Argiope Outside my Window

[bagheera]

This lady has been hanging outside my window for a few weeks... The body is 7/8" long. I don't the exact specie, but she sure is pretty! Gravid too, I think! :clap:

 

[Lucretia]

That's no Argiope. It's a beautiful Araneus sp.

 

[Heartfang]

I've seen one similiar at my school, except the one I saw was about 1.25 inches.

 

[Brian F.]

Excellent pics! She's gorgeous.

 

[NRF]

In Europe i would be an Araneus diadematus, probably the same in the US. On some web pages however the NAm species Araneus trifolium looks like A. diadematus, but I think that is a wrong determination. I have asked this question before: does anyone know what a real A. trifolium looks like?

 

[Lucretia]

While everyone seems eager to identify spiders by pictures and perhaps in some cases this is possible, I am unwilling to do so.

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/easy.html both proves my point that it is not wise to pull out species names from just pictures and will show you several pictures of A. trifolium. A. nordmanni is also quite similar to A. diadematus.

 

[NRF]

While everyone seems eager to identify spiders by pictures and perhaps in some cases this is possible, I am unwilling to do so.

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/easy.html both proves my point that it is not wise to pull out species names from just pictures and will show you several pictures of A. trifolium. A. nordmanni is also quite similar to A. diadematus.

That web page is kind´a stupid, even if it has some good points. We are not talking about small Dictynids but large Araneus species. With little experience all European Araneus-species can be identified by general appearence, and most other European species belonging to the family Araneidae with a little more experience.
The web-page says: "Spiders do not come color-coded for our benefit. Imagine trying to identify the make and model of a car...by the color!"
Without any problems I can identify a Ford Escort from a Ford Fiesta regardless of the colour. But I´m not familiar with all the American car models but I´m sure there is no problem for a person interested in American cars to identify them.
I think my problem with Araneus trifolium i solved (if the web page in question had determind their specimens right). It seem to look exactly like the European Areneus quadratus, which do not occur in the US. But check for example the trifolium-pumpkin photo on
http://www.bugpeople.org/taxa/Arachnida/Araneus_trifolium/CP-Araneus_trifoliumPage.htm
which certainly is an Araneus diademaus.
Araneus nordmanni is very different from A. diadematus.
I think we can continue to try to identify spider specimens on the basis of photos here on this forum, since many seem to be eager to do so. Those that cannot be identified to species level can at least be to genus or family. I personally think this is a fun activity.

 

[bagheera]

That's no Argiope. It's a beautiful Araneus sp.

I stand corrected. She sure is pretty though! I looking forward to getting a better digital camera though!

 

[Dark Raptor]

I think, this page will be very helpful to all of you, who wants to ID spiders (but only from Europe)
http://www.araneae.unibe.ch/Bestimmung/english/Familienschluessel_eng_Ganz.htm

 

[NRF]

I think, this page will be very helpful to all of you, who wants to ID spiders (but only from Europe)
http://www.araneae.unibe.ch/Bestimmung/english/Familienschluessel_eng_Ganz.htm

Yes, that´s true. But with that key you won´t be able to determine any species (hardly to family level) without a realtively good microscope. My point is that I think it is just another myth that spider species cannot be identified as immatures or ads without microscope. Of course some very similar species which lacks colour markings, for example Drassodes lapidosus and D. cupreus, are probably impossible to determine without examining their genitalia which also varies quite a lot. Some of the epigyne pictures at www.araneae.unibe.ch of these two similar species are mixed up and you won´t get a reliable determination with their keys.
Most arachnologists do not bother to try to determine spiders without microscope. They just look at their genitalia, hight of clypeus, distance between trichobothria on metatarsus etc when the specimen has been in alcolhol for some time and all distinct colours markings have faded away. This is probably true for the one who has made the site
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuse...myths/easy.html
otherwise he wouldn´t write it in the way he does.
By photographing spiders, rearing them to adulthood, killing some for examination and making of good notes you will soon realize that it is possible to determine species in many spider groops without killing them. But this requires a lot of work. This do not exclusively regard only spiders.

 

[Dark Raptor]

My point is that I think it is just another myth that spider species cannot be identified as immatures or ads without microscope. (...)By photographing spiders, rearing them to adulthood, killing some for examination and making of good notes you will soon realize that it is possible to determine species in many spider groops without killing them. But this requires a lot of work. This do not exclusively regard only spiders.

Yes, I can agree with you that many invertebrates can be identified correctly only with good photos (especially when there are only small number of species in that group and they are very characteristic).
I don't work on spiders but on beetles and I've found it is true for many families. After checking and identifying hundreds of specimens, you can correctly ID many groups without special key (but mistakes are always possible).
Of course there are many systematic groups, very difficult to ID, without looking at their genitalia ect. (in egz. families: Staphylinidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae).