Pisaurina dubia male from J. R. Maxwell, and typo in Carico, 1972?

Something's not right for sure

The spider you show has a strong procurved anterior eye row from my understanding of those terms. Maybe he got the term incorrect or is speaking about the posterior eye row? I would say we need to look at a different description to see if we can verify it's an error.

… Lynette Elliott, 5 November, 2013 - 8:15am

No, he's talking about the fr

No, he's talking about the front eye row. Compare with Pisaurina mira and you'll see what he means (if not what he writes):

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 5 November, 2013 - 8:31am

I meant

maybe he made a mistake and wrote anterior instead of posterior.

… Lynette Elliott, 5 November, 2013 - 9:00am

Yes, perhaps (I haven't compared the PER), but it's the anterior eye row in this one species that is very different from that of the other Pisaurina species, in which the anterior eye row is barely procurved.

… Kevin Pfeiffer, 5 November, 2013 - 12:08pm

Pisaurina dubia description in Carico

It seems to be a spelling error. It is clear from his diagrams that the anterior row is unusually strongly procurved. It is also true that the posterior row is unusually strongly recurved. He mentions that the ALE are "near margin of clypeus and prominantly tuberculate" as can be seen in your nice photos. Note that prominently is misspelled in his description. So perhaps some more careful editing would have been helpful.

… Richard Bradley, 8 April, 2014 - 5:10am