another colorful Philodromus from Spain => P. fuscolimbatus

[Rafael Carbonell]

And here there is another Philodromus from the same date and locality, cf Philodromus fuscolimbatus:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/66801247

[Simeon Indzhov]

And here there is another Philodromus from the same date and locality, cf Philodromus fuscolimbatus:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/66801247

Hmm. The epigyne fits but the vulva doesn't. Habitus is also weird and the overall impression I am getting is of cespitum (Segers' atrium width character is unreliable, I have had cespitum with an atrium wider than the median plate)

[Rafael Carbonell]

Many thanks Simeon
I think the same about it looks similar to both fuscolimbatus and cespitum.
The pictures of "fuscolimbatus" were made after cutting and cleaning a little. No KOH maceration was done. No cover was put over the slide...
I think that if I splash the vulva with a cover it will turn fuscolimbatus.
I will try again under the microscope instead of the binocular, but tell me before if I should boil it in KOH or if a a slide (and pressing) are needed...

[Simeon Indzhov]

Preferably use lactic acid at room temperature (might take a while) and definitely do not put on a slide! Why I doubt it is fuscolimbatus: because the spermathecae are round and the ducts do not turn outwards anteriorly.

[Rafael Carbonell]

I did not add nothing. I hope it will be useful. Now I yhink is really Philodromus buxi!!
Thanks for all, I wouldn't be able to identify Philodromus species without your help.
This site is the best for identifying spiders!

[Tobias Bauer]

Without studying the vulva: The habitus does not fit at all. P. buxi is a large, greyish, sometimes even slightly fluffy spider, quite characteristic in the field. This one is way to colorful.

edit: I don't see cespitum, if the vulva looked like that from the beginning.

[Rafael Carbonell]

You are right, the habitus is really different, but the vulva has the best coincidence in the aureolus group. 

[Tobias Bauer]

In my opinion, this looks like the P. fuscolimbatus vulva in Muster & Thaler, with a larger distance between the Receptacula (which might be an artefact of tissue relaxation because the fertilisation ducts point inwards, not to the front as in M & T). But Simeon is right that the receptacula differ as well as the ducts, but only in comparison to Seegers. Don't know what to make out of it, never examined this species. However, it looks very similar to this one here on Pierre's site, even in the finer structures: https://arachno.piwigo.com/picture?/28473/category/758-philodromus_fuscolimbatus

You can see that the bending ducts in this vulva here seem to be slightly covered by other structures and not recovered by the lighting, or the angle might been a little bit off.

I've also moved this part here with the new Philodromus to a new thread. Usually, we only have one spider species per thread, otherwise it gets very confusing.

[Rafael Carbonell]

Thanks Tobias for splitting this post
The last view of the epigyne

[Rafael Carbonell]

In my opinion, this looks like the P. fuscolimbatus vulva in Muster & Thaler, with a larger distance between the Receptacula (which might be an artefact of tissue relaxation because the fertilisation ducts point inwards, not to the front as in M & T). But Simeon is right that the receptacula differ as well as the ducts, but only in comparison to Seegers. Don't know what to make out of it, never examined this species. However, it looks very similar to this one here on Pierre's site, even in the finer structures: https://arachno.piwigo.com/picture?/28473/category/758-philodromus_fuscolimbatus

You can see that the bending ducts in this vulva here seem to be slightly covered by other structures and not recovered by the lighting, or the angle might been a little bit off.

I've also moved this part here with the new Philodromus to a new thread. Usually, we only have one spider species per thread, otherwise it gets very confusing.

Now I think that comparing the vulva to any of Pierre's gallery it seems I should have cleared better (with lactic acid) to allow to see the inner structures, and then would fit with fuscolimbatus. In fact when I increase the brightness of the picture I can guess the shape of the ducts very similar.

[Rafael Carbonell]

Here, another picture of the vulva (one of those which I did the stack that shows the ducts)
But if necessary I can try to clean it at room temperature with KOH (I don't have lactic acid)

[Simeon Indzhov]

Here, another picture of the vulva (one of those which I did the stack that shows the ducts)
But if necessary I can try to clean it at room temperature with KOH (I don't have lactic acid)

Okay, it is fuscolimbatus now clearly - the ducts are clearly Z-shaped and the spermathecae are small and irregular I cannot delete any jf my messages in this thread though :/

[Tobias Bauer]

Deleted.

Good that we came to a conclusion here. Can we use the pictures in the wiki? The stacked one is quite good imo. We miss the female (and male habitus).

https://wiki.arages.de/index.php?title=Philodromus_fuscolimbatus

Info: posted pictures are larger than 800*600 (https://forum.arages.de/index.php?topic=1044.0), but can/should stay the current size because of the shown details and difficult det. of the species.

[Rafael Carbonell]

Thanks Simeon and Tobias!
Tobias
When uploading images I only look they have to be less than 800 px (is not written anything about dimensions)...
You can use any Images you like :-)
I send you the female habitus in a private message
Rafael

[Tobias Bauer]

Yeah, that's the size limit, but not the dimensions. These are the rules for posting: https://forum.arages.de/index.php?topic=1044.0

It's written in German and pinned in the "determinations forum". It says "please read before posting!". We have to translate it, but find the spare time for all this... we're basically four people running the place atm + Simeon doing a lot of det. work.

 The size limit is relatively high because sometimes, as in this case, it seems necessary to post larger pictures. But usually, users should reduce their pictures to 800*600, so clicking on a picture does not open a new window/tab (and to reduce traffic). I wrote it in the thread so no other user can say "hey, this guy there posted large pictures and nobody said anything". You wouldn't believe some of the private messages I get...

Tobias

[Tobias Bauer]

I've uploaded the dorsal picture and the vulva stack into the wiki. I would also like to upload the pictures showing other somatic characters found on iNaturalist. Can you send them to me as well?

Thanks in advance,
Tobias