Naturwissenschaften

, Volume 93, Issue 5, pp 251–254

Tie them up tight: wrapping by Philoponella vicina spiders breaks, compresses and sometimes kills their prey

  • William G. Eberhard
  • Gilbert Barrantes
  • Ju-Lin Weng
Short Communication

Abstract

We show that uloborid spiders, which lack the poison glands typical of nearly all other spiders, employ thousands of wrapping movements with their hind legs and up to hundreds of meters of silk line to make a shroud that applies substantial compressive force to their prey. Shrouds sometimes break the prey’s legs, buckle its compound eyes inward, or kill it outright. The compressive force apparently results from the summation of small tensions on sticky lines as they are applied to the prey package. Behavioral details indicate that wrapping is designed to compact prey; in turn, compaction probably functions to facilitate these spiders’ unusual method of feeding. This is the first demonstration that prey wrapping by spiders compacts and physically damages their prey, rather than simply restraining them.

References

  1. Bartels M (1930) Ueber den Fressmechanismus und den chemischen. Sinn einiger Netzspinnen. Rev Suisse Zool 37:1–41Google Scholar
  2. Chapman RF (1998) The insects structure and function (4th edition). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Coddington JA, Levi HW (1991) Systematics and evolution of spiders (Araneae). Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 22:565–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collatz K-G (1987) Structure and function of the digestive tract. In: Nentwig W (ed) Ecophysiology of spiders. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 229–238Google Scholar
  5. Eberhard WG, Platnick N, Schuh RT (1993) The natural history and behavior of web parasites of the spider Tengella radiata: the spider Mysmenopsis tengellacompa sp. n. (Mysmenidae) and the bug Lipokophila eberhardi sp. n. (Plokiophilidae). Novitat Amer Mus Nat Hist 3065:1–17Google Scholar
  6. Eberhard WG, Barrantes G, Weng J-L (2006) The mystery of how spiders extract food from prey without masticating Bull. Brit Arachnol SocGoogle Scholar
  7. Fincke OM (1981) An association between two Neotropical spiders (Araneae, Uloboridae and Tengellidae). Biotropica 13:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foelix R (1996) Biology of spiders. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaestner A (1968) Invertebrate Zoology vol II. (Translated and adapted by HW Levi, LR Levi). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Lubin YD (1986) Web function and prey capture behavior in Uloboridae. In: WA Shear (ed.) Spiders webs, behavior and evolution. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA, pp 132–171Google Scholar
  11. Opell BD (1979) Revision of the genera and tropical American species of the spider family Uloboridae. Bull Mus Comp Zool 148:443–549Google Scholar
  12. Opell BD (1988) Prey handling and food extraction by the triangle-web spider Hyptiotes cavatus (Uloboridae). J Arachnol 16:272–274Google Scholar
  13. Robinson MH, Olazarri J (1971) Units of behavior and complex sequences in the predatory behavior of Argiope argentata (Fabricius). Smithson Contrib Zool 65:1–36Google Scholar
  14. Zimmerman EW (1934) Untersuchen über den Bau des Mundhohlendaches der Gewebespinnen. Rev Suisse Zool 41:149–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • William G. Eberhard
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gilbert Barrantes
    • 1
  • Ju-Lin Weng
    • 1
  1. 1.Escuela de BiologíaUniversidad de Costa RicaCiudad UniversitariaCosta Rica
  2. 2.Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and Escuela de BiologíaUniversidad de Costa RicaCiudad UniversitariaCosta Rica
  3. 3.Biología, U. C. R.Ciudad UniversitariaCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations