Pardosa lapidicina group's Journal

Judging from iNaturalist observations, the lapidicina group appears to be absent from coastal Texas and much of the other Gulf States. On a recent trip to Tennessee I decided to test the hypothesis. I used Google Maps satellite view to locate likely habitats along my route of US 79, TX 43, I-20, and I-59. Stops were made in TX, MS, and AL. No stops were made in LA since I couldn't find any likely habitat. All stops came up negative. I thought I found one in Vicksburg sitting on a rock. It was a Pardosa, but not in the lapidicina group. I only visited a few locations in Tennessee near Bristol where I stayed for several days. Otherwise I passed through the state too early or late in the day. The South Holston Dam area looked promising, but the most appropriate habitat was devoid of all life and other areas yielded other species.

Previously I had found mercurialis on a stony tributary northwest of the lake. That was my very first encounter with the species. A month or two ago someone observed one along Comanche Trail on the south side of the lake. I wanted to confirm that and did. I also found Arctosa littoralis and a Schizocosa avida juvenile there. I first checked out the rocky area next to the dam on the south side of the outflow and a pebbly beach on the lake next to the south end of the dam. I found mercurialis and only mercurialis in both locations, especially the latter. My next step is to tour western Texas looking for the other lapidicina group species, maybe next spring when the days are warmer and longer. Before leaving I'll check other people's observations and satellite views to figure out my route and stops. Maybe then I'll have enough detailed images to work out the species
IDs. Every little clue will be needed.

This was something I was meaning to check out for some time. I'd noticed a peri-adult molt in both Hogna and Pardosa mercurialis. Many of the earlier pattern change are lost during this molt and sexual dimorphism becomes more pronounced. I suspected this wasn't coincident with sexual maturity, and here's the proof:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/99620141
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/90292781

Both are egg sac bearing mercurialis. The first one has the earlier pattern. Although faint in this individual, the pattern around the outside of the thorax consists of a pale band with a dark edge and a couple of dark partitions. The band isn't perfectly even and bulges inward in two places. At least P. lapidicina and vadosa are very similar. In the second one, the band has lost the dark edging and the two dark partitions are replaced with dark darts which point inward. Remember that these patterns are from hairs so sharpness can vary.

So, a good series of photos for species like this would include:

1. juvenile forms, multiple, approximate age determined by size
   (sexual maturity occurs between 1 and 2)

2. adolescent form with juvenile-like pattern and limited sexual dimorphism, near adult size
3. adult form of each sex plus other forms like chocolate and black in mercurialis

It may be reasonable to disregard sex in the juvenile and possibly adolescent forms.

About a dozen sets of images would be needed to thoroughly cover the patterns of mercurialis for field identification of a population.

No wonder field identification of wolf spiders scares most people. Even Barnes, 1959, steers clear of the issue with statements like "Structure and coloration are typical." for mercurialis and "Coloration typical, although most specimens are light brown in color. Sternum pale or dusky. Structure typical." for vadosa, a new species he was introducing.