Confirmação da ocorrência de Loxosceles laeta (Nicolet, 1849) e Loxosceles intermedia Mello-Leitão, 1934 (Araneae; Sicariidae) no município de Pelotas, RS, Brasil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X27238Abstract
This work deals the occurrence confirmation of spider species, genus Loxosceles Heineken & Lowe, 1832, in Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. L. laeta (Nicolet, 1849) and L. intermedia MelloLeitão, 1934 were the collected species. L. intermedia was the most numerous specie. In Pelotas many specimens were collected, over old books, newspapers and paper leaves. In comparasion to previous papers, some morphological variations were observed in this two species: in L. intermedia the length of legs is much larger than the specie general pathern; in L. laeta the same feature do not occur but the long length of male s palp is very conspicuous.
Downloads
References
EICKSTEDT, V. R. 1994. Aranhas de importância médica do Brasil. In Barraviera, B. (coordenador) Venenos animais: uma visão integrada. Rio de Janeiro, Ed. de Publicações Científicas - EPUC, p.151-172.
FISCHER, M. L. 1994. Levantamento das espécies do gênero Loxosceles Heinecken & Lowe, 1832 no município de Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. Estudos de Biologia, Paraná, vol. 03, n. 38, p. 63-88.
GERTSCH, W. J. 1958. The spider genus Loxosceles in North America, Central America, and the West Indies. Am. Mus. Novit. 1907: 1-46.
GERTSCH, W. J. 1967. The spiders of genus Loxosceles in South America (Araneae, Scytodidae). BulI. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, v.136, n. 3, p. 119-173.
GERTSCH, W. J. & ENNIK, F. 1983. The spiders genus Loxosceles in North america, and the west indies (Araneae, Loxoscelidae). BulI. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, v.175, n. 3, p. 265-359.
MELLO-LEITÃO, C. 1934. Espécies brasileiras do gênero Loxosceles. Ann. da Acad. Brasileira de Ciências, Rio de Janeiro, v.6, n.2, p. 69-73.
NICONELLA, A.; BARROS, E.; TORRES, J.B. & MARQUES, M. G. 1997. Acidentes com animais peçonhentos: consulta rápida. Porto Alegre, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre Ed. 207 p.
NUNES, A. M.; VIANNA, A. D.; RIBEIRO, P. B. & VIANNA, E. E. S. 2000. Levantamento de acidentes com animais peçonhentos, no período de janeiro a julho de 2000, em Pelotas, RS. In: IX CONGRESSO DE INICIAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA, Pelotas, RS. 2000. Resumos, V. 1, UFPel, p.215.
PLATNICK, N. I. 2002. The World Spiders Catalog - Version 2.5. [on line], (New York). http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog81-87/index.html (12/09/2002)
PLATNICK, N. 1.,J. A. CODDINGTON, R. R. FORSTER & C. E. GRISWOLD. 1991. Spinneret morphology and the phylogeny of haplogyne spiders (Araneae, Araneomorphae). Am. Mus. Novit. 3016: 1-73.
RODRIGUES, E. N. L. & DREHMER, C. J. 2000. Levantamento araneológico das áreas domiciliares e peridomiciliares da região urbana do município de Pelotas, RS, Brasil. In: IX CONGRESSO DE INICIAÇÃO CIENTíFICA, Pelotas, RS. 2000. Resumos, V. 1, UFPel,.202.
SIMON, E. 1893. Histoire naturelle das araignées. Paris, 1: 257-488.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
