However, once you've spent a bit more time here you'll realize that the folks who identified this spider really do know their stuff, and that they generally have good reasons for making the calls they make. Instead of shouting about an "obvious" mistake, you might have simply asked them how they arrived at their ID. I've learned a lot from Lynette and the Balabans (and from many other editors and contributors). You might be able to benefit from their experience, too. Just a thought.

Agreed. I don't have enough experience categorizing spiders myself, so I will gladly allow those who have the experience to pick the best spot in the guide for my photo. I was fine with where this was placed and didn't mean to question anybody; I've always appreciated the info I got here.
Cheers,
StormCoat

We always appreciate fresh perspectives, esp. when they are productive. As we've always stated, identifying a spider by a photo is tricky business, which many experts refuse to do because they know that there are always exceptions to the rule.

Ammophila procera - please remember this is a family site so your heading may be inappropriate for a younger audience. Also please continue to share your opinions, but what really helps is references to material to prove your point. If you feel stongly about an image ID and others don't agree please use reference material such as Levi's Bulletin from 1971 to convince us.

I'm not sure if you realize or not, we are not experts who have examined the spider under a microscope. We are naturalists who have been tying to help people ID their spiders with whatever references we can find. This takes a lot of time, and even after that there WILL be errors. There is just no way to do this with 100 percent accuracy, which is why we have the Disclaimer at the bottom of every page.

Take a look the following image ID'd by an extension agency female Neoscona crucifera.

Hi;
back when I first posted this photo and another orbweaver photo that I took around the same time, I noticed that this spider also looked like it could be an arabesca. So I emailed the guy who's in charge of the arachnology section of the San Diego Natural History Museum's Entomology Department, to ask him what he thought. With regards to this photo, he said:

"The spider with the black paired marks on the abdomen could be Neoscona crucifera or Neoscona arabesca"..."Many folks who try to ID spders make the common mistake of going by color pattern. In some species, like the green lynx spider (Peucetia viridans), the color pattern is unique-any large, green or greenish spiders in SD Co is Peucetia. However, not so with many orbweavers such as Neoscona or Araneus. Color patters can vary widely. Neoscona crucifera can be orangesh, tan, or brown. They can have black spots or not. They can have the cross or not. For most spiders what you need is a microscope and the description literature to determine species with confidence. What you have to look at are the genitalia: palps in males and epigyna in females. With a hand lens and practice you can ID most families and some genera. Based on my experience, though, most of the larger "hairy" spiders making large round webs at this time of year are the N. crucifera."

So I guess it's a little unclear which species it is...

Ah ha! See this site Berkeley.edu.

Now that makes more sense. We'll move these to crucifera.

Should we add California to the range for N. crucifera on the info page? They seem well established here.