2008
DOI: 10.1590/s0101-81752008000400001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Descrição do comportamento agonístico de Loxosceles laeta, L. hirsuta e L. intermedia (Araneae: Sicariidae)

Abstract: Os grupos de radiação evolutiva de Loxosceles Heinecken & Lowe, 1835 além de compartilharem caracteres morfológicos aparentemente também apresentam comportamentos semelhantes. Assim, o presente estudo objetivou descrever o comportamento agonístico dos machos das espécies do grupo spadicea - Loxosceles intermedia Mello-Leitão, 1934 e Loxosceles hirsuta Mello-Leitão, 1931 - e laeta -Loxosceles laeta (Nicolet 1849) - ocorrentes no estado do Paraná. Para tal, os machos foram pareados, sendo o invasor colocado … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(5 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1). Some of these categories have already been described for both sex of L. intermedia Vasconcellos-Neto 2000, Fischer et al 2009b) and agonistic interactions among males of L. intermedia, L. laeta, and L. gaucho (Stropa 2007, Fischer 2008. The behavioral categories of recognition, confrontation, defense, and threat were present The behaviors that most contributed to the overall discrimination between resident and intruder individuals of both species were recognition, touching, bite I, and to a lesser extent the behaviors of localization and defense ( Table 2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…1). Some of these categories have already been described for both sex of L. intermedia Vasconcellos-Neto 2000, Fischer et al 2009b) and agonistic interactions among males of L. intermedia, L. laeta, and L. gaucho (Stropa 2007, Fischer 2008. The behavioral categories of recognition, confrontation, defense, and threat were present The behaviors that most contributed to the overall discrimination between resident and intruder individuals of both species were recognition, touching, bite I, and to a lesser extent the behaviors of localization and defense ( Table 2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…To homogenize the sample, more replicates were used for the interactions involving juveniles as the set of juveniles used for the experiments was heterogeneous due the impossibility of recognition of the exact instar or sex of a juvenile individual. A larger sample for the intraspeciÞc interactions between adult males and females was used because of the possibility of stereotyped behavior (Fischer 2008, Stropa 2007.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%