Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Calendar

TaxonomyBrowseInfoImagesLinksBooksData
Photo#241788
Wolf spider - Arctosa littoralis

Wolf spider - Arctosa littoralis
Red Rock Wildlife Area, near Knoxville, Marion County, Iowa, USA
September 9, 2007
Size: ~1.5"
On sand beach on shore of Lake Red Rock (reservoir).

Moved
Moved from Arctosa.

Moved
Moved from Wolf Spiders.

Arctosa sp.
I'm pretty certain this is an Arctosa wolf spider and it would be safe to move her to that guide page. Beaches are one of Arctosa's choice habitats. I'm not sure on a species as of yet, although I do have the literature to be able to key them out... but we would need relative eye sizes and epigyne photos (do you happen to have any, John?).

 
Why?
I don't really disagree with your ID, Mandy, and you clearly have learned a lot about spiders, but I think it would be nice if you could comment on how you made this generic ID, other than habitat. Eye arrangement details, leg lengths?? My impression is that many wolf spiders, with a couple of exceptions, cannot be identified even to genus without genitalia examination? Thanks!

 
I agree
I wholeheartedly agree! (I just erased a very long comment that I decided was inappropriate for this situation and made me sound crazy, lol!)

I've been tracking Jeff's submissions and acts of 'editor-ness' and learning as much as possible from them. One that applies here:

(Lets go back in time and pretend this was my original post, lol.)

Reminds me of Arctosa:

 
On the soapbox -
I've only learned a little about spiders over the past couple of years, and there are many others who are much better at identifying spiders on this site. However, I have learned enough to know that it's not easy to identify most spiders from one or two photos. Jeff Hollenbeck seems to have been (is he still active?) a real expert, but did not really explain his ID's. Like most of us, he was probably busy and didn't have time. But then that leaves us with picture-matching with the overall habitus and color, which I don't think is good enough. I'm concerned that we have quite a few spiders in the wrong place in the guide and that the errors will get propagated through picture-matching. I'd prefer that most of our spider IDs were backed up with collected specimens if they are placed at the species or even genus level... My grumpy two cents for today! :) Thanks for all your enthusiasm and work on the spiders, Mandy and John - none of this is meant as personal criticism of course.

 
Yes...
...the comment that I erased (mentioned above) was along the same lines as you've just mentioned. I actually wrote quite a bit about why I thought this was an Arctosa...but then I went a little overboard and ranted about how a majority of the spiders on BG have been wrongly ID based on lack of proper photography, etc... And other times, someone like myself or you (or others, too, I'm sure) spends their precious time researching and reading long articles and ruling things out in order to correctly ID someone's submission...only to be beaten to the punch by someone who chimes in with "One of these: (thumbnail)"...and then it gets moved to that guide page with no questions asked. I know the people that post those thumbnail ID's are only trying to help (I hope), but I bet a lot of them aren't aware of all the details that are needed to correctly ID a spider. I have my 'slips' occasionally where I fall into line with others and simply post a thumbnail ID...but in the process of doing so, I am aware that it's 'wrong'...but I wonder how a majority of the spiders on BG could EVER be correctly ID'd unless everyone knew the proper anatomical parts to get photos of. Something that really interested me recently was some photos that Lynette submitted; they are correctly ID'd as Araneus gemma by Rod Crawford, yet check out the dorsal cross on its abdomen! Even I would have mistaken it for a diadematus...and think about how many diadematus are in the guide that don't show the epigyne or palps! Here are the images I am using as an example right now:

...it goes on, too, lol. I recently found an Elaver ID'd as a Callobius. That's just another example of just how inadequate a habitus ID can be. But another thing I keep thinking about...if a submitter's photos aren't accurate enough to correctly ID the bug, do we just frass them all? Half of BG would be frass, wouldn't it? Ahh, well. I guess someone should write up some BugGuide rules and regulations on spider ID's or something, lol. That might sound tedious, but I'm sure it would help in the long run. It would heighten the accuracy of all the data BG records, at least. I can't remember if there was anything else I originally wanted to say. John got to read my original post before I erased it, so I am wishing I had a cerebral link to his brain and memory right now. lol. I guess I've ranted and raved enough, though. (and also, none of this is personal criticism either.)

 
Kaizen, IDs, and expectations
As part of an agency-wide effort at improving the way we function, I participated in a Kaizen event. (Initially skeptical, I was impressed that turned out to be a valuable process and not just a PR gimmick.) One of the phrases the facilitator used to describe apparent conflicts was "violently agreeing", by which people appear to be arguing when they are simply saying more-or-less the same thing in different ways. Seems like there are elements of this at work right here! :)

We all agree that IDs should be correct. In-hand inspection of real specimens is the ideal way to determine correct IDs (but we all know even that can be challenging at times!), so photographs are inherently more difficult. One way of managing this problem is to request submitters to provide photos that are as useful as possible; in this regard, see this article written by Lynette. However, submitters do not always follow this good advice (in this very example, I provided only a dorsal view. This early in my BG "career" (I took that photo 2 years ago), I was unaware of the diagnostic value of eye arrangement, epigynes, palps, etc.) Reviewers then have the choice of safely leaving the ID at a general level or offering a qualified ("looks like", "might be", "reminds me of") ID at a more specific level. There will always be some subjective difference among reviewers as to how far to cross the line between a safe, general ID and a riskier, qualified one.

Reviewers wrestle with this problem (and occasionally with each other) but is seems to me that reviewers, submitters, and third-party readers all need to have realistic expectations about IDs from photos. Submitters can help by providing useful images, reviewers can help by providing (brief) qualifications for their answers, and readers can help by reading ALL of the comments (thus understanding the degree of certainty for an ID). As a reader, I have a responsibility to recognize that IDs from photos are a "best guess" offered by helpful reviewers, not an always-conclusive fact.

 
Thank you. John :)
You worded that comment very beautifully and I wish I had your knack for charismatic writing.

And that is sooo correct: "violently agreeing". Honestly, I must admit that I was initially a little peeved at the original comment because I figured that Ken, being an editor and all, was aware that many, many ID's go by without descriptions of why. Another part of me thought I was being picked on because I am a rather new contributor. But both of these things are depictions of how an emotionally charged comment will usually breed more emotionally charged responses, lol. And it seems, in this case, that we are both emotional about the same subject! And I never held anything against Ken, or anyone else for that matter. After leaving my 'emotions' out of the equation, it is clear that Ken and I agree and are both passionate about some of the same points...and it seems we just "violently agreed". :)

Hopefully I haven't opened up any other cans of worms with this comment. If I have, John may have to come in and save me again. By the way, thank you, John, for your comment...it really evened things out and changed the atmosphere in here (a very good thing). I should've erased my previous comment like I did the first, lol.

 
Agreed -
I agree with both your comments and I certainly did not mean to pick on anybody. :) Hopefully we can get more spiders to their right places in the guide. I think that part of the solution is being very willing to leave images at the family level (or even at "spider" sometimes!) despite everyone's fervent desire to get images identified.

Moved
Moved from Spiders.

Wolf?
I think this may be a wolf spider (Lycosidae) of some sort - please wait for others to comment, though.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.