ID anyone?

[Cyanea]

These are some spiders i have right now, i know to what family a couple of them belong but the other two i have no idea maybe someone here knows

Anyone has an idea of what kind of wolf spider is this?

and what about this huntsman?

now this i thought it was an agelenid at first, but now i don't think it is... kind of looks like a mygalomorph, but i don't know if its possible

this is its web:

i thought this was a Kuculcania sp., but Pitbulllady show me why it's not, maybe someone knows what it actually is

 

[Black Widow88]

WOW! Those are really cool looking wolf spiders. I would love to see one of these in person. Hope you find the ID for these soon!

Black Widow88

 

[What]

I know the 3rd spider you have there is some kind of Diplurid, but that is about it....

Did you collect it?

 

[lucanidae]

The Diplurid is genus Euagrus, only three speices in your area but I'm not familiar with them. The last one looks like Amaurabiidae, big ones are often confused for Kuklucania. Sorry, can't help with the first wolf spider or say anything further about that Sparassid.

 

[Bastian Drolshagen]

hi,
how do you know it´s a Euagrus sp.?!? Anything on its outer appearance that makes you think it is? Without knowing where that species has been collected it could also be a Hexathelidae (raised caput, elongated spinnerets). The other key-features of the family Dipluridae are not visible (labium without cuspules, only raised caput, no raised thorax). Additionally: Without knowing the size and morphology of that spider it is NOT possible to determine it to species/genus level!

The last one doesn´t look like an Amaurobiidae to me, more like Ctenidae (eyepattern, habitus).

 

[lucanidae]

I think the shape of the third segment of the PLS indicates Dipluridae, Euagrus is the common genus in that area and is variable enough to include all the characteristics visible in that specimen.

As for the habitus in the third one....you don't usually see a water bowl in nature. That's a captive pic. I'm not sure on my family ID on that one at all, just throwing out a possibility.

 

[Cyanea]

thanks a lot for all the replies

about the Diplurid, i actually thought it was Hexathelidae at first, but i looked it up in google and i think those spiders are bigger, this one is a little bit more than 1 cm (not considering the legs) in lenght, so maybe it's too small to be Hexathelidae

the one i thought was Kukulcania, i don't think the eye pattern is Ctenid like, i found it between some stones at a friends house, i'm not even sure if i should've put that substrate there, but i don't think it was that bad idea because she used it to cover here egg sac (you can see pics in this thread http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=107956)
and i suspect it's cribellate because of the way she weaves her web and the way it looks like, i could be wrong though

 

[Black Widow88]

Could it be possible that there could be a small species from Hexathelidae? Anything is possible.

Black Widow88

 

[problemchildx]

The black one looks like a Raveniola sinensis..
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/gallery/showimage.php?i=4079&catid=6

 

[Bastian Drolshagen]

hi,
first of all the specimen introduced to the market as Raveniola sinensis are Macrothele monocirculata.
There´re small Hexathelidae, but none of them on the American continent.
From PM with Cyanea I now know that the specimen with the elongated spinnerets has been collected in Mexico, so it´s definetly a Dipluridae (no plates on dorsal abdomen, fovea not longitudinal rule out Mecicobothriidae aswell).
Now the question is what genus, could also be a juvenile Ischnothele sp. - but as lucanidae wrote before, it´s more likely to be Euagrus sp.
BUT you cannot distinguish between Euagrus sp. and other Dipluridae by the shape of the apical segment of the posterior lateral spinnerets.

 

[lucanidae]

Right. My ID to family was based on spinnertes and knowing where it was collected. My ID to genus was based on the fact that the only other genera in that area have longitudinal thoracic furrows, while Euagrus can have a shallow rounded depression or deeper pit.

 

[Bastian Drolshagen]

hi,
what about Ischnothele sp.?!?
The only thing that can be ruled out by the non longitudinal fovea is the family Mecicobothriidae...

 

[lucanidae]

The only two Ischnothele from that region I could find referenced are digitata and caudata. Both of these species have conspicuous abdominal markings, which the specimen in question does not.

 

[Bastian Drolshagen]

hi,
to be honest, I think you´re right...already wrote that before
But what about the variation in abdominal pattern of Ischnothele caudata (the only one that could fit...I. digitata looks completely different) Coyle mentions in the revision of the subfamily Ischnothelinae?

Coyle, F. A. (1995): A revision of the funnelweb mygalomorph spider subfamily Ischnothelinae (Araneae, Dipluridae). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. 226: 61.

 

[8+)]

With many spiders abdominal markings are a fairly reliable characteristic for consideration for an ID, however I imagine there are many that have either too much variation, too much similarity to others, or not enough distinction for the markings to be defining?

 

[lucanidae]

hi,to be honest, I think you´re right...already wrote that before

Thanks. I appreciate this on two counts. I'm really glad you are challenging my ID, I challenge IDs all the time even when I think the person is correct....it brings out new characters and sharpens the mind.

Yes, there is diversity in that species abdominal markings....BUT, the probability that this one would be that and have no markings is very low. There are of course other characters which could be used to distinguish these two genera, but as you pointed out they are not available in the photos.

 

[Black Widow88]

With many spiders abdominal markings are a fairly reliable characteristic for consideration for an ID, however I imagine there are many that have either too much variation, too much similarity to others, or not enough distinction for the markings to be defining?

I would have to agree on that also. That has happened to me many times. And alot of the times I couldn't ID what spider it was I saw no matter how much I consulted my books. So alot of them are still "mystery spiders".

Blame it on them and trying to confuse the interested observer.

Black Widow88

 

[Bastian Drolshagen]

hi,

Thanks. I appreciate this on two counts. I'm really glad you are challenging my ID, I challenge IDs all the time even when I think the person is correct....it brings out new characters and sharpens the mind.

Exactly
Additionally it´s a good test to check whether the person who wrote it knows what he/she is talking about. I´m on another forum, which deals with our native species, and there´re people determining spiders to species level nobody ever heard of. The problem with their IDs is to check if they´re right or not. Sometimes it´s right - just from their experience, other times they´re wrong...

Yes, there is diversity in that species abdominal markings....BUT, the probability that this one would be that and have no markings is very low. There are of course other characters which could be used to distinguish these two genera, but as you pointed out they are not available in the photos.

Here you´re absolutely right, I just wanted to mention that there IS variability in abdominal markings, also in Ischnothele caudata, and Coyle even shows a variant with an almost complete black abdomen.
Btw: Are you interested in Dipluridae? I could offer a lot of literature about this spider family.