I spent some time looking at Peckhamia specimens on BugGuide and am wondering why this individual was moved from P. americana. The epigynum is a good match to all diagrams and the description matches except for the darker color (which I am starting to think is just natural variation).

I moved it back to genus because Kevin (and Jay) expressed doubt about whether Kevin's earlier determination of americana was correct. The epigynum illustrations in Peckham & Peckham are basically line drawings, and I am having trouble seeing differences too. If you're confident, feel free to move it back. The shape of the cephalothorax behind the ocular quadrangle seems like it might be useful.

John Sloane pointed out to me that I had overlooked P. americana (I had misread the distribution note). The Peckhams' brief descriptions lead me to believe, as John suggested, that this may be P. americana.

Any thoughts? [I've added a view of the sternum to the Nearctic Forum.]

-Kevin

I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like the best match to me. The epigynum drawings for Peckhamia picata appear more complicated at the bottom of the image than Peckhamia americana, so that makes it look like a better match due to the simplicity in this specimen. Maybe we should ask Wayne Maddison.

Yeah, I'll plan to ask him (waiting on another specimen, first). The drawings vary so much that it's clear to me there won't be a perfect match. P. americana, IMO, has the right overall shape to the structures (the 'aviator eyeglasses look') and has the dark areas (spermatecae?) in the right areas. So, I'm convinced -- but those are the convictions of someone who's looked at one specimen. ;-)

-Kevin

Maybe some help here starting on page 367
http://books.google.com/books?id=VkwbAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Revision+of+the+Attidae+of+North+America#v=onepage&q=&f=false

That's the only illustration that I know of for the P. americana epigynum. I feel rather certain, based on their descriptions and the epigynum, that this is indeed P. americana, but it's always nice to hear from those with more experience (Jay, are you there?)

-K

BTW, all(?) of the Peckhams' publications can be found here: www.peckhamia.com

based on the consistent Peckham descriptions of dark lines on legs II and III for that species, but I'm not real confident.

As much as I enjoy reading through the early work by the Peckhams, it's unfortunate that all we have as a reference for P. americana is those "stick-figure" epigynum drawings.

I look forward to hearing Wayne's input. This series of images will be a significant leap forward for whichever species it turns out to be.

I don't think I ever got around to asking. But tonight, while viewing another specimen, a male which seems to have to be P. picata, I'm wondering whether I might have made a mistake here. What especially bothers me is this comment from 1909: "Picata is a much darker spider than americana, which is reddish rather than black."

Here is the male specimen:

I reposted your images lost on forum.canadianarachnology.org

I was wondering what the images Kevin made looked like. Any idea if this was shown to G. B. Edwards or Wayne Maddison?

.

I was just looking at this, and thought it could be picata.

Is he around? I'm waiting for a response from him on another inquiry. Who else might be willing to offer an opinion -- G.B.?

-K

If he's anything like me the personal fun (like this) tends to get delayed, or just plain ignored, when work gets piled up.

Definitely give G.B. a try. He and Wayne are equal experts IMO.

just haven't had time to look everything over. :-( I'll try to look at this tonight.

but saying it "must be" based on a single description of one species, even if it happened to be a very distinctive one, is pretty far-fetched IMO.

> pretty far-fetched IMO

Touché -- the excitement of the moment. :-) But on the other hand, Kaston goes to the trouble of describing these features and showing a lateral profile, and it's the only species he describes in this non-technical publication (Know the Spiders), so I am assuming that it is the most common or widespread species.

What species can one rule out? I see that there is a little bit of information online -- Proszynski has drawings, including a lateral drawing, of P. scorpiona, for example. I'd like to see more specific distribution information, if possible. Don't you think that might narrow the field down?

Do you have any of the literature? I see that for P. americana, for example, one has to go back to Peckham & Peckham 1909.

-K

If you flip though Spiders of Connecticut Kaston will often give a good description for the first species in a genus, but for the second, third, etc. the description will be something like "markings and color same as [first species] with differences noted in the key", and the key might mention something about a 45° turn in the second loop leading to the spermathecae instead of a 60° turn.

Even a lot of revisions do this, and it's very frustrating, but these published works are almost always working exclusively with long-dead specimens preserved in alcohol, and wouldn't you know it-- they really do all look alike at that point.

There is some general distribution information found here, but I wouldn't consider it complete. It doesn't have Peckhamia scorpionia listed for Ohio yet, but it does appear on our Ohio list, just like neither list has Sassacus vitis listed for Ohio, but it's in my backyard.

From the epigynum photo alone we can tell this is Peckhamia and not Synageles, so I don't see any need to rush this to species.

I appreciate it. I kinda like this one. I've kept it a couple of days on my desk. I'll probably release it soon, since I'm not sure about diet. Gave it a couple of small ants and a tiny moth. The moth is dead, but they live such a short time, I don't ever count that unless I watch the spider make the kill. I flick a couple of water drops in and it drinks a little up. Mostly hangs out in a retreat web in the corner.

experience with keeping jumping spiders (only 5 species) they did not eat ants.
You shot a great series of this ant mimicking spider. Why frass it?

I thought that 4-5 would be plenty to keep, but uploaded all 12 just in case someone wants something additional. If you click through them you can see some in ID Request and some in Frass. I like to leave it up to one of the "spider guys" to decide what they want, like one of the ventral shots was selected as a keeper. I'm good with keeping 0-12 whatever is best for the guide, although this doesn't seem to be common enough to make 0 very likely. :-)

I've often toyed with the notion of housing some of the many cool critters I've found outside in a confined environment indoors, either for the sake of better photography or just to spend time studying them. In the end though, I've opted to leave them outside because I know -- being the tender-hearted gal that I am -- that I would feel just awful if they died under my care. Plus, I've seen what happens to the plants and flowers I've attempted to take care of, and it ain't pretty. (*smile*)