Электронная библиотека Финансового университета

     
?

Детальная информация
Карточка Таблица RUSMARC

Eberhard, William G. Spider Webs [[electronic resource]]: Behavior, Function, and Evolution. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020. — 1 online resource (679 p.). — 3.2.5.3 Data from prey counts generally have serious flaws. — <URL:http://elib.fa.ru/ebsco/2657487.pdf>.

Дата создания записи: 31.10.2020

Тематика: Spider webs.; Spiders — Behavior.

Коллекции: EBSCO

Разрешенные действия: –

Действие 'Прочитать' будет доступно, если вы выполните вход в систему или будете работать с сайтом на компьютере в другой сети Действие 'Загрузить' будет доступно, если вы выполните вход в систему или будете работать с сайтом на компьютере в другой сети

Группа: Анонимные пользователи

Сеть: Интернет

Права на использование объекта хранения

Место доступа Группа пользователей Действие
Локальная сеть Финуниверситета Все Прочитать Печать Загрузить
Интернет Читатели Прочитать Печать
-> Интернет Анонимные пользователи

Оглавление

  • 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

Статистика использования

stat Количество обращений: 0
За последние 30 дней: 0
Подробная статистика