With over 48,000 species currently described, spiders (Arthropoda: Chelicerata: Araneae) comprise one of the most diverse groups of animals on our planet, and exhibit an equally wide array of fascinating behaviors. Studies of central nervous systems (CNSs) in spiders, however, are relatively sparse, and no reports have yet characterized catecholaminergic (dopamine [DA]‐ or norepinephrine‐synthesizing) neurons in any spider species. Because these neuromodulators are especially important for sensory and motor processing across animal taxa, we embarked on a study to identify catecholaminergic neurons in the CNS of the wolf spider Hogna lenta (Lycosidae) and the jumping spider Phidippus regius (Salticidae). These neurons were most effectively labeled with an antiserum raised against tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), the rate‐limiting enzyme in catecholamine synthesis. We found extensive catecholamine‐rich neuronal fibers in the first‐ and second‐order optic neuropils of the supraesophageal mass (brain), as well as in the arcuate body, a region of the brain thought to receive visual input and which may be involved in higher order sensorimotor integration. This structure likely shares evolutionary origins with the DA‐enriched central complex of the Mandibulata. In the subesophageal mass, we detected an extensive filigree of TH‐immunoreactive (TH‐ir) arborizations in the appendage neuromeres, as well as three prominent plurisegmental fiber tracts. A vast abundance of TH‐ir somata were located in the opisthosomal neuromeres, the largest of which appeared to project to the brain and decorate the appendage neuromeres. Our study underscores the important roles that the catecholamines likely play in modulating spider vision, higher order sensorimotor processing, and motor patterning.

Although the benefits of group foraging are important for evolution of sociality in spiders, the factors that intluence group-level benefits of prey sharing in social spiders are still poorly understood. In the unusual transitional social spider Delena cancerides Waickenaer 1837 (Sparassidae), prey sharing almost certainly occurs occasionally among non-kin in the wild, and so we tested the effects of kin relationships and familiarity on the amount of prey consumed in this species. To determine whether the amount of prey sharing increased with relatedness or with familiarity, we fed treatment groups containing spiderlings of varying relatedness and familiarity a single prey item and measured the amount of weight gained by sharing groups. We found no effect of relatedness or familiarity on the amount of prey consumed by prey-sharing groups of D. cancerides. Increased duration of sharing, number and age of the spiders involved, and size of the prey item all increased the amount of prey consumed. The benefits of prey sharing in this species likely overwhelm any possible inclusive fitness benefits derived from kin discrimination in this highly outbred social spider. Hence, we reject the hypothesis that groups of kin consumed proportionately larger amounts of prey biomass than groups of non-kin, as proposed by Schneider and Bilde in 2008 with Stegodyphus lineatus Latreille 1817 (Eresidae).

The 2018 student debates of the Entomological Society of America were held at the Joint Annual Meeting for the Entomological Societies of America, Canada, and British Columbia in Vancouver, BC. Three unbiased introductory speakers and six debate teams discussed and debated topics under the theme ‘Entomology in the 21st Century: Tackling Insect Invasions, Promoting Advancements in Technology, and Using Effective Science Communication’. This year’s debate topics included: 1) What is the most harmful invasive insect species in the world? 2) How can scientists diffuse the stigma or scare factor surrounding issues that become controversial such as genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnological developments, or pesticide chemicals? 3) What new/emerging technologies have the potential to revolutionize entomology (other than Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats)? Introductory speakers and debate teams spent approximately 9 mo preparing their statements and arguments and had the opportunity to share this at the Joint Annual Meeting with an engaged audience.

No abstract