DOCSLIB.ORG

Spiders Collected in Southeast Arkansas by the Pit Trap Method Peggy Rae Dorris Henderson State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spiders Collected in Southeast Arkansas by the Pit Trap Method Peggy Rae Dorris Henderson State University Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 45 Article 8 1991 Spiders Collected in Southeast Arkansas by the Pit Trap Method Peggy Rae Dorris Henderson State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Dorris, Peggy Rae (1991) "Spiders Collected in Southeast Arkansas by the Pit Trap Method," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 45 , Article 8. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/8 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 8 SPIDERS COLLECTED INSOUTHEAST ARKANSAS BYTHE PIT TRAP METHOD PEGGY RAE DORRIS P.O. Box 744 Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71923 ABSTRACT By employing the pit-trap method, thousands of spiders were collected from primarily pine-hard- wood stands which had undergone different forestry treatments in Bradley and Drew counties. Fourteen families and 120 species of spiders werecollected, two of which were new state records. INTRODUCTION AGELENIDAE Agelenopsis naevia (Walckcnacr) InArkansas, spiders have rarely been collected by means of pitfall Agelenopsis pennsyhanica (C. L.Koch) traps (Heiss, 1977 and Dorris and Thompson, 1986). Iflarge areas of the Coras medicinalis (Ilent/) state are researched, itis difficult to check traps frequently. This study was made over only two counties so that traps could be checked weekly PISAURIDAE during a four year period from 1984-1988. The purpose ofthis research is Dolomedes vittatus (Walckcnacr) two-fold: to determine species captured by the pit-trap method and to determine whether new additions can be added to the state record. A HAHNHDAE future paper willaddress species differences in various forestry treatment Neoantistea agilis Keyserling practices. LYCOSIDAE METHODS ANDMATERIALS Allocosa funerea (Hentz) Arctosa emertoni Gertsch Pitfall traps with rain covers were constructed in the following way: A Arctosa rubicunda (Keyserling) 16 oz. plastic drinking cup was placed ina 1quart metal oilcan opened at Arctosa virgo (Chamberlin) both ends and inserted into a hole in the ground. The cup contained 5 fl. Lycosa antelucana Montgomery oz. of a 1:1 mixture of antifreeze (ethylene glycol) and water. The cup Lycosa aspersa Hentz could be easily removed and contents placed in baby food jars for trans- Lycosa carolinensis Walckenaer portation to the laboratory where identifications were made with a stereo- Lycosa frondicola Emerton scopic microscope. A1ft.square plywood rain lid,held 1in. over the cup Lycosa gulosa Walckenaer with rocks or wood blocks., reduced the amount ofrain entering the trap. Lycosa helluo Walckenaer Traps were emptied weekly, sorted by forest treatment, and placed in Lycosa punctulata (Hentz) 80% ethyl alcohol. Weekly collections from all traps within each treat- Lycosa rabida Walckenaer ment area were pooled for storage. Specimens were later identified and Lycosa riparia (Hentz) placed in screw cap vials of 70% alcohol and placed inspider storage Pardosa milvina (Hentz) cabinets. Taxonomic names used here are those employed by Gertsch Pardosa distincta (Blackwall) (1979), Comstock (1982), Kaston (1978), and Heiss and Allen (1986). Pardosa moesta Banks Species are listed alphabetically and families are in the phylogenetic Pardosa ramulosa (Hentz) order used by Kaston. Pirata insular is Emerton Pirata maculatus Emerton Pirata minutus Emerton RESULTS Pirata piratica (Clerk) Paradosa saxatilis (Hentz) Thousands of spiders were collected with families of ground spiders Schizocosa avida (Walckenaer) such as Gnaphosidae and Lycosidae being the most numerous. Two new Schizocosa bilineata (Emerton) species for Arkansas were revealed bringing the total number of species Schizocosa crass ipes (Walckenaer) for Arkansas to 509. New species for the state are identified with an aster- Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz) isk. From the 1984-1988 collections 14 families and 120 species of spi- Schizocosa saltatrix Walckenaer ders have been identified from pitfall traps located in Bradley and Drew *Sossipus mimus Chamberlin counties. They are as follows: Tarentula aculeata (Clerk) Tarentula kochi Keyserling ANTRODIAETIDAE Trabea aurantiaca (Emerton) Antrodiaetus unicolor (Hentz) Trachosa pratensis (Emerton) Trochosa terricola (Thorell) THERIDHDAE Latrodectus mactans (Fabricius) OXYOPIDAE Oxyopes salticus Hentz ARANEIDAE Peucetia viridans (Hentz) Aranea cavatica (Keyserling) Aranea nordmanni (Thorell) GNAPHOSIDAE Eustala anastera (Walckenaer) Callilepis imbecilla (Keyserling) Mangora gibberosa (Hentz) Callilepis plutoBanks Micrathena sagittata (Walckenaer) Cesona bilineata (Hentz) Neoscona arabesca (Walckenaer) Drassodes auriculoides Barrows Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.45, 1991 25 Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1991 25 Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 45 [1991], Art. 8 Spiders Collected In Southeast Arkansas by the Pit Trap Method Drassodes neglectus (Keyserling) Maevia inclemens (Walckenaer) Drassodes robinsoni Hentz Metacyrba taeniola (Hentz) Drassyllus creolus Chamberlin & Geitsch Metaphidippus exiguus (Banks) Drassyllus covensis Exline Metaphidippus galathea (Walckenaer) Drassyllus aprUinus Banks Metaphidippus manni (G. &E. Peckham) Drassyllus depressus (Emerton) Neon nelli Peckham Drassyllus dixinus Chamberlin Phidippus audax (Hentz) Drassyllus ellipes Chamberlin &Ivie Phlegrafasciata (Hahn) Drassyllus gynosaphes Chamberlin *Plexippus paykulli (Audouin) Drassyllus niger (Banks) Drassyllus virginianus Chamberlin Gnaphosa muscorum (L. Koch) DISCUSSION Gnaphosa sericata (L.Koch) Herpyllus ecclesiasticus (Hentz) As was expected, the most numerous spiders collected in the pit traps Litophyllus temporarius Chamberlin were ofthe families, Gnaphosidae (ground spiders) and Lycosidae (wolf Poecilochroa capulata (Walckenaer) spiders). Other species found inlarge numbers included the family Rachodrassus exlineae Platnick &Shadab ITiomisidae (crab spiders). These families of wandering spiders are more Synaphosa paludis (Chamberlin &Geitsch) likely to fallinto pitfalltraps than families of spiders that construct webs Zelotes duplex (Chamberlin) to trap prey. New records for the state were Sossipus mimus Chamberlin, Zelotes hentzi (Barrows) a lycosid and Plexippus paykulli (Audouin), a salticid. Emphasis on the Zelotes laccus (Barrows) use ofpittraps was expected to yield additional records since this method Zelotes rusticus (L.Koch) has rarely been used in Arkansas. Zelotes subterraneus (C. L.Koch) CLUBIONIDAE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Castianeira amonea (C. L.Koch) Castianeira cingulata (C. L.Koch) This study was funded in part by a Henderson State Castianeira descripta (Hentz) University faculty grant. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Castianeira gertschi Kaston Lynn Thompson and his students at the University of Castianeira trilineata (Hentz) Arkansas in Monticello for aid incollecting and to the fol- lowing Henderson State University students for aid in Castianeira lenta (Hentz) Davidson, Johnson, Castianeira (Hentz) identification: Betty Susan Deborah longipalpus Wilson, Mona Ward, John Hopson, James Pate, and Susan Clubiona excepta Koch Clubiona pollens Hentz Schrimshire. Also assisting in computer work for this Stiffler, Golden, Marcellina piscatoria (Hentz) research were Randy Rhonda Stephanie Modisett, and Elwyn Perser, to whom Iam indebted. Micaria aurata (Hentz) Phrurotimpus formica Banks Strotarchus piscatoria (Hentz) LITERATURECITED ANYPHAENIDAE COMSTOCK, J. 1919. The Spider Book. Doubleday. New York.769 pp. Anyphaena celer (Hentz) Reprinted by Van Nostrand, Columbia, 1982. Aysha gracillis (Hentz) DORRIS, P. and L.THOMPSON. 1986. Spiders collected frompit-traps ZORIDAE insoutheast Arkansas pine-hardwood forests-a preliminary study. Zora pumila (Hentz) Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 40:86-87. THOMISIDAE GERTSCH, W. 1979. American Spiders. D. Van Nostrand Co., Prince- Coriarachne floridana Banks ton, 274 pp. Coriarachne lenta (Walckenaer) Misumenoides formosipes (Walckenaer) HEISS, J. 1977. Faunal study of spiders collected from pitfall traps in Misumenoides sericata (Walckenaer) Newton and Union Counties of Arkansas, unpubl. M.S. Thesis. Misumenops asperatus (Hentz) Univ.ofArk.,Fayetteville, 158 pp. Misumenops celer (Hentz) Misumenops oblong us (Keyserling) HEISS, J. and R. ALLEN.1986. The Gnaphosidae ofArkansas, Ark. Oxyptila americana Banks Agri. Exp. Sta. Bull. 885:1-67. Oxyptila conspurcata Thorcll Synema parvula (Hentz) KASTON, B. 1953. How to Know the Spiders. Wm. C. Brown Co., Xysticus elegans Keyserling Dubuque, 220 pp. Reprinted by Wm. C. Brown Co., Iowa, 1978. Xysticus gulosus Keyserling Xysticus luctans (C.L.Koch) Xysticus transversatus (Walckenaer) Xysticus triguttatus Keyserling Xysticus tumefactus (Walckenaer) SALTICIDAE Eris aurantia (Lucas) Eris marginatus (Walckenaer) Habrocestum pulex (Hentz) Habronattus decorus (Blackwall) 26 Academy of Science, Vol.45, 1991 http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol45/iss1/8 26.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SA Spider Checklist
    REVIEW ZOOS' PRINT JOURNAL 22(2): 2551-2597 CHECKLIST OF SPIDERS (ARACHNIDA: ARANEAE) OF SOUTH ASIA INCLUDING THE 2006 UPDATE OF INDIAN SPIDER CHECKLIST Manju Siliwal 1 and Sanjay Molur 2,3 1,2 Wildlife Information & Liaison Development (WILD) Society, 3 Zoo Outreach Organisation (ZOO) 29-1, Bharathi Colony, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641004, India Email: 1 [email protected]; 3 [email protected] ABSTRACT Thesaurus, (Vol. 1) in 1734 (Smith, 2001). Most of the spiders After one year since publication of the Indian Checklist, this is described during the British period from South Asia were by an attempt to provide a comprehensive checklist of spiders of foreigners based on the specimens deposited in different South Asia with eight countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The European Museums. Indian checklist is also updated for 2006. The South Asian While the Indian checklist (Siliwal et al., 2005) is more spider list is also compiled following The World Spider Catalog accurate, the South Asian spider checklist is not critically by Platnick and other peer-reviewed publications since the last scrutinized due to lack of complete literature, but it gives an update. In total, 2299 species of spiders in 67 families have overview of species found in various South Asian countries, been reported from South Asia. There are 39 species included in this regions checklist that are not listed in the World Catalog gives the endemism of species and forms a basis for careful of Spiders. Taxonomic verification is recommended for 51 species. and participatory work by arachnologists in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Ohio Spiders
    List of Ohio Spiders 2 August 2021 Richard A. Bradley Department of EEO Biology Ohio State University Museum of Biological Diversity 1315 Kinnear Road Columbus, OH 43212 This list is based on published specimen records of spider species from Ohio. Additional species that have been recorded during the Ohio Spider Survey (beginning 1994) are also included. I would very much appreciate any corrections; please mail them to the above address or email ([email protected]). 676 [+6] Species Mygalomorphae Antrodiaetidae (foldingdoor spiders) (2) Antrodiaetus robustus (Simon, 1890) Antrodiaetus unicolor (Hentz, 1842) Atypidae (purseweb spiders) (3) Sphodros coylei Gertsch & Platnick, 1980 Sphodros niger (Hentz, 1842) Sphodros rufipes (Latreille, 1829) Euctenizidae (waferdoor spiders) (1) Myrmekiaphila foliata Atkinson, 1886 Halonoproctidae (trapdoor spiders) (1) Ummidia audouini (Lucas, 1835) Araneomorphae Agelenidae (funnel weavers) (14) Agelenopsis emertoni Chamberlin & Ivie, 1935 | Agelenopsis kastoni Chamberlin & Ivie, 1941 | Agelenopsis naevia (Walckenaer, 1805) grass spiders Agelenopsis pennsylvanica (C.L. Koch, 1843) | Agelnopsis potteri (Blackwell, 1846) | Agelenopsis utahana (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1933) | Coras aerialis Muma, 1946 Coras juvenilis (Keyserling, 1881) Coras lamellosus (Keyserling, 1887) Coras medicinalis (Hentz, 1821) Coras montanus (Emerton, 1889) Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757) barn funnel weaver In Wadotes calcaratus (Keyserling, 1887) Wadotes hybridus (Emerton, 1889) Amaurobiidae (hackledmesh weavers) (2) Amaurobius
    [Show full text]
  • World Spider Catalog (Accessed 4 December 2020) Family: Gnaphosidae Pocock, 1898
    World Spider Catalog (accessed 4 December 2020) Family: Gnaphosidae Pocock, 1898 Gen. Callilepis Westring, 1874 Callilepis chisos Platnick, 1975 AZ, CO, NM, TX Callilepis eremella Chamberlin, 1928 BC; AZ, CA, CO, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY Callilepis gertschi Platnick, 1975 AZ, TX Callilepis gosoga Chamberlin & Gertsch, 1940 CA Callilepis imbecilla (Keyserling, 1887) ON; AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, MI, MS, OH, OK, TN, TX, WI Callilepis mumai Platnick, 1975 AZ, NM, TX, UT Callilepis pluto Banks, 1896 AB, BC, MB, NS, NT, ON, PQ, SK; AL, CO, CT, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, ME, MA, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SD, TN, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY Gen. Camillina Berland, 1919 Camillina pulchra (Keyserling, 1891) AL, FL, TX Gen. Cesonia Simon, 1893 Cesonia bilineata (Hentz, 1847) MB, ON, PQ; AL, AR, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, MS, NC, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV Cesonia bixleri Platnick & Shadab, 1980 CA Cesonia classica Chamberlin, 1924 AZ, CA, NV Cesonia gertschi Platnick & Shadab, 1980 AZ, NM, UT Cesonia irvingi (Mello-Leitão, 1944) FL Cesonia josephus (Chamberlin & Gertsch, 1940) CA Cesonia rothi Platnick & Shadab, 1980 AZ, CA Cesonia sincera Gertsch & Mulaik, 1936 CO, NM, TX Cesonia trivittata Banks, 1898 CA Cesonia ubicki Platnick & Shadab, 1980 AZ Gen. Drassodes Westring, 1851 Drassodes angulus Platnick & Shadab, 1976 BC; CA Drassodes auriculoides Barrows, 1919 AR, CT, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, OH, TN, TX, VA, WV, WI Drassodes gosiutus Chamberlin, 1919 AB; AZ, AR, CO, CT, IN, KS, MI, MS, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, TN, TX, UT, WY Drassodes mirus Platnick & Shadab, 1976 AB, PQ, SK, YT; CO Drassodes neglectus (Keyserling, 1887) AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PQ, SK, YT; AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, ID, IL, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NM, NY, OR, SD, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY Drassodes saccatus (Emerton, 1890) AB, BC, SK; AZ, CA, CO, CT, ID, IL, KS, MA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NM, NV, OR, TX, UT, WA, WY Drassodes serratichelis (Roewer, 1928) FL, GA, LA, MS Gen.
    [Show full text]
  • Karyotypes of Six Spider Species Belonging to the Families Gnaphosidae, Salticidae, Thomisidae, and Zodariidae (Araneae) from Turkey
    COMPARATIVE A peer-reviewed open-access journal CompCytogenKaryotypes 8(2): 93–101 of (2014) six spider species belonging to the families Gnaphosidae, Salticidae... 93 doi: 10.3897/CompCytogen.v8i2.6065 RESEARCH ARTICLE Cytogenetics www.pensoft.net/journals/compcytogen International Journal of Plant & Animal Cytogenetics, Karyosystematics, and Molecular Systematics Karyotypes of six spider species belonging to the families Gnaphosidae, Salticidae, Thomisidae, and Zodariidae (Araneae) from Turkey Zübeyde Kumbıçak1, Emel Ekiz2, Serdar Çiçekli2 1 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Art, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Uni- versity, 50300, Nevşehir, Turkey 2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Art, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, 50300, Nevşehir, Turkey Corresponding author: Zübeyde Kumbıçak ([email protected]) Academic editor: Jiří Král | Received 6 August 2013 | Accepted 12 March 2014 | Published 16 May 2014 Citation: Kumbıçak Z, Ekiz E, Çiçekli S (2014) Karyotypes of six spider species belonging to the families Gnaphosidae, Salticidae, Thomisidae, and Zodariidae (Araneae) from Turkey. Comparative Cytogenetics 8(2): 93–101. doi: 10.3897/ CompCytogen.v8i2.6065 Abstract In this study, the karyotypes of six spider species from Turkey belonging to the families Gnaphosidae, Salticidae, Thomisidae, and Zodariidae were analyzed. Male chromosomal features including diploid chromosome numbers and sex chromosome systems were determined as 2n=22, X1X20 in Drassyllus sur Tuneva & Esyunin, 2003, Nomisia exornata (C. L. Koch, 1839), and Nomisia orientalis Dalmas, 1921; 2n=28, X1X20 in Sitticus caricis (Westring, 1861); 2n=23, X0 in Xysticus gallicus Simon, 1875 and 2n=42, X1X20 in Pax islamita (Simon, 1873), respectively. The chromosome morphology of all species was acro- centric.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Spider Community Resilience to Invasion by Non-Native Spiders
    Biological Conservation 98 (2001) 241±249 www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Evidence for spider community resilience to invasion by non-native spiders Jutta C. Burger a,*, Michael A. Patten b, Thomas R. Prentice a, Richard A. Redak c aDepartment of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA bDepartment of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA cDepartment of Entomology and Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA Received 14 June 2000; received in revised form 20 June 2000; accepted 17 August 2000 Abstract The negative impacts of non-native species are well documented; however, the ecological outcomes of invasions can vary widely. In order to determine the resilience of local communities to invasion by non-native spiders, we compared spider assemblages from areas with varying numbers of non-native spiders in California coastal sage scrub. Spiders were collected from pitfall traps over 2 years. Productive lowland coastal sites contained both the highest proportion of non-natives and the greatest number of spiders overall. We detected no negative associations between native and non-native spiders and therefore suggest that non-native spiders are not presently impacting local ground-dwelling spiders. Strong positive correlations between abundances of some natives and non-natives may be the result of similar habitat preferences or of facilitation between species. We propose that the eects of non- native species depend on resource availability and site productivity, which, in turn, aect community resilience. Our results support the contention that both invasibility and resilience are higher in diverse, highly linked communities with high resource availability rather than the classical view that species poor communities are more invasible.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Taxonomic Validity of Indian Ground Spiders: II
    European Journal of Taxonomy 673: 1–14 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2020.673 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2020 · Sankaran P.M. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Research article urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3A281D69-7AB3-47DB-8A38-923A9B54760B On the taxonomic validity of Indian ground spiders: II. Genera Drassyllus Chamberlin, 1922 and Nodocion Chamberlin, 1922 (Araneae: Gnaphosidae) Pradeep M. SANKARAN 1,*, John T.D. CALEB 2 & Pothalil A. SEBASTIAN 3 1,3 Division of Arachnology, Department of Zoology, Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Cochin, Kerala 682 013, India. 2 Zoological Survey of India, Prani Vigyan Bhawan, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal 700 053, India. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 3 Email: [email protected] 1 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:0AEC69AA-7E17-401F-B83B-280C2F04AC6E 2 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:2B3052EB-5000-4A94-8E38-F88CC308ECAD 3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:C22767DA-4C75-4685-B77E-2AB058C1091D Abstract. Indian species of Drassyllus and Nodocion are revised, mostly based on the type material available in the National Zoological Collection, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. All the Indian representatives of the former genus are transferred to Cryptodrassus, with a synonymy of Drassyllus jabalpurensis syn. nov. with Cryptodrassus khajuriai comb. nov., while the Indian species of the latter genus are transferred to Setaphis, with a provisional transfer of Nodocion solanensis. All the examined type specimens are imaged and supplementary descriptions are provided. Keywords. Cryptodrassus, Setaphis, transfer, type material, Zoological Survey of India.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Ohio Spiders
    List of Ohio Spiders 20 March 2018 Richard A. Bradley Department of EEO Biology Ohio State University Museum of Biodiversity 1315 Kinnear Road Columbus, OH 43212 This list is based on published specimen records of spider species from Ohio. Additional species that have been recorded during the Ohio Spider Survey (beginning 1994) are also included. I would very much appreciate any corrections; please mail them to the above address or email ([email protected]). 656 [+5] Species Mygalomorphae Antrodiaetidae (foldingdoor spiders) (2) Antrodiaetus robustus (Simon, 1890) Antrodiaetus unicolor (Hentz, 1842) Atypidae (purseweb spiders) (3) Sphodros coylei Gertsch & Platnick, 1980 Sphodros niger (Hentz, 1842) Sphodros rufipes (Latreille, 1829) Ctenizidae (trapdoor spiders) (1) Ummidia audouini (Lucas, 1835) Araneomorphae Agelenidae (funnel weavers) (14) Agelenopsis emertoni Chamberlin & Ivie, 1935 | Agelenopsis kastoni Chamberlin & Ivie, 1941 | Agelenopsis naevia (Walckenaer, 1805) grass spiders Agelenopsis pennsylvanica (C.L. Koch, 1843) | Agelnopsis potteri (Blackwell, 1846) | Agelenopsis utahana (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1933) | Coras aerialis Muma, 1946 Coras juvenilis (Keyserling, 1881) Coras lamellosus (Keyserling, 1887) Coras medicinalis (Hentz, 1821) Coras montanus (Emerton, 1889) Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757) barn funnel weaver In Wadotes calcaratus (Keyserling, 1887) Wadotes hybridus (Emerton, 1889) Amaurobiidae (hackledmesh weavers) (2) Amaurobius ferox (Walckenaer, 1830) In Callobius bennetti (Blackwall, 1848) Anyphaenidae (ghost spiders)
    [Show full text]
  • Araneae: Gnaphosidae)
    Banisteria, Number 33, pages 18-29 © 2009 Virginia Natural History Society Virginia Ground Spiders: A First List (Araneae: Gnaphosidae) Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 ABSTRACT Forty-five species of ground spiders (gnaphosids) are documented as known members of the Virginia fauna, about 75% of an anticipated total of 60 to 65 species. Thirteen of the 45 species are listed for the state for the first time, some representing substantial range extensions, mostly from the south, but a capture of Nodocion rufothoracicus is the first record for that species east of the Mississippi River. One undescribed species, a minute form of Drassyllus, is known from Isle of Wight County. Twenty-four species are known from less than five counties, only six are known from more than 15; Zelotes duplex has been documented for 19 counties. Although many species are essentially statewide, at least at low elevations, 15 reflect lowland (austral) distributions, and five are chiefly or entirely restricted to higher elevations. Key words: distribution, Gnaphosidae, ground spiders, Virginia. INTRODUCTION remaining 25% are finally discovered and accounted in a definitive report. Some may in fact even be represented in Ground spiders (gnaphosids) comprise an important the extensive backlog of unidentified gnaphosids now and sometimes conspicuous element in the fauna of forest accumulated at VMNH with little or no possibility of litter or dry open habitats, and are often taken in large being studied in the foreseeable future. numbers by standard pitfall trapping procedures. Some It is virtually a characteristic of small arthropods that species, in both appearance and movement, are distinctive within a particular group of species some will be captured ant-mimics.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Maine Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae)
    A CHECKLIST OF MAINE SPIDERS (ARACHNIDA: ARANEAE) By Daniel T. Jennings Charlene P. Donahue Forest Health and Monitoring Maine Forest Service Technical Report No. 47 MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY September 2020 Augusta, Maine Online version of this report available from: https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mfs/publications/fhm_pubs.htm Requests for copies should be made to: Maine Forest Service Division of Forest Health & Monitoring 168 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0168 Phone: (207) 287-2431 Printed under appropriation number: 013-01A-2FHM-52 Issued 09/2020 Initial printing of 25 This product was made possible in part by funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest health programs in the Maine Forest Service, Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry are supported and conducted in partnership with the USDA, the University of Maine, cooperating landowners, resource managers, and citizen volunteers. This institution is prohibited from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. 2 A CHECKLIST OF MAINE SPIDERS (ARACHNIDA: ARANEAE) 1 2 DANIEL T. JENNINGS and CHARLENE P. DONAHUE ____________________________________ 1 Daniel T. Jennings, retired, USDA, Forest Service, Northern Forest Experiment Station. Passed away September 14, 2020 2 Charlene P. Donahue, retired, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry – Maine Forest Service. Corresponding Author [email protected] 4 Table of Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Figure 1. Map of State of Maine
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Cytogenetic Investigations of Spiders in Turkey
    International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology ISSN: 2639-216X MEDWIN PUBLISHERS Committed to Create Value for Researchers The History of Cytogenetic Investigations of Spiders in Turkey Kumbicak Z* Review Article Volume 3 Issue 4 Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Turkey *Corresponding author: Received Date: Published Date: June 12, 2020 Zubeyde Kumbicak, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, July 06, 2020 Faculty of Art and Science, Nevsehir Hacı Bektas Veli University, 50300, Nevşehir, Turkey, DOI: 10.23880/izab-16000232 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Spiders are an ancient group of animals that probably originated in the Devonian period about 400 million years ago. Over time, they have adapted to major changes in climate and fauna and have become widespread on all continents, living in almost any terrestrial habitat. It is known that approximately 50000 spider species belonging to 120 families worldwide, today. and this number increases almost every day due to new records are being given from many countries. Despite the high diversity of species, the number of cytogenetic studies on spiders is very scarce. Upto now, 868 species belonging to the 74 families were investigated by cytogenetically. Although more than a thousand species of spiders in Turkey, the Cytogenetic studies are insufficient. Thus, spiders are the most richest group of arachnids among arthropods. In this study cytogenetic studies on Keywords:spiders in Turkey were reviewed. Convergent Evolution; Rheumatoid Arthritis; Typhoid; HIV Abbreviations: IntroductionSCS: Sex Chromosome System. pedipalpus, which has a bulging structure in male spiders, is an important structure in the transfer of sperm to the female.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 14(2): 1 1 1-206
    2005. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 14(2): 1 1 1-206 THE SPIDER SPECIES OF THE GREAT LAKES STATES 1 2 3 4 Petra Sierwald , Michael L. Draney , Thomas Prentice , Frank Pascoe , Nina 1 5 2 1 Sandlin , Elizabeth M. Lehman , Vicki Medland , and James Louderman : 'Zoology, The Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605; 2Department of Natural and Applied Sciences and Cofrin Center for Biodiversity, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 3 5431 1; Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California 92521; 4Biology, College of St. Francis, 500 Wilcox Street, Joliet, Illinois 60435: 5 Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405 ABSTRACT. Critical analysis of existing spider species lists for Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio. Indiana and Illinois reveals 900 species recorded from the five-state region (284 genera, 40 families). All non- native, Palearctic, or otherwise questionable species records were scrutinized, and their status is discussed. The most speciose families in the region are the Linyphiidae (almost 24% of species), Salticidae (10.3%), Theridiidae (8.9%), Lycosidae (8.8%), and Araneidae (7.7%). All sources used for spider species names and species records are unambiguously quoted. Spider species records are presented in tables allowing comparison of family composition among the states, and prediction of number of heretofore unrecorded species. Richness among states is analyzed and found to be dependent on varying degrees of sampling effort. As a new tool, a Spider Species Name Concordance Table allows tracking previously published spider species names to the currently valid name of every species record.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Checklist to the Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) of Minnesota (U.S.A.) with Annotations
    A Preliminary Checklist to the Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) of Minnesota (U.S.A.) with Annotations Chad J. Heins: Biology Department, Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato, Minnesota Assistant Professor of Biology Bethany Lutheran College 700 Luther Drive Mankato, MN 56001 Abstract This is a list of spider species for Minnesota (U.S.A.). It includes species that have been recorded in Minnesota as well as those which have ranges that suggest they are likely to be found in the state in the future. The checklist is a compilation of records from the literature, museums, and personal collection efforts by the author. Each species is annotated with a select reference or references and a comment if necessary. This list represents several new state records and expansions of several species’ known ranges. Key Terms: Minnesota, Araneae INTRODUCTION Spiders are an abundant component of terrestrial arthropod assemblages. Over 3,800 species of spiders have been documented in North America north of Mexico (Bradley 2013). They present interesting subjects for the study of behavior, taxonomy, and ecology and it has been suggested that they may serve as important ecological indicators (Clausen 1986; Churchill 1997). Their abundance, ease of capture, and limited expense to study make them ideal subjects for study at the undergraduate level and an interest in such applications sent the author in search of a list of Minnesota spiders. The only faunal list for Minnesota that could be located was limited to the family-level (Cutler 1976). Several states and provinces in North America have developed such spider faunal lists. In the Upper Midwest, such lists have been created for Michigan (Snider 1991), Illinois/Indiana (Beatty 2002), Wisconsin (Levi & Field 1954), and Manitoba (Benell-Aitchison & Dondale 1990).
    [Show full text]