Spider BG454 - Cheiracanthium inclusum

Moved

Moved from Strotarchus. The epigynum is just too C. inclusum to be in Strotarchus I think. The epigynes of the two look really different, so I don't think there'd be any mistaking them. I think we were thrown off by the eyes (self included).

… Mandy Howe, 2 September, 2012 - 3:13pm

Nice catch!

… john and jane balaban, 2 September, 2012 - 5:21pm

Thanks!

… Mandy Howe, 4 September, 2012 - 8:06pm

I think it really is C. inclusum

I was just looking at our Strotarchus and noticed this one with the close-up of the epigynum. It's definitely Cheiracanthium inclusum (the Strotarchus epigynes look a lot different). I was confused for a second because the AME really do look like they're the largest, but then I zoomed in and I think the area surrounding them is just black, making them "look" larger than they really are. I think the AME are probably about the same size as the others. The epigynum is pretty telling, though, despite the eyes. Looks exactly like C. inclusum.

… Mandy Howe, 2 September, 2012 - 2:45am

Moved

Moved from Cheiracanthium inclusum. Moved based on comments on the following image:

… Lynette Elliott, 26 January, 2011 - 10:01pm

Moved

Moved from Longlegged Sac Spiders.

… Gayle and Jeanell Strickland, 29 January, 2008 - 8:18pm

It does look like Cheiracanthium

but we have that under Miturgidae in the guide.

… john and jane balaban, 23 January, 2007 - 1:40pm

Thanks folks,

I realized(and then forgot), that BugGuide places Cheiracanthium in Miturgidae, as does (1).
Gayle

… Gayle and Jeanell Strickland, 23 January, 2007 - 3:06pm

you ever have confusion with placement, reference here.
The genus is correct. Fig 39.17 pg. 174 (SNA) is C. mildei, so that should help you narrow it down to one of the two species.

… Jeff Hollenbeck, 23 January, 2007 - 5:20pm

Fig 39.17 not C. mildei

Just thought I would mention (for future visitors of this page, etc) that figure 39.17, pg. 174, in SONA(1) is actually the epigyne of C. inclusum. I know the tiny caption in the key makes it sound like it's C. mildei, but looking into Edwards 1958 and Dondale & Redner 1982 will show that the diagram is actually C. inclusum.

… Mandy Howe, 4 September, 2012 - 8:14pm