Help to identify spider

[Bruce Williams]

Photo taken today at Whiteleaf (Princes-Risborough, Bucks) - Spider under large beech log. Very active but stayed within area of about 4" X 4". Length excluding legs approximately 8-10mm.



Help with identification appreciated.

Bruce

[Action_Man]

A quick guess from me would be Amaurobius ...

[Venger]

Nice photo!
From what I can see I'd say its a member of the Coelotes sp though I'm not 100% sure on that. You don't have any other photos of her do you - I'd like to be able to see the spinners and rear leg in close up.

[Bruce Williams]

Thanks Action-Man - I can see what you mean, A. similis does look quite similar.

Thanks Venger - Unfortunately this individual was not as cooperative as I would have wished and the best I can offer by way of close-up gives only a hint of the spinners (hmmm....or maybe not visible), The rear leg has some detail though. Does this help?



Bruce

[No.9 Spider]

I'd go with Coelotes, and more than likely I'd have a stab at Coelotes atropos.


No.9 Spider

[Venger]

Hmm you don't remember what the web looked like do you?

I was looking for a double row of calamistrum on leg IV, but I can't tell from the photo (what I really need is a shot of the epigyne, but I don't think thats going to happen )
Have a look here for the web & spiders, under B. Finsterspinnen, see if that helps
(sorry it's in German)
MSc: Animal Photographs / Tierfotos - Agelenidae

[The Black Rabbit]

Venger - is there a (relatively simple) way of distingushing between Amaurobius sp and Coelotes sp, PHYSICALLY, or by their markings, rather than habitat?
I'd be most interested to know.
Cheers!
Doug

[Venger]

Hey Doug,
Well as I mentioned early in this thread - I was looking for a double calamistrum on the metatarsus of leg IV, which would be present on a Amaurobius sp but not on a Coelotes sp.
This generally works best for females.
Also the posterior spinners would be longer on a Coelotes sp.


Remembering that patterning can vary -
Amaurobius sp generally have reticulation on their legs where as Coelotes sp doesn't.

You shouldn't really have a problem with male Amaurobius sp as they have very distictive palps.

[The Black Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Venger

Hey Doug,
Well as I mentioned early in this thread - I was looking for a double calamistrum on the metatarsus of leg IV, which would be present on a Amaurobius sp but not on a Coelotes sp.
This generally works best for females.
Also the posterior spinners would be longer on a Coelotes sp.


Remembering that patterning can vary -
Amaurobius sp generally have reticulation on their legs where as Coelotes sp doesn't.

You shouldn't really have a problem with male Amaurobius sp as they have very distictive palps.

Cheers Venger!
Just as well I know what a calamistrum is eh?!
Many thanks
Doug

[No.9 Spider]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

Venger - is there a (relatively simple) way of distingushing between Amaurobius sp and Coelotes sp, PHYSICALLY, or by their markings, rather than habitat?
I'd be most interested to know.
Cheers!
Doug

At the time of the Locket and Millidge 'British Spiders' vol.2 identification guide in 1953, the species in question was actually in the family Amaurobius, which, considering the general characteristics/appearance of the spider would be no surprise.
But also at the same time those species we now know as Amaurobius (fenestralis,similis and ferox) were in their own family Ciniflo, which is no longer used.
What a wicked web we weave! but it demonstrates how species are reclassified due to specific details, such as those Venger required to determine a specific family (presence or not of a calamistrum or annulations on legs) and how initial appearances can be deceiving.



No.9 Spider