• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Introduction
 Procedures
 Results and discussion
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 Literature cited
 Table 1. Collecting dates...
 Table 2. Locality number and the...
 Figure 1. A male of Lycosa...
 Figure 2. Habitat of the rosemary...
 Figures 3. Map of Florida and Putname...
 Figures 4. Map of area of interest...






Group Title: Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Technical report no. 28
Title: Status of the Rosemary wolf spider in Florida
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073836/00001
 Material Information
Title: Status of the Rosemary wolf spider in Florida
Series Title: Technical report
Physical Description: 13 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Reiskind, Jonathan
University of Florida -- School of Forest Resources and Conservation
Publisher: School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: [1987]
 Subjects
Subject: Wolf spiders -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Spiders -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 8).
Statement of Responsibility: by Jonathan Reiskind.
General Note: "May 1987."
General Note: "Research Work Order No. 21."
General Note: "Supported by: Jacksonville Endangered Species Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2747 Art Museum Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32207."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Coastal Engineering Department series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073836
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001135497
oclc - 28570153
notis - AFN4688

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title page
    Table of Contents
        i
    List of Tables
        ii
    List of Figures
        iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Procedures
        Page 1
    Results and discussion
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Literature cited
        Page 8
    Table 1. Collecting dates and locations...
        Page 9
    Table 2. Locality number and the presence of three species...
        Page 10
    Figure 1. A male of Lycosa ericoticola...
        Page 11
    Figure 2. Habitat of the rosemary wold spider...
        Page 11
    Figures 3. Map of Florida and Putname County...
        Page 12
    Figures 4. Map of area of interest in northwest Putnam County
        Page 13
Full Text










TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 28


STATUS OF THE ROSEMARY WOLF SPIDER
IN FLORIDA

by

Jonathan Reiskind


Department of Zoology
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611




Supported by:

Jacksonville Endangered Species Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2747 Art Museum Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207



Research Work Order No. 21


May 1987




















TABLE OF CONTENTS



LIST OF TABLES ii

LIST OF FIGURES iii

INTRODUCTION 1

PROCEDURES 1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 2

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6

LITERATURE CITED 8





















LIST OF TABLES






Collecting dates and locations

Locality number and the presence of three
species of Lycosa


Table

1

2


Page





















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure


1 A male of Lycosa ericeticola, the Rosemary
Wolf Spider

2 Rosemary Wolf Spider habitat (Locality #7 in
Ordway Reserve)

3 Map of Florida and Putnam County with area of
interest outlined


4 Map of area of interest
County with habitat and
Spider indicated


in northwest Putnam
range of Rosemary Wolf


Page












A. INTRODUCTION

The Rosemary Wolf Spider, Lycosa ericeticola Wallace, was

collected and described over forty years ago in and around the town of

Interlachen in Putnam County in a very unusual habitat (Wallace,

1942). Since that time it has been collected a couple of times in the

same area. No collections have been made since 1971 and the last 14

years have been a period of rapid development in the region,

especially within the city limits of Interlachen, where sand mining

has made incursions into several areas in which the spider was

originally found (in the area just south of State Highway 20 and east

of State Highway 315).

In this survey we have attempted to (1) identify likely habitats

for the occurrence of populations of the spider, (2) collect the

spider, find its distribution, estimate its numbers and determine its

phenology, and (3) find a way to identify the spider in the field (and

avoid the necessity of microscopic examination). In the first two

aspects we have been reasonably successful but the last still poses

problems.



B. PROCEDURES

Surveys of potential habitats (turkey-oak with an understory of

Rosemary, Ceratiola ericoides) were carried out in the summer and fall

of 1984 and winter through fall of 1985 by'visual examination of areas

east and west of Gainesville as well as using some aerial surveys,

with greatest attention given to the Interlachen region. Initially


- 1 -












A. INTRODUCTION

The Rosemary Wolf Spider, Lycosa ericeticola Wallace, was

collected and described over forty years ago in and around the town of

Interlachen in Putnam County in a very unusual habitat (Wallace,

1942). Since that time it has been collected a couple of times in the

same area. No collections have been made since 1971 and the last 14

years have been a period of rapid development in the region,

especially within the city limits of Interlachen, where sand mining

has made incursions into several areas in which the spider was

originally found (in the area just south of State Highway 20 and east

of State Highway 315).

In this survey we have attempted to (1) identify likely habitats

for the occurrence of populations of the spider, (2) collect the

spider, find its distribution, estimate its numbers and determine its

phenology, and (3) find a way to identify the spider in the field (and

avoid the necessity of microscopic examination). In the first two

aspects we have been reasonably successful but the last still poses

problems.



B. PROCEDURES

Surveys of potential habitats (turkey-oak with an understory of

Rosemary, Ceratiola ericoides) were carried out in the summer and fall

of 1984 and winter through fall of 1985 by'visual examination of areas

east and west of Gainesville as well as using some aerial surveys,

with greatest attention given to the Interlachen region. Initially


- 1 -









two locations in the city of Interlachen were singled out for repeated

collections. The first was an ecosystem almost completely dominated

by Rosemary with little other major vegetation (area #20 on Map 2).

The other was a turkey-oak community with a dense-to-moderate

understory Rosemary element (area #16 on Map 2). Findings in these

two areas in early April initiated a broadening of the search area to

the west, north and somewhat to the southwest of the center of

Interlachen.

Surveys of the occurrence of the spider were made using two

methods:

1. The first was night-light hunting over a period from

September, 1984 through October, 1985. The tapetum of each of the

spider's four posterior eyes brightly reflects light shown at it and

allows an efficient method to locate and collect these nocturnal

spiders. Within an hour one can survey hundreds of spiders this way

and determine the presence or absence of the wolf spider in

question. Table 1 lists the dates of the collecting trips and the

locations.

2. In addition four pitfall traps (utilizing a 50/50 mixture of

ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and 95% ethanol), two each at both

Interlachen locations (16 and 20), were set out in January and checked

and refilled on February 3, 17, and March 2.



C. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Habitat Survey and Identification

The spider was reported to be "found in high, well-drained sandy

soil somewhat similar to high pine-turkey oak but with a high


- 2 -









proportion of Rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides) in the plant association"

(Wallace, 1982). Wallace (1942) reported that this species had been

collected "only in the area covered with Rosemary." Such habitats are

found in the hilly regions both east and west of Gainesville. Several

localities of this type of habitat within the city limits of

Interlachen were chosen for regular night-light and pitfall

collections during 1984-85 and other locations elsewhere (around

Melrose and west of Archer) were sampled in the spring and summer of

1985. A more detailed survey of those areas in which Rosemary is a

dominant plant and contiguous or near to the Interlachen central area

was made by visual survey as well as by utilizing aerial survey maps

and photographs from the LandSat and National High Altitude

Photography (U-2) programs. These areas vary a great deal in the

density of Rosemary although it is present throughout with the

exception of littoral areas around lakes and certain local wetter

mesicc) depressions. They are all characterized by the presence of

turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and often have longleaf pines (Pinus

palustris) as well. The estimated extent of these areas is outlined

in red on Map 2.



Collecting the Rosemary Wolf Spider

Males of Lycosa were found in the late summer and fall of 1984

but none turned out to be the Rosemary Wolf Spider. Several

penultimate males were collected at that time and raised to their

adult stage in the laboratory, but also turned out to be the same,

closely related, species, Lycosa timuqua Wallace. It was not until

the Spring of 1985 that Lycosa ericeticola was found. The first one


- 3 -








was collected at Interlachen site #20 on March 8 as a penultimate male

and it was not until 31 March 1985, when it molted in the laboratory

into an adult male, that definite identification was possible.

Three species in the Lycosa lenta group are found in the general

habitat examined: Lycosa ericeticola Wallace, L. ammophila Wallace,

and L. timuqua Wallace. While L. timuqua is found in association with

each of the other, the first two species appear to exclude one

another. The locality numbers on Map 2 and the species of the Lycosa

lenta group found at each are presented in Table 2.

From April through early August numerous males of the spider were

collected in the Interlachen area, southeast of Melrose and in the

Ordway Preserve (northwest of Interlachen). Map 2 charts the presence

or absence of the Rosemary Wolf Spider over the areas surveyed while

Table 2 lists the species found at each. In only one case (locality

4) was the Rosemary Wolf Spider found in habitats in which there was

no Rosemary, thus they seem closely associated with that plant species

or the factors responsible for its presence. Yet some "ideal" habitat

areas (e.g. localities 12, 19, 21) were devoid of this species,

although L. ammophila was abundant. Only at localities that produced

male specimens was it possible to definitively establish the presence

of L. ericeticola and/or L. ammophila. Thus the species found at

localities 13, 14 and 23 of those sampled remain unknown. Locality 23

is at the southern end of the known distribution while localities 13

and 14 are in the region where L. ammophila and L. ericeticola either

overlap, abut, or hybridize. The difficulty in characterizing the

females, especially in this region, makes the last alternative a

tantalizing one.


- 4 -







No adult spiders were collected in the pitfall traps. This was

clearly due to the time (mid-winter) of these collections. But few

spiders at all were collected even though they were present in the

environment. This inefficient method of collection was discontinued

in the Spring and Summer.



Field Identification of the Rosemary Wolf Spider

One of the difficulties in both surveying and protecting the

Rosemary Wolf Spider is its close resemblance to -other wolf spiders of

the Lycosa lenta group: black venter, a brownish mottled appearance

on the dorsum of its carapace, unbanded legs, and an abdominal dorsum

of light tan with a darker central region. This is similar to several

other related species, especially L. ammophila. In fact the only

means by which this species can be distinguished from several others

is by the male genitalia, a method requiring a dissecting scope (or a

good lens with adequate light). With a little practice males of L.

ericeticola were relatively easy to identify in a vial with a 10x hand

lens. It was soon apparent in this survey that if a better method of

identification could be developed future assessment of the status of

the species would be much more rapid and accurate, requiring less

effort and expertise.

Toward these ends photographs were taken of live specimens and

pattern cues searched for. Figure 1 is the dorsal view of a male

spider and is the typical pattern. No diagnostic field method has

been found to distinguish this species from others in its species

group.


- 5 -







D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Status of the Species

The Rosemary Wolf Spider is abundant in an area of approximately

2,000 to 3,000 hectares about 1/10 of which is in the Ordway Preserve

of the University of Florida. The species appears to be quite common

within this area and, although no accurate measure of density is

possible at this time, a rough estimate of about 1 adult/square meter

during the year is not out of line. It is interesting to note that no

specimens were collected in what looked like ideal habitat just to the

west and south of the range of species. Those areas were repeatedly

surveyed at the height of the season and we are confident that the

species does not exist there. The cause of this absence is not known

but may be historical or due to the competitive interaction with L.

ammophila.



2. Status of the Habitat

The Rosemary dominant habitats around Interlachen and between

Interlachen and Melrose are being developed into subdivisions rapidly,

with an extensive dirt road system being built and mobile and

permanent homes being built. At present this development does not

seem to have seriously reduced the habitat of the spider just west of

Interlachen. However there have been some areas sand mined, which

results in the complete destruction of the habitat in those

locations. One of the areas being sand mined is that of the original

collecting site of the species (about 100 m SW of the center of

Interlachen) and another is the area near Keuka. At present there is

no indication that the present industrial and residential development


- 6 -







of the region is seriously impacting the habitat of the Rosemary Wolf

Spider. This does not mean that future development will not have a

detrimental effect.



3. General Conclusions on the Status of the Rosemary Wolf Spider

The Rosemary Wolf Spider (L. ericeticola) appears to be a species

restricted both by habitat and geography (and possibly competitively

by L. ammophila). Its restricted distribution may be a legacy of its

origin as a distinct species in the Pleistocene and not exclusively

due to environmental limitations. The isolation of populations on an

archipelago of islands in north and central Florida during the

interglacial periods of the early Pleistocene (MacNeil, 1950) probably

led to a high rate of speciation resulting in many new autochthonous

species of spiders in peninsula Florida (McCrone, 1963). Further

research will be required to clarify this situation.


- 7-








LITERATURE CITED


MacNeil, F. S. 1950. Pleistocene shorelines in Florida and

Georgia. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 221F:95-107.

McCrone, J. D. 1963. Taxonomic status and evolutionary history of

the Geolycosa pikei complex in the southeastern United States

(Araneae, Lycosidae). Amer. Midland Naturalist 70(1):47-73.

Wallace, H. K. 1942. A study of the lenta group of the genus Lycosa

with descriptions of new species (Araneae, Lycosidae). Amer.

Museum Novitates 1185:1-21, 28 figs.

1982. Threatened Rosemary Wolf Spider in Rare and

Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. 6 (ed. Richard Franz). pp.

123-124.


- 8 -







Table 1. Collecting dates and locations. Numbers in parentheses
refer to numbers on Map 2.


Date


Location


September 27, 1984
October 4, 1984
October 18, 1984
November 1, 1984
November 6, 1984
November 19, 1984
January 23, 1985
February 13, 1985
March 7, 1985
March 26, 1985
April 10, 1985
April 29, 1985
May 2, 1985
May 6, 1985
May 7, 1985
May 8, 1985
May 19, 1985
May 22, 1985
May 28, 1985
May 30, 1985
June 4, 1985
June 9, 1985
June 10, 1985
June 13, 1985
June 20, 1985
July 2, 1985
July 10, 1985
July 17, 1985
August 7, 1985
August 22, 1985
September 5, 1985
September 16, 1985
October 2, 1985
October 17, 1985
October 23, 1985


Alachua Co./Levy Co. line
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
SE Melrose
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Interlachen
Alachua Co./Levy Co. line
Interlachen
Ordway Preserve
Ordway Preserve
Ordway Preserve
Interlachen and Johnson
Interlachen and Johnson
Ordway Preserve
Putnam Hall
N Interlachen
N Interlachen and W Johnson
9 km W of Interlachen
9 km W of Interlachen
Ordway Preserve
Interlachen and 9 km W
Interlachen
6-9 km W of Interlachen
6-8 km W of Interlachen
Interlachen
6-8 km W of Interlachen
Interlachen and W
Interlachen and W
Interlachen and W
9 km W of Interlachen


(20)
(16)
(16, 20)





(16)
(16)


(16, 8)
(3, 2)
(7, 4)
(5, 6)
(16, 19, 3,
(17, 22, 21)
(5)
(1)
(17, 10)
(9, 10, 24)
(12)
(12)
(5)
(9, 12, 19)
(9, 19)
(11, 15, 18,
(15, 13)
(17)
(15, 13)
(17, 15, 14)
(17, 15, 14)
(17, 15)
(12)


- 9 -


22, 21)


12, 19)







Table 2. Locality number and the presence (+) of three species of
Lycosa (based on presence of males in the case of L. ericeticola and
L. ammophila, and either sex of L. timuqua). A question mark
indicates that only females have been collected and thus
identification cannot be certain.



Locality L. ericeticola L. ammophila L. timuqua

1 +
2 ? ? +
3 +
4 + + +
5 + +
6 + +
7 + +
8 + +
9 + +
10 + +
11 +
12 + +
13 ? ?
14 ? ? +
15 + +
16 + +
17 + +
18 + +
19 +
20 + +
21 +
22 + +
23 ? ? +
24 + +


- 10 -







Figure 1. A male of Lycosa ericeticola, the Rosemary Wolf Spider.


^..r N' --^' *'^
-. ., *y*.C--.". -"f


















Figure 2. Habitat of the Rosemary Wolf Spider. (Locality #7 in
Ordway Reserve)


- 11 -


~as40







Figure 1. A male of Lycosa ericeticola, the Rosemary Wolf Spider.


^..r N' --^' *'^
-. ., *y*.C--.". -"f


















Figure 2. Habitat of the Rosemary Wolf Spider. (Locality #7 in
Ordway Reserve)


- 11 -


~as40








Figure 3. Map of Florida and Putnam County (shaded) with area of
interest outlined (see Fig. 4).


a"'S


- 12 -







Figure 4.


Map of area of interest in northwest Putnam County. Dotted
line outlines the habitat in which Rosemary (Ceratiola
ericoides) is dominant. Numbers correspond to localities
referred to in Tables 1 and 2. The Rosemary Wolf Spider is
found in the shaded area.


- 13 -




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs