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#431823
Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male

Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - Male
McKinney Roughs Nature Park, Bastrop County, Texas, USA
July 20, 2010
Size: 2.8mm
I'm getting Symena viridans by process of elimination. There seem to be a few possible ways to key to genus, per the big black ID bible:

- ALEs are clearly larger than AMEs.
- Carapace is convex, not flat.
- Carapace has only large setae on top and maybe a dozen small setae in the clypeal region -- seems like a clear Synema.
- Assuming not Symena, lateral eyes are one such completely conjoined tubercles that I can't find a separation under the scope.
- Metatarsus I has two prolateral spines, ruling out Misumenops and leaving us with Diaea, which is not known to Texas.

Only two Synema are known to Texas, S. parvulum and S. viridans. This critter looks nothing like the male S. parvulum, leaving us with S. viridans.

Can anyone confirm? Does anyone have the Synema revision handy? How 'bout Diaea? I have the specimen.

Images of this individual: tag all
Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male Symena viridans? - Mecaphesa celer - male

Another possible celer
I posted a gorgeous photo of a mecaphesa whose abdomen looks like it is made of jade. When I keyed out the palp, I find myself inclined to call it M. celer. If it is indeed celer, these mecaphesa are chameleons, which is going to make photo-ID very difficult.


Can be confused with M. dubia
Hey everyone. I've now posted six confirmed specimens of Mecaphesa dubia, and some of them could be confused with M. celer. I need to get more photos of M. celer for comparison.

Moved - confirmed by pedipalp
Moved from Crab Spiders.

To summarize:

1) The palp indicates that this is clearly M. celer; certainly it is possible that there may be another, (extremely) similar species, but then someone will have to show us the drawings and point out the differences.

2) Joe, you indicated via PM that you hadn't seen a drawing of the M. celer pedipalp. Check the link I posted above (Gertsch, 1929, p. 424); Dondale & Redner must also have it.

3) Regarding the prolateral spines on metatarsus I, that might be a question for Hank. (BTW, what does it mean that he's "out of pocket" this summer?)

-Kevin

Confirmed photo of a male M. celer
I found a confirmed photo of a male M. celer on my wall! Hank Guarisco once gave me a poster he made called "Illinois Spiders." Hank's my mentor, so I don't think he'll mind me making the image available. You can find it here. (Hank just happens to be out of pocket this summer.)

And it looks like this specimen!

It also does not look like this male specimen. M. celer could be highly variable, but I wonder if BugGuide's M. celer images are on the wrong track.

We would not assume that any of the images
posted to species under Misumenops are particularly correct. Some were made by matching images before it became clear how complicated the genus was. Others were made by matching new images to old ones. The only ones that should certainly be correct are ones made using keys and reproductive parts. It's disappointing to hear that even some of those might be wrong. We have only been moving images to genus for the last several years waiting for an expert to stop in or a good guide to appear. Neither has happened yet. Feel free to move images you're concerned about back up to genus.

 
I'd like to see where we end
I'd like to see where we end up with this one. As John Sloan points out in a comment on the palp image, we also need to compare with Synema and (my addition) Diaea, since I started from the Misumenops key. However, the palp strongly resembles just one subgroup of the Misumenops-like spiders -- just the celer group within Mecaphesa. The Synema or Diaea palps would have to be similar to this subgroup's palps -- unlikely but possible.

Palp posted - I'm guessing Mecaphesa celer
I keyed this out first with the new Misumenops revision (Pekka and Yuri 2008), easily landing in Mecaphesa. Most neotropical Misumenops recently moved to Mecaphesa, so this would have previously been a Misumenops as everyone has been suspecting.

Using Schick 1965, I got this down to either Mecaphesa celer or Mecaphesa importunus. I'm going with M. celer because the length of the tegulum is about 3 times the diameter of the embolus spiral, as Schick 1965 specifies. Per Schick, M. importunus has about a two-fold difference. I did find this similar-looking M. celer on BugGuide, identified from a "Kansas School Naturalist pamphlet." Similar, but still pretty different. Perhaps M. celer is tremendously variable. Note that a spider virtually identical to my specimen was recently posted from North Carolina.

However, my specimen looks much more like this M. importunus, identified from the palp. I wonder how that specimen was distinguished from M. celer, given that its embolus spiral does not appear to be visible in the palp shot.

Also, I think this makes it clear that, in the SONA ID manual, Thomisidae key branches 5, 6, and 7 may not be useful for distinguishing Synema, Diaea, and (formerly) Misumenops, since my specimen keys ambiguously to either Synema or Diaea. Also, according to SONA, this specimen cannot key to Misumenops, since it clearly has prolateral spines on its anterior metatarsi. Minimally, we can say that the Misumenops branch of the SONA key is in error.

 
More evidence in favor of M.
More evidence in favor of M. celer: the other primary candidate, Mecaphesa importuna (formerly Misumenops importunus), is not listed among the known spiders of Texas.

Moved
Moved from ID Request.

 
Thank you Lynette. We're pre
Thank you Lynette. We're pretty sure that this is NOT S. viridans at this point. Kevin sent me the revised genus to Misumenops, which is going to require that I get a very good photo of the palp. Once I have that, we should be able to place this fellow.

The Thomisidae key in SONA ID manual may be a bit messed up, particularly after the 2008 revision.

Two metatarsus shots + Mecaphesa importuna look-alike
I posted two new photos that shows why I think it can't be Misumenops, on the basis of this critter having prolateral spines on metatarsus I.

Also, glancing through the Misumenops images, I find that it strongly resembles Misumenops importunus, which in 2008 was renamed Mecaphesa importuna. That specimen appears to have been ID'd exclusively from palp. How reliable is that? I could get a palp shot. Maybe I just don't know exactly where "prolateral" spines should be.

In any case, neither Misumenops importunus nor Mecaphesa importuna is listed among the known spiders of Texas.

 
Pedipalpus!
Hi Joe,

This looks like a Misumenops male to me (not that that means anything). I agree there appear to be two prolateral macrosetae on basitarsus I. My biggest problem with S. viridans is: where is it -- the green, that is? The carapace of the male should be "bright green and the abdomen somewhat duller" (Gertsch, 1939b).

To make a (hopefully) conclusive determination, we need to see a ventral view of the left pedipalp. Can you shoot this? If not, perhaps you could send the specimen to Ken or John (in the States) or to me (Germany).

-Kevin

 
Thanks Kevin. I hadn't seen a
Thanks Kevin. I hadn't seen any description of S. viridans, but guessed that it should normally be green given the name. In any case, as I've pointed out, the Spiders of North America ID Manual seems to definitively rule out Misumenops. That may not matter, because there is no longer a Misumenops genus -- it's been divided into Mecaphesa and Misumessus. If this is indeed Misumenops, we'd have to conclude that the manual has a mistake in it. Page 247 says that for Misumenops, "Basitarsus I lacking prolateral macrosetae." I need to get hold of that 2008 paper to see what's going on.

Out of curiosity, why the left pedipalp? Shouldn't they be symmetrical? I guess it's possible that they are not. You could reverse the image.

I'll be sending most of my specimens to Hank Guarisco for confirmation on a periodic basis. But thanks for the offer!

 
..
Hi Joe,

I'll see if I can get a copy of Lehtinen & Marusik. The left palp is used by convention (though not by all). It doesn't really make any difference, as you point it, but is simply more convenient as most drawings depict the left palp.

It's difficult to judge many details from macro photographs; even so, I think I do see these spines, as you do. There are surely errors in SONA, but perhaps not in this case -- Diaea might also be a possibility. Gertsch does mention a species, Diaea seminola, from Florida, with six black spots (but no other markings on carapace).

A quick view of the pedipalp should clear things up, so let's wait to see what Hank G. has to say.

-Kevin

 
Identical specimen elsewhere on BG
I just learned that Christy Beal recently posted a specimen that looks identical.

We made the page for acerba
and moved only the male images. We didn't know if you wanted your female images moved also or not. You can move them now if you like. We did not make a page for Synema viridans. This looks so different we just can't believe it is a Synema. Would have bet money it was Misumenops, but guess we'll wait and see!

 
Thank you for making the Naph
Thank you for making the Naphrys acerba pages!

 
Yeah, I'm not ready to place
Yeah, I'm not ready to place this in Synema either, but metatarsus I has two clear-as-day prolateral spines, so according to the black book, it can't be Misumenops. This thing has spines all around metatarsus I except retrolaterally. I should be able to grab the relevant revisions this week, but every few months I'll be having Hank Guarisco confirm my IDs.

Fascinating,
We're of no help, but are subscribing to see what you learn about this one!

 
John-Jane, when I have what a
John-Jane, when I have what appears to be a new species for BG, should I be file it to the most specific known and existing group? It would be Thomisidae in this case. I also just posted a Naphrys acerba, which you don't yet have a page for. Should I file that in Naphrys? Or is it best to leave it in ID request to be sure an editor picks it up? thanks! ~joe

 
Forums
create a new forum topic in the forum called "Requests for Additional Guide Pages"

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