Araneus psittacinus - male
A very small spider, around 5mm in length. Easily overlooked, working its web around the bush at about head height.
Location is Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Alongside a stream and paddy fields.
A lot of work done by WildFlower on the identification of this one. It turns out that this species is probably not even described yet, and so I am removing the species name.
No species identified
The species on this photo is not identified yet. When signed in, you can identify species on photos that you uploaded. If you have earned the social image editing capability, you can also identify species on photos uploaded by others.
By Vodkaman
All rights reserved
Uploaded Apr 25, 2016. Captured Dec 21, 2012 06:21 in Jl. Lavender No.8, Ciwaruga, Parongpong, Kabupaten Bandung Barat, Jawa Barat, Indonesia.
comments (6)
What I find doesn't match - an Australian species with a red and yellow spotted abdomen.
http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=471723
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/species/3108/Araneus_psittacinus
Is it Araneus cyrtarachnoides?
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/species/2798
http://www.arachne.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1535
http://www.findaspider.org.au/find/spiders/616.htm Posted 9 years ago, modified 9 years ago
This website has always been very reliable in the past, but according to the 'bold systems' entry, they are not even close.
The Araneus cyrtarachnoides look very close, so it you want to switch to that ID, that works for me. But once again, this is a long way from home for my specimen. How do you want to play this one?
Dave Posted 9 years ago
I checked more sites and found a few others that identify similarly looking spiders as Araneus psittacinus
http://www.findaspider.org.au/find/spiders/611.htm
http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Araneus+psittacinus#tab_gallery
including one from Indonesia
http://galerie-insecte.org/galerie/Araneus_psittacinus.html
however, according to the World Spider Catalog, Araneus psittacinus is only found in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia.
Next there is the BOLD Systems specimen and another similarly looking one in another site which are completely different, but are also identified as Araneus psittacinus.
http://www.ipernity.com/tag/wimmera.wildlife/keyword/2241303
At Arachne.org.au they have 2 pages with different spiders under the same name Araneus cyrtarachnoides
http://www.arachne.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1535
http://www.arachne.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1923
http://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:ccf48da8-50dc-44ce-8eaf-db00f704dec7#tab_gallery
The names of two experts are mentioned in the end of the first link.
I don't know who's right and who's wrong in this case. Posted 9 years ago, modified 9 years ago
The Australian sites are even sharing the same images, and they are consistent with the ednieuw site. The mention of Dr. Robert Raven on the find a spider site should carry some weight. If he has got it wrong, then someone is going to get his wrist slapped for putting out misinformation.
The Indonesian specimen is very close to mine, and likely the same sub species, but we are not getting into microscopic analysis here, the species level is all we need officially quote.
The argument for cyrtarachnoides is humerous. At least two of the same images have been used as for psittacinus. The question is not who published first, but who is correct.
One day, I would like to go on EOL and find something that is actually published apart from lion and tiger.
One thing that I notice, is the Keyserling 1887 is down for both arachnid discoveries in the same year.
Vic’s photos cannot be considered a reliable source. That image does not come close enough to be the same species. There is no information source quoted, just images with a label.
It is as if the species name was re-classified and no one told us. Dr Robert’s name appears again along with Dr Volker’s name. Perhaps you or Ferdy need to contact these guys and ask which spider they would really like to attach their names to.
Still, I am left without a reliable ID. Should I take the ID down and write an explanation for future reference, or leave it as it is now. I don’t mind either way.
Good work, thanks.
I believe that if we are going to maintain a standard for IDs, then reference information needs to be a requirement to qualify for species points. The references will go in a specific box. If there is no reference, then the species box will not work.
Obviously back dating this requirement would be completely unfair. I don’t want to go through all the hoops that PN required, but a reference is not unreasonable. What does Ferdy think?
Dave Posted 9 years ago
The spider that looks like this one he calls the Blue Bush Orb Weaver which is a "relative" of Araneus cyrtarachnoides, it doesn't mean it IS Araneus cyrtarachnoides. (But it might be.)
http://www.arachne.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1535
The other page has what looks more like a "real Araneus cyrtarachnoides" but he has not seen the genitals.
http://www.arachne.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1923
Araneus psittacinus is quite different - green with a white line along the abdomen.
The original photo which is in BOLD Systems is described as Araneus psittacinus group. It is closer to Araneus circulissparsus group, but it is not Araneus psittacinus.
http://gvcocks.homeip.net/Araneae/Araneidae/araneus_psittacinus.htm
You should remove the ID as this species is probably not yet described. When the study of these Australian species continues they may be even placed in different genera. Posted 9 years ago
Dave Posted 9 years ago