So does the female F. ambigua have two different color/pattern morphs, or is this one actually a male? The female in Dick's thumbnail below looks different than this female here, which is why I ask. Maybe they're just females of different instars? A friend of mine sent GB a Freya from Ohio (imported with fruit) and it was a male that looks very similar to yours.

I think the differences are mostly due to the quality of the photographs, although, based on the female's description in the paper, the median abdominal stripe is variable, "usually" with faint chevrons present in the posterior half. In my photos of the adult female, the abdominal median stripe isn't sharp, as it is in Dick's photos of his female. And the female's carapace in my photos is sharper than is the carapace of the female in Dick's photos. I haven't had time to read the paper carefully, but in my initial read, I didn't see any comments indicating there were notable differences in patterns of males or females from TX and FL. There is definitely no mention of different color (pattern) forms for either sex.

There are some color photos of the male and female in the new paper (Edwards 2013) that still make yours look a little more like a male (maybe a penultimate male or something?), like the orange around the eyes, which doesn't seem present in females, and the long tuft of white hairs on the front of the abdomen and the overall darkness of the black part of the abdomen. I don't have any first hand experience with these, so I was just wondering after I saw the paper if maybe yours was a male instead (or a penultimate something). But this one is for sure an adult female with a fully-formed epigynum?
It's not really important I guess and and I don't know enough about this species to be saying anything anyway. :-P Any which way, it's awesome to get this placed at the new (restored) species! Thanks, Lyn! It looks like you and your husband played a big role in helping GB get specimens, too; I saw the 'shout out' to you in the acknowledgements section of the paper. Very cool!

Thanks, Mandy. I had wondered about the color around the eyes, too. After having time to read Edwards and Ruiz's paper more carefully, I agree that this ambigua must have been a penulitmate male. When GB examined these photos, it was months before we collected the specimens for him to examine and note the distinct differences between males and females. Same is true for Carol Wolf's photo. I can't see the "rust red" color around its eyes and it appears to have a more distinct chevron pattern in the abdominal stripe, so I'll resend the photo to GB, to see if he now thinks it's a female rather than a penulitmate male. I've already changed the sex designation on all my photos of the male.

Thanks, Lyn! This helps me now that you agree, because I was starting to question myself. I totally understand about how these images were before GB's description, so there was no real way to know the gender yet.

GB re-examined Carol Wolf's photo of ambigua and still thinks that individual was a penultimate male, because of its blackish background color, which he believes is too dark for a female ambigua.

I have added another record of a female
here.

> Freya perelegans Simon, 1902 — Venezuela

My goodness, that's a range extension!

Yes, it is. GB examined the specimens we collected in Pinellas County on 11/16/11, and confirmed his belief that these Freya are perelegans. I know the Manatee County Freya were also found in the wild, but don't know where the Miami-Dade specimens were found. I'd not be surprised if the perelegans in Pinellas and Manatee (adjacent counties) are decendents of perelegans brought in by ships coming into ports in Tampa Bay. The exotic cerambycid Trachyderes mandibularis , now breeding in the Tampa Bay area, originated from ones brought into the Port of Tampa.

Thanks, Dick. We'll continue to search for more of these Freya, in hopes of determining species. When species is determined, I'll make a species page and move images to that page.