her tube, and at first I was inclined to fear that the treatment
to which she had lately been subjected might have caused her end.
When, however, I detected the brown spot on the side of the abdomen,
described above, and which so strongly recalled the marks frequently
observable in caterpillars attacked by ichneumons, I came to the
conclusion that she had really died from the internal injuries caused
by the gnawing of these cruel parasites; and that the eggs, laid long
before by one of these insects, had been hatched within her body
and developed into larvæ, which, living upon her tissues, had at
length destroyed some vital part. It is surprising that a creature,
carrying within itself such a fatal brood, should not only live,
but be capable of undergoing such adventures and misadventures as
this travelled spider endured with seeming indifference; but similar
facts are familiar to all those who have attended to the rearing of
caterpillars, and the frequent disappointment caused by the death of
apparently sound specimens which have been attacked in this way is
but too well known.
It would appear that _Cteniza Californica_ is peculiarly amenable to
captivity, and indeed to captivity of the strictest kind.
My specimen lived during all the time she was in my possession
in a cocoatina tin, a cylindrical box 4-1/2 in. deep and 2-3/4
in. in diameter, which always stood among the books and papers on
my writing-table. It is probable that those trap-door spiders
which inhabit nests with short tubes, and which therefore can be
transported nest and all, would be less disconcerted by imprisonment
than is the case with other kinds living at the bottom of a long
burrow which it is almost impossible to carry away entire. This is
borne out by what has been related (_Ants and Spiders_, p. 122) of
the habits of _Cteniza ionica_ in captivity, which not only endured
to have its nest set upside down in a flower-pot, but actually
furnished the inverted base of the tube with a door appropriate to
its new position.
Canon Tristram (the well-known author and naturalist) was so kind
as to send me two trap-door nests from Palestine for inspection;
these were small cork nests, the doors of which resembled those
of the Mentonese _Cteniza_ (_Ct. Moggridgii_), but the tubes were
exceedingly short, and that of the more perfect specimen, as I gather
from Canon Tristram, measured only two inches and an eighth in length
when entire.
The nests of _Cteniza ionica_ are but little longer, and that of the
Mentonese _Cteniza_, though never so shallow as these, are far less
deep than those of _Nemesia cæmentaria_, the builder of the typical
cork nest.
And now we will leave the nests of the cork type and their
inhabitants, and turn to the more intricate group of nests belonging
to the wafer type. Following the order indicated in the diagrams, we
will begin with the simplest type of all, fig. C, and afterwards take
the remaining types one after the other, advancing until we reach the
most complex type, G. The nest represented diagrammatically at fig.
C, in Plate XIV., is shown of the natural size in Plate XVI., with
the spider (_Nemesia Simoni_, Camb.) which constructs it (fig. A 1).
[Illustration: _Plate XVI._]
It belongs to the single-door unbranched wafer type, of which one
example has already been described in the West Indian nest (see _Ants
and Spiders_, p. 79, fig. B in woodcut); for, though this latter has
a shorter tube and a much stouter silk lining than is the case with
its European representative, there does not appear to be sufficient
difference to justify their separation as distinct types.
This, which is the simplest known form of trap-door nest, is quite
new to Europe, and the spider inhabiting it proves also to be one
hitherto undescribed; it has received from Mr. Pickard-Cambridge,
the name of _Nemesia Simoni_,[138] being so called in honour of M. E.
Simon, the well-known arachnologist.
[Footnote 138: Mr. Pickard-Cambridge describes _N. Simoni_ at p. 297
below. This species is remarkably well characterized, an assertion
rarely to be made in the case of those _Nemesias_ of which, as in the
present instance, the female only is known. The elevated, rounded,
and glabrous caput at once distinguishes it, not to speak of other
peculiarities. Mr. Pickard-Cambridge alludes to the presence, in the
specimens forwarded to him in spirits, of two singular indentations
on either side of the caput (fig. A 3, Plate XVI.). I did not observe
this when these spiders were alive, but I remember that the caput of
one of these spiders which had been injured in capture contracted and
expanded spasmodically, presenting a painful resemblance to laboured
breathing. I have not observed this in other spiders.]
During last May (1874) we spent a few days at Bordeaux on our
homeward route. While there my sister was fortunate enough to
discover a single nest of this type when we were out together on a
spider-hunt near the little village of Lormont, which is situated on
the opposite bank of the river to that on which the city stands. We
subsequently found these nests in tolerable abundance in a deep shady
lane near a restaurant called Mon Répos, on the same side of the
river, but rather farther up.
Here the hedge banks were high, and the soil was composed of a fine
even-grained loam of great depth, which permitted the spiders to
carry their tubes very far down, some of them attaining a length of
15 inches.
This made it very difficult to follow them throughout their whole
course and so to assure oneself of the real structure of the nests,
but I succeeded in doing this in twelve instances.
In every one of these I found the tube cylindrical and unbranched
throughout, and destitute of any trace of a lower door.
This deficiency alone distinguishes the present type from that to
which the nest of _Nemesia Eleanora_ belongs; the latter being of the
_double-door_ and the former of the _single-door, unbranched wafer
type_.
But perhaps it may be asked whether it is safe to assume that because
twelve examples of this nest were found to correspond in structure,
and were tenanted by the same occupant, that therefore all the
Bordeaux nests in which this particular spider might be found would
present similar peculiarities.
I greatly hope that other naturalists will put this question to the
test of actual investigation on the spot, but I do not hesitate to
assert my conviction that this will prove to be the case.
The result of my experience among the nests of the other _Nemesias_,
scores of which I have carefully examined in many widely separated
localities, shows that a given spider is invariably associated with
a fixed type of nest.
Thus, Cannes is from fifty to sixty miles distant from San Remo, but
the nests of _N. cæmentaria_, _N. Manderstjernæ_, and _N. Eleanora_
show precisely the same characteristics in either place.
Moreover, the twelve nests referred to were not all taken from one
restricted locality at Bordeaux, but were found presenting the same
characteristics and occupied by the same spider in three distinct
habitats, distant some miles from one another. In two nests several
young spiders were found with the mother, and, in one case where the
family consisted of twenty-three young ones, I observed that they
were not all equally small, and some had nearly attained one-third of
their full size.
This agreed with the fact that no very small nests were observed, and
it seems probable that the young are not turned out of their nursery
quite so early as some of their relations are at Mentone. This,
however, varies perhaps in accordance with changes of climate and
local conditions.
We failed to detect any other type of nest at Bordeaux than the one
described above: and even the cork nests, which we had shortly before
seen in such abundance at Montpellier, were apparently absent.
Bordeaux is by far the north-westernmost point in Europe[139] at
which any spider constructing a true trap-door nest has as yet been
discovered; and the fact that they exist in a climate so different
from that of the Riviera and of the whole Mediterranean region,
leads me to hope that their range may in reality be much more widely
extended than has hitherto been supposed to be the case.
[Footnote 139: Cork nests have however been mentioned as occurring in
the neighbourhood of Lyons, which lies in nearly the same parallel of
latitude with Bordeaux.]
A glance at the vegetation of this district will suffice to show how
little there is that betokens either a warm or dry winter climate;
for here the myrtles, oranges and olives are left far behind, and in
their place we see tall hedgerow elms, and poplars bearing mistletoe
on their branches.
Here therefore we are met by the question, How do these Bordeaux
spiders contrive to live under conditions so different from those to
which their relations on the Riviera have adapted themselves? How do
they bear the cold and damp of the long winter, and how is it that
one frail upper door suffices to protect their nest from molestation?
The thick coating of dead leaves, which covered the banks even when
we found them, no doubt aids largely in their concealment, and the
colder climate probably diminishes the number of their enemies, but
their means of subsistence are most likely also less abundant and
their period of active life shorter.
The next type we have to consider is a totally new one, and may be
distinguished as the _single-door branched wafer nest_. I detected
this nest at Montpellier but a few days before the visit to Bordeaux
alluded to above.
Circumstances unfortunately prevented me from following up my
discovery as closely as I could have wished, and it appears moreover
that this nest is far less common at Montpellier than the typical
cork nest (_Nemesia cæmentaria_).
[Illustration: _Plate XVII._]
I hope therefore that other naturalists will make further
investigations, and especially that they will endeavour to secure the
male.
I obtained twelve spiders and thoroughly followed the course of
ten nests; I opened thirteen more nests, but failed to trace their
structure satisfactorily.
The upper part of this nest is shown of the natural size in Plate
XVII. with the spider (_Nemesia suffusa_, Camb.[140]) which constructs
it. This is again a wafer nest without any lower door, and this
absence of a lower door alone distinguishes it as a type from the
branched nest represented at F in the diagram, just as the same
deficiency separated the Bordeaux type from that at fig. E.
[Footnote 140: We have again in this instance an exemplification of
the rule that a new type of nest indicates the presence of a new
spider, and hitherto, this rule has proved without exception. Mr.
Pickard-Cambridge's description of _N. suffusa_ will be found at
p. 295, below. Its slender proportions, cylindrico-ovate abdomen,
marked with narrow linear chevrons, and caput without, or almost
without, any median line or marking, form some of its more striking
characteristics.]
In this new single-door branched type, the branch makes a more or
less acute angle with the main tube, and reaches the surface of the
ground, but is there closed by a layer of particles of earth slightly
bound together with silk, forming an immovable cover or thatch. This
cover constitutes, however, but a slight obstruction and could easily
be torn away by the spider if she needed to use this passage as a way
of escape.
These nests were tolerably plentiful at a place called Les Mourines,
a short distance from Montpellier, where they were mixed with cork
nests in the steep hedge banks. The nests were from 8 to 10 inches
deep, and, as in all the trap-door nests which I have examined, were
tenanted by the female alone. It seems strange that this spider,
building as she does a nest apparently but poorly furnished either
for concealment or defence, should be able to enter into competition
with _N. cæmentaria_, whose solid, closely-fitting door appears so
perfectly contrived for both. It will probably be found, however,
when we are better acquainted with their respective ways of life,
that they are really more nearly on a footing than they seem to be
at first sight. I detected the remains of ants and the elytra of a
beetle in one of these branched single-door nests. Now these may also
be found in cork nests, so that _Nemesia suffusa_ evidently competes
with _cæmentaria_ for its food, and this is of course the main cause
of contention between all living creatures.
It is possible, that, if we knew all the uses to which the branch
is put by the spider which constructs it, we should find that the
advantages derived in the way of security from the existence of this
second passage, counterbalance those possessed by the cork nest,
which, though so perfectly closed, has only the one tube, and no
other possible way of escape.
It may perhaps be no more than a coincidence, but we can scarcely
avoid commenting upon the fact, that, just as this Montpellier wafer
nest is simpler in construction than any found along the Riviera, so
in like manner is the Bordeaux nest simpler than that of Montpellier.
It thus becomes tempting to ask whether, in the case of these wafer
nests, we shall not discover that the colder and damper climates are
the homes of the builders of the simpler types, while the warmer and
drier ones, where more food, more enemies and more competitors are
found, are reserved for the architects of the more complicated nests.
Doubtless naturalists will soon discover wafer nests on the slopes
of the Pyrenees, as for example at Pau and other winter stations in
South-western France; and perhaps the coast of the Bay of Biscay may
also yield specimens, even to the north of Bordeaux. If so, this
curious speculation as to whether there is any relation between
simplicity of structure and warmth of climate, will be put on its
trial.
About the very time when I was engaged in digging out these new wafer
nests at Montpellier, the celebrated arachnologist, Dr. L. Koch of
Nuremberg, had just published[141] an account and figure of a very
remarkable nest which he had received from Australia, and which,
though differing both in form and proportions from the Montpellier
nest, may nevertheless perhaps be referred to the present single-door
branched wafer type.
[Footnote 141: Dr. L. Koch, _Arachniden Australiens_, 10te. Lieferuug,
Nurnberg, 1874, tab. xxxvii. fig. 3, p. 484.]
This Australian nest, the exact habitat of which is not mentioned, is
constructed by a spider now described for the first time under the
name of _Idioctis helva_. The nest has a wafer-door about the size
of a sixpence, closing a vertical tube less than half an inch long,
which meets and opens into a horizontal tube about three inches in
length, and forms with it what may be roughly likened to the figure
of a capital T inverted, thus, ┹.
The upstroke of the T is however, very short, and one of the arms is
longer than the other, and curved downwards at its extremity. This
is, as far as I know, the first recorded example of a wafer-nest from
the Antipodes, and it may be regarded as one of the first fruits of
a harvest which lies ready for the reaping of any naturalist resident
in those parts. Hitherto the only nests which I have seen or heard of
from Australia were of the cork type (_Ants and Spiders_, p. 132).
Next in order to the single-door branched wafer comes the
_double-door unbranched wafer_ type, which is the simplest of all
the nests possessing two doors. This habitation, the work of _N.
Eleanora_, has been already described (_Ants and Spiders_, p. 106),
and I have not much to add to the account there given.
Perhaps some of my readers may remember that, while I was actually
engaged on the proofs of _Ants and Spiders_ I had one of these
_Eleanora_ spiders in captivity, and that I gave an account (p. 148)
of her behaviour up to the latest moment possible. She had been
captured on October 23, 1872, and placed, together with five young
ones found with her in the nest, on the surface of some earth in
a medium-sized flower-pot covered over with gauze. The young ones
soon made nests for themselves in the earth, each furnished with its
little door, but the mother roamed about on the surface of the soil,
and it was not until she had been twenty-one days in captivity that
she commenced spinning a silk cell.
This cell in twelve days' time presented the form of a rude figure
of 8, and had an aperture at either end; it was just large enough to
contain the spider when the legs were extended; its upper surface
was attached to the gauze covering of the pot, and its lower to the
earth. It was at this stage that the record was broken off, and I
will now relate the remainder of the history.
Four days before the cell was commenced, the spider had covered
the under surface of the gauze with a semi-transparent film of a
substance resembling varnish, which formed a band about three inches
long by half an inch wide, close to where the rim of the flower-pot
threw the most shade. It was at one extremity of this band that the
silk-cell was formed, but it is important to note that this band of
varnish was longer than the cell, which only measured an inch and a
quarter from end to end, for we shall see that the layer of varnish
was apparently laid with a view to further operations.
In four days after the completion of the cell its form was modified,
and, during the next ten days (up to December 21st), the spider
gradually thickened the walls, and made the form of the cell more and
more cylindrical, sometimes closing and at other times opening the
extremities.
Between December 14th and 25th, she lengthened out the cell by
spinning a cylindrical silk tube in prolongation of one end, and this
tube followed the course of the band of varnish, the whole measuring
three-and-a-half inches in length by about half an inch in diameter.
It would appear therefore from the correspondence in length between
the band of varnish and this silk tube, that she had contemplated
the construction of the latter when she first commenced her work on
November 3rd.
On January 19th the silk tube parted from the gauze, leaving only
the enlarged end which formed the cell still adhering to it. On the
following day I observed the very curious fact that when I sprinkled
the nest with water, as it was my custom to do every morning, the
tube, which had become somewhat flaccid since it had lost its
attachment to the gauze, gradually recovered its perfect shape. This
was repeated for eleven days, until on the morning of the twelfth
day (January 31st), finding the tube completely collapsed, instead
of merely sprinkling water over it, I drew a large camel-hair brush
loaded with water along its whole length, when the tube started up,
and almost instantaneously regained its cylindrical form.
This morning the spider had left her cell, and was roaming about
the pot when I wetted the tube, thus proving that she was in no way
concerned with its movements, which were no doubt due to hygrometric
action.
Between this time and February 25th, I constantly restored the tube
to its shape by wetting it in the way above described, but on this
day it remained very flaccid, and only expanded partially. For some
days previous to this date, the spider had left the tube when it
collapsed, and only returned to it again when it had resumed its
shape. On the following day I found the entire silk tube and the cell
again collapsed and lying flat upon the ground, and this time water
failed to produce its previous effect.
The spider then became very restless and excited, and I observed
that the door of one of the little nests constructed by one of her
five offspring which had been imprisoned in the same pot with her,
had been torn off, and thrown on one side, and there could be little
doubt but that the mother had been guilty of this very un-maternal
action. By the evening she had pulled up her collapsed tube from
its attachment to the earth, and had coiled it in a confused heap.
Seeing this, and fearing that, in her distress and excitement, she
might do further damage to the young spiders, which had up to that
time thriven well, I made a cylindrical hole for her in the earth,
supposing that she would at once take possession of it. On the
following morning, however, the mother spider had advanced some way
in building another figure-of-8 cell, rising the shrivelled silk of
her previous dwelling as a foundation.
In twenty-four hours this second cell was complete, and closely
resembled the former one, save that the smaller end of the 8 was
turned in the opposite direction, but, on examining it, I found to my
surprise that it was empty! The spider had taken possession of the
hole I had made for her, which she had at first refused to notice,
and was busily employed in lining it with silk and furnishing it with
a covering composed of silk with earth and fragments of moss woven
into the surface. By mid-day the aperture was completely closed, but
there was no moveable door. From this time (February 28) up to April
12, the spider lived in this hole, which she eventually furnished
with a distinct wafer-door, and, as I found on opening the nest, with
a typical lower door also. This latter was not neatly made, but still
it possessed all features the essential which characterize these
lower doors in the nests of _N. Eleanora_.
So this captive _Nemesia Eleanora_ lived in a flower-pot in my
bedroom for more than five months and a half, during which time she
absolutely refused to burrow or to attempt any kind of excavation,
but passed the greater part of that period on the surface of the
earth in a silk tube ending in an oblong enlargement, utterly unlike
her normal habitation. Finally, when I had done the digging for her,
she furnished the cylindrical hole I had bored in the earth with a
silk lining, and made it secure with her own two typical doors.
The figure-of-8 cell which she constructed at first, and subsequently
modified until it became the oblong enlargement of the tube alluded
to above, was totally unlike any form of trap-door spider's nest
known to me; but in its ultimate shape (which resembled that of the
glass part of a thermometer with an oblong bulb, save that it was
curved and not straight), I think we may trace some resemblance
to the silk tube which is made by _Atypus_, and of which a figure
is given at A, Plate XIII., p. 183; the mouth of the tube made
by my captive was, however, open. It is curious, also, when we
recall this resemblance, to note that Mr. Brown has recorded, in
his observations alluded to above (p. 185), that the tube of one
of the nests of _Atypus_, which he brought home in a collapsed
state, showed a somewhat similar tendency to become distended. For,
on opening the box in which they had been carried, he perceived a
movement throughout the tube as if it were becoming inflated, and
though this inflation appeared to subside shortly after, yet the
following morning the tube had recovered its cylindrical shape. I
am tempted to believe, though this is mere conjecture, that the box
in which these tubes were put contained moisture, and that their
apparent inflation was due to the same hygrometric action which, was
displayed in the tube of _N. Eleanora_. I regretted that I was unable
to continue my observations on this captive spider, as it would have
been interesting to know how long she would have lived contentedly
and in good health under the conditions described above, but I left
Mentone at the end of April, and was unable to take her alive with me
to England. When removed from her nest in the pot on April 12, she
appeared in perfect condition, and I placed her in a hole which I
made for her among some stones in a garden at the back of the house,
hoping to find her again on my return to Mentone in the autumn; this
hope was, however, not destined to be realized.
I shall, however, have occasion to speak again of the young captives
of this species (_N. Eleanora_), in the concluding remarks which will
follow these detailed accounts of the nests and their occupants, when
the behaviour of captive trap-door spiders generally will be treated
of.
The next type of trap-door nest is one to which I have found it
difficult to assign a descriptive name, and I am compelled for the
present to speak of it as the _Hyères double-door branched wafer_
nest.
One of its most distinctive features is found in the shape of the
lower door, fig. F 1, Plate XIV., and figs. A 1, A 2, Plate XVIII.,
which may be said to be double, presenting two crowns, one of which
fits into the main tube and the other into the branch, but I could
not see my way to employing this character in naming the type.
The nest is, however, quite distinct from all the others, and is
inhabited by a new species of trap-door spider (_N. congener_,
Camb.[142]). The characteristic portions of this nest are shown
in Plate XVIII., and fig. A 3, in the same Plate, represents its
occupant.