Login
Search manual

Details

Title Spider Webs: Behavior, Function, and Evolution.
Creators Eberhard William G.
Imprint Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020
Collection Электронные книги зарубежных издательств ; Общая коллекция
Subjects Spider webs. ; Spiders — Behavior. ; EBSCO eBooks
Document type Other
File type PDF
Language English
Rights Доступ по паролю из сети Интернет (чтение, печать, копирование)
Record key on1202462270
Record create date 10/31/2020

Allowed Actions

pdf/2657487.pdf –
Action 'Read' will be available if you login or access site from another network Action 'Download' will be available if you login or access site from another network
epub/2657487.epub –
Action 'Download' will be available if you login or access site from another network
Group Anonymous
Network Internet
Network User group Action
ILC SPbPU Local Network All
Read Print Download
Internet Authorized users SPbPU
Read Print Download
Internet Anonymous
  • Contents
  • Chapter 1. Introduction
    • 1.1 Introduction
    • 1.2 A foreign world: life tied to silk lines
    • 1.3 A brief history of spider web studies
    • 1.4 Emphasis on behavior
    • 1.5 The scope of this book and tactics in presentation
    • 1.6 Evolutionary history and phylogeny
    • 1.7 Terminology and other procedural matters
    • 1.8 Acknowledgments
  • Chapter 2. The “hardware” of web-building spiders: morphology, silk, and behavior
    • 2.1. Introduction
    • 2.2 Silk glands and silk
      • 2.2.1 Origins
      • 2.2.2 Mechanical properties and how they are determined
      • 2.2.3 Major ampullate glands
      • 2.2.4 Minor ampullate glands
      • 2.2.5 Aciniform glands
      • 2.2.6 Flagelliform glands
      • 2.2.7 Pseudoflagelliform glands
      • 2.2.8 Sticky silk
        • 2.2.8.1 Cribellum glands
        • 2.2.8.2 Aggregate glands
        • 2.2.8.3 Venom glands that produce contractile sticky “webs” in Scytodidae
        • 2.2.8.4 Ampullate glands in Loxosceles
      • 2.2.9 Piriform glands
        • 2.2.9.1 Spinneret morphology
        • 2.2.9.2 Morphology of attachment discs
        • 2.2.9.3 Different attachment disc morphologies result from spinneret behavior and morphology
        • 2.2.9.4 The “piriform queen”—Cyrtophora citricola
      • 2.2.10 Epiandrous glands
      • 2.2.11 Other products associated with silk
      • 2.2.12 Control of rates of silk secretion in glands
      • 2.2.13 Forming bridge lines
    • 2.3 Spinnerets as high-precision instruments
      • 2.3.1 Ancestral morphology and behavior
      • 2.3.2 Strategic placements of spigots on the spinnerets of araneomorphs
        • 2.3.2.1 General considerations
        • 2.3.2.2 Special cases involving web designs
        • 2.3.2.3 Additional complications
      • 2.3.3 Phylogenetic inertia?
      • 2.3.4 Behavior of the spinnerets
      • 2.3.5 How are lines terminated?
    • 2.4 Leg morphology and behavior: grasping lines precisely and securely
      • 2.4.1 Grasping lines in a web; tarsal morphology and leg movements
      • 2.4.2 Complementary searching and grasping behavior
        • 2.4.2.1 The blind man’s cane and the art of following
        • 2.4.2.2 Asymmetric searching movements that match asymmetric tarsal morphology
        • 2.4.2.3 An additional detail: rotating legs to grasp lines
      • 2.4.3 Grasping a line prior to attaching the dragline
    • 2.5 Cutting lines and recycling silk
      • 2.5.1 Cutting lines
      • 2.5.2 Recycling silk
    • 2.6 How spiders avoid adhering to their own webs: a mystery partly solved
    • 2.7 Central nervous system basis for web construction
    • 2.8 Summary
  • Chapter 3. Functions of orb web designs
    • 3.1 Introduction
    • 3.2 Correcting common misconceptions about orb webs
      • 3.2.1 Orbs are neither sieves nor sound detectors
      • 3.2.2 Orb webs are not the pinacle of web evolution
      • 3.2.3 Orbs have never been demonstrated to be “optimum” structures
      • 3.2.4 The trajectories, diameters, and velocities of prey are diverse and poorly known
      • 3.2.5 Most differences in orb designs are probably not specializations for particular prey
        • 3.2.5.1 Long lists of prey captured argue against strong specialization
        • 3.2.5.2 Strong habitat effects
        • 3.2.5.3 Data from prey counts generally have serious flaws
        • 3.2.5.4 Measuring “available” prey is also difficult
        • 3.2.5.5 Ontogenetic changes in web design (and lack of such changes) can introduce noise
        • 3.2.5.6 Ecological settings of studies need to be evolutionarily realistic
        • 3.2.5.7 Flexible construction behavior
        • 3.2.5.8 Possible exceptions: relative prey specialization
        • 3.2.5.9 A summary regarding prey specialization in orb webs
      • 3.2.6 Interspecific competition for prey is probably not common
      • 3.2.7 Sticky spiral spacing is not uniform
      • 3.2.8 Orb designs are probably not taxon-specific
        • 3.2.8.1 Species-specificity
        • 3.2.8.2 Effects of intra-specific genetic differences
        • 3.2.8.3 Genus-specificity?
        • 3.2.8.4 Differences at higher taxonomic levels and a summary
      • 3.2.9 The properties of homologous lines are not invariable
        • 3.2.9.1 Differences between species
        • 3.2.9.2 Differences within species
        • 3.2.9.3 Consequences for understanding orb web designs
      • 3.2.10 Correlations between orb design and details of attack behavior are inconsistent
        • 3.2.10.1 Inconsistent relationships
        • 3.2.10.2 More likely correlations
      • 3.2.11 Orb movements in wind may not be generally significant in intercepting prey (but may affect orb designs)
        • 3.2.11.1 Web movements and the encounter model
        • 3.2.11.2 Different types of orb web movement in the wind
        • 3.2.11.3 Orb movements in the wind: are they important?
          • 3.2.11.3.1 Prey capture
          • 3.2.11.3.2 Web damage
      • 3.2.12 Prey are not defenseless: protection from the spider’s own prey
      • 3.2.13 Design details are likely to be selectively important
      • 3.2.14 Adultophilia: a serious arachnological problem
    • 3.3 How orbs function
      • 3.3.1 Intercepting prey
      • 3.3.2 Functions for non-sticky lines (radii, hub and frame lines)
        • 3.3.2.1 Stop prey
        • 3.3.2.2 Transmit vibration cues for arousal and orientation
          • 3.3.2.2.1 Longitudinal vibrations and their amplitudes
          • 3.3.2.2.2 Precision of orientation and the importance (?) of radial organization
          • 3.3.2.2.3 Types of prey vibration
        • 3.3.2.3 Support the spider and facilitate her movements
        • 3.3.2.4 Primary frame lines: adapt to variable spaces, increase extensibility, and avoid resonant vibrations (?)
          • 3.3.2.4.1 Theoretical expectations of benefits and costs
          • 3.3.2.4.2 Tests of predictions
        • 3.3.2.5 Secondary and tertiary frame lines: increase extensibility
          • 3.3.2.5.1 Tests of hypotheses
        • 3.3.2.6 The hub: mechanical stabilizer, information center, and launching platform
          • 3.3.2.6.1 Attack behavior and hub designs
          • 3.3.2.6.2 Lines to pull, push against, and grasp while turning
          • 3.3.2.6.3 Tensing (and relaxing) functions of the hub
        • 3.3.2.7 Functions of the tertiary radii
        • 3.3.2.8 Functions of the temporary spiral
          • 3.3.2.8.1 Patterns in temporary spiral spacing
          • 3.3.2.8.2 Probable functions of the temporary spiral (hand rail and others)
          • 3.3.2.8.3 Patterns in temporary spiral spacing in orbs and their possible significance
        • 3.3.2.9 The other side of the coin: how best to fail
      • 3.3.3 Functions for sticky lines
        • 3.3.3.1 Retain prey
          • 3.3.3.1.1 Selection favors longer retention times
          • 3.3.3.1.2 Means by which prey are retained: adhesion, extension, and resistance to breaking
          • 3.3.3.1.3 Means of escape: prey behavior
          • 3.3.3.1.4 Spaces between sticky lines
          • 3.3.3.1.5 An orb’s slant
          • 3.3.3.1.6 “Pulley” attachments of the sticky spiral to the radii
          • 3.3.3.1.7 Variations in retention times and their consequences
          • 3.3.3.1.8 Summary
        • 3.3.3.2 Reduce the web’s visibility
          • 3.3.3.2.1 Some insects can see orb webs
          • 3.3.3.2.2 Does visibility affect prey capture in the field?
          • 3.3.3.2.3 Yellow silk
        • 3.3.3.3 Other functions
          • 3.3.3.3.1 Survive environmental insults
          • 3.3.3.3.2 Reduce construction costs and physical constraints
            • 3.3.3.3.2.1 Behavioral costs?
            • 3.3.3.3.2.1.1 Orb weavers
            • 3.3.3.3.2.1.2 The special case of uloborids
            • 3.3.3.3.2.2 Energetic constraints?
            • 3.3.3.3.2.3 Material costs
            • 3.3.3.3.2.4 The (unknown) costs of vigilance
          • 3.3.3.3.3 Non-orb weavers
          • 3.3.3.3.4 Defense against predators
          • 3.3.3.3.5 Other possible variables and functions
        • 3.3.3.4 Planar and non-planar orbs
      • 3.3.4 The function(s) of stabilimenta
        • 3.3.4.1 Egg sac and detritus stabilimenta
        • 3.3.4.2 Silk stabilimenta
          • 3.3.4.2.1 The hypotheses
          • 3.3.4.2.2 Problems interpreting the data
            • 3.3.4.2.2.1 Inconsistent support and behavior
            • 3.3.4.2.2.2 Difficulties with direct measurements I: ecological realism
            • 3.3.4.2.2.3 Direct measurements II: behavioral contexts, defensive behaviors, species differences
            • 3.3.4.2.2.4 Direct measurements III: inappropriate measurements
            • 3.3.4.2.2.5 The importance of UV reflectance
            • 3.3.4.2.2.6 The hypotheses are not mutually exclusive
            • 3.3.4.2.2.7 Some crucial behavioral phenomena are poorly understood
            • 3.3.4.2.2.8 Comparing many apples with many oranges
            • 3.3.4.2.2.9 Summary of weaknesses of direct measurements
          • 3.3.4.2.3 Further complications: angles of view, illumination, and background
          • 3.3.4.2.4 Conclusions
    • 3.4 Summary
  • Chapter 4. Putting pieces together: tradeoffs and remaining puzzles
    • 4.1 Introduction
    • 4.2 “Optimal” orb designs: tradeoffs between functions are difficult to measure
      • 4.2.1 Tradeoffs between functions
      • 4.2.2 The “rare large prey hypothesis”: a dominant role for the stopping function?
      • 4.2.3 Investments in foraging
      • 4.2.4 Overview
    • 4.3 “Multiple trap” design: a new way to view orb webs
      • 4.3.1 Unequal spacing of radii is ubiquitous
      • 4.3.2 Edge-to-hub patterns in sticky spiral spacing are also common—why?
        • 4.3.2.1 Constraint by cues
        • 4.3.2.2 Speed of attacks
        • 4.3.2.3 Stopping prey
        • 4.3.2.4 Sticky spiral entanglement
      • 4.3.3 Illumination from exceptions
        • 4.3.3.1 Low prey velocities
        • 4.3.3.2 Tightly and widely spaced radii
        • 4.3.3.3 Other patterns, other explanations
          • 4.3.3.3.1 Above vs. below the hub
          • 4.3.3.3.2 Inner edge of the capture zone, “flimsy” orbs, turnbacks
      • 4.3.4 A limitation of current data: heterogeneity of lines
      • 4.3.5 Conclusions regarding within-web patterns of sticky spiral spacing
      • 4.3.6 Consequences for understanding how orbs function
    • 4.4 Tensions and stresses
      • 4.4.1 Theoretical expectations of uniformity in homologous lines are not confirmed
      • 4.4.2 Tensions vary despite abilities to adjust them
        • 4.4.2.1 Tensions on non-sticky lines in finished orbs
        • 4.4.2.2 Different tensions along the length of a single radius
          • 4.4.2.2.1 Web modifications that produce tension changes
          • 4.4.2.2.2 Functions of altered tensions
        • 4.4.2.3 Some spiders manipulate tensions in finished orbs
        • 4.4.2.4 Tensions on sticky lines
        • 4.4.2.5 Experimental manipulation of tensions
    • 4.5 Relative numbers of radii and sticky spiral loops
    • 4.6 Testing visibility and stopping functions: the extreme case of trunk orbs
    • 4.7 Correlations between spider size and orb design?
    • 4.8 Spider positions, attack behavior, and up-down asymmetries in orbs
      • 4.8.1 Orb design and attack speed
      • 4.8.2 Spider orientation at the hub
      • 4.8.3 Further factors influencing spider positions at the hub
      • 4.8.4 Summary
    • 4.9 Remaining puzzles
      • 4.9.1 The puzzle of temporary spiral removal
      • 4.9.2 The puzzle of hub removal and open hubs
      • 4.9.3 The puzzle of the free zone
      • 4.9.4 The puzzle of non-vertical orbs
      • 4.9.5 The puzzle of provisional radii
      • 4.9.6 The puzzle of open sectors for detritus stabilimenta
      • 4.9.7 Exceptions to trends
    • 4.10 Non-orb webs
    • 4.11 Evolutionary responses by insects? A neglected aspect of prey capture
      • 4.11.1 Avoiding or reducing contact with webs
      • 4.11.2 Reducing retention time after having been stopped by a web
      • 4.11.3 Reducing the probability of being attacked immediately
    • 4.12 Summary (including part of chapter 3)
  • Chapter 5. The building behavior of non-orb weavers
    • 5.1 Introduction
    • 5.2 Order of lines and other higher-level patterns
      • 5.2.1 Modularity
      • 5.2.2 Behavior deduced from patterns of lines
      • 5.2.3 Other patterns
    • 5.3 Lower-level patterns: leg movements and manipulation of lines
      • 5.3.1 Walk upright on the substrate or a dense sheet
      • 5.3.2 Walk under single lines
      • 5.3.3 Hold the dragline while moving and while attaching it
      • 5.3.4 Hold the line to which the dragline is being attached
      • 5.3.5 Snub lines
      • 5.3.6 Cutting and reconnecting lines
      • 5.3.7 Finding lines and following behavior
      • 5.3.8 Rubbing, brushing, lifting, and clapping movements of the spinnerets
      • 5.3.9 Dabbing and sweeping with the entire abdomen
      • 5.3.10 Other lower-level behavior patterns that are absent in orb weavers
    • 5.4 Stereotyped behavior in non-orb construction
      • 5.4.1 Building tunnels
    • 5.5 Adjustments to substrate-imposed constraints
    • 5.6 Managing swaths of fine lines
    • 5.7 Summary
      • 5.7.1 Higher levels of behavior
      • 5.7.2 Lower levels of behavior
    • Box 5.1 The funnel web diplurid Linothele macrothelifera
  • Chapter 6. The building behavior of orb-weavers
    • 6.1 Introduction
    • 6.2 Simplifications for smoother reading
      • 6.2.1 Species and topics
      • 6.2.2 Levels of detail
    • 6.3 Behavior of two araneids
      • 6.3.1 Higher level organization: the stages of construction
      • 6.3.2 Exploration and establishing early lines
        • 6.3.2.1 Use previous lines or start from scratch?
        • 6.3.2.2 Problems in starting from scratch
        • 6.3.2.3 Basic operations during exploration
          • 6.3.2.3.1 Gathering sensory information and laying the first lines
          • 6.3.2.3.2 The end of exploration and the “hub transition”
      • 6.3.3 Frames, secondary radii, and hub loops
        • 6.3.3.1 The other “primary” frames
        • 6.3.3.2 Secondary radii
        • 6.3.3.3 Secondary frames
        • 6.3.3.4 Hub loops
      • 6.3.4 Temporary spiral and tertiary radii
      • 6.3.5 Sticky spiral
        • 6.3.5.1 Break temporary spiral lines
      • 6.3.6 Modify the hub
      • 6.3.7 Stabilimentum
      • 6.3.8 Orb web repair
      • 6.3.9 Web removal and recycling
    • 6.4 Senility in orb construction: a new frontier?
    • 6.5 Detailed movements
      • 6.5.1 Patterns in variation: high diversity produces low diversity
      • 6.5.2 Variation: a caution against stereotypy and typology
    • 6.6 General patterns
      • 6.6.1 Dexterity, the blind man’s cane, and following other legs
      • 6.6.2 Patterns of tension changes during construction: a tendency to relax
      • 6.6.3 Missing details
    • 6.7 Summary
  • Chapter 7. Cues directing web construction behavior
    • 7.1 Introduction
      • 7.1.1. Building an orb in human terms
    • 7.2 Classifying the cues
      • 7.2.1 Stimuli from repeatedly sensed “reference points” vs. more nearly constant “general settings”
      • 7.2.2 Other introductory notes
    • 7.3 Cues for sticky spiral construction
      • 7.3.1 Distinguishing sticky from non-sticky lines
      • 7.3.2 Rapidly changing, repeatedly sensed reference point cues
        • 7.3.2.1 Location of the inner loop
        • 7.3.2.2 Distance from the outer loop of temporary spiral (“TSP distance”)
        • 7.3.2.3 Memory of the TSP distance along the immediately preceding radius
        • 7.3.2.4 Memory of less recent responses to changes in TSP distances
        • 7.3.2.5 Distance between radii
        • 7.3.2.6 Lack of influence of radius tension
        • 7.3.2.7 Mistakes in discriminating sticky from non-sticky lines?
      • 7.3.3 Intermediate, more slowly changing cues
        • 7.3.3.1 Angle of the radius with gravity
        • 7.3.3.2 Amount of silk available vs. web area
        • 7.3.3.3 Distance from the hub (?)
      • 7.3.4 More or less constant general settings
        • 7.3.4.1 Length of the spider’s legs
        • 7.3.4.2 Previous prey (escaped or captured)
          • 7.3.4.2.1 General responses to prey
          • 7.3.4.2.2 Prey-specific responses (?)
        • 7.3.4.3 Presence of predators (?)
        • 7.3.4.4 Wind
        • 7.3.4.5 Time of day
        • 7.3.4.6 Season of the year and light rain
        • 7.3.4.7 Temperature
        • 7.3.4.8 Humidity
      • 7.3.5 Additional decisions by spiders building sticky spirals and cues triggering them
        • 7.3.5.1 Turn back
        • 7.3.5.2 Attach to each radius
        • 7.3.5.3 Number of attachments
        • 7.3.5.4 Break temporary spiral
        • 7.3.5.5 Terminate
      • 7.3.6 First loop of sticky spiral: a special case
      • 7.3.7 Interactions among cues
    • 7.4 Temporary spiral
      • 7.4.1 Distances traveled and path integration
      • 7.4.2 Gravity
      • 7.4.3 Distance from the hub
      • 7.4.4 Lack of effect of radius tension
      • 7.4.5 Additional possible cues
    • 7.5 Hub
      • 7.5.1 Spaces between hub spiral loops
      • 7.5.2 Termination of the hub spiral
    • 7.6 Stabilimentum construction
      • 7.6.1 Build a stabilimentum or not?
      • 7.6.2 Where to place the stabilimentum?
      • 7.6.3 Which stabilimentum design?
    • 7.7 Radii, frames, and anchor lines
      • 7.7.1 Secondary radii
        • 7.7.1.1 Choosing an “open” sector
          • 7.7.1.1.1 Radius length
          • 7.7.1.1.2 False starts
        • 7.7.1.2 Choosing an exit radius
        • 7.7.1.3 Choosing a final angle: how far to move along the frame
      • 7.7.2 Secondary frame construction
    • 7.8 Early radii, and frames and anchor lines: determining web size, shape, and design
      • 7.8.1 Position of the hub
      • 7.8.2 Size and shape of the space in which to build
        • 7.8.2.1 The decisions the spider makes
        • 7.8.2.2 The cues used in decisions
      • 7.8.3 Spider size and weight
      • 7.8.4 Silk available in the glands
    • 7.9 To build or not to build: triggering orb construction and destruction
    • 7.10 Cues that trigger transitions between stages of orb construction
    • 7.11 Other stimuli that spiders can sense but that are not (yet) known to guide orb construction
      • 7.11.1 Tensions
      • 7.11.2 Handedness?
    • 7.12 Hints of abilities: follow circular paths and sense radius lengths
    • 7.13 Effects of psychotropic drugs on orb construction
    • 7.14 Coordinating different adjustments to different cues
    • 7.15 The (limited) role of simulations in understanding orb construction behavior
    • 7.16 A missing link: translating cues into attachment sites
    • 7.17 Summarizing the behavioral challenges met by orb weavers
      • 7.17.1 Mechanical agility and precision
      • 7.17.2 Analytical abilities: multiple cues and decisions
      • 7.17.3 Sustained attention—where orb weavers truly shine
    • 7.18 Independence (?) of the spider’s responses
    • 7.19 Changes in responses to cues: learning and maturation
    • 7.20 Cues guiding the construction of non-orbs
      • 7.20.1 Path integration
      • 7.20.2 Smooth substrates for gumfoot lines
      • 7.20.3 Rigidity of supports
      • 7.20.4 Locations of supporting objects
      • 7.20.5 Radial symmetry
      • 7.20.6 Differences in tensions
      • 7.20.7 Temperature
      • 7.20.8 Apparent sensory movements of legs
      • 7.20.9 Reserves from previous feeding
      • 7.20.10 Conspecifics (gregarious and social species) and possible constraints imposed by orbs on sociality
      • 7.20.11 Web repair
    • 7.21 Summary
      • 7.21.1 Surprising patterns in orb construction, especially sticky spiral construction
      • 7.21.2 Other stages of construction
      • 7.21.3 Non-orb webs
  • Chapter 8. Web ecology and website selection
    • 8.1 Introduction: what is and is not included
    • 8.2 Webs and ecological foraging theories
    • 8.3 What is enough? “Fast lane” and “slow lane” spiders
    • 8.4 Processes that produce habitat biases
      • 8.4.1 Searching with lines floated on the breeze
      • 8.4.2 Sensory biases: “satisficing” and special problems for aerial webs
      • 8.4.3 Biases in choosing websites
        • 8.4.3.1 Philopatry—remain near the natal web
        • 8.4.3.2 Disperse and then settle selectively—possible cues
          • 8.4.3.2.1 Problems quantifying websites in the field
            • 8.4.3.2.1.1 Website choice in simple field situations
            • 8.4.3.2.1.2 Experimental evidence
          • 8.4.3.2.2 Rigidity, spacing, and surface characteristics of supports
          • 8.4.3.2.3 Temperature
          • 8.4.3.2.4 Egg sacs and retreats
          • 8.4.3.2.5 Light—artificial and otherwise
          • 8.4.3.2.6 The presence of prey
          • 8.4.3.2.7 Preexisting webs
          • 8.4.3.2.8 Isolation
          • 8.4.3.2.9 The presence of predators
          • 8.4.3.2.10 Humidity
          • 8.4.3.2.11 Plant species
          • 8.4.3.2.12 Wind and other factors that may bias insect movements
          • 8.4.3.2.13 Height above the ground
          • 8.4.3.2.14 Food quality and satiation
          • 8.4.3.2.15 Season of the year
          • 8.4.3.2.16 Possibility of damage (?)
          • 8.4.3.2.17 Ant nests
    • 8.5 A general correlation between website selectivity and web design flexibility?
      • 8.5.1 Post-building selectivity and cues
      • 8.5.1.1 Prey capture success
      • 8.5.1.2 Learning how to adjust
      • 8.5.1.3 Web damage
      • 8.5.1.4 Material fatigue in silk lines?
      • 8.5.1.5 Kleptoparasites
      • 8.5.1.6 “Pilot” webs—a risk-minimizing tactic
    • 8.6 Website tenacity, web durability, and recycling
    • 8.7 Web durability
    • 8.8 Limited by websites? Possible competition for prey and websites
      • 8.8.1 Inter-specific competition
      • 8.8.2 Intra-specific competition
    • 8.9 Problems in attempts to study cues that guide website choices
      • 8.9.1 Experimental tests need controls: how to count unoccupied sites?
      • 8.9.2 Measuring habitat richness: sticky traps do NOT mimic spider webs
    • 8.10 Time of day: day webs vs. night webs
      • 8.10.1 Multiple orbs in a single day
    • 8.11 Summary
  • Chapter 9. Evolutionary patterns: an ancient success that produced high diversity and rampant convergence
    • 9.1 Introduction
    • 9.2 Patterns in the diversity of webs
      • 9.2.1 High diversity
      • 9.2.2 Frequent convergence
      • 9.2.3 Abundant intermediate forms and a summary
      • 9.2.4 Intra-specific alternative web designs
      • 9.2.5 Behavioral bricks and buildings
      • 9.2.6 Adaptive chemical diversity of silk
      • 9.2.7 Differences between conspecifics: are there “individual styles” of web design?
    • 9.3 Consequences of the failure of the prey specialist hypothesis for understanding diversity and convergence
    • 9.4 What is a sheet web? Problems inherited from previous imprecision
    • 9.5 Mygalomorphs: similar patterns of diversity and rampant convergence in a different world
    • 9.6 Diversity of relations with insects
    • 9.7 Lack of miniaturization effects
    • 9.8 Paths not followed: alternative web forms in other animals
    • 9.9 Summary and a new synthesis
    • Box 9.1 The most spectacular convergence of all: Fecenia
    • Box 9.2 The most spectacular divergence of all: Theridiidae
    • Box 9.3 Sand castles: extreme modifications of Seothyra henscheli webs to shifting sand
    • Box 9.4 Relation between web design and silk properties: stiff silk in Uroctea durandi
  • Chapter 10. Ontogeny, modularity, and the evolution of web building
    • 10.1 Introduction
    • 10.2 Web ontogeny and evolution
      • 10.2.1 Limits of interpretations
      • 10.2.2 A new hypothesis for ontogenic changes: consistent selection associated with smaller size
    • 10.3 Early web evolution
      • 10.3.1 Burrow entrances vs. egg sacs
      • 10.3.2 Interception function for earliest webs
      • 10.3.3 Retention function in early webs
      • 10.3.4 Webs without retreats in the substrate
        • 10.3.4.1 Independence from the substrate is not a qualitative trait
      • 10.3.5 Sheets with sticky lines and tangles
      • 10.3.6 Early-branching araneomorph lineages with derived webs
      • 10.3.7 Spider webs and insect flight
      • 10.3.8 Summary
    • 10.4 The behavior patterns used to build early webs
      • 10.4.1 Male sperm webs, burrow closures, and the origin of prey capture webs
      • 10.4.2 Moving upside down below silk lines
      • 10.4.3 Using legs to manipulate lines
      • 10.4.4 Managing swaths of fine lines
      • 10.4.5 Diplurid behavior: a possible guide to ancestral traits
    • 10.5 Evolution of later non-orb webs
      • 10.5.1 Consequences of cribellum silk loss in labidognaths
      • 10.5.2 Problems categorizing web types in evolution
      • 10.5.3. Problems with key innovation arguments in general
      • 10.5.4 Silk glands and other morphological traits
      • 10.5.5 Visibility of silk to prey
      • 10.5.6 Web evolution in two small groups
        • 10.5.6.1 Filistatid webs
        • 10.5.6.2 Interception vs. retention in oecobiid webs
    • 10.6 Inconsistent evolutionary trends in non-orb webs
    • 10.7 Diversity in non-orbs that results from behavioral stability
    • 10.8 The (probably) monophyletic origin of orb webs
      • 10.8.1 Evolutionary origins when behavior is modular
      • 10.8.2 Morphology, molecules, and behavior
      • 10.8.3 Fossils and possible precursor webs
      • 10.8.4 Speculations on the origins and consequences of cut and reel behavior (and the possible role of males)
      • 10.8.5 Derivation of ecribellate sticky lines from cribellate sticky lines
      • 10.8.6 Summary regarding orb monophyly
    • 10.9 Evolutionary changes in orb designs
      • 10.9.1. Horizontal vs. vertical and nearly vertical orbs
      • 10.9.2 Small derived lineages: ladder and trunk webs
      • 10.9.3 Derivation of deinopid webs
      • 10.9.4 Theridiosomatids and their allies
      • 10.9.5 The reduced webs of Hyptiotes and Miagrammopes
      • 10.9.6 “Twig orbs”: an object projects through the hub
    • 10.10 “Post-orb” web evolution in Orbiculariae
      • 10.10.1 Possible derivation of other web types from orbs
        • 10.10.1.1 Gumfoot webs
        • 10.10.1.2 Other web types
      • 10.10.2 Webs combined with prey attractants
    • 10.11 Coevolution between attack behavior and web design (and its lack)
    • 10.12 What didn’t happen, possible synapomorphies, and further puzzles
    • 10.13 Modularity and adaptive flexibility
      • 10.13.1 Modularity is a central pattern in web construction
        • 10.13.1.1 Direct observations of behavior
        • 10.13.1.2 Finished structures
        • 10.13.1.3 Ontogenetic and experimentally induced changes
        • 10.13.1.4 Summary
    • 10.14 Modules and evolutionary transitions in web-building behavior
      • 10.14.1 Use of web construction behavior in taxonomy
        • 10.14.1.1 Historical successes and failures
        • 10.14.1.2 Implications of modularity for orb monophyly
    • 10.15 Summary
  • References
  • Index
pdf/2657487.pdf

Access count: 0 
Last 30 days: 0

Detailed usage statistics

epub/2657487.epub

Access count: 0 
Last 30 days: 0

Detailed usage statistics