Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 226–235 | Cite as

Navigation by Male Crab Spiders Misumenoides formosipes (Araneae: Thomisidae): Floral Cues May Aid in Locating Potential Mates

  • Leo M. StellwagEmail author
  • Gary N. Dodson


The crab spider Misumenoides formosipes is an ambush predator whose males search for relatively sedentary females within a heterogeneous habitat. Females are receptive to mating immediately after their adult molt and a male biased adult sex ratio together with precopulatory guarding places a premium on male ability to locate females quickly. It is unknown what cues males use to find females; we report here on male movements in association with floral cues. Males in field trials moved towards inflorescences more frequently when both visual and chemical cues were available, than when chemical cues were eliminated. Males in lab trials chose an inflorescence over leaf substrates even in the absence of visual cues. These findings support the hypothesis that M. formosipes males could utilize floral chemistry as a navigational cue in mate searches.


Crab spiders mate searches navigation floral cues olfaction 



We wish to acknowledge Ball State University’s Department of Biology for providing access to the Cooper Field Area, Dr. Jim Jones for statistical support, John Taylor for field assistance, Ball State University’s Office of Academic Research and Sponsored Programs for financial support, and Chad Hoefler for providing insights on the research methods and helpful comments on the manuscript.


  1. Aldrich JR, Barros TM (1995) Chemical attraction of male crab spiders (Araneae: Thomisidae) and kleptoparasitic flies (Diptera, Milichiidae, and Chloropidae). J Arachnol 23:212–214Google Scholar
  2. Anderson JT, Morse DH (2001) Pick-up lines: cues used by male crab spiders to find reproductive females. Behav Ecol 12:360–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austad SN (1984) Evolution of sperm priority patterns in spiders. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic, New York, pp 223–249Google Scholar
  4. Barth FG (2002) A spider’s world: senses and behavior. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Barth FG, Schmitt A (1991) Species recognition and species isolation in wandering spiders (Cupiennius spp.; Ctenidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck MW, Connor EF (1992) Factors affecting the reproductive success of the crab spider Misumenoides formosipes: the covariance between juvenile and adult traits. Oecologia 92:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chien SA, Morse DH (1998) The role of prey and flower quality in the choice of hunting sites by adult male crab spiders Misumena vatia. J Arachnol 26:238–243Google Scholar
  8. Coddington JA (2005) Phylogeny and classification of spiders. In Ubick D, Paquin P, Cushing PE, Roth V (eds) Spiders of North America: an identification manual. American Arachnological Society, pp 18–24Google Scholar
  9. Dodson GN, Beck MW (1993) Pre-copulatory guarding of penultimate females by male crab spiders, Misumenoides formosipes. Anim Behav 46:951–959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernández-Montraveta C, Ruano-Bellido J (2000) Female silk and mate attraction in a burrowing wolf-spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Bull Br Arachnol Soc 11:361–366Google Scholar
  11. Fernández-Montraveta C, Cuadrado M (2009) Mate attraction in a burrowing wolf-spider (Araneae, Lycosidae) is not olfactory mediated. Ethology 115:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaskett AC (2007) Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions. Biol Rev 82:27–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Greco CF, Kevan PG (1994) Contrasting patch choosing by anthophilous predators: vegetation and floral cues for decisions by a crab spider (Misumena vatia) and males and females of an ambush bug (Phymata americana). Can J Zool 72:1583–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heiling AM, Herberstein ME (2004) Floral quality signals lure pollinators and their predators. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41:421–428Google Scholar
  15. Heiling AM, Cheng K, Herberstein ME (2004) Exploitation of floral signals by crab spiders (Thomisus spectabilis). Behav Ecol 15:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heiling AM, Chittka L, Cheng K, Herberstein ME (2005) Colouration in crab spiders: substrate choice and prey attraction. J Exp Biol 208:1785–1792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoefler CD, Jakob EM (2006) Jumping spiders in space: movement patterns, nest site fidelity and the use of beacons. Anim Behav 71:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kevan PG, Greco CF (2001) Contrasting patch choice behaviour by immature ambush predators, a spider (Misumena vatia) and an insect (Phymata americana). Ecol Entomol 26:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krell FT, Krämer F (1998) Chemical attraction of crab spiders (Araneae: Thomisidae) to a flower fragrance component. J Arachnol 26:117–119Google Scholar
  20. Land MF (1985) The morphology and optics of spider eyes. In: Barth FG (ed) Neurobiology of arachnids. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 53–78Google Scholar
  21. Morse DH (1988) Cues associated with patch-choice decisions by foraging crab spiders Misumena vatia. Behaviour 107:297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morse DH (1993) Choosing hunting sites with little information: patch choice responses of crab spiders to distant cues. Behav Ecol 4:61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morse DH, Fritz RS (1982) Experimental and observational studies of patch choice at different scales by the crab spider Misumena vatia. Ecology 63:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morse DH, Fritz RS (1987) The consequences of foraging for reproductive success. In: Kamil AC, Krebs J, Pulliam HR (eds) Foraging behavior. Plenum, New York, pp 443–456Google Scholar
  25. Morse DH, Stephens EG (1996) The consequences of adult foraging success on the components of lifetime fitness in a semelparous, sit and wait predator. Evol Ecol 10:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollard SD, Beck MW, Dodson GN (1995) Why do male crab spiders drink nectar? Anim Behav 49:1443–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pyke GH (1984) Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 15:523–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robakiewicz P, Daigle W (2004) Patch quality and foraging time in the crab spider Misumenops asperatus Hentz (Araneae: Thomisidae). Northeast Nat 11:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts JA, Uetz GW (2005) Information content of female chemical signals in the wolf spider, Schizocosa ocreata: male discrimination of reproductive state and receptivity. Anim Behav 70:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Searcy LE, Rypstra AL, Persons MH (1999) Airborne chemical communication in the wolf spider Pardosa milvina. J Chem Ecol 25:2527–2533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor PW (1998) Dragline-mediated mate-searching in Trite planiceps (Araneae: Salticidae). J Arachnol 26:330–334Google Scholar
  32. Tietjen WJ (1977) Dragline-following my male lycosid spiders. Psyche 84:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wignall AE, Heiling AM, Cheng K, Herberstein ME (2006) Flower symmetry preferences in honeybees and their crab spider predators. Ethology 112:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyBall State UniversityMuncieUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations