my gratitude to those who, although may not have directly contributed, should not be forgotten due to their continued assistance and considerate nature: Dr Chris Wade (five straight hours of help was not uncommon!), Sue Buxton (direct to my bench creepy crawlies), Sheila Keeble (ventures and cleans where others dare not), Alice Young (read/checked my thesis and overcame her arachnophobia!) and all those in the Centre for Biomolecular Sciences.
[Show full text]
Note on Suspected Brown Recluse Spiders (Araneae: Sicariidae) in South Carolina
Faculty Research Note Note on Suspected Brown Recluse Spiders (Araneae: Sicariidae) in South Carolina Robert J. Wolff* South University, 9 Science Court, Columbia, SC 29203 The general public believes that brown recluse spiders (Loxosceles Filistatidae (Kukulcania hibernalis) 22 specimens reclusa) are widespread where they live and that these spiders are Lycosidae 21 (3 in one package, 5 in another) frequent causes of bites resulting in dermonecrosis. Research over the Pholcidae 17 past twenty years shows these reports to be unfounded. Vetter (2005) Miturgidae 8 examined 1,773 specimens sent in from across the U.S. as brown recluse Theridiidae 8 spiders and no specimens were found from areas outside the species Agelenidae 7 range, with the exception of a specimen from California. Araneidae 6 Clubionidae 6 The reported range of the brown recluse spider includes all or major Thomisidae 6 portions of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Gnaphosidae 4 Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and Kansas. Minor portions of the brown Corinnidae 3 recluse range were previously reported in Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, New Philodromidae 3 Mexico, North Carolina, Georgia, and South Carolina. The most recent Amaurobiidae 1 map (Vetter, 2015) does not include South Carolina, and only the far Pisauridae 1 western tip of North Carolina and northwestern corner of Georgia. Scytodidae (Scytodes thoracica) 1 Unidentifiable 4 Schuman and Caldwell (1991) found that South Carolina physicians reported treating 478 cases of brown recluse spider envenomations in 1990 alone. This seems like a very high number, unfortunately all or No brown recluses were identified from the specimens obtained in this almost all of these are probably not brown recluse spider bites.
[Show full text]
First Record of Genus Eratigena (Araneae: Agelenidae) from China, with Description of a New Species
PREPRINT Author-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 20/05/2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e68917 First record of genus Eratigena (Araneae: Agelenidae) from China, with description of a new species Zijian Shi, Luyu Wang, Zhisheng Zhang Disclaimer on biological nomenclature and use of preprints The preprints are preliminary versions of works accessible electronically in advance of publication of the final version. They are not issued for purposes of botanical, mycological or zoological nomenclature andare not effectively/validly published in the meaning of the Codes. Therefore, nomenclatural novelties (new names) or other nomenclatural acts (designations of type, choices of priority between names, choices between orthographic variants, or choices of gender of names)should NOT be posted in preprints. The following provisions in the Codes of Nomenclature define their status: International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp) Article 30.2: “An electronic publication is not effectively published if there is evidence within or associated with the publication that its content is merely preliminary and was, or is to be, replaced by content that the publisher considers final, in which case only the version with that final content is effectively published.” In order to be validly published, a nomenclatural novelty must be effectively published (Art. 32.1(a)); in order to take effect, other nomenclatural acts must be effectively published (Art. 7.10, 11.5, 53.5, 61.3, and 62.3). International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) Article: 21.8.3: "Some works are accessible online in preliminary versions before the publication date of the final version.
[Show full text]
Common Kansas Spiders
A Pocket Guide to Common Kansas Spiders By Hank Guarisco Photos by Hank Guarisco Funded by Westar Energy Green Team, American Arachnological Society and the Chickadee Checkoff Published by the Friends of the Great Plains Nature Center i Table of Contents Introduction • 2 Arachnophobia • 3 Spider Anatomy • 4 House Spiders • 5 Hunting Spiders • 5 Venomous Spiders • 6-7 Spider Webs • 8-9 Other Arachnids • 9-12 Species accounts • 13 Texas Brown Tarantula • 14 Brown Recluse • 15 Northern Black Widow • 16 Southern & Western Black Widows • 17-18 Woodlouse Spider • 19 Truncated Cellar Spider • 20 Elongated Cellar Spider • 21 Common Cellar Spider • 22 Checkered Cobweb Weaver • 23 Quasi-social Cobweb Spider • 24 Carolina Wolf Spider • 25 Striped Wolf Spider • 26 Dotted Wolf Spider • 27 Western Lance Spider • 28 Common Nurseryweb Spider • 29 Tufted Nurseryweb Spider • 30 Giant Fishing Spider • 31 Six-spotted Fishing Spider • 32 Garden Ghost Spider Cover Photo: Cherokee Star-bellied Orbweaver ii Eastern Funnelweb Spider • 33 Eastern and Western Parson Spiders • 34 Garden Ghost Spider • 35 Bark Crab Spider • 36 Prairie Crab Spider • 37 Texas Crab Spider • 38 Black-banded Crab Spider • 39 Ridge-faced Flower Spider • 40 Striped Lynx Spider • 41 Black-banded Common and Convict Zebra Spiders • 42 Crab Spider Dimorphic Jumping Spider • 43 Bold Jumping Spider • 44 Apache Jumping Spider • 45 Prairie Jumping Spider • 46 Emerald Jumping Spider • 47 Bark Jumping Spider • 48 Puritan Pirate Spider • 49 Eastern and Four-lined Pirate Spiders • 50 Orchard Spider • 51 Castleback Orbweaver • 52 Triangulate Orbweaver • 53 Common & Cherokee Star-bellied Orbweavers • 54 Black & Yellow Garden Spider • 55 Banded Garden Spider • 56 Marbled Orbweaver • 57 Eastern Arboreal Orbweaver • 58 Western Arboreal Orbweaver • 59 Furrow Orbweaver • 60 Eastern Labyrinth Orbweaver • 61 Giant Long-jawed Orbweaver • 62 Silver Long-jawed Orbweaver • 63 Bowl and Doily Spider • 64 Filmy Dome Spider • 66 References • 67 Pocket Guides • 68-69 1 Introduction This is a guide to the most common spiders found in Kansas.
[Show full text]