Argiope male and female

[KnightinGale]

Having moved south I just discovered this species last year and love their size and beauty. Last year had one in my tomatoes and this one is living in my pumpkins. Wish I could keep these, but they build big webs and don't live long anyway. I guess not disturbing them in my garden is kind of like keeping them...
Anyway, the first is a close-up of the female. (Missing leg IV on the right.) The second has the male in the top-left of the shot. He is actually in a smaller, more cobwebby web just behind her big orb. Apparently they will build one to hang around a female sometimes to wait until she is receptive or to mate multiple times. In this case I found him last week in her web. He would twitch the web, wait for a response, skitter a little closer and twitch again. He would keep doing this until he got close enough to scare himself a bit, then run to the edge and start again. Didn't get to see a mating as she was occupied eating a grasshopper, and when I finally went to get a camera he had retreated to his web for the shot. But now I will start watching out for eggs arriving soon!

 

[KnightinGale]

Oh yeah, and what do you guys think about the species? The closest I could find to what she looks like is Argiope Trifasciata. There is a difference from her to the Trifasciata pics I have seen though in that in the pics their black and yellow pattern stopped at the spinnerets and in mine they go beyond. Might be a regional thing? (I live in the Okanagan Valley, B.C., Canada) I can't get a good dorsal view without wrecking her web since she built it too close to a fence.
Knight in Gale

 

[FlawedCoil82]

She does look like the standard banded argiope from what I can see. They can have slight differences between them and still be the same species. Argiope aurantia (my favorites) can have slight differences in their color and patterns where the yellow spots are closer together, or they can have a more "reddish" color to them than the standard black.
Jack

 

[John Apple]

she is the classic trafasciata...they are a 'lil' variable in appearance
that is a male with her and she has a regenerated back leg

 

[nephilamaculata]

hi i want to get a free argiope aurantia or argentada adult female not bred yet or mated is fine i live in torrance ca

 

[curtisgiganteus]

hi i want to get a free argiope aurantia or argentada adult female not bred yet or mated is fine i live in torrance ca

You live in CA, go catch one. We have more than three species of Argiope in SoCal alone.

 

[Ciphor]

Argiope do not regenerate limbs very well. It appears as though the posterior leg is still missing, if you zoom in you can see the posterior leg coxa with no leg.

Also I believe A. aurantia & A. trifasciata look almost identical ventrally, A shot of the dorsal would tell us exactly what species of Argiope she/he is.

 

[FlawedCoil82]

The image is definitely of Argiope trifasciata (banded garden spider). Argiope aurantia usually has more of a blackish tint on them that contrasts more with the reddish brown spinnerets. Also, the legs are a dead giveaway since they are banded brown and black, whereas aurantia lacks the banding on the legs and instead has a orange-ish/tan-ish tint on the first half of their last three sets of legs (closest to their body), then the farther half of the legs are black.

 

[Ciphor]

The image is definitely of Argiope trifasciata (banded garden spider). Argiope aurantia usually has more of a blackish tint on them that contrasts more with the reddish brown spinnerets. Also, the legs are a dead giveaway since they are banded brown and black, whereas aurantia lacks the banding on the legs and instead has a orange-ish/tan-ish tint on the first half of their last three sets of legs (closest to their body), then the farther half of the legs are black.

While I hate to prove you wrong, well, your wrong.

1) No entomologist would ever, ever use slight color variation or leg banding to determine a spider to a species.

2) in regards to the color morphing, you use words like "slight" when I would use words like "strong".

"whereas aurantia lacks the banding on the legs" No banding eh? So these images below must be a new Argiope species?

http://bugguide.net/node/view/215325/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/250689
http://bugguide.net/node/view/8388/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/434635/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/197726/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/482873/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/412456/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/364831/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/309537/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/144047/bgimage

Some other color morph forms of A. aurantia

http://bugguide.net/node/view/345773/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/346949/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/332387/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/84689/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/323323/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/31827/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/345780/bgimage

Some color morph A. trifasciata Just to show you how "solid" your theory on leg banding is.

http://bugguide.net/node/view/574922/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/515491/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/460156/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/340126/bgimage

Here is your red morph.

http://bugguide.net/node/view/252181/bgimage

Finally, an A. trifasciata with black almost unbanded legs. Whoops?

http://bugguide.net/node/view/230443/bgimage

So many self proclaimed spider ID experts on the web. A tiny amount of homework would have saved you this embarrassment. While I also believe that spider is A. trifasciata, I would never conclude that from an image like this alone. I repeat, a simple dorsal image would tell us which species you have here. Without one, we can only speculate, based on shaky things like leg banding, which is notoriously variable within a single species. Especially variable in orb weavers.

 

[myrmecophile]

I have to agree that color pattern is the absolute worst feature to use when identifying any arthropod to species. There are a huge number of examples of species described based on slight color variations which have later proven to be all part of a single variable species. Also the common practice of posting spiders for Id with only a ventral image drives me crazy as well, in many case a dorsal image is needed as well.

 

[Ciphor]

The image is definitely of Argiope trifasciata (banded garden spider). Argiope aurantia usually has more of a blackish tint on them that contrasts more with the reddish brown spinnerets. Also, the legs are a dead giveaway since they are banded brown and black, whereas aurantia lacks the banding on the legs and instead has a orange-ish/tan-ish tint on the first half of their last three sets of legs (closest to their body), then the farther half of the legs are black.

Also if you are going to try and sound Mater of a Fact on this, you should be using terms that make sense, like... All black anterior legs. AM, PM and posterior legs showing light coloration on the femur & patella. black on the tibia, metatarsus and tarsus, etc.

Just a tip~

---------- Post added 12-27-2011 at 12:28 AM ----------

Getting the thread back on track, KnightinGale, was this image taken in Vancouver BC? If it was, then that spider is very likely Argiope trifasciata, not because of any physical appearance, but rather location. A. aurantia does not extend that far north up the west coast, while A. trifasciata does.

 

[FlawedCoil82]

Calm down Ciphor, I never proclaimed myself a "spider expert". No need to be a jerk about it.

I am 29 now and have been into studying/collecting argiopes since the age of four. I always hunt for Argiope aurantia because they are my favorites. I can tell from an underside (and even the web if the spider is not in it) which ones are the aurantia and which ones are the trifasciata. The first set of Argiope aurantia's you posted with the banding on the legs are all immature aurantias and not fully grown. Yes, the immature aurantia have banding on their legs that (typically) disappear as they mature. The images posted in the original post are of a more mature Argiope, so I was only talking about mature argiopes. Also, I didn't feel like grabbing my spider books out of my closet to get the scientific terms of each individual leg segment. I described them in a way that people who did not go to college would be able to understand. Yes, there are always variations in every species of animal, but I am only concerned with how the majority are. I am not "embarassed" in the least, as I have seen more than enough of these spiders in my lifetime to know by instinct which they are.

 

[Ciphor]

Calm down Ciphor, I never proclaimed myself a "spider expert". No need to be a jerk about it.

I am 29 now and have been into studying/collecting argiopes since the age of four. I always hunt for Argiope aurantia because they are my favorites. I can tell from an underside (and even the web if the spider is not in it) which ones are the aurantia and which ones are the trifasciata. The first set of Argiope aurantia's you posted with the banding on the legs are all immature aurantias and not fully grown. Yes, the immature aurantia have banding on their legs that (typically) disappear as they mature. The images posted in the original post are of a more mature Argiope, so I was only talking about mature argiopes. Also, I didn't feel like grabbing my spider books out of my closet to get the scientific terms of each individual leg segment. I described them in a way that people who did not go to college would be able to understand. Yes, there are always variations in every species of animal, but I am only concerned with how the majority are. I am not "embarassed" in the least, as I have seen more than enough of these spiders in my lifetime to know by instinct which they are.

Proclaimed? Wrong word, your right. I would say "portrayed" yourself as an expert. And you still are with this 25 years of experience opener. "Definitely" is a strong word in science. Do you really not see the flaw in your logic in saying "sometimes the other species have banding" & "This one has banding it is definitely X species"?

You directly attacked my post, in less words said I do not know what I am talking about. but your right, I should have taken a higher road. None the less, back peddling wont work with me. You cannot in one post claim there is no leg banding, then in your next post claim you knew about the leg banding! You got caught red handed, talking a buncha BS.

You also missed the point completely. The point is Both Argiope sp. range from full annulation, to partial, to banding, to solid black with no banding or annulation. Therefor, you cannot conclude a species by this feature. It does not mater how long you have looked at them, if you were looking at the wrong things the whole time.

These species morphing is highly influenced based on region and climate. Have you looked at Argiope in every state and country in North America? Have you read the published work from professionals who have?

If you want to believe you know this stuff better then published professors and entomologists, be my guest. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I'm pretty sure I made a compelling enough case on why this type of thinking is exactly why so many spiders are miss-identified. I had a much more lengthy post wrote out, explaining how BS your maturity, web ID, etc. claims are, but your not worth it, and I doubt you would listen. You would just back peddle your behind out of those claims as well.

Sorry for being a "jerk".

Someone has to speak some truth and cut down on all the BS flying around. Sucks it has to be me, I'm really not very graceful, and quite abrasive.

 

[FlawedCoil82]

I "directly attacked" your post?! Do you see how often I post on here? Maybe once every 10 months or so? I didn't even remember that I had already posted in this thread previously, so I thought I was seeing it for the first time and replying for the first time. Then that is when you became butthurt and started shoving whatever knowledge you could find down my throat in a very "holier than thou" way. I did NOT directly respond to your post when I posted that I thought it was definitely a banded garden spider, or else I would have quoted your post in mine. You need to make sure that people are, in fact, "directly attacking" your posts before you jump into your cyber tank and start firing off shells. So you require scientific proof and DNA test results before you will declare what something is, and I require trust in my years of experience at knowing what I am looking at. Big deal, so we both go about determining the same results in a different way. At any rate, there is absolutely no reason to carry this on any further. I'll go about doing things my way, and you carry on doing them your way.

 

[Ciphor]

jump into your cyber tank and start firing off shells.

LOL, that was pretty funny I will give you that. haha. Can I use that in my signature?

or else I would have quoted your post in mine.

I just want to be sure FlawedCoil82, since you didn't quote my post, are you talking to me?

Anyway, do what you want. You did directly attack my post, you posted right after me in response to me. Don't try and sell me a used car and say it is new.

DNA tests? hardly. A dorsal image is all that is needed, though I'm pretty sure location has determined the sp.

You can believe whatever you want, it's an ignorant belief, but ignorance is bliss! However, when you post in contrary to someone else, it is not just your belief, your spreading miss-information. I'll call it out every time!

so we both go about determining the same results in a different way

Also, i highly doubt you and I would come to the same results with the methods of IDing spiders you use.

 

[FlawedCoil82]

There was no need to quote your post in my last response (nor this one) because you know for sure I am responding to you. I didn't quote the original poster when I posted what I thought was my first, because some people get annoyed when photos are reposted in quotes (I know I do). But my post was in direct response to the original poster, NOT yours. I don't recall even reading your post above mine. I had to go back and reread the whole thread to find out what you was talking about when you said I attacked yours.

Argiope spiders are the only spiders I study, collect and observe closely, so I know enough about them to be confident in what I state about them, even if I don't use the scientific terms or methods. I also only study the Argiopes found in Ohio (aurantia and trifasciata) so they are the only spiders I am confident enough to identify by photos alone or their webs. I know basic info about other Argiopes like argentata, lobata and bruennichi, but since I can't observe them in person, I don't take that chance with them. When it comes to any other spider, I am more than happy to accept the scientific experts and their methods of identifying them.

 

[John Apple]

very simple...they are somewhat variable in appearance but the differences between aurantia and trifasciata are definate to warrant what they are...
while aurantia are banded or two toned for leg colors they are still aurantia....juvie aurantia have banded legs but no silver striping on the abdomen...as juvies the 'yellow' is 'white'....some aurantia still have banded legs as adults and that seems to be a trait in more southern populations....up here in Michigan they are more two toned as adults black and brown legs...very few with banded legs...the banded legged ones seem also to be larger....still the same sp......it is as it is
Now trifasciata have the silver coloration even as small juvies and the legs are usually allways banded.......as adults trifasciata seems to get more of a banded abdomen but silver and the badns run side to side not up and down as in the yellow of aurantia

 

[Ciphor]

very simple...they are somewhat variable in appearance but the differences between aurantia and trifasciata are definate to warrant what they are...
while aurantia are banded or two toned for leg colors they are still aurantia....juvie aurantia have banded legs but no silver striping on the abdomen...as juvies the 'yellow' is 'white'....some aurantia still have banded legs as adults and that seems to be a trait in more southern populations....up here in Michigan they are more two toned as adults black and brown legs...very few with banded legs...the banded legged ones seem also to be larger....still the same sp......it is as it is
Now trifasciata have the silver coloration even as small juvies and the legs are usually allways banded.......as adults trifasciata seems to get more of a banded abdomen but silver and the badns run side to side not up and down as in the yellow of aurantia

Pretty much. However my only point out of all this is, you cannot distinguish the two species from each other with only a ventral shot. A dorsal is required, and makes it 100% conclusive as their abdomens have unique patterns dorsally, and identical patterns ventrally. Someone telling me you can ID it based on a slight color variation of the spinnerets, and leg banding is not true, as both species have a variation with annulated rings. Both share the same possible variations of leg banding. Both share the same possible variations of solid legs with no banding or annulation.

And your full of BS trying to say you were not replying to me FlawedCoil, but whatever, I'm over it. Keep Iding spiders by leg banding and ignore every professional entomologists who knows that to be completely inaccurate, even when I've shown you conclusively why it cannot be accurate.

 

[Ciphor]

ID this.

I'll tell you what. If you can accurately ID all these Argiope photos by the ventral only photo, I'll accept that you are the expert on Argiope

GL!

 

[Ciphor]

Please also be sure an tell us why you picked each one for each species, point out what made you say "A. aurantia or A. trifasciata