Yet another spider identification thread...this one eats other spiders.

xhexdx

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,392
Yes, mine can climb glass.

Galapoheros,

I don't see the hairs on mine like you do on yours, but then again, your shots are much closer and much better quality.

Here are some updated pics. I can definitely see 8 eyes on mine. Also, I hadn't thought about this before, but here's what a sac looks like:



8 eyes:



Ventral:



Another random shot:

 

jsloan

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
972
You can rule out Dysderidae. There is only one species in that family within North America, Dysdera crocata, which looks nothing like xhexdx's spider.

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 AM ----------

Sorry I still can't help on the ID, but I may have found one too. I don't know, maybe it will help somehow. I don't really think so but maybe the same genus?
I don't think your spider is in the same genus. Yours has numerous macrosetae on the legs, while xhexdx's doesn't. Also, yours has hairs on the front of the abdomen, and xhexdx's doesn't. Those would be diagnostic features which keep spiders into separate genera.

It's too bad I don't live in the states so that if anyone wanted to send me a spider I could identify it for them to species. Many of these can't be reliably placed to species from pictures alone.

Nevertheless, a picture of the underside of xhexdx's spider might help.

[edit - ah, wait, I see we have one. :)]
 

revilo

Arachnoknight
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
173
hi all,

this hard nut is making fun :)

tarantula hawk, your post was really very constructive ! i never was taking care which pair of eyes is missing in 6 eyed families - until now ! thanks for this advice ;)
and exactly your guess about the untypical habitus for a gnaphosidae is that what was disturbing to me the same.

o.k. now i see clearly 8 eyes - great new pics from xhexdx btw - so of course not a dysderidae.

so, the gnaphosidae or corinnidae are both possible although the really long legs are unusual. but the eggsac (or maybe livingsac ?) would be fitting quiet good the same to this families.

jsloan, maybe you are able to use the pic of the venter to id this now - i can see the epigyne but for me it's not possible to come closer to an id with this in that case.

bye, oli

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

edit : of course eggsac...
 

revilo

Arachnoknight
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
173
hi venom,

this seems to be a good guess, maybe the best...

after a little research in www i recognized that there are only a few genus in this family and most of them have there main distribution in the usa.
additional most genus are relativly new revised, so there is good taxonomical stuff about them online with free access.
one revision, i was looking closer inside, the genus was NOT fitting because in this the ame was the smallest - but in our sp. here the ame are the biggest.

but in whole this family the epigyne is very markable because the median plate and the lateral lobes. so a clear shoot of the epigyne will maybe bring us in ability to id on photo.and in case xhexdx will catch a male he can look on his palps because there are very markable tibial apophysis (two of them) - what is not so common in araneomorphe spiders.

later in the evening i maybe have time to take a closer look in the other revisions and with luck there are usable informations to compare with this pics here - like jsloan said, only on pics id can be hard.

bye, oli
 

Tarantula_Hawk

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
445
Hmm i dont think its Tengellidae (which is also a poorly defined familiy, probably not monophyletic). All Tengellidae except Tengella (not our case) have AM eyes smaller or equal to the rest, and all eyes are rounded. Pretty different from the eye arrangement of this spider and also the shape of the PM which seems pretty irregular.
Also, judging from internet pics of Titiotus, i see a distinctly shorter clypeus, which is particularly wide in this specimen.
Additionally "Spiders of North America, Ubick et al" says Titiotus sp. suspend their eggsacs from a thread, which is definitely not our case.
 

telow

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
446
ive havent seen one of those in a while wow man hahaha
i never figured out what they are but it would be cool to know the id
 

xhexdx

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,392
I'll drop Dr. Edwards a line and see what he thinks. Thanks, jsloan. :)

Caught another one of these guys outside tonight...guess what it was eating?



 

Tarantula_Hawk

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
445
OK so i've been having this idea from the beginning, but i've initially thought it to be very unlikely (primarily for geographical reasons) and didnt bother posting it. However seeing more and more pics is making me more and more convinced.
This spider is extremely similiar both in overall morphology, in ocular disposition, apparently in epigyne and in the considerable lenght of the tarsal segments to Cithaeron praedonius (Cithaeronidae), belonging in the Gnaphosoidea. Its a small family primarily restricted to Africa, India and some other parts of Asia. However this one species i mentioned has been found in some other parts of the world where it was probably introduced and where it is associated with human inhabitations: Australia, Singapore and most recently Brazil (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=s0101-81752007000200034&script=sci_arttext, scroll down for some pictures..)
It has, therefore, never been reported for USA, so if this spider is indeed what i think it is, it would certainly be something of great interest.
 
Last edited:

revilo

Arachnoknight
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
173
hi tarantula hawk,

very nice find - interesting !

and exciting if threadopener agree after get id from g.b. edwards !

imho it could match - but i'm long time out here LOL...

in the first post there is written : DLS ~ 1" does this mean leg diameter ?

cheers, oli

---------- Post added at 06:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 AM ----------

p.s.: this paper is maybe of interest too (don't know how to link it - sorry i'm a computer dyslexic...)
supplementary notes on the ground spider family cithaeronidae (araneae, gnaphosoidea), 1994, the joa, 22:82-83
can't see author...
 

xhexdx

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,392
DLS = diagonal leg span. I'll see if I can get a picture of this guy on a measuring square.
 

revilo

Arachnoknight
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
173
hi,

not neccessary, i would appreciate this but it's not neccessary to me.

but please : keep us updated ;) i really want to know what to heck it is...

bye, oli
 

dr.salticid

Arachnopeon
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
5
At the request of the original poster, I am weighing in here. The prey does seem to be Nesticodes rufipes, as indicated by a previous post. I do not know what the predator is. It is not Kukulcania nor Cheiracanthium. The posterior median eyes seem round in the top view, and it is not clear that the posterior lateral spinnerets are cylindrical, although they do seem widely separated, so unlikely to be a gnaphosid. I am pretty familiar with the Florida spider fauna, and it is possible that this is a recent introduction, so needs to be investigated further.

---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

I missed some of the later posts before my last response, so will try again. I originally disagreed with the possibility of it being a gnaphosid, but it appears that the possibility that it's a gnaphosoid is pretty good. Most of the early pictures seemed to have the PM eyes round, but the last post clearly shows them differently, and an earlier photo of a specimen upside down shows an epigynum that is suggestive as far as matching the Brazilian article. I think we have to consider the possibility of it being an introduced cithaeronid. It needs to be confirmed by an examination of specimens.
 

xhexdx

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,392
Caught a male today:







I already e-mailed these to Dr. Edwards as well. :)
 
Last edited:

xhexdx

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,392
Tarantula_Hawk: I think you may be right with Cithaeron praedonius, although it's certainly not up to me to confirm. Dr. Edwards has some specimens now, so hopefully he'll have something to say soon.

In the meantime, we put this male under a microscope (10x and 25x magnifications) and took some pictures. They're not the best, but hopefully they will be helpful:











 

revilo

Arachnoknight
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
173
hi,

pics are like you mentioned not to sharp, but great although i think :worship:

after "compare" this with the paintings in the mentioned work (JoA Vol. 22)
i follow now 100% tarantula hawk - "..." because details in your pics are not visible, so it's not really a comparision.
but the apophysis on pedipalpal tibiae and the very distinct shape of whole palpal structures make me think it's a "hot tip"...

cheers, oli

p.s.: this is quite fun here, nice that peoples are so engaged ;)
 
Top