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#958479
White crab - Philodromus marxi - female

White crab - Philodromus marxi - Female
Marlton, Burlington County, New Jersey, USA
July 15, 2014
Size: Maybe around 3 - 3.5 mm?
Philodromus imbecillus?
Philodromus placidus?
Philodromus unknownspeciesd?

Images of this individual: tag all
White crab - Philodromus marxi - female White crab - Philodromus marxi - female White crab - Philodromus marxi - female

Moved
Moved from Philodromus.

Moved
Moved from Spiders.

I was looking through Dondale and Redner 1978
and noticed that the diagrams and description of a female P. marxi were a better match for the spider I posted that resembles this one.


 
Thanks
That looks good, I asked a couple of other people to give their opinion so I just moved it to a safer level.

I think it's likely P. imbecillus
Looks a lot like one I dissected recently. Can you make out the epigynum enough to compare it to the one I posted?

 
Thanks
I don't have a scope, but plan on getting one soon (do idea what kind to get) so my point-and-shoot camera is all I have right now.

 
If you can't afford a fancy one ...
AmScope seems to be the most common way to go. See Mandy Howe's current equipment list and look through some of her images. She usually uses the binocular model: http://bugguide.net/user/view/34136

I have a similar one: http://www.amscope.com/cordless-led-stereo-microscope-20x-40x-80x.html

My camera is just an ipod though and I haven't attempted to dissect anything yet so her pictures might do it more justice. The light on them can be greatly improved by using separate lights, I and others use a couple of these from IKEA ($10): http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/20169658/

Mine goes up to 80x but I plan on getting a pair of 30x eyepieces which should bump it up to 120x.

 
Ideas
I had been looking at these below (with an extra ring light, goose-neck fiber lights, and a lighted stand), but didn't know if I needed more power. 400? 1000? 2500? (Then I would have to go with a compound scope)

2X-270X Boom Stand Zoom Stereo Trinocular Microscope w 150W Fiber Light+9.0MP USB Camera

OR

2X-225X Trinocular Boom Stereo Microscope w/ Focusable Eyepieces
10MP Microscope Digital Camera with Focusable Lens and Calibration Kit

I probably don't want to spend much more than 2K for everything (scope/camera/lighting) but there is no way to "try before you buy". Also, my wife would like to use it for botany, hence the low power need, but an expensive scope for me and a cheap one for her might be a solution.

 
Yeah those things ...
would be way out of my current price range. :D I don't think you need anywhere near that magnification. It's my understanding that 180-200x should be good enough for the smallest spiders, but if you're going to use it for other things and can afford it the extra magnification might be nice to have.

 
Thanks!
Some other people were telling me I probably need to spend 6-10K to get good palp/epigynum shots. I'm reluctant to spend 2K on a hobby (my camera is less than $200), so I've been researching this for YEARS because I'm only doing it once and need to get it right.

 
Things to consider
Those scope packages have a lot of extras that you could add later based on your needs. You may after all decide that dissecting isn't your cup of tea. I don't think a boom stand is advantageous for dissecting spiders, I like having a fixed stand with a stage to put slides on. Boom stands are more expensive. Those packages also have a lot of extra lenses that you may be able to live without but could add later if needed. Your first pick is actually a .7 to 4.5X zoom and they include different lenses that can be added to achieve the stated magnification range.

 
Mandy showed me ...
this one before I purchased mine. This is 40x on an AmScope just to give you an idea, you don't need to spend anywhere near that much:

 
That looks quite good
with some fringing softening the image but not nearly as bad as a lot of cheaper scopes seem to have. I would tend to agree with Laura, those scopes you are looking at might be overkill.

 
I bet the results ...
could be greatly improved by photo stacking too, she mounts a point and shoot camera to the lens. This is mine just hand holding an ipod up to the lens:

 
My scope only goes to 60X
and it has worked for some of the smallest spiders I've found. I can and probably will get 20X eyepieces to double that when needed. I don't think stereo scopes are designed to go too much above that due to depth of field issues among other things. What you would likely get with those high priced scopes (the 6-10K ones) is better optics with less chromatic aberrations. The color fringing on less expensive scopes is very noticeable in photos, that is why I just use my camera.

 
This is a good overview
of stereo microscopes -

http://www.microscopemaster.com/stereo-microscope.html

If you can afford it a zoom model is more fun to use. It's also important to have a good light source, I use a fiber optic illuminator but they can be expensive. Both scopes and illuminators can be purchased used for a decent price but you need to make sure you are buying from a source that has a good reputation.

 
I thought maybe the photo
was high enough resolution that you might be able to see the general shape. I realize that is usually not possible but sometimes it is. A scope is a great investment if you really want to get into spiders. There are some good web site discussing the things to look for. The market seems to be flooded with cheaper Chinese makes and I have no idea if they are any good.

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