# Anyone keeping Loxosceles?



## kimski (Jun 10, 2006)

I belive I caught a Recluse spider.  Need to photo ID it to be sure but it seems to have the 'fiddle' config/sys on it's carapace and abdomen.

From my research on the boards and web, I'm fairly certain it's in the Loxosceles family.  Has anyone experience keeping these?  And before you give the warnings, Yes, I've researched how potentially venomous they are; read and viewed all the necrotic reactions; saw the black, oozing, gaping wounds and seen the limbs fall off, etc...

Found it strolling into my bedroom window and landing on my teddy-bear collection and it now lives in a bamboo 'tube' in my former A. avic's habitat.  It is absolutely voracious.  It's eaten a huge dead fly, a fresh worm and today, a live fly that we 'tag teamed' to get into it's web. (I sprayed the fly down from the enclosure w/ a squirt bottle and she came out and muckled it.

She (I hope it's a She) immediately 'mows the web' to drink as soon as I spray it and my question is:  I wonder if they need their prey discards removed like Tarantulas do.  She takes the prey into the tube to eat - and, well, with her massive appetite, I'm sure it's getting messy in there.  

Any suggestions / comments are welcome.  What a Feisty Little Bugger!


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 10, 2006)

> and abdomen.


Markings on the abdomen would indicate that it is not an L. reclusa. You should post a pic, but I can tell you that the family Agelinidae which are commonly found in your area are often confused for Loxoceles and have carapace and abdominal markings.  

We keep our L. reclusa in a small plastic box with the lid taped shut.  Eats a lot, be careful not to overfeed.  Does not seem to discard prey but leaves it scattered around the web.


----------



## kimski (Jun 10, 2006)

*Has a 'white / cream' semi-rectangular spot on the carapace*

Thanks - I've been searching the web for over 2 hours to ID it. 

And, it ALMOST looks like a Recluse - and I've read a bunch of stuff that reminds us that there's a lot of 'variation' in the markings, even in the same species.  (Kinda like an A. avic / A. metallica, etc...)

She really comes right out when I spray - and when there's prey (poet, har-har)  so she's quite visible.  I will get a pic.  I already really love her; she's so responsive.  I especially liked the 'tag-team' thing today because I HATE flys.  I have one in a jar w/ cricket food gel just waiting for her Sunday dinner!


----------



## buthus (Jun 10, 2006)

Hard to find images of other recluse other than the famous browns.
There are several species that are known to inhabit your area or close to you.  
Here is a decent page that lists a few that could be your spider.
http://www.mountaintimes.net/Wildlife/Wildlife.htm


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 11, 2006)

I like the name but that is as far as it goes. Loxosceles has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Brian S (Jun 11, 2006)

If it looks like the spider getting hammered by the scorp then it is L reclusa


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 11, 2006)

That is the only good use for such critters. Nice scorp BTW.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Gigas (Jun 11, 2006)

HAHA nice one Brian! ya the best way to tell is by the "Violin" marking on the Carapace


----------



## Bayushi (Jun 11, 2006)

http://okaloosa.ifas.ufl.edu/Horticulture/brown_recluse_spider_challenge.htm

has a few pics incase you wanna compare what you caught


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 11, 2006)

Gigus said:
			
		

> HAHA nice one Brian! ya the best way to tell is by the "Violin" marking on the Carapace


Um... No its not. That is one of the most misleading statements everyone circulates about Loxosceles. Infact, eye placement is the only way to correctly ID a Recluse in some cases.


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 11, 2006)

According to the Golden Guide Loxoscelidae have six eyes, so this should be a simple family to ID.  Also according to the guide L. reclusa isn't even found in California.  I agree though, anything with the general Loxoscelidae body plan and a violin on the carapace is almost always going to be a Loxoceles sp (Loxoceles being the Violin Spiders).  The reason the violin is confusing is because many people don't know where to look for it, and are examining the abdomen instead of the carpace.


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 11, 2006)

Gigus said:
			
		

> HAHA nice one Brian! ya the best way to tell is by the "Violin" marking on the Carapace


Yup...I've seen lycosids, phlocids and steadotea species all with violin markings on the back.

Eye placement is the way to go in this case.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 11, 2006)

lucanidae said:
			
		

> According to the Golden Guide Loxoscelidae have six eyes, so this should be a simple family to ID.  Also according to the guide L. reclusa isn't even found in California.  I agree though, anything with the general Loxoscelidae body plan and a violin on the carapace is almost always going to be a Loxoceles sp (Loxoceles being the Violin Spiders).  The reason the violin is confusing is because many people don't know where to look for it, and are examining the abdomen instead of the carpace.



I think u need to read up on some spiders.
Violin markings DOES NOT I repeat DOES NOT indicate a Recluse. And the markings on a Recluse often don't resemble a violin, and can be pale enough you can't hardly see it.


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 11, 2006)

Eye placement?!?!  It's a six eyed spider... This is not a difficult genus to ID if you know what you are looking for. It dosent look anything like 





> lycosids, phlocids and steadotea


 maybe pholcid a little; but barely... I never said you can sight ID it to species, (you will rarely see me ever ID anything to species on these boards) but the genus is not that hard. The violin is clearly marked on Loxosceles, what is so difficult to ID about them is that people freak out when they see a small brown spider and instantly ID it as a brown recluse! It would be nice to see some examples of Loxosceles sp. lacking the violin on the carapce instead of just saying that it isn't always clear.  And as for my reading on true spiders, that is one thing I think you might need to rethink challenging.


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 11, 2006)

> anything with the general Loxoscelidae body plan and a violin on the carapace is almost always going to be a Loxoceles sp


Quoting myself here to show that I said it needs to have the Loxoscelidae (family)  body plan and a violin marking on the carapace to be considered a Loxosceles (genus) *sp.*


Edit: Family Loxoscelidae has been changed to Sicariidae since my Golden Guide came out.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 11, 2006)

When I was explaining that the Violin is pale enough as to not see it, is that many people see a light brown spider, and expect to see a dark brown violin if its a Recluse, well other 'violin' spiders have paler markings. 
And when I argued this in the beginning. You'll see Gigus said the violin is the best way to ID them. It isn't. I thought you were arguing that side.
U said yourself "IF U KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR"
Don't look for violin markings as proof its a Recluse.

I don't know how many pictures of 'recluse' looking spiders u've seen, but you have to know to look for more then a violin to figure out what it is. And yes, 6eyes, is under the category 'eye placement'.


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

Eye placement and eye number are two different things. I wouldn't say "Hey this thing has 6 eyes that is a weird placement"  As for Loxosceles sp. lacking the violin shape I haven't come across a picture of one yet that I couldn't see the violin marking.



> Don't look for violin markings as proof its a Recluse


Never said that, just said that violin markings on a Siccariidae (Loxosceleidae) indicate Genus Loxosceles, and they do.

And as for the general public, if they see a brown spider with a violin shape on the carapace, I wouldn't advise gettting close enough to look for 6 eyes.

If you have a better way of sight IDing genus Loxosceles, please fill us in.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 12, 2006)

Yeah, don't post pics of a light brown spider with a brown violing marking and say it's a recluse. Otherwise You'd end up with Goldenrods, cellar spiders, and every other strange collection of spiders that don't even remotely resemble Recluses.

And lets straighten a couple things out-

I never said 6 eyes was weird placement.

I never said they lacked the violin marks, I said some sp. have much paler markings. Such as L. deserta (sorry bout the old name)

When did the general public want to know the exact sp. of a spider????????
I personally don't think they care. They see a spider with other markings, or just a spider period and WHACK.

YOU CAN'T SIGHT ID LOXOSCELES WITH VIOLINS!!!!!!

whew... got that out. You can't just read books about spiders, or even look on the internet. There are hundreds of spiders you see in the woods etc. that are brown with brown violin shaped markings! It's too confusing to think they're all Loxosceles. You have to look for other criteria.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 12, 2006)

I think we're both discussing different audiences here. People that know what they're doing, and the 'general public'.

For, quoting u again, "if you know what you are looking for" We both know the general public doesn't know what to look for.

There are too many spiders that have 'violin markings' to the 'general public' that aren't recluses. They don't know how accurate the violin should be, I mean, people could think the markings on Nursery Web, Lynx, or even Hammock Spiders are violins. Then what would u tell them to look for? A thorax that isn't 'domed' and doesn't spit? (Yes, that's from the Golden Guide).


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

> And yes, 6eyes, is under the category 'eye placement'


Right, you did say eye number was the same category as eye placement, it is not.



> YOU CAN'T SIGHT ID LOXOSCELES WITH VIOLINS!!!!!!


I think what you are trying to say here is that you can't sight ID something to Loxosceles just because it has a violin. What your quote seems to exclaim is that you can not ID a spider with a violin shape on the carapace to Loxosceles, which is wrong. What I am telling you is that you can ID a spider to Loxosceles without looking at the eyes, and that a violin on the carapace is a clincher for that genus. 




> And the markings on a Recluse often don't resemble a violin, and can be pale enough you can't hardly see it.


You still haven't shown me this....



> You can't just read books about spiders, or even look on the internet. There are hundreds of spiders you see in the woods etc. that are brown with brown violin shaped markings! It's too confusing to think they're all Loxosceles. You have to look for other criteria.


I've said this over and over again, violin on the carapace in conjuction with general Siccariidae body plan. Please show me some pictures of other families that look so strikingly similar to the genus loxosceles that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference without looking at the eyes...

Your argument was that a violin shape on the carapace is not the "best" way to sight ID a speimen to Genus Loxosceles; so once again I ask you, what is?

If you look through books and on the internet you will see the overwhelming suggestion to look for the "violin" on the carapace.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 12, 2006)

Okay, before we both get into trouble for 'hijacking' this thread, I'll end my argument with this.

When I said eye placement, I was including the number of eyes. because you can't place a 7th or 8th eye that doesn't exist, and if the other 6 eyes are in the right place, that therefore includes the number of eyes. (It's not like your looking up eye placement in the dictionary).

Lets take the example of the person that started this thread, he says he has a spider, with carapace marking, and even if he thinks it goes to the abdomen, he says he took 2 hrs. looking for pics to correctly ID it as recluse (or whatever). And If it had 6 eyes, and no abdominal markings, I would say, yeah, that's prob loxosceles. If it looked like one.

Now we still haven't clarified which audience we're talking about. I never said that the violin, (along with the correct body) couldn't be close. I just said VIOLINS. There are plenty of other spiders with violins. I didn't say other factors couldn't change that fact.

Again, about the audience here, we're talking about different people.
To the general public? No, violin markings don't point to Loxosceles as I stated above, if they look at a picture, and the body form, color, and violin match, then more power to 'em!!



			
				lucanidae said:
			
		

> Your argument was that a violin shape on the carapace is not the "best" way to sight ID a speimen to Genus Loxosceles; so once again I ask you, what is?


That is the almost the most pointless statement I've ever seen.
WHAT?????
I have no idea what your asking, is it like,-

u see a spider, it's brown, and u wonder if it's loxosceles, "Does it have a violin?!?!?!"

All I was arguing is that if someone thinks its a Loxosceles, they've obviously already determined that it's got a violin, and if they want something else to look for, then look for six eyes!! Because if they didn't need to look for something else, why in the world would they be asking?


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

> All I was arguing is that if someone thinks its a Loxosceles, they've obviously already determined that it's got a violin, and if they want something else to look for, then look for six eyes!!


No, what you were arguing was that Gigus was wrong in saying the violin was the best way to sight ID this genus.  I brought up the six eyes as a characteristic of the family Siccariidae.  I choose to defend Gigus because I think he is correct. 

You see a spider, looks like a Siccariidae, you wonder if it is a loxosceles, look for a violin. You've just supported loxosceles.

You see a spider, looks like a Siccariidae, you wonder if it is a loxosceles, you look for six eyes, you've just supported a Siccariidae.

The "best" here seems to be the violin.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 12, 2006)

I had two arach taxonomists wracking their brains over what I thought was a Loxo R. once. It wasn't.
And then, I tossed the lab at the local university in Northern California a weird (in molt) spider I was clueless of. Post molt, it had no violin, it was definitely hundreds of miles from home, and was positively identified as a Loxo R!
I was told by them that without micro study, the six eyes and all markings are not enough to ID the Loxo R. They went by traits on the cephalothorax and the front legs.

As for the specimen this thread is about, toss in a couple of salticidae and stand by for some fun action.


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 12, 2006)

lucanidae said:
			
		

> You still haven't shown me this....









Here you go. There's also a nice pic of the eyes...so I guess you'll have to ID it THAT way (actually not...I'm just gloating at this point).

This is from colorado state university. I'm guessing it's a correct ID. Note the absence of the classic violin markings that you are touting as the 'best' way to ID Loxos.

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong in this case.

For more info, look here

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/DOJvol5num2/special/recluse.html


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

"(although it can fade in preserved specimens)"

From the website you sent me too.  The picture you posted is of a preserved mature male.  I can still see the charateristic pattern, and although it is faint on that preserved specimen, it looks close enough to any other Loxosceles sp. you might find.  Six eyes, who said that, I did.  But it isn't just six eyes, its six eyes in combination with other factors, and for sight IDing, the most readily apparent factor happens to be the markings on the carapace (that is if you can't just look at it and know its a Siccarridae, I mean the closest family to them is Scytotidae and they don't look THAT similar).  Forget the exceptions, the genus is called Violin Spiders for a reason.


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 12, 2006)

article said:
			
		

> many western U.S. recluse species and some young brown recluses have virtually no contrasting pigmentation in the violin region


This is the part I was referring to.

Although, body structure and eye placement in conjunction with the markings is what is used to positively ID them, you can't just simply go by the violin marking alone. Most laypeople do this and then go on bragging that their house is infested with loxos, when they just have a slight phlocid infestation.

On the other hand...recluses also make very good fishbait. I've known this since I was six.


----------



## Brian S (Jun 12, 2006)

Folks, Loxosceles has a very distinct look to them. This is a Loxosceles I found in Peru last year. Although colored differently the violin marking is there. Also note its general shape and appearance is the same as L reclusa but this spider is much larger


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm not saying they don't have a distinct look, I'm just saying that coloration ID isn't always reliable in regards to the violin pattern in particular.

Here's L. deserta. Although the violin marking is there, it's not that pronounced and could be very easy to miss.

All siccarids have the mini-huntsman (closest I could come) type body layout and other identifying features but the violin marking in particular is hardly unique.

That is what I'm saying

Brian, do you have a pic of that loxo without the silk in the way?

L. Valida with a distorted violin pattern:






Markings can vary from specimen to specimen and can also be distorted by adhesion of molecules (although this is more common in sicarus sp.).

If I were to ID a loxo, eye placement and the classic body shape is the way I'd go.

Agreed?


----------



## Brian S (Jun 12, 2006)

Evil Cheshire said:
			
		

> Brian, do you have a pic of that loxo without the silk in the way?


Yes, here is a different pic


You can also see a different Loxosceles I found in Peru here. It is also much larger than the Loxosceles I have found in the US
http://venomlist.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3104&hl=peruvian


----------



## kimski (Jun 12, 2006)

*Hi Everyone*

and thanks.  She does look like the spider in the Scorpion photo.  I haven't got photos yet because she's been in her bamboo tube for a day and a half.  

I will search the threads posted to positively ID her.  She took her fly inside the tube and then 'hung it out to dry' on her web.  Usually she comes out of the tube to drink immediately after I mist  but she's I think she's in a stupor from feeding.  

From what I've observed thus far, she has a sort of cream colored North - South oriented rectangle on her carapace... I have not seen the "fiddle" on her (yet).  

I will get pics as soon as possible; need to see the eye config / sys and all. 

I've got to crank out a resume now for a Public Realtions position... Man, I hate the job search thing.  I need a 'day job' now; real estate out here in San Diego is in the dregs.

Thanks again.  Be back soon w/ photos. She's a fun spider.  Her name is "Spooky".  She was about 2 feet from my bed when I found her; glad I didn't plop in the bed and a) crush her and b) get bit!


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

> If I were to ID a loxo, eye placement and the classic body shape is the way I'd go.
> 
> Agreed?


With a scope:

Classical body shape, six eyes (placement still not an issue here, only number), "*chelicerae that are joined mesally, at least along the base*" That is the defining characteristic between Loxosceles and the closest relatives, I keyed out a Loxosceles sp. today.

From a distance without a scope: classic body shape, followed by violin marking.


----------



## Venom (Jun 12, 2006)

I think I'm with Cheshire on this one ( again :? what's happening?, lol). 

Yes, from a distance if I saw a spider of tannish color and siccarid appearance, I'd think "oo, could be a loxo." The overall appearance would draw my attention. However, if I wanted to be _certain_, I would look closely for the eyes ( six, in three diads ), in order to confirm my suspicion. Colors are variable, markings can be warped or absent. Size can even be skewed ( I've seen 2+ inch L.reclusa ), but the biological features of eyes, leg shape, etc. are much less likely to be misleading. I have seen loxos with faint or misshapen violins...but they still had six eyes. Distribution isn't even a totally conclusive factor, as at least one confirmed  L.reclusa has been found in Washington state! They also survive in heated buildings outside of their normal range. The best way to ID loxosceles will always be the eyes. The best way to notice a _potential_ loxosceles is its general appearance.


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

"Spitting spiders (Scytodes spp., Family Scytodidae) are taxonomically related to recluses, are non-poisonous and probably often mistaken as recluses throughout the U.S. *They share the same eye pattern (Fig. 5), *however, the several known species have black stripes and/or maculae on the dorsal surface of both the cephalothorax and abdomen which should quickly eliminate them as recluse spiders (Fig. 6). "

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/DOJvol5num2/special/recluse.html

Hey look, the eyes of Loxosceles are the same in number and arragement as Scytodes, their closest relatives.  And apparently, the best way to tell the difference is to look at the dorsal surface of the cephaloxthorax and abdomen.


----------



## Venom (Jun 12, 2006)

:wall: Gimme a break.

No one in their right mind would mistake Scytodes for Loxosceles. You would take one look at it, and not even suspect it of being Loxosceles, and so you wouldn't need to look at the eyes. Perhaps I should have said "the eyes ( six, in three diads ) plus an _iota _of common sense. You could put six eyes on a Phoneutria, or a Macrothele....but would you even remotely suspect those of being loxos? Would you even bother to look at the eyes? No, of course not. They, like the Scytodes, look nothing like a loxo. 

There are, however, a number of other species that DO have fiddle-like markings, and resemble Loxos in general appearance closely enough for a non-spider buff to be concerned and uncertain, such as these:

http://bugguide.net/node/view/52868

http://bugguide.net/node/view/47644

http://bugguide.net/node/view/48655


As I said before, you cannot give a positive ID simply by the appearance of violin. You use specific keys--like the eyes--for an accurate ID of a spider that you -think- is a certain species. However, if the specimen did not even _remotely _resemble that species, you would never have suspected it of being such a species in the first place. ( i.e., you would never suspect S.thoracica of being L.reclusa, and so you would not need to go to the specific ID key: the eyes. ) With these other species I gave above, an inexperienced person could not go by their general appearance alone--they would have to consult the eyes, which would prove them to be non-loxosceles.


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

> No one in their right mind would mistake Scytodes for Loxosceles. You would take one look at it, and not even suspect it of being Loxosceles


I didn't say I would ever confuse those two families, think an inexpierienced person might??? I was just pointing out a flaw in the "just look at the eyes, three dyads and it is a loxosceles" The eye arangement isn't even mentioned in keying out this genus, simply the number.

"are taxonomically related to recluses, are non-poisonous and probobly *often mistaken as recluses throughout the U.S*"

Although you and I might not think they look the same, it appears that they are often mistaken for Loxosceles.  To a non-spider observer they would look just as similar as the species you posted. I looked at all three you posted, and I see some similarities but not enough to be confused by.

My point all along has been that a number of factors are involved, but for common folk who aren't going to get close enough to look at the fused chelicerae, the appearance of the spider and it's carapace markings are what they should concentrate on.

http://www.naturefg.com/pages/c-animals/scytodes thoracica.htm

This could be just as confusing to a non-spider loving person, and it is Scytodes. Although personnally I think that carapace marking looks more like a flying V guitar...

So could a number of the Scytodes found on this page:

http://www.mundomatero.com/Florayfauna/aranias.html




> As I said before, you cannot give a positive ID simply by the appearance of violin.


Never said you could, just said if you had to choose one guildine for the general public it would be better than telling them to look at the eyes.

The point is it's still a number of factors involved in IDing, not just one. But, if you were to go to a group of 100 concerened adults who didn't know a thing about spiders, what would you tell them to look for when they see a spider in their babie's crib?  6 eyes, or violin markings on that carapace? Which guideline would the be more inclined to take the time to follow before just mashing the thing?  Which guildline seems to be more known and more publicized?


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

> an inexperienced person could not go by their general appearance alone--they would have to consult the eyes, which would prove them to be non-loxosceles.


An inexpierienced person would be more likely to look online and find that the markings on the first and third you posted don't look anything like the U.S. Loxosceles.  The markings would be much easier for them to observe than the eyes.

Would you have them whip out thier microscope and check to make sure it has only 2 tarsal claws?  Yet another way to identify Loxosceles.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 12, 2006)

lucanidae said:
			
		

> I didn't say I would ever confuse those two families, I was just pointing out a flaw in the "just look at the eyes, three dyads and it is a loxosceles" The eye arangement isn't even mentioned in keying out this genus, simply the number.


Okay, forgive me, when I mentioned that, I did say eye _placement_ I was tired, and figured people would read the number of eyes the same time they were looking for eye _placement_.

And like I said earlier, eyes are still a whole lot more accurate then just violin and 'body shape'.



			
				lucanidae said:
			
		

> My point all along has been that a number of factors are involved, but for common folk who aren't going to get close enough to look at the fused chelicerae, the appearance of the spider and it's carapace markings are what they should concentrate on.





			
				lucanidae said:
			
		

> And as for the general public, if they see a brown spider with a violin shape on the carapace, I wouldn't advise gettting close enough to look for 6 eyes.


You know what I say to people like that? And what I've been saying all along? If that's all they see, and are gonna look for, they have no right to call it a Recluse!! They can do whatever they want with it, and I wouldn't advise being bit by it, but it is by no means evidence of a recluse (Or loxosceles, better say that before he quotes me with that....) !! So why would we even discuss this if that wasn't what the "General Public"is assuming?!

If I see a bird that's black with a white head, should I call the DNR and tell them I saw a Bald Eagle!? No, I'd think, maybe I should look on the internet and see if there are other birds that are black with white heads!! I mean seriously, I'm the 'general public' when it comes to most birds, so since I didn't check to see if it had an orange beak, does that mean its a Bald Eagle?

I think I've posted enough to state my side of the argument...


----------



## Venom (Jun 12, 2006)

> An inexpierienced person would be more likely to look online and find that the markings on the first and third you posted don't look anything like the U.S. Loxosceles.


And inexperienced people would get it wrong. They do so all the time, because there are other species that look similar, and these people generally know bupkus about identifying spiders.





> The markings would be much easier for them to observe than the eyes.


Like I said:
 General appearance = suspected recluse
 Eye pattern           = confirmed recluse

I would expect these people to observe that it looks _like_ a recluse--due to the shape, coloration, and fiddle marking--, and then go online and confirm/ disprove that it is a loxo by finding out that loxos only have 6 eyes. Arachnonovices get ID's by general appearance wrong all the time, the only practical, proof-positive way to field ID--unless you are an expert--is to check the eyes. The number of eyes is easy enough to see without magnification, and even an amateur can count.




> Would you have them whip out thier microscope and check to make sure it has only 2 tarsal claws? Yet another way to identify Loxosceles.


So do tarantulas. I guess we can't use claws to ID loxos, since one could mistake a loxo for a T if you just went by the claws. ( please see my earlier post )


----------



## lucanidae (Jun 12, 2006)

> So do tarantulas. I guess we can't use claws to ID loxos, since one could mistake a loxo for a T if you just went by the claws. ( please see my earlier post )


Same absurdity I argued against* just *using eye number/placement, although it would be easier to confuse a Scytodes for a Loxoscles than a Tarantula for a Loxosceles.

The argument was the "best" way to sight ID a Loxosceles for the general public, because it was someone from the "general public" who started this thread. 

I won't argue anymore because I think I have made myself clear numerous times, the "best" way for the "general public" to determine whether or not they could have a Loxosceles sp. on their hands is to look for a lack of markings other than a violion-like shape on the carapace.

I would also like to point out that I have been the only one in the argument to abstain from using ":wall:  give me a break" "you're just plain wrong" or "I think u need to read up on some spiders" to give a few examples. I have used bold to bring attention to specific points, but that is about as far as it goes.  I think people should learn to make *articulate* arguments without these attacking/insulting bits.

This is lucanidae, signing off this thread.


----------



## bugs4life (Jun 12, 2006)

Peace, my friends, peace...*skips around handing out daisies*


----------



## ChuckKristensen (Jun 13, 2006)

Vista is on the wrong side of the Santa Anna Mountains for Loxosceles deserta and quite a south of Sierra Madre, where Loxosceles laeta has been found in buildings.
Recluse spiders uniformly colored legs, an abdomen without markings, very short spinerrets and no conspicuous spines or large hairs. They only have short hairs over most of their body with a few somewhat longer ones on the violin marking near the eyes, but no stout spines.
The webbing is also distinctive ... generally no more than fluffy matting around the retreat. If you're getting aerial sheets, then it's probably an Agelenid, as another suggested, possibly Agelenopsis aperta. A. aperta can be voracious feeders.


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 14, 2006)

In some instances, dust particles can adhere to the hairs yjid messing up coloration.

This more oftens happens in Sicarus species, I think.

I see we have ourselves a hippie here


----------



## kimski (Jun 14, 2006)

*Camera shy!*

Well - typical.  As soon as I got the camera - all of sudden (s)he's shy.... Just like trying to get a kid to pose at the photographers!

She's been in the tube since my last post....  snuck out to get her fly while I was at work.  Will photo as soon as I can.  Meanwhile, have seen a lot of these around the exterior - we're painting and they've all been disturbed, poor things.  Have scooted as many as I can away from the dwelling lest the get spray painted.  

I checked the link to the 'wildlife' site; that site was a part of my 2 hour ID process.  Mine's legs do not look as long as that photo of a Recluse spider - the closest comparasion looks to be the spider in the Scorpion pic.  [NICE pic by the way!].  Maybe it's an 'age / maturity' thing?  And, all the other little ones I scooted away don't seem to have legs that long.  I think I've observed 2 little 'round things' on a few of their pedipalps???  Wasn't prey hanging - more like 2 little 'bulbs'.   Must go on the other link re: local CA spiders.  Unfortunately, I'm pressed for time right now.  Wah - I hate it when I can't get my Arachnid fix!

Thanks all.  I can't wait to find out what she really is... Will do a positive ID soon as it quiets down here...   Hope summer has already arrived for you all.  Kim Ski


----------



## kimski (Jun 14, 2006)

*PS:  Eye placement and pic forthcoming*

Oh, and I will get the eye placement; I did see that in my research travels.  

And - I know a photo is absoluteley necessary so anyone who's interested can see just what the heck it is.   From what I have observed thus far - the legspan is 'smaller' or rather, the legs are not as 'long' as most of the Reclusa photos.


----------



## ShadowBlade (Jun 16, 2006)

bugs4life said:
			
		

> Peace, my friends, peace...*skips around handing out daisies*


*Achoo, Cough...

I'm allergic to daisies,  

J/K.. lol


----------



## tarantulasperu (Aug 4, 2008)

Brian S said:


> Folks, Loxosceles has a very distinct look to them. This is a Loxosceles I found in Peru last year. Although colored differently the violin marking is there. Also note its general shape and appearance is the same as L reclusa but this spider is much larger


loxoceles of peru are much more toxic and venomous that normal ones they are everywhere in my house so i use them as feed for my inverts


----------

