Spider ID from Panama
- Thread starter RSGP
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 2,532
Looks like some speicies of Heteropoda!
Greasylake
Arachnoprince
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,324
It looks too stocky to me to be a Heteropoda, I agree that Phoneutria seems plausible.
The eyes are also wrong for a Sparassid. Also, that groove on the cephalothorax looks Phoneutria.
Greasylake
Arachnoprince
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,324
Are those a set of eyes on top of the carapace? It looks like there's a set of forward facing eyes, but I can't tell if there's a pair on top of the carapace, which doesn't really match Phoneutria. I think we need a better picture though.
There’s a pair on the top of the carapace towards the front. Phoneutria has this. I can also see two front facing eyes in the same arrangement as Phoneutria. A front view of the eyes is what I need to confirm my suspicions.
Greasylake
Arachnoprince
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,324
Ah you're right. I was having a hard time finding a reference for the eye arrangement online, but I finally found one.
That marking on the carapace looks like P. boliviensis, and the range matches. Here is an observation from Panama:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/106777
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with this, same pattern in the head and legs (very clear in the sections of leg near the body). This was a female. The 4 front central eyes (2 up 2 down) are clear in the picture, just the angle isn't the best. Biologist here, just not experienced in spiders. Who can advice on the venom impact of this species to humans?
Greasylake
Arachnoprince
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2017
- Messages
- 1,324
2 above 2 below means that is in fact a P. boliviensis.
Phoneutria have some of the worst bites in the world, they are not to be taken lightly. If you work with them use caution.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,229
Between the condition of the spider and the angle of the picture, it's tough to provide an accurate ID for that spider. However, I'd like to point out that not every Ctenid is a Phoneutria. The Cupiennius species look very similar to Phoneutria, with the same basic eye arrangement and body type - but are relatively harmless. (I'm not saying that this spider isn't a Phoneutria - just the the eye arrangement alone is not enough to say that it is.)
Thanks. I reviewed C. getazi however it has a particular head/body pattern not present in the one of the picture. I'm taking the previous ID due to the matches in: geo range, head pattern, legs pattern and front eyes disposition.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,226
One more vote for Ctenidae, I wouldn't be confident to go below that.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 11,048
Seems we all should take a page from the experts books here. OP image -strongly reminiscent- of Ctenidae, poss. Phoneutria, poss, Boliviensis.
Upon submitting image to Rod Crawford of specimen that turned up in Thailand: "Probable Latrodectus, poss. Hesperus. Needs to be examined for positive identification." (Specimen found a few yards away from a shipping container from Long Beach, Calif.)
@NYAN
Clarification: Arachnology. Scientists demand proofs, amateurs speculate. Not that any of us are scientists, lettered, accredited, but we could at least attempt to follow their examples of proper nomenclature.
Upon submitting image to Rod Crawford of specimen that turned up in Thailand: "Probable Latrodectus, poss. Hesperus. Needs to be examined for positive identification." (Specimen found a few yards away from a shipping container from Long Beach, Calif.)
@NYAN
Clarification: Arachnology. Scientists demand proofs, amateurs speculate. Not that any of us are scientists, lettered, accredited, but we could at least attempt to follow their examples of proper nomenclature.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,821
I totally agree with these statements. There is no way to know for sure what taxon a spider belongs to just from a picture. If someone throws out a scientific name to any spider based on a picture, it should always be understood to be "I don't know." In my opinion, the primary difference between a scientific mind and lay mind is being comfortable with not knowing until proof is presented.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,226
I think in many cases, a family level ID is possible from a photo. I also believe that in certain (definitely not all) groups a genus or species level ID can be made from photos. As an example, what about Argiope aurantia, a commonly photographed spider in the US? Should we be calling it Spider sp. because we don't have it under a scope to match characters with the type specimen or species description? We can use knowledge we already have to make these IDs, based upon range, physical characters, time of year, and knowing the other possible species in the area. Don't get me wrong, an ID made by some random person on the internet does not and should not carry as much weight as what an arachnologist/entomologist (yeah, yeah, I know, but most ento departments don't separate them anymore...like what happened with me) says. If Joe Shmoe calls Snark's spider a death widow or something and Rod Crawford calls it probable Latrodectus I'll absolutely believe him because he's the expert. Heck, I'd just leave it at Theridiidae at that point since Steatoda and a couple other genera look similar.
That said, I completely agree with having the specimen under a scope for a confident ID, assuming the person looking at it knows what they're doing. Spider ID is hard work with lots of very small characters to learn, even on the larger specimens (good luck with Linyphiidae). Considering I've been working on IDing the spiders of south Texas for about a year now I can definitely say it's not straight forward and even keys can and will lead you astray if they aren't properly written or if you aren't familiar with whichever group it is. Tools are just as important. My microscope isn't powerful enough to reliably pick up trichobothria on the legs of smaller specimens, so that has made certain groups significantly more difficult to ID.
The reasons I call the specimen in the photo Ctenidae is because you can just barely make out some of the eyes. Considering the upper pair of median eyes aren't large, this would eliminate Lycosidae, and while admittedly this is more gestalt than anything, the legs look too stocky for Pisauridae. A further ID is not possible, in large part because there are several genera that can be found in Panama, but also because the specimen isn't in the best shape. If someone were to point out a feature that makes it seem more like Pisauridae though, I'd be more than happy to reevaluate and change my ID if and when presented with new knowledge. Something else scientists routinely do.
That said, I completely agree with having the specimen under a scope for a confident ID, assuming the person looking at it knows what they're doing. Spider ID is hard work with lots of very small characters to learn, even on the larger specimens (good luck with Linyphiidae). Considering I've been working on IDing the spiders of south Texas for about a year now I can definitely say it's not straight forward and even keys can and will lead you astray if they aren't properly written or if you aren't familiar with whichever group it is. Tools are just as important. My microscope isn't powerful enough to reliably pick up trichobothria on the legs of smaller specimens, so that has made certain groups significantly more difficult to ID.
The reasons I call the specimen in the photo Ctenidae is because you can just barely make out some of the eyes. Considering the upper pair of median eyes aren't large, this would eliminate Lycosidae, and while admittedly this is more gestalt than anything, the legs look too stocky for Pisauridae. A further ID is not possible, in large part because there are several genera that can be found in Panama, but also because the specimen isn't in the best shape. If someone were to point out a feature that makes it seem more like Pisauridae though, I'd be more than happy to reevaluate and change my ID if and when presented with new knowledge. Something else scientists routinely do.