Feeding by Philoponella vicina (Araneae, Uloboridae) and how uloborid spiders lost their venom glands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feeding by uloborid spiders is unusual in several respects: cheliceral venom glands are absent; prey wrapping is extensive (up to several hundred metres of silk line) and severely compresses the prey; the spider’s mouthparts usually never touch the prey; and the entire surface of the prey is covered with digestive fluid. This paper presents observations on Philoponella vicina O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1899, which provide possible causal links between these traits. The spider begins ingesting soon after it wets the prey, gaining access to the prey’s interior through a broken cuticle that was broken during wrapping and by digestion of the prey’s membranes. The more abundant of the two types of wrapping lines is also digested, but the remaining shroud of wrapping silk is dense and filters digested prey particles. Robust setae on the palpal tarsus and the spread position of the anterior legs during feeding probably protect the spider from contact with the digestive fluid. Spiders extracted about 65% of the wet contents of the prey, but feeding was slow and involved substantial water evaporation. We propose that selection in uloborid ancestors to recover wrapping silk led to increased wetting of the prey’s surface and that compressive wrapping facilitated this wetting. These traits could have led to loss of the now superfluous cheliceral poison glands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".