INTRODUCTION TO PART II
I - About this database
This Part II of the "Monograph ..." purports to be a taxonomic
research tool and educational facility for studies on Salticidae. It provides collection of diagnostic drawings and photographs for
literature quotations, outlines geographical distribution
and collection repository data. Its structure of
relational MSQL database allows for quick searches of interrelated
data. Comparison of
different species is possible within this Part II, by loading two species pages side
by side, on a single screen, but a special Part I of the "Monograph..." designed for easy comparison, identification and quick scanning of diversity is available as a PDF/A file, and also at http://www.peckhamia.com/salticidae/Subfamilies/. Small illustrations can be enlarged. The “Monograph …” summarizes
data contained in more than 2266 publications and collections of photographs,
and 58 collections of species, created by 10 generations of arachnologists
over a period of 250 years. It contains data on 6938
species and forms pending description (World Spider Catalog lists 5862 described nominal species) including 2133 species having diagnostic illustrations for both
sexes, 2607 species with drawings for only one sex,
1509 species have no diagnostic drawings and cannot therefore be recognized.
Pictures of 657 "species" not yet described constitute raw material for future descriptions.
In reality, the number of recognizable species is even smaller, owing to
the inadequate quality of many of the original drawings.
Navigating the database
The efficient use of all resources and facilities in this relational database will require some experience. It is available now in "dynamic" version and as a printout, designed for downloading on individual computers. Here are some hints how to use Database efficiently.
The first page of the dynamic parts, which opens after loading the title page, permits initial selection of available facilities, including, among others:
Search a taxon - selection of taxa from genus to subspecies, also groups of genera and supergroups, list their contents, select displays of miniatures (thumbnails) of diagnostic drawings, permits the selection of synonyms and state of knowledge. Attention: when starting, or repeating, new search, letter selectors should be set to ALL.
Taxon by tree - alphabetical list of genera (but without possibility of displaying thumbnails), leading to display of lists of species and species pages.
Search a publication - lists of papers, by names of authors and years, resulting in the display of full bibliographic data, including a list of species mentioned in each paper (with the possibility of showing thumbnails) and the relevant species pages.
Search a collection - list of collections of Salticidae, resulting in the display of a list of species in each collection (with the possibility of showing thumbnails) and the relevant species pages.
Geographic distribution - showing lists of species (with the possibility of showing thumbnails) on each continent (or areas of continental size), countries (or areas of country size) and regions of countries, resulting in the display of relevant species pages.
Search photos/drawings - by taxa or geographic area.
Links to some other www Salticidae pages.
The basic unit is the Species page, which contains all data concerning a particular species (geographic distribution, publications, synonyms, collections), linked to related pages, permitting the viewing of related data and also return to the species pages.
Some simplification of quotations from the literature
In the preparation of this database I have introduced some changes to the traditional way in which scientific names and bibliographic data are normally cited . As these are unlikely to receive general acceptance in future taxonomic literature, they have little chance of being used outside this database.
1. The form of scientific names in zoology is mandated obligatorily by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, e.g.:
Sitticus palustris (Peckham et Peckham, 1888), however, because of the difficulty in programming the database for species having more than 2 authors, which often happens nowadays. I replaced here "et" or "&” with a comma "," = Sitticus palustris (Peckham, Peckham, 1888).
2. I simplified quotations of combinations and synonyms by removing redundant stops and commas, thus: Sitticus palustris Peckham & Peckham, 1909: 519, pl. 43, f. 3, pl. 44, f. 4. becomes Sitticus palustris Peckham, Peckham, 1909: 519, t 43, f 3; t 44, f 4.
3. Difficulties of programming the database, which automatically arranges names alphabetically by their three first letters, forced me to amend the customary way of writing Author's names, e.g.: C.L. Koch becomes Koch C.L. and L. Koch becomes Koch L. Similarly (also for the sake of users suffering from dyslexia): F.O. P.-Cambridge (=Frederic Octavius Pickard-Cambridge) becomes Pickard-Cambridge F. and O. P.-Cambridge (= Octavius Pickard-Cambridge) becomes Pickard-Cambridge O.
4. Complicated quotations of Authors of species, different than Author(s) of the original publication, customarily quoted courteously e.g.: Doenitz et Strand, in Boesenberg and Strand, 1906 are replaced by quotations of the Authors of the publication only: Boesenberg, Strand, 1906, complemented by an additional comment: “description credited to Doenitz et Strand”, in an appropriate field. I reason that the function of Author’s names is to direct the user to a published source of a description, rather than to pay honor to a the discoverer of a taxon. Consequently some Authors of taxa appear now different from those generally accepted e.g.: Yllenus arenarius Menge in Simon, 1868 becomes Yllenus arenarius Simon, 1868; (Comment: description credited to Menge).
5. There are two kinds of reference dates quoted in the literature: nominal date (i.e. printed on the front page of a volume, or a part of it) and nomenclatural validity date, defined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature as the first day of circulation of a paper. The latter is needed on very rare occasions for establishing priority among synonymic names, but they are difficult to determine, often requiring special research. There are often difference in date of publication and species in the two most important Catalogues: those by Bonnet and by Roewer (and those that continued from the latter - Brignoli, later Platnick, nowadays World Spider Catalog). It is of scientific interest to have a reference date, but use of the nominal date is the easier of the two.
In this database I begin to quote provisionally both the nominal date and the [nomenclatural validity date], the latter in square brackets (in some cases in different order) for each taxon, and publication, for which there are two dates in the literature. This system will be continued until some consensus can be reached among taxonomists, after which one of these dates could be eliminated.
An example of both kinds of dates:
an important " Catalogue of jumping spiders of northern Asia ..." by Logunov and Marusik is often quoted with the date 2001, while the date on page 1 (title page), page 2, and on page 300 (the last one) is given as 2000. However, at the bottom of page 300 there is also witten in small letters in Russian "Podpisano v pechat' 28.12.2000" [translated as "accepted for print on December 28th, 2000"] - from which one can deduce that since printing takes several weeks, the volume apparently appeared in printed form during the year 2001.
Many Chinese Authors have identical family names and differ by abbreviations of their given names, like: Li, A., Li, D., Li, G., Li, S., Li, Y. - this lead to misunderstanding when names are customarily written without given names as abbreviations (as in species names, or in bibliographic quotations). A solution seems to include abbreviations into the family names (following the precedent of Koch C.L. and Koch L.) like: Li A., Li D., Li G., Li S., Li Y. But which version of the abbreviation should be quoted? A good explanation of this was given to me by Dr. Shuqiang Li, in a private letter.
"... Yes, my given name are Shu Qiang. However, it is hard to say my given name are two words and one word because the meaning of Chinese "word" are different to that of English "word". To better under stand that Shu Qiang is my given name, we were asked to write as Shuqiang, and for all Chinese they know this is my given name, and for the people in western countries this is also easy to understand. I use the name "Shuqiang Li" in the last years, including the time when I studied in Stuttgart (1992-1998), and later. In general, I will write my name as "Shuqiang Li", and abbreviate as "S. Li". Dr "Zhonge Hou" (a lady) should abbreviate as "Z. Hou". Meanwhile, "S.Q. Li" and "Z.E. Hou" are not correct.".
I have also consulted on this matter with Dr Daikin Li, and in this database will abbreviate Chinese names in the following way: Li S. and Li D., the abbreviation of a given name written together with family name.
OTHER WWW SALTICIDAE PAGES
http://wsc.nmbe.ch -World Spider Catalog. NH Museum Bern (formerly by
Norman Platnick, initiated by Paolo Brignoli as continuation of C.F. Roewer Katalog)
Original texts of publications could be found in the Peckham Society http://peckhamia.com/,
monumental work of Eugene Simon 1901-1903 online is at http://revue-arachnologique.fr/chargements.html,
by courtesy of J.-C. Ledoux. Page of the Bulletin of the British Arachnological
Many other texts are available on numerous www sites of particular Journals,
Publishers and Institutions.
Validity as publicationBecause of subjective approaches and views, for which the Author is solely responsible, the "Monograph ..." is not only a collection of borrowed data, but a personal electronic publication of the Author, based on literature and contributions of a number of Arachnologists (listed in the section "Copyrights permissions" and elsewhere, for which the Author wish to express his warm thanks.
The present 2011 version of the "Monograph ..." is the updated
continuation of the "Monograph of the Salticidae (Araneae) of the
which has been available on the Internet in subsequent semiannual
versions since 1995 and has become an official electronic publication,
(as defined by the 1999 edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature [Chapter 3, Article 7, Par 8.6]) in 2003, and again recently,
with the publication date June 30th, 2007 (ISBN 978-83-881470-6-7).
Disclaimer. Because of automatic functions of the computer, some data in this database may get mixed up. To ensure accuracy the user is advised to check data against Platnick's World Spider Catalogue, which is particularly reliable.
II - Practical hints for work on Salticidae
I am in favor of pictorial identification and comparison of species: by direct
comparison of specimens, or their photographs, or drawings. It is a natural
approach, by which we recognize faces of people, it requires some initial experience, “training
of taxonomist’s eyes”, but when that is acquired, it works
faster that any highly scientific methods.
It has become common practice of expedition organizers to dump large collections of unidentified specimens in Museums, where they may be forgotten for decades. I happened to study some specimens, for the first time, after 100 years of storage. It should be a moral duty of a collector to photograph collected specimens before they become faded, and store that documentation electronically.
Laboratory methods of handling specimens for making drawings, or photographs, are similar. Specimens are examined submerged in ethyl alcohol (75%), in a Petri dish, preferably under a stereomicroscope (100x to 200x magnification), illuminated by oblique beams of cool light, which model shapes by lights and shadows. The simplest method to immobilize specimens in the required position is to have the bottom of the dish covered by fine sand. The whole specimen, or its detached palpus, can be gently pressed into the sand, in the desired position. The epigyne can be photographed in situ, or separated from body and placed flat on a microscopic slide. The epigyne can be detached from the body by sliding the tip of a small scalpel under it, and cutting the tegument around the epigyne. For examination of internal structure the epigyne can be placed in COOL aqueous 10-20% solution of KOH for some 24 hours, and then stained in the very light alcohol solution of Chlorazol Black E for a short time.
Examination of the internal structures should be done using a compound microscope, with 10x to 40x objective. Photographs of such details are best made using a camera with an automatic timing device, attached to the phototube of the microscope To make drawings the best method is to place a “net micrometer” – a piece of glass with a fine grid of minute squares, inside the ocular of the microscope, and to draw the examined structures as seen in each square, on a sheet of paper with a grid drawn on it. Shading is best done on coquille paper using a soft pencil. The detached epigyne or palp should be stored in a minute vial, together with the whole specimen.
The traditional approach to identification of Salticidae consists of the progressive checking of hierarchically arranged characters.
Identification of species based on Simon's 1937 key begins by checking:
1. teeth on chelicerae (often requiring breaking of a chelicera)
2. length of pedicel;
3. presence or absence of tooth on retrolateral margin of chelicera;
4. presence of striae behind eyes III, as well as number and size of spines on legs;
5. "normal" shape of cephalothorax;
6. eyes II "distinctly" closer to eyes I than to eyes III;
7. eye field "slightly" narrowing anteriorly;
8. reading half a page long description of color pattern and setae;
9. checking 2 diagrammatized drawings purporting to illustrate several related species.
This may lead to discovery, in this example, that the examined specimen is a Sitticus, presumably S. floricola. The characters used are described vaguely, with relative terms like: "longer", "slight", "distinct". I tried for 20 years to make precise descriptions with measurements - all in vain - the individual variability of specimens is too great to make that method useful for a large number of species. More useful is direct comparison with other identified specimens - whenever possible - type specimens (but frequent handling endanger type specimens), so access to larger collections seems necessary for taxonomic work, as well as access to a library of descriptions. In practice, after several repetitions of steps suggested by keys, a taxonomist memorizes the appearance of a particular taxon and later recognizes it at first glance. So why not shorten that process by providing an easier method of recognition? For example, by making a library of pictures of species, preferably photographs, both of type specimens (to protect them) and newly collected ones (for identification). This is the rationale behind creation of the present database.
This Monograph summarizes results of research on Salticidae from over 2290 publications, and 58 collections, created by 10 generations of arachnologists over a period of 250 years. Working on taxonomy today, we are but the last link in a chain of our predecessors and a connection to, hopefully, the future generations of Salticidologists. There is a demand for synthetic compendia of basic taxonomic data, which also the present "Monograph ..." purports to achieve. The Authors and Donors of diagnostic drawings and photographs deserve special thanks, as in fact co-authors of this database. The full list of contributors can be found in this database using the "Search a publication" facility displayed in the form of the list of references. That facility also outputs counts and lists of species in each publication and even displays the diagnostic illustrations. Permissions for displaying these can also be seen there. The most prolific contributors are:
Galiano 695, Logunov 888, Maddison 187, Prószynski 1221, Wanless 294, Wesolowska 734, Zabka 458
(the numbers denote species illustrated in their papers used in the database up to 2009 version).
The database contains photographs (listed in the database
as "publications" of their authors) made by the following photographers:
Additionally, paintings were received from B. Duhem and from Kuniko Arakawa. I wish to express warm gratitude to each of the above mentioned persons.
Some prominent Salticidologists, active at present
Polish School of Taxonomy of Salticidae
Three generations of Polish Arachnologists have authored some 167 taxonomic publications on Salticidae between 1961-2006. The common characteristic of these publications is a methodical approach with precise diagnostic drawings of palpal organs and internal structures of epigynes, used for recognition of genera and as a basis for comparison. The general aim was a comparative study of Salticidae of the World, including studies of the fauna of poorly known areas, and of unrecognizable species. The studies began by studying the genital organs of type species of genera, then examining non-type species thereby facilitating revisions of genera. This provided a sound basis for moving on to the study of new collections of new species and new genera. Recent developments are the usage of color digital photographs and computer assisted automontage documentation. The methods developed by the Members of this School have some visible influence on modern taxonomy of Salticidae around the World. The present Monograph of the Salticidae of the World summarizes the efforts of the School to date. Members of the Polish School of the Taxonomy of Salticidae are listed below, in chronological order of their activities. They have contributed drawings to 2529 species (out of 4000) in this database, until December 2009. The numbers of their publications, until 2006, are given below in brackets; publications in co-authorship are shown as fractions: J.Prószyński (53,+13 x 1/2, + 5 x 1/3), E.M. Andreeva (2 x 1/3 [+ 2 earlier papers]),H. Punda (2), A. Bohdanowicz (3 + 2x 1/2), S. Hęciak (6 x 1/2 + 1/3), W. Wesołowska(33 + 18 x 1/2, + 1/3), M. Zabka (30 + 14 x 1/2), M. Prochniewicz (3 + 1/2), J. Gardzinska (2 + 2 x 1/2), B. Patoleta (1 + 2 x 1/2), P. Jastrzebski (5), M. Szeremeta (1/2), W. Borowiec (1/2)
About the Author - Jerzy Prószyński
I began studies on spiders
during 1954-57 as a student of the Warsaw University,
Poland (simultaneously an employee of the Institute of Zoology
of the Polish Academy of Sciences - full time from 1955 onwards), by preparing
a diploma thesis on the fauna of 5 spider families near Warsaw (Prószyński
J. 1961). Poland has a long tradition of research on spiders, but there was
a long gap between myself and my predecessors, and I had to start from the
beginning, without any introductory help. One of the families I studied
was Salticidae, and I concentrated on their taxonomy since 1960. I soon realized
that I could gain an understanding of the group
only by a broad comparative study of entire genera and so started with revisions
of genera Sitticus (Prószyński
1968d, 1971a, 1973a, 1980d) and Yllenus (Prószyński
1968e, which was my PhD thesis, received in 1966). But what were the infrafamilial
relationships of these genera? There
was no reliable Introduction, or Key to the family for geographical areas
broader than a few single countries (I quickly realized that Simon 1901-1903
was of little help) so I began to revise type species of the genera - in
this cycle appeared papers: Prószyński,
1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1968c, 1971c.
Copyright © for
each drawing and photograph included in this monograph
(all reproduced here with permission) is retained by the original copyright