Found a patternless Latrodectus variolus

[andrewctonus]

Very surprised with this find! Every variolus I've ever found (I live on Long Island and find them on the east end) has had very high coloration. This one that I found today, however, couldn't be more different. It's only patterning is a small red "tail" dot and a single red line on the underside by the spinnerets. I have never before seen a patternless variolus so I thought it would be interesting to share!

 

[Philth]

I've been living on Long Island my whole life and have never seen a Latrodectus

Later, Tom

 

[ReignofInvertebrates]

I've seen a few, but it was back when I was younger and was told to avoid them. Two big old females lived in our garage!

 

[Tarantula155]

I've seen a few, but it was back when I was younger and was told to avoid them. Two big old females lived in our garage!

I'm in Maryland and I can only find these guys deep in a forest. Rarely near people unlike the L. hesperus which I find with ease around houses

 

[andrewctonus]

I've been living on Long Island my whole life and have never seen a Latrodectus

Later, Tom

I live in Nassau and have never seen a single one by my house, but I've found over 5 on the east end! All of them in Sag Harbor. I'm assuming that they're found in decent numbers out east but not in Nassau, similar with Saturniid moths. Three of the widows I've seen were at my grandparents' house low to the ground in their front yard; the other two I found at a nearby park under logs. If you have a chance to go out east and look, definitely give it a go!

 

[Philth]

Yeah, I'm in Nassau too. I've seen some big Dolomedes around, but I'd love to see a widow.

Later, Tom

 

[Beary Strange]

That's pretty neat; though it seems kind of a shame, since variolus have such a lovely pattern.

 

[pannaking22]

Very cool! The only places I've found variolus have been from Effingham and south. Never in central Illinois (no surprise since it's all corn fields) and none in northern Illinois (surprising since there's quite a bit of forest up there).

 

[Tarantula155]

Very cool! The only places I've found variolus have been from Effingham and south. Never in central Illinois (no surprise since it's all corn fields) and none in northern Illinois (surprising since there's quite a bit of forest up there).

I find them deep in a forest. Under logs, even under dead leaves.. you have to look for messy webbing, you'll likely find one. I've found them in forests in Virginia too, only in forests though, strange

 

[John Apple]

Nice....there is a colony just south of the UP in Michigan that is patternless

 

[pannaking22]

I find them deep in a forest. Under logs, even under dead leaves.. you have to look for messy webbing, you'll likely find one. I've found them in forests in Virginia too, only in forests though, strange

Any time I've found messy webbing it has been empty or I've found other theridiids. Oh well, just makes the hunt that much more fun and eventually finding one that more rewarding

 

[andrewctonus]

That's pretty neat; though it seems kind of a shame, since variolus have such a lovely pattern.

I was thinking that too! I've seen some very spectacularly patterned variolus and was taken aback finding this one. Nevertheless I'm actually loving this pitch black color; hopefully I can breed her and see how the babies turn out

 

[Widowman10]

It *seems* that the patternless, or more dull, variolus are typically found in the more northern latitudes and the really colorful ones are found down south. Not always the case of course, but I've noticed that before.

 

[The Snark]

It *seems* that the patternless, or more dull, variolus are typically found in the more northern latitudes and the really colorful ones are found down south. Not always the case of course, but I've noticed that before.

Which indicates the species, or this chunk of the genus, is still in flux. After a certain period of time normalizing is supposed to take effect. Coloration becomes standardized. In north America we are still getting these odd differences. Compare to far older and more established Hasselti. Red Back is Red Back from the tropics of Darwin to the colder temperate regions of Victoria. This makes me wonder what time frame Latrodectus operates under. Looks like a few million years to work out the standard model paint job. When you are talking about species with such slow adaptability it explains how an invasive like Geometricus can stomp all over the Hesperus standard model.

Wallowing further in the Darwinian. Widowman10...We know they all had one origin species from that exotic venom. So which came first? Are they still diversifying?

 

[pannaking22]

Which indicates the species, or this chunk of the genus, is still in flux. After a certain period of time normalizing is supposed to take effect. Coloration becomes standardized. In north America we are still getting these odd differences. Compare to far older and more established Hasselti. Red Back is Red Back from the tropics of Darwin to the colder temperate regions of Victoria. This makes me wonder what time frame Latrodectus operates under. Looks like a few million years to work out the standard model paint job. When you are talking about species with such slow adaptability it explains how an invasive like Geometricus can stomp all over the Hesperus standard model.

Wallowing further in the Darwinian. Widowman10...We know they all had one origin species from that exotic venom. So which came first? Are they still diversifying?

Do you think that geo are older than hesp then? Or do you think their evolutionary history has caused them to be a more adaptive species? And just for clarification, are you talking about diversification of species or of venom compounds?

 

[The Snark]

Do you think that geo are older than hesp then? Or do you think their evolutionary history has caused them to be a more adaptive species? And just for clarification, are you talking about diversification of species or of venom compounds?

I'm (obviously) pretty confused regarding Latro. It has given us some clues and hints about evolution that could be considered unique but I'm not sure my brain would be able to handle another trip through Origin.

First, they all had the same origin, whether species or environment is unknown, but they all share that exotic 7 component venom. It's highly unlikely that parallel species would develop the same venom unless the environment was nearly identical and sufficient time lapsed.

Then we have the isolationist, Hasseltii. The land bridge to Oz went away quite a while back and it became frozen in time. One species with unique coloration but sharing the origin venom.

Then in north America variations on the theme are still sporting, experimenting, yet again, sharing the origin venom trait.

Taking all that into account I suspect, as a theory, that environment and circumstances X has produced a more adaptable subspecies, Geometricus, and it will probably be a few more eons before the dominant species emerges, eventually suppressing the competitors or forcing them into small niches.

With Hesperus, it found a very conducive environment and fully established itself. Judging by the age of the territory, southwest US, it has had several thousand years gaining this foothold. Then in the space of a tiny amount of time, a century or two at the most, Geometricus is displacing it. Obviously a more adaptable and capable sub species. Would Geometricus displace Hasseltii given the chance? Will Hasseltii and Geometricus become the two dominant sub species? Is the species still sporting and a super Geometricus possibly be in the future? Does Geometricus have the same adaptability as Hasseltii, able to thrive in extreme climates, sub equatorial all the way through the temperate zones, or did Hasseltii develop this climate tolerance only from an extended period of time and lack of species competition? (Hasseltii's climate tolerance is roughly equivalent to the range from the northern tip of south America all the way to near Alaska).

 

[Widowman10]

Which indicates the species, or this chunk of the genus, is still in flux. After a certain period of time normalizing is supposed to take effect. Coloration becomes standardized. In north America we are still getting these odd differences. Compare to far older and more established Hasselti. Red Back is Red Back from the tropics of Darwin to the colder temperate regions of Victoria. This makes me wonder what time frame Latrodectus operates under. Looks like a few million years to work out the standard model paint job. When you are talking about species with such slow adaptability it explains how an invasive like Geometricus can stomp all over the Hesperus standard model.

Wallowing further in the Darwinian. Widowman10...We know they all had one origin species from that exotic venom. So which came first? Are they still diversifying?

I agree somewhat with the 'normalizing' but I get hung up on established species variation in coloring (and patterning). Are all of these examples, which span across taxa, still in flux? Or are 2 variations of the same species with slightly different coloration filling a niche and are no longer in flux? Would you then contend that these 2 will eventually speciate? Would the same thinking hold true for other characteristics, such as size, shape, and other non-tangible features? I say this because monarch butterflies have 2 size morphs. Would this mean they are still in flux and haven't worked everything out yet because there are 2 different forms for the one species? Or does this mean there are 2 different size forms because they have worked things out and are no longer in flux? (The migrating form / 4th generation of monarch butterflies are noticeably larger than their gen1-gen3 counterparts, allowing them to make the migration. The gen1-gen3 are smaller, which is better to evade predators and get nutrients.) I wonder if the same reasoning could hold true for widows. For instance, if you took a good sized group of colorful southern variolus and stuck them up in Maine or something, would the next generation (or the one after) start producing dark individuals?

So, in essence, I guess what I'm wondering is this: does the color (or size) variation mean that the species is still in flux, or does it mean that it has established itself enough to display these variations and better adapt to any condition?

We see countless species across numerous taxa that show variation. Some will speciate (like the salamanders in California), and some seem to continue on. Maybe we don't have enough time record to see.

 

[The Snark]

Widowman10: "So, in essence, I guess what I'm wondering is this: does the color (or size) variation mean that the species is still in flux, or does it mean that it has established itself enough to display these variations and better adapt to any condition? "

I can easily visualize Darwin sitting in the Beagle muttering the same thing to himself while the ships crew becomes more and more convinced their scientist has gone 'round the pipe'.

When does environmental adaptations become rigidly defined boundaries written in the genes inhibiting two sub species from interbreeding? When and why does that irrevocable genetic subset go off?

As you mentioned, it's all about the time frame. We have millions of years of modifications and we are only seeing the end results. With hominids it's much easier. We have bones and fossils. With invertebrates we have the odd splat in the strata of certain rocks. Our windows into their evolution are microscopic compared to any given chunk of the timeline.

Radical variations in coloration indicates still in flux; adaptations to the immediate environment. As normalization takes over these variations become standardized. Hesperus would exemplify that. They still have some variations but compared to the overall population these are rare. Species interbreeding will eventually produce an X with minor variations on the theme. Once it fits within an ecosystem niche the variations become less radical.

But then with Latrodectus, one of the most cosmopolitan animals in the world, the best we observers can hope for is a watch and see what evolves. When will that genetic flood gate close and what separate species will earth end up with?

[SUP]
PS Why is it that with millions of scientifically proven facts establishing it, evolution is still referred to as a theory while Adolph and Eve are accepted as fact?[/SUP]