Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
27 February 2018 Some rare and remarkable spider species from Hungary (Arachnida: Araneae)
László Mezőfi, Viktor Markó
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

This study reports the first records of two spider species for Hungary: Cyclosa sierrae Simon, 1870 (Araneidae) and Porrhomma oblitum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) (Linyphiidae). Cyclosa sierrae also represents the first record of this species from Central Europe. Furthermore, we provide evidence about the occurence of Dysdera lata Reuss, 1834 and Philodromus marmoratus Kulczyński, 1891 in Hungary and for six further species we report new data: Brigittea vicina (Simon, 1873) (Dictynidae), Iberina microphthalma (Snazell & Duffey, 1980) (Hahniidae), Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) (Linyphiidae), Pulchellodromus ruficapillus (Simon, 1885) (Philodromidae), Lasaeola prona (Menge, 1868) (Theridiidae) and Diaea livens Simon, 1876 (Thomisidae). Comments on the distribution, biology and taxonomy of the ten mentioned spider species are provided.

In the early twentieth century Chyzer & Kulczyński (1918) published the first comprehensive checklist of the spiders from Hungary, and already listed 742 species. More than 80 years later Samu & Szinetár (1999) updated the list according to the present borders of Hungary, thus their list contains 725 species. Since then many new additions have been reported for the fauna (e.g. Szúts et al. 2003, Pfliegler et al. 2012, Szinetár & Kovács 2013, Pfliegler 2014, Szinetár et al. 2014, 2015, Korányi et al. 2017) and several new species from the country were described (Szinetár & Samu 2003, Szinetár & Kancsal 2007, Szinetár et al. 2009, Kovács et al. 2015a). Presently, the Spiders of Europe database lists 800 spider taxa for Hungary (Nentwig et al. 2017), although the list is still far from complete. In this paper we report two further spider species which are new to the fauna of Hungary. We also provide a new data on the occurence and biology of some rare and interesting spider species.

Material and methods

The spiders were collected sporadically in various parts of Hungary, mainly in apple orchards (Bács-Kiskun, Pest, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Tolna counties) and city parks (Budapest, Gödöllóő) from 2013 to 2016. Exact locations are indicated with some comments in the Results. A variety of collecting methods were used, including hand collecting, beating, cardboard bands and litter sampling. For collecting overwintering spiders from apple trees, we used corrugated cardboard stripes (height 20 cm), which were placed around the tree trunks, at about 20 cm above ground usually in September. The bands and litter samples were collected during winter months, and for processing the litter samples we used Winkler extractors (Sakchoowong et al. 2007). Juvenile specimens of Philodromus marmoratus Kulczyński, 1891 and Pulchellodromus ruficapiiius (Simon, 1885) were kept alive and fed with Drosophila hydei Sturtevant, 1921, until its final moult. The collected and reared specimens were stored in 70 % ethanol. Individuals were examined in the laboratory of the Department of Entomology, Szent István University. Identification was made under a binocular stereo microscope (Leica MZ6). In case of female specimens the genitalia were dissected from the specimens, and the epigynes/vulvas were cleared with 20 % KOH. The specimens were identified using various keys (see in the Results section), and were deposited in the first author’s private collection. Philodromus marmoratus and P. ruficapiiius habitus pictures were taken with a Nikon D3300 camera equipped with a Sigma 50mm 1:2.8 DG Macro lens. Iberina microphthalma (Snazell & Duffey, 1980), Porrhomma oblitum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) and P. ruficapiiius epigynes/vulvas were photographed with a Zeiss Imager A2 light microscope equipped with AxioCam MRc5, and in other cases the photographs were taken with a Sony XCDSX90CR digital interface connected to a Zeiss Stemi 2000 stereomicroscope. The specimens' parameters were measured with an ocular micrometer calibrated with a stage micrometer, and for post-processing work on the photographs, and for the preparation of the scale bars we used Adobe Photoshop CS3 software. Taxonomic names follow the nomenclature of the WSC (2017).

Results and discussion

As a result of our study the following ten new or rare spider species were recorded from Hungary:

Araneidae Clerck, 1757
Cyclosa sierrae Simon, 1870 (Fig. 1)

  • Determination. Levy 1997, Nentwig et al. 2017

  • Material examined. I♂, Sükösd: 17.05.2016 — (46°17′59″N, 19°00′21″E, 100 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard). The specimen (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) was collected by beating from the canopy of an apple tree.

  • Distribution. Europe to Georgia (WSC 2017). In Europe it occurs in Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France (exclusively Corsica), Greece (including North Aegean Islands and Crete), Italy (including Sardinia), Macedonia, Portugal, Russia (southern European part), Spain, Turkey (European part) and Ukraine (van Helsdingen 2017). It is also present in, e.g., Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey (Asian part) (Levy 1997, Kashefi et al. 2013, Komnenov 2013, Uyar et al. 2014).

  • Remarks. Until now, two representatives of the genus Cyclosa were known from Hungary: C. conica (Pallas, 1772) and C. oculata (Walckenaer, 1802) (Samu & Szinetár 1999). Here we report C. sierrae as the third member of this genus in Hungary.

    This Mediterranean species usually occurs in steppe-like or shrub vegetations, but also occurs in Pinus forests (Komnenov 2013, Polchaninova & Prokopenko 2013, Ijland & van Helsdingen 2014, Uyar et al. 2014). Cyclosa spiders are easy to recognise by their habit of placing their prey remains and egg sacs in a vertical line crossing the center of their orb webs (Levy 1997). Furthermore, Cyclosa species can usually be easily distinguished from their relatives by, among other features, the posterior-dorsal extended opisthosoma which bears various humps (Levy 1997), but the identification of some species within the genus is difficult. In physical characteristics C. sierrae strongly resembles C. conica, but according to Mcheidze (2014) these two species can be distinguished on the basis of the sternum colouration: in case of C. sierrae the sternum is black (or dark brown) with yellow marks on the edge (one anterior transversal, one apical and two lateral marks), while in C. conica the sternum is entirely black, without yellow marks. Presumably the small-sized male specimen of this typically southern species reached the sampling site by ballooning. Spreading of this species in a northern direction has not been detected before in Europe.

  • Fig. 1:

    Left palp of Cyclosa sierrae male from Hungary; a. prolateral view; b. retrolateral view

    f01_01.jpg

    Dictynidae O. P. - Cambridge, 1871
    Brigittea vicina (Simon, 1873) (syn. Dictyna vicina) (Fig. 2)

  • Determination. Loksa 1969

  • Material examined. 8♀♀, Budapest: 1♀ 26.05.2016, 3♀♀ 23.06.2016 — Haller park (47°28′29″N, 19°04′48″E, 107 m a.s.l., urban green area); 1♀ 23.06.2016 — Róbert Károly körút (47°32′09″N, 19°03′48″E, 106 m a.s.l., urban green area); 1♀ 19.07.2016, 1 ♀ 13.09.2016 — Margit Island (47°31′19″N, 19°02′43″E, 103 m a.s.l., urban green area with floodplain-like forest vegetation); 1 ♀ 19.07.2016 — Vérmező (47°29′60″N, 19°01′43″E, 127 m a.s.l., urban green area). All the specimens (leg. D. Korányi, det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by beating mainly in urban environments, from canopies of Acer campestre trees.

  • Distribution. Mediterranean to Central Asia (WSC 2017). In Europe it is present in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France (including Corsica), Greece (including Crete), Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, probably in Russia (north-western European part), Slovakia, Ukraine and former Yugoslavia (van Helsdingen 2017).

  • Remarks. A very rare mesophilic species (Havranek & Molnár 1965, Bryja et al. 2005b), which is critically endangered in, for example, the Czech Republic (Řezáč et al. 2015). However, B. vicina is not considered to be very rare in Hungary and it can be characterised as a species with a rather sporadic occurrence (Szinetár pers. comm.). It occurs in the herb layer of downy oak forests (Bryja et al. 2005b) or at forest edges (Havranek & Molnár 1965), although B. vicina was reported from urban areas (from Picea abies trees) as well (Szinetár 1992). In spite of the limited data on this species our results indicate that urban green ecosystems can provide appropriate habitats for B. vicina.

  • Fig. 2:

    Cleared, dissected epigyne/vulva of Brigittea vicina female from Hungary; a. epigyne, ventral view; b. epigyne/vulva, dorsal view

    f02_01.jpg

    Dysderidae C. L. Koch, 1837
    Dysdera lata Reuss, 1834 (Fig. 3)

  • Determination. Kovblyuk et al. 2008, Le Peru 2011, Bosmans et al. 2017

  • Material examined. 1♂, Budapest: 27.07.2016 — Budai Arborétum (47°28′49″N, 19°02′24″E, 120 m a.s.l., urban green area). The specimen (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) was collected by hand on a pavement near a rockery in the Botanical Garden of the Szent István University.

  • Distribution. Mediterranean to Georgia (WSC 2017). In Europe this species occurs in Bulgaria, Cyprus, France (exclusively on Corsica), Greece (including North Aegean Islands, Cyclades and Crete), Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia (southern European part), Slovakia, Spain (exclusively on the Balearic Islands) and Ukraine (Otto 2015, Bosmans et al. 2017, van Helsdingen 2017, Lissner 2017).

  • Remarks. Deeleman-Reinhold & Deeleman (1988) and Řezáč et al. (2008) suggested that Chyzer & Kulczyński (1897: p. 267, plate 10, fig. 39) and Loksa (1969: pp. 75, 76 and 79, fig. 52 A–B) misidentified Dysdera westringi O. P.-Cambridge, 1872 and the species which they actually had was Dysdera taurica Charitonov, 1956. Řezáč et al. (2008) also examined some D. taurica specimens from Hungary to prove its presence in this country. Nevertheless, in the next year D. taurica was established as a junior synonym of D. lata by Kovblyuk et al. (2008). The main difference between males of D. westringi and D. lata is that the former one has no teeth while the latter one has 3–7 teeth on the apical lobe of the bulbus (Kovblyuk et al. 2008). In this paper we confirm the occurence of D. lata in Hungary. Dysdera westringi is rare in Hungary (Szinetár et al. 2012), and in the light of the above mentioned problems in identification, all records need to be re-checked because they probably all belong to D. lata.

  • Fig. 3:

    Right palp of Dysdera lata male from Hungary; a. prolateral view; b. retrolateral view

    f03_01.jpg

    Hahniidae Bertkau, 1878
    Iberina microphthalma (Snazell & Duffey, 1980)
    (syn. Hahnia microphthalma) (Fig. 4)

  • Determination. Snazell & Duffey 1980, Szita et al. 1998

  • Material examined. 2♀♀, Madocsa: 27.09.2016—(46°40′50″N, 18°58′32″E, 92 m a.s.l., commercial apple orchard treated with pesticides). The specimens (leg. L. Mezőfi, det. É. Szita) were collected by beating from canopies of apple trees.

  • Distribution. Only known from Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary and Switzerland (WSC 2017).

  • Remarks. Little is known about the biology of this rare species. Only a few records are available (Řúžička & Dolanský 2016) and the male is still unknown. According to Snazell & Duffey (1980) the posterior median eyes are reduced, but various stages of eye reduction are possible and there may be differences in the form of the translucent copulatory ducts as well (Szita et al. 1998, Hänggi & Stäubli 2012). Rúžička & Dolanský (2016) summarised earlier records and found that all previous specimens were collected on the ground surface or in the grass layer by various methods (e.g. by pitfall traps, sweeping), except some specimens that were collected using pipe traps which were designed to catch subterranean invertebrates. Snazell & Duffey (1980) propose that some of the characteristics of the spider suggest subterranean habitat use and Rúžička & Dolanský (2016) consider I. microphthalma as a ‘soil spider’. Nonetheless, its occurrence in the canopy of apple trees (at a height of approximately 1.5 m above the ground) suggets that besides the soil layer or the ground level I. microphthalma can sometimes also occur on plants.

  • Linyphiidae Blackwall, 1859
    Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882)

  • Determination. Nentwig et al. 2017, Šestáková et al. 2017

  • Material examined. 2♂♂, 3♀♀: 2♀♀ 15.12.2015 — Monorierdő (47°19′13″N, 19°31′12″E, 158 m a.s.l,, organic apple orchard); 1♂ 05.02.2016 — Újfehértó (47°49′13″N, 21°39′58″E, 121 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard); 1♂, 1♀ 09.12.2016 — Sükösd (46°17′59″N, 19°00′21″E, 100 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard). The specimens (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by litter sampling.

  • Distribution. North America. Introduced to Azores, Europe (WSC 2017). In Europe it is present in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal (exlusively on Azores), Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine (Dolanský et al. 2009, Katušić 2009, Kovács et al. 2015b, Szinetár et al. 2015, van Helsdingen 2017, Hirna 2017).

  • Remarks. This North American linyphiid spider was first found in Germany in the early 1980s and M. trilobatus is probably now the most frequently occuring alien spider in Europe (Nentwig & Kobelt 2010). This invasive ground-living species is probably spreading primarily by ballooning (Košulić et al. 2013, Blandenier et al. 2014) and its high colonization ability may relate to this, although the exact reasons for the success of M. trilobatus are still unclear (Eichenberger et al. 2009). In Hungary the first specimen was collected in 2012 (Kovács et al. 2015b), and since then it was found in several locations, especially in the western part of the country (e.g. Kovács & Szinetár 2015, Kovács et al. 2015b, Szinetár et al. 2015). Our results indicate that in recent years this species colonized almost the entire country, the central (Monorierdő), the southern (Sükösd) and the eastern (Ujfehértó) parts equally. The species can also be expected to reach Serbia and Romania in the near future.

  • Fig. 4:

    Iberina microphthalma female from Hungary; a. general appearance, dorsal view; b. opisthosoma with epigyne, ventral view; c. epigyne/ vulva, dorsal view; d. epigyne, ventral view

    f04_01.jpg

    Fig. 5:

    Cleared, dissected epigyne/vulva of Porrhomma oblitum female from Hungary; dorsal view

    f05_01.jpg

    Porrhomma oblitum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871) (Fig. 5)

  • Determination. Merrett 1994, Russell-Smith 2009

  • Material examined. 1♀, Nagykálló: 05.02.2016 —(47°53′17″N, 21°48′57″E, 116 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard). The specimen (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) was collected from a cardboard band.

  • Distribution. Europe (WSC 2017): Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia (Eastern European part), Slovakia and Switzerland (van Helsdingen 2017).

  • Remarks. Samu & Szinetár (1999) listed seven Porrhomma species from Hungary: P. convexum (Westring, 1851), P. errans (Blackwall, 1841), P. microphthalmum (O. P.-Cambridge, 1871), P. montanum Jackson, 1913, P. profundum Dahl, 1939, P. pygmaeum (Blackwall, 1834) and P. rosenhaueri (L. Koch, 1872), however the presence of P. errans and P. rosenhaueri, are uncertain (Samu & Szinetár 1999). Szinetár & Horváth (2006) cited the unpublished M.Sc. thesis of Kovács (2002) for P. oblitum, suggesting that the species also occurs in Hungary, but in this thesis P. oblitum was not mentioned. Consequently, to the best of our knowledge we report P. oblitum for the first time in Hungary, making it the eighth member of its genus in the country.

  • This species is a facultative bark-dweller and it may occur in arable lands or various open and forest habitats, especially in semi-humid and humid ones (Blick et al. 2000, Szinetár & Horváth 2006). Identification of Porrhomma species is quite difficult. Both P. oblitum and P. montanum belong to the Porrhomma group, where the metatarsi are spineless, femur I has only one prolateral spine and the dorsal spines are lacking, and tibia I has a prolateral spine. Porrhomma oblitum and P. montanum can be distinguished from each other only by small details of the dissected and cleared genitalia (Russell-Smith 2009, Šestáková 2011).

  • Philodromidae Thorell, 1870
    Philodromus marmoratus Kulczyński, 1891
    (syn. P. buddenbrocki Braun, 1965) (Fig. 6)

  • Determination. Kubcová 2004, Muster & Thaler 2004

  • Material examined. 2♂♂, 2♀♀ Budapest: 1♀ (leg. V. Hoffmann, det. L. Mezőfi) 20.04.2016, 1♀, 1♂ (leg. D. Gyóni, det. L. Mezőfi) 29.07.2016 — Margit Island (47°31′19″N, 19°02′43″E, 103 m a.s.l., urban green area with floodplain-like forest vegetation) (The male is a reared specimen, reached maturity after the ninth moult on 29.05.2017.). All specimens were collected by beating from shrubs. 1♂ (det. L. Mezőfi) an additional individual, an offspring of the female collected on 29.07.2016 was also examined. This reared specimen emerged from the egg on 10.08.2016 and reached maturity after the ninth moult on 19.05.2017.

  • Distribution. Only in Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and former Yugoslavia (with newer data from Serbia) (Grbić & Savić 2010, van Helsdingen 2017).

  • Remarks. A very rare species (Bryja et al. 2005a, 2005b), which is endangered in, e.g., the Czech Republic (Řezáč et al. 2015) and occurs near wetlands or floodplain forests (Jäger 1995, Bryja et al. 2005b). This species belongs to the Philodromus aureolus group (Segers 1992) and was originally described as P. aureolus ssp. marmoratus (in Chyzer & Kulczyński 1891). Segers (1992) firstly mentioned that P. buddenbrocki is possibly a synonym of P. aureolus marmoratus and later Kubcová (2004) clarified the situation and established P. buddenbrocki as a junior synonym of P. marmoratus. Although Chyzer & Kulczyński (1918), in their spider checklist reported several P. aureolus marmoratus records from the present territory of Hungary, surprisingly P. marmoratus was not included in the Hungarian checklist of spiders (Samu & Szinetár 1999), probably because of its uncertain taxonomic status. Our data provide further evidence for the occurence of P. marmoratus in Hungary. Furthermore, one individual (♂) was successfully reared from the egg. After the spider had emerged, it moulted nine times until maturity was reached. The other reared specimen (♂) which had been collected as a small nymph also moulted nine times until it reached adult stage. These observations indicate that P. marmoratus may have nine or more instars before maturity.

  • Pulchellodromus ruficapillus (Simon, 1885)
    (syn. Philodromus ruficapillus) (Fig. 7)

  • Determination. Muster et al. 2007, Kastrygina & Kovblyuk 2014

  • Material examined. 2♀♀, Nagykálló: 09.05.2016 — (47°53′17″N, 21°48′57″E, 116 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard) (reared specimens, final moulting reached on 25.07.2016). The specimens (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by beating method from canopy of apple trees.

  • Distribution. Mediterranean to Kazakhstan (WSC 2017). In Europe it was found in Albania, Austria, France, Greece (including North Aegean Islands and Crete), Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Ukraine (van Helsdingen 2017).

  • Remarks. In 2012 the genus Pulchellodromus was separated from the genus Philodromus by Wunderlich (2012), and the genus now contains 13 cryptic species (WSC 2017), mostly from the Mediterranean region (Muster et al. 2007, Wunderlich 2012). Two of them have data from Hungary: P. pulchellus (Lucas, 1846) (Déri et al. 2007, Kancsal et al. 2010) and P. ruficapillus, the latter of which seems to have the largest distribution area among the other species of the genus (Duma 2008). Until now, in Hungary P. ruficapillus has been found in Fertő-Hanság (Northwestern Hungary) (Muster et al. 2007) and in the Balaton Upland (Szinetár et al. 2016), but our data (Nagykálló, Northeastern Hungary) suggest that it is widespred throughout Hungary. Furthermore, all the records of P. pulchellus from Hungary need to be re-checked, because they probably all belong to P. ruficapillus (Szinetár et al. 2016). Pulchellodromus ruficapillus occurs usually in wetlands or along riverbanks and also on seashores (Muster et al. 2007, Duma 2008, Szinetár et al. 2016).

  • Fig. 6:

    Philodromus marmoratus specimens from Hungary; a. male, general appearance, dorsal view; b. female, general appearance, dorsal view; c. male's left palp, ventral view; d. epigyne, ventral view; e. epigyne/ vulva, dorsal view

    f06_01.jpg

    Theridiidae Sundevall, 1833
    Lasaeola prona (Menge, 1868) (syn. Dipoena prona)

  • Determination. Roberts 1985, Le Peru 2011

  • Material examined. 1♂, 2♀♀, 3 sub ♂♂, 4 sub ♀♀, 1 nymph: 2♀♀ (leg. C. Nagy, det. L. Mezőfi) 28.04.2014 (The specimens were collected from their webs, at the base of apple trees.), 1♂ (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) 09.07.2014 (This specimen was consumed by a Carrhotus xanthogramma (Latreille, 1819) nymph (det. L. Mezőfi) on an apple tree.) — Ujfehértó (47°49′13″N, 21°39′58″E, 121 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard). The spiders were collected by hand. 1 sub ♂ 01.12.2013 — Zsurk (48°24′54″N, 22°12′45″E, 103 m a.s.l., commercial apple orchard); 1 sub ♀ 01.12.2013 — Zsurk (48°23′30″N,22°12′52″E, 105 m a.s.l., commercial apple orchard). These specimens (leg. M. Paróczai, det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by the cardboard band method. 1 nymph 22.09.2015 — Nyírcsaholy (47°55′17″N,22°18′43″E, 126 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard); 1 sub ♂ 05.02.2016 — Újfehértó (47°49′13″N, 21°39′58″E, 121 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard). These specimens (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by the cardboard band method. 1 sub ♂, 3 sub ♀♀ 05.02.2016 — Újfehértó (47°49′T3N, 21°39′58″E, 121 m a.s.l., organic apple orchard). The specimens (leg. & det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by litter sampling.

  • Distribution. North America, Europe, Caucasus, Japan (WSC 2017). In Europe it is widely distributed: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia (eastern European, northern European and Kaliningrad Region), Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine (van Helsdingen 2017).

  • Remarks. Although widely distributed in Europe, this is quite a rare species and its biology is partly unknown (Nentwig et al. 2017). Lasaeola prona was classified as near threatened in the Carpathian Red List (Gajdoš et al. 2014), while in the Czech Republic it is critically endangered (Rezáč et al. 2015). Although much of its biology was previously unknown, more is known about it today. This thermophilous species usually occurs in open xerothermic habitats (Bryja et al. 2005b, Franc & Korenko 2008) and is often found at ground level, e.g. under stones (Roberts 1985). Adult individuals appear mostly from early June to the end of August (Szinetár 1995, Franc & Korenko 2008, Kovblyuk et al. 2012, Kostanjšek & Gorjan 2013, Aakra et al. 2016), and our data indicates that the mentioned species overwinters mainly in the subadult stage under bark or in the litter. Therefore, it seems that L. prona is a stenochronous species with a summer reproductive and dispersing period. Furthermore, we have observed the two collected female individuals (see above) preying on ants [Lasius niger (Linnaeus, 1758), det. C. Nagy]. In Dipoena sensu lato myrmecophagy is a known phenomenon (Roberts 1985, Le Peru 2011), therefore L. prona is probably also a myrmecophagous species.

  • Fig. 7:

    Pulchellodromus ruficapillus female from Hungary; a. general appearance, dorsal view; b. epigyne/ vulva, dorsal view

    f07_01.jpg

    Thomisidae Sundevall, 1833
    Diaea livens Simon, 1876 [syn. D. pictilis (Banks, 1896)]

  • Determination. Buchar & Thaler 1984, Nentwig et al. 2017

  • Material examined. 2♂♂, 1 ♀, 2 sub ♂♂, 1 sub ♀, 3 nymphs: 1♀ 30.05.2015 — Gödöllő (47°35′35″N, 19°21′38″E, 222 m a.s.l., urban green area). The spider (leg. V. Hoffmann, det. L. Mezőfi) was collected by hand from a shrub. 1♂ 27.04.2016, 1 sub ♂ 14.10.2016 — Budapest, Normara (47°30′24″N, 18°57′43″E, 463 m a.s.l., urban green area with deciduous forest vegetation); 1♂ 26.05.2016, 1 nymph 14.09.2016, 1 sub ♂ 14.10.2016 — Budapest, Széchenyi-hegy (47°29′43″N, 18°58′31″E, 462 m a.s.l. urban green area); 1 sub ♀ 14.09.2016, 1 nymph 14.10.2016 — Budapest, Hűvösvölgy (47°32′31″N, 18°57′46″E, 228 m a.s.l. urban green area with deciduous forest vegetation); 1 nymph 14.09.2016 — Budapest, Zugligeti út (47°31′04″N, 18°59′08″E, 180 m a.s.l., urban green area). These specimens (leg. D. Korányi, det. L. Mezőfi) were collected by beating mainly in urban forest areas from canopies of Acer campestre trees.

  • Distribution. Southern and Central Europe, Turkey, Caucasus. Introduced to USA (WSC 2017). In Europe it is present in Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey (European part) and Ukraine (Tomić & Grbic 2008, van Helsdingen 2017).

  • Remarks. Throughout Europe this is a very rare species (Nentwig et al. 2017) which was classified as vulnerable in the Carpathian Red List (Gajdoš et al. 2014) while in the Czech Republic it is endangered (Rezáč et al. 2015). In Hungary it was firstly detected by Szinetár (1995) and since then the spider was found at several locations within the country (Bogya et al. 1999, Horváth & Szinetár 2002, Szita et al. 2002, Horváth et al. 2009, Kovács et al. 2009, Szinetár et al. 2011, Keresztes 2013, Szita et al. 2014), although D. livens is still a quite rare species here. This species is a facultative bark-dweller (Szinetár & Horváth 2006) and occurs almost exclusively in oak forests on shrubs and lower branches of trees (Szinetár 1995, Szinetár et al. 2011, Nentwig et al. 2017). Although it has several records from other habitats/plants: e.g. from apple (Keresztes 2013) and pear (Bogya et al. 1999) orchards, from Pinus nigra, Platanus hybrida (Szinetár & Horváth 2006), Tilia spp. and from Acer spp. trees (Stenchly et al. 2007, Keresztes 2013). We collected several specimens from A. campestre trees as well, which suggets that D. livens might be less tightly bounded to the oak forests. The specimen collected in Gödöllő was consuming a Smaragdina aurita (Linnaeus, 1767) (Chrysomelidae) (det. L. Mezőfi) adult on a shrub.

  • Conclusions

    Given their presence in neighbouring countries and distribution in Europe, the occurence of the new records (C. sierrae and P. oblitum) for Hungary is not surprising. Probably the two above mentioned species were naturally spread to Hungary, because human-mediated dispersal is less typical for Araneidae and Linyphiidae species (Nentwig 2015). At the moment, the Spiders of Europe database lists 800 spider taxa for Hungary (Nentwig et al. 2017), but the spiders reported here, and the many other recently described and first recorded species, indicate that the list is still far from complete. Therefore, in Hungary the number of spider species can be estimated to be much higher than 800. According to Nentwig (2015) international trade and climate change are the major factors that facilitate the spread and establishment of alien spider species. Currently one alien spider species per year is introduced to Europe, but this rate will surely increase in future. Therefore, it is important to continue the arachnological exploration of Hungary because, as in the case of Europe in general, many new species are expected to emerge in this country and also not all species that supposedly occur in Hungary have been found and listed yet.

    Acknowledgements

    The authors would like to thank Arpád Szabó for his help with the preparation of the photographs, Eva Szita for her help with the identification of I. microphthalma and checking D. lata, and Dávid Korányi, Viktória Hoffmann, Dorottya Gyóni, Csaba Nagy and Márton Paróczai for collecting many of the specimens. We would also like to thank Dóra Hoppál and István Bernát for their assistance in collecting and processing the samples. The study was financially supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary (K112743).

    References

    1.

    Aakra K, Morka GH, Antonsen A, Farlund M, Wrånes RE, Frølandshagen R, Løvbrekke H, Furuseth P, Fjellberg A, Lemke M, Pfliegler WP, Andersen S, Olsen KM, Aadland B & Berggren K 2016 Spiders new to Norway (Arachnida, Araneae) with ecological, taxonomical and faunistic comments. — Norwegian Journal of Entomology 63: 6–43 Google Scholar

    2.

    Blandenier G, Bruggisser OT & Bersier L-F 2014 Do spiders respond to global change? A study on the phenology of ballooning spiders in Switzerland. — Écoscience 21: 79–95 —  https://doi.org/10.2980/21-1-3636 Google Scholar

    3.

    Blick T, Pfiffner L & Luka H 2000 Epigäische Spinnen auf Äckern der Nordwest-Schweiz im mitteleuropäischen Vergleich (Arachnida: Araneae). — Mitteilungen der Deutschen für Gesellschaft allgemeine und angewandte Entomologie 12: 267–276 Google Scholar

    4.

    Bogya S, Szinetár C & Markó V 1999 Species composition of spider (Araneae) assemblages in apple and pear orchards in the Carpathian Basin. — Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 34: 99–121 Google Scholar

    5.

    Bosmans R, Lissner J & Hernández-Corral J 2017 The spider family Dysderidae in the Balearic Islands. — Zootaxa 4329: 375–391 —  https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4329.4.4 Google Scholar

    6.

    Bryja V, Řezáč M, Kubcová L & Kůrka A 2005a Three interesting species of the genus Philodromus Walckenaer, 1825 (Araneae: Philodromidae) in the Czech Republic. — Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Biologicae 90: 185–194 Google Scholar

    7.

    Bryja V, Svatoň J, Chytil J, Majkus Z, Růžička V, Kasal P, Dolanský J, Buchar J, Chvátalová I, Ŕezáč M, Kubcová L, Erhart J & Fenclová I 2005b Spiders (Araneae) of the Lower Morava Biosphere Reserve and closely adjacent localities (Czech Republic). — Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Biologicae 90: 13–184 Google Scholar

    8.

    Buchar J & Thaler K 1984 Eine Zweite Diaea-Art in Mitteleuropa: Diaea pictilis (Araneida, Thomisidae). — Vêstník Československé Zoologické Společnosti v Praze 48: 1–8 Google Scholar

    9.

    Chyzer K & Kulczyński L 1891 Araneae Hungariae. Tomus I: Salticoidae, Oxyopoidae, Lycosoidae, Heteropodoidae, Misumenoidae, Euetrioidae, Tetragnathoidae, Uloboroidae, Pholcoidae, Scytodoidae, Urocteoidae, Eresoidae, Dictynoidae. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest. 170 pp. 4 pl. Google Scholar

    10.

    Chyzer K & Kulczyński L 1897 Araneae Hungariae. Tomus II, pars posterior: Zodarioidae, Agalenoidae, Drassoidae, Zoropseoidae, Dysderoidae, Filistatoidae, Calommatoidae, Theraphosoidae. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest, pp. 147–366, pl. VI–X Google Scholar

    11.

    Chyzer K & Kulczyński L 1918 Ordo Araneae. In: A Magyar Birodalom Allatvilága. Királyi Magyar Természettudományi Társulat, Budapest. 33 pp. Google Scholar

    12.

    Deeleman-Reinhold CL & Deeleman PR 1988 Revision des Dysderinae (Araneae, Dysderidae), les especes mediterraneennes occidentales exceptees. — Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 131: 141–269 Google Scholar

    13.

    Déri E, Horváth R, Lengyel S, Nagy A & Varga Z 2007 Zoológiai kutatások a gépi kaszálás hatásának vizsgálatára hat magyarországi tájegységben. [Zoological studies on the effects of mowing in six regions of Hungary]. — Allattani Közlemények 92: 59–70 Google Scholar

    14.

    Dolanský J, Ŕezáč M & Kůrka A 2009 Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) (Araneae, Linyphiidae) — nový druh pavučenky v České republice. [Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) (Araneae, Linyphiidae) — a new spider species in the Czech Republic]. — Východočeský sborník přírodovědný — Práce a studie 16: 143–144 Google Scholar

    15.

    Duma I 2008 Philodromus ruficapillus Simon, 1885 (Araneidae: Philodromidae): new data on the morphological variability and northern distribution limits of the species. — North-Western Journal of Zoology 4: 150–153 Google Scholar

    16.

    Eichenberger B, Siegenthaler E & Schmidt-Entling MH 2009 Body size determines the outcome of competition for webs among alien and native sheetweb spiders (Araneae: Linyphiidae). — Ecological Entomology 34: 363–368 —  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.01085.x Google Scholar

    17.

    Franc V & Korenko S 2008 Spiders (Araneae) from the Panský diel (Starohorské vrchy Mts, Slovakia). — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 36: 9–20 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit3603 Google Scholar

    18.

    Gajdoš P, Moscaliuc LA, Rozwałka R, Hirna A, Majkus Z, Gubányi A, Heltai MG & Svatoň J 2014 Red list of spiders (Araneae) of the Carpathian Mts. In: Kadlečík J (ed.) Carpathian red list of forest habitats and species — Carpathian list of invasive alien species (DRAFT). Štátna ochrana prírody Slovenskej republiky, Banská Bystrica, pp. 118–171 Google Scholar

    19.

    Grbič G & Savić D 2010 Contribution to the knowledge of the spider fauna (Arachnida, Araneae) on the Fraška Gora Mt. — Acta Entomologica Serbica 15: 243–260 Google Scholar

    20.

    Havranek L & Molnár H 1965 Preliminary report on the Arachnoidea-fauna of the Tisza-valley. — Tiscia 1: 93–107 Google Scholar

    21.

    Hänggi A & Stäubli A 2012 Nachträge zum “Katalog der schweizerischen Spinnen” 4. Neunachweise von 2002 bis 2011. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 44: 59–76 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit4410 Google Scholar

    22.

    Helsdingen PJ van 2017 “Araneae.” In: Fauna Europaea Database, Version 2017.1. — Internet:  http://www.european-arachnology.org (May 16, 2017) Google Scholar

    23.

    Hirna A 2017 First record of the alien spider species Mermessus trilobatus (Araneae: Linyphiidae) in Ukraine. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 54: 41–43 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit5409 Google Scholar

    24.

    Horváth R & Szinetár C 2002 Ecofaunistical study of bark-dwelling spiders (Araneae) on black pine (Pinus nigra) in urban and forest habitats. — Acta Biologica Debrecina 24: 87–101 Google Scholar

    25.

    Horváth R, Magura T, Szinetár C & Tóthmérész B 2009 Spiders are not less diverse in small and isolated grasslands, but less diverse in overgrazed grasslands: A field study (East Hungary, Nyírség). — Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 130: 16–22 —  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.11.011 Google Scholar

    26.

    Ijland S & Helsdingen PJ van 2014 On some spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) from the surroundings of Castellabate, Italy. — Nieuwsbrief SPINED 34: 16–33 Google Scholar

    27.

    Jäger P 1995 Spinnenaufsammlungen aus Ostösterreich mit vier Erstnachweisen für Österreich. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 9: 12–25 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit0902 Google Scholar

    28.

    Kancsal B, Szinetár C, Bognár V & Angyal D 2010 Data to the spider fauna (Araneae) of Lake Velence. — Natura Somogyiensis 17: 133–140 Google Scholar

    29.

    Kashefi R, Ghassemzadeh F, Kami HG & Mirshamsi O 2013 New data on spider fauna from Golestan province, Iran (Arachnida, Araneae). — Progress in Biological Sciences 3: 7–22 Google Scholar

    30.

    Kastrygina ZA & Kovblyuk MM 2014 The spider genus Pulchellodromus Wunderlich,2012 in the Crimea (Aranei: Philodromidae). — Arthropoda Selecta 23: 279–283 Google Scholar

    31.

    Katušić L 2009 Prvi nalez alohtone vrste pauka Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) (Araneae: Linyphiidae) Hrvatskoj. [First record of the alochthonous spider species Mermessus trilobatus (Emerton, 1882) (Araneae: Linyphiidae) in Croatia]. In: 10. Hrvatski biološki kongres s medunarodnim sudjelovanjem, 14–29 September 2009, Zbornik sažetaka. Hrvatsko biološko društvo, Zagreb, pp. 207–208 (in Croatian and English) — Internet:  http://bib.irb.hr/prikazi-rad?rad=661261 (October 31, 2017) Google Scholar

    32.

    Keresztes B 2013 Növényvédelmi technológiák hatása pók (Araneae) együttesekre, fás szárú kertészeti kultúrákban. [Effect of pest management systems on spider (Araneae) assemblages in woody horticultural crops]. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Plant Protection, Georgikon Faculty, University of Pannonia, Keszthely. 221 pp. Google Scholar

    33.

    Komnenov M 2013 Spider fauna of the Osogovo Mt. Range, Northeastern Macedonia. — Fauna Balkana 2: 1–267 Google Scholar

    34.

    Korányi D, Mezőfi L & Markó V 2017 First record of the jumping spider Icius subinermis (Araneae, Salticidae) in Hungary. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 54: 38–40 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit5408 Google Scholar

    35.

    Kostanjšek R & Gorjan A 2013 A contribution to the Slovenian spider fauna — II. — Natura Sloveniae 15: 5–12 Google Scholar

    36.

    Košulič O, Nováková L & Št'astná P 2013 Epigeic spiders (Araneae) from the Malá Dohoda Quarry (Moravian Karst Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic). — Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61: 651–662 —  https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201361030651 Google Scholar

    37.

    Kovács K 2002 Kéreglakó pókok (Araneae) vizsgálata három fafajon. [Study of the bark-dwelling spiders on different trees in West Hungary]. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Zoology, Berzsenyi Dániel College, Szombathely. 34 pp. Google Scholar

    38.

    Kovács G, Prazsák I, Eichardt J, Vári G & Gyurkovics H 2015 A new ladybird spider from Hungary (Araneae, Eresidae). — Zoo Keys 494: 13–30 —  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.494.8676 Google Scholar

    39.

    Kovács P & Szinetár C 2015 Az Iváni-szikesek Természetvédelmi Terület pókfaunájának jellemzése. [The spider fauna of the Iváni alkaline steppes Natural Reserve]. — Folia Musei Historico-Naturalis Bakonyiensis 32: 81–92 Google Scholar

    40.

    Kovács P, Szinetár C & Eichardt J 2009 A I. Magyar Biodiverzitás Napok (Gyűrűfű 2006–2008) arachnológiai eredményei (Araneae). [Evaluation of spider (Araneae) species collected during the 1st Hungarian Biodiversity Days at Gyűrűfű (2006–2008) in South-Hungary]. — Natura Somogyiensis 13: 43–52 Google Scholar

    41.

    Kovács P, Szinetár C & Takács G 2015 Szigetköz néhány jellemző élőhely-típusának arachnológiai állapotfelmérése (2013–2014). [Arachnological evaluation of Szigetköz's several typical habitat types (2013–2014)]. — Natura Somogyiensis 26: 39–54 Google Scholar

    42.

    Kovblyuk MM, Marusik YM & Omelko MM 2012 A survey of Transcaucasian Dipoena sensu lato (Aranei: Theridiidae) with a description of new species. — Arthropoda Selecta 21: 247–254 Google Scholar

    43.

    Kovblyuk MM, Prokopenko EV & Nadolny AA 2008 Spider family Dysderidae of the Ukraine (Arachnida, Aranei). — Euroasian Entomological Journal 7: 287–306 [in Russian] Google Scholar

    44.

    Kubcová L 2004 A new spider species from the group Philodromns aureolus (Araneae, Philodromidae) in Central Europe. — Denisia 12:291–304 Google Scholar

    45.

    Le Peru B 2011 The spiders of Europe, a synthesis of data: Volume 1 Atypidae to Theridiidae. — Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon 2:1–522 Google Scholar

    46.

    Levy G 1997 Twelve genera of orb-weaver spiders (Araneae, Araneidae) from Israel. — Israel Journal of Zoology 43: 311–365 Google Scholar

    47.

    Lissner J 2017 New records of spiders (Araneae) from Portugal. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 54: 52–58 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit5412 Google Scholar

    48.

    Loksa I 1969 Pókok I. — Araneae I. — Fauna Hungariae 97(18:2): 1–133 Google Scholar

    49.

    Mcheidze T (ed. Otto S) 2014 Georgian Spiders — Systematics, ecology and zoogeographic analysis. vifabioDOC — Virtual Library of Biology, Frankfurt/Main. 425 pp. —  https://doi.org/10.5431/mcheidze2014 Google Scholar

    50.

    Merrett P 1994 Porrhomma Cambridgei, replacement name for Porrhomma oblongum (O.P.-Cambridge, 1871), revalidated and redescribed from southern England (Araneae: Linyphiidae). — Bulletin of the British arachnological Society 9: 318–320 Google Scholar

    51.

    Muster C & Thaler K 2004 New species and records of Mediterranean Philodromidae (Arachnida, Araneae): I. Philodromus aureolus group. — Denisia 12: 305–326 Google Scholar

    52.

    Muster C, Bosmans R & Thaler K 2007 The Philodromns pulchellusgroup in the Mediterranean: taxonomic revision, phylogenetic analysis and biogeography (Araneae: Philodromidae). — Invertebrate Systematics 21: 39–72 —  https://doi.org/10.1071/IS06014 Google Scholar

    53.

    Nentwig W 2015 Introduction, establishment rate, pathways and impact of spiders alien to Europe. — Biological Invasions 17: 2757– 2778 —  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0912-5 Google Scholar

    54.

    Nentwig W, Blick T, Gloor D, Hänggi A & Kropf C 2017 Spiders of Europe, version 12.2017. — Internet:  http://www.araneae.unibe.ch (December 14, 2017) Google Scholar

    55.

    Nentwig W & Kobelt M 2010 Spiders (Araneae). Chapter 7.3. In: Roques A, Kenis M, Lees D, Lopez-Vaamonde C, Rabitsch W, Rasplus J-Y & Roy D (eds.) Alien terrestrial arthropods of Europe. — BioRisk 4: 131–147 —  https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.4.48 Google Scholar

    56.

    Otto S 2015 Commented checklist of the spider species (Araneae) in the Caucasus ecoregion. In: Otto S (ed.) Caucasian Spiders. A faunistic database on the spiders of the Caucasus, Version 1.4.3. — Internet:  http://caucasus-spiders.info/checklist (June 28, 2017) Google Scholar

    57.

    Pfliegler WP 2014 Records of some rare and interesting spider (Araneae) species from anthropogenic habitats in Debrecen, Hungary. — e-Acta Naturalia Pannonica 7: 143–156 Google Scholar

    58.

    Pfliegler WP, Pfeiffer KM & Grabolle A 2012 Some spiders (Araneae) new to the Hungarian fauna, including three genera and one family. — Opuscula Zoologica 43: 179–186 Google Scholar

    59.

    Polchaninova NY & Prokopenko EV 2013 Catalogue of the spiders (Arachnida, Aranei) of Left-Bank Ukraine. Arthropoda Selecta, Supplement No. 2. KMK Scientific Press, Moscow. 268 pp. Google Scholar

    60.

    Řezáč M, Král J & Pekár S 2008 The spider genus Dysdera (Araneae, Dysderidae) in central Europe: revision and natural history. — Journal of Arachnology 35: 432–462 —  https://doi.org/10.1636/H06-38.1 Google Scholar

    61.

    Řezáč M, Kůrka A, Růžička V & Heneberg P 2015 Red List of Czech spiders: 3rd edition, adjusted according to evidence-based national conservation priorities. — Biologia 70: 645–666 —  https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2015-0079 Google Scholar

    62.

    Roberts MJ 1985 The spiders of Great Britain and Ireland. Volume 1. Harley Books, Colchester. 229 pp. Google Scholar

    63.

    Russell-Smith T 2009 Identification of Porrhomma species. — Spider Recording Scheme News 63. In: The Newsletter of the British arachnological Society 114: 18–23 Google Scholar

    64.

    Růžička V & Dolanský J 2016 Catching of spiders in shallow subterranean habitats in the Czech Republic. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 51: 43–48 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit5106 Google Scholar

    65.

    Sakchoowong W, Nomura S, Ogata K & Chanpaisaeng J 2007 Comparison of extraction efficiency between Winkler and Tullgren extractors for tropical leaf litter macroarthropods. — Thai Journal of Agricultural Science 40: 97–105 Google Scholar

    66.

    Samu F & Szinetár C 1999 Bibliographic checklist of the Hungarian spider fauna. — Bulletin of the British arachnological Society 11: 161–184 Google Scholar

    67.

    Segers H 1992 Nomenclatural notes on, and redescriptions of some little-known species of the Philodromus aureolus group (Araneae: Philodromidae). — Bulletin of the British arachnological Society 9: 19–25 Google Scholar

    68.

    Šestáková A 2011 The first record of Porrhomma oblitum (Araneae, Linyphiidae) in Slovakia. — Folia faunistica Slovaca 16: 1–3 Google Scholar

    69.

    Šestáková A, Suvák M, Krajčovičová K, Kaňuchová A & Christophoryová J 2017 Arachnids from the greenhouses of the Botanical Garden of the PJ Šafárik University in Košice, Slovakia (Arachnida: Araneae, Opiliones, Palpigradi, Pseudoscorpiones). — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 53: 19–28 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit5304 Google Scholar

    70.

    Snazell R & Duffey E 1980 A new species of Hahnia (Araneae, Hahniidae) from Britain. — Bulletin of the British arachnological Society 5: 50–52 Google Scholar

    71.

    Stenchly K, Bernhard D & Finch O-D 2007 Arboricolous spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of the Leipzig floodplain forest — first results. In: Unterseher M, Morawetz W, Klotz S & Arndt E (eds.) The canopy of temperate floodplain forest. Universitätsverlag, Leipzig, pp. 72–80 Google Scholar

    72.

    Szinetár C 1992 Spruce as spider-habitat in urban ecosystem I. — Folia Entomologica Hungarica 53: 179–188 Google Scholar

    73.

    Szinetár C 1995 Data to the Araneae fauna of Őrség (Western Hungary). — Savaria 22: 245–251 Google Scholar

    74.

    Szinetár C & Horváth R 2006 A review of spiders on tree trunks in Europe (Araneae). — European Arachnology 2005. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, Supplement 1: 221–257 Google Scholar

    75.

    Szinetár C & Kancsal B 2007 Trebacosa europaea, a new wolf spider from Hungary (Araneae, Lycosidae). — Journal of Arachnology 35 : 153–158 —  https://doi.org/10.1636/H06-23.1 Google Scholar

    76.

    Szinetár C & Kovács P 2013 Pókfaunisztikai vizsgálatok a szentbékkállai Fekete-hegyen. [The arachnological results of the 5th Hungarian Biodiversity Day at Fekete Hill (Balaton Uplands)]. — Folia Musei Historico-Naturalis Bakonyiensis 29: 65–72 Google Scholar

    77.

    Szinetár C & Samu F 2003 Pelecopsis loksai sp. n., a new erigonine spider from Hungary (Araneae: Linyphiidae). — Bulletin of the British arachnological Society 12: 412–414 Google Scholar

    78.

    Szinetár C, Eichardt J & Szűts T 2009 The first lowland species of the Holarctic alpine ground spider genus Parasyrisca (Araneae, Gnaphosidae) from Hungary. — ZooKeys 16: 197–208 —  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.16.234 Google Scholar

    79.

    Szinetár C, Erdélyi F & Szűts T 2011 Pókfaunisztikai vizsgálatok a nagykőrösi pusztai tölgyesekterületén. [Results of the spider fauna (Araneae) investigations in steppe oak woods of Nagykőrös]. — Rosalia 6: 209–221 Google Scholar

    80.

    Szinetár C, Kovács P & Eichardt J 2015 A kisalföldi meszes homokpuszta katonai használatú gyepterületeinek pókfaunáj a (Araneae). [Spiders (Araneae) of the Győr-Gönyű military shooting range]. — RENCE 1:237–260 Google Scholar

    81.

    Szinetár C, Rákóczi AM, Bleicher K, Botos E, Kovács P & Samu F 2012 A Sas-hegy pókfaunája II. A Sas-hegy faunakutatásának 80 éve — A hegyről kimutatott pókfajok kommentált listája. [Spider fauna of Mt Sas-hegy II. 80 years of fauna research on Mt Sas-hegy, with the annotated list of spiders]. — Rosalia 8: 333–362 Google Scholar

    82.

    Szinetár C, Szita É & Kovács P 2016 Pókfaunisztikai vizsgálatok a szigligeti Kongó-réten. [Arachnofaunistical studies in the Kongó meadow (Szigliget)]. — Folia Musei Historico-Naturalis Bakonyiensis 33: 75–86 Google Scholar

    83.

    Szinetár C, Török T & Szüts T 2014 Zoropsis spinimana, mint új épületlakó pókfaj Magyarországon. [Zoropsis spinimana (Dufour, 1820) new synantrop spider species in Hungary]. — A NyME Savaria Egyetemi Központ Tudományos Közleményei XX. Természettudományok 15: 105–113 Google Scholar

    84.

    Szita É, Fetykó K, Botos E, Rákóczi AM & Samu F 2014 Adatok Simontornya és környéke pókfaunájához (Araneae). In: Szita É, Fetykó K, Kovács T & Horváth A (eds.) Simontornya ízeltlábúi. Magyar Biodiverzitás-kutató Társaság, Budapest, pp. 32–41 Google Scholar

    85.

    Szita E, Samu F, Bleicher K & Botos E 1998 Data to the spider fauna (Araneae) of Kőrös-Maros National Park (Hungary). — Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica 33: 341–348 Google Scholar

    86.

    Szita É, Szinetár C & Szűts T 2002 Faunistical investigations on the spider fauna (Araneae) of the Fertő-Hanság National Park. In: Mahunka S (ed.) The fauna of the Fertő-Hanság National Park I. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, pp. 231–244 Google Scholar

    87.

    Szűts T, Szinetár C, Samu F & Szita É 2003 Checklist of the Hungarian Salticidae with biogeographical notes. — Arachnologische Mitteilungen 25: 45–61 —  https://doi.org/10.5431/aramit2505 Google Scholar

    88.

    Tomić V & Grbić G 2008 Preliminary notes on spider fauna of Mt. Fruška Gora. In: Čurčić S & Simić S (eds.) Invertebrates (Invertebrata) of the Fruška Gora Mountain I. Matica Srpska, Novi Sad. pp. 57–62 Google Scholar

    89.

    Uyar Z, Bosmans R & Ugurtaj ÍH 2014 New Faunistic Data for the Family Araneidae (Araneae) in West Anatolia (Turkey). — Entomological News 124: 120–130 —  https://doi.org/10.3157/021.124.0207 Google Scholar

    90.

    WSC 2017 World Spider Catalog, version 18.5. Natural History Museum, Bern. — Internet:  http://wsc.nmbe.ch (December 14, 2017) Google Scholar

    91.

    Wunderlich J 2012 Contribution to taxonomy and evolution of the European genera of the spider family Philodromidae (Araneae). — Beiträge zur Araneologie 7: 25–56 Google Scholar
    László Mezőfi and Viktor Markó "Some rare and remarkable spider species from Hungary (Arachnida: Araneae)," Arachnologische Mitteilungen: Arachnology Letters 55(1), 1-9, (27 February 2018). https://doi.org/10.30963/aramit5501
    Received: 6 July 2017; Accepted: 1 December 2017; Published: 27 February 2018
    Back to Top