Cited by 71Spider Taxonomy and Behavior StudiesInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 20 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Assassin bug uses aggressive mimicry to lure spider prey

Open access
Wignall, Anne E., Taylor, Phillip W.·2011·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Assassin bugs (Stenolemus bituberus) hunt web-building spiders by invading the web and plucking the silk to generate vibrations that lure the resident spider into striking range. To test whether vibrations generated by bugs aggressively mimic the vibrations generated by insect prey, we compared the responses of spiders to bugs with how they responded to prey, courting male spiders and leaves falling into the web. We also analysed the associated vibrations. Similar spider orientation and approach behaviours were observed in response to vibrations from bugs and prey, whereas different behaviours were observed in response to vibrations from male spiders and leaves. Peak frequency and duration of vibrations generated by bugs were similar to those generated by prey and courting males. Further, vibrations from bugs had a temporal structure and amplitude that were similar to vibrations generated by leg and body movements of prey and distinctly different to vibrations from courting males or leaves, or prey beating their wings. To be an effective predator, bugs do not need to mimic the full range of prey vibrations. Instead bugs are general mimics of a subset of prey vibrations that fall within the range of vibrations classified by spiders as ‘prey’.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Assassin bugs (Stenolemus bituberus) lure web-building spiders by plucking silk to generate vibrations that spiders treat like struggling prey. The vibrations resemble a subset of prey-generated vibrations rather than a specific prey model, supporting aggressive mimicry as a general lure.

Key findings

  • Spiders responded similarly to bugs and prey: vinegar flies versus bugs, p = 0.56; aphids versus bugs, p = 0.65; vinegar flies versus aphids, p = 1.00, whereas responses to courting males and leaves were significantly different (all p < 0.01).
  • Spiders tended not to respond to leaves (65% no response), and female spiders responded to courting male vibrations by adopting a copulatory position.
  • Vibrations from bugs had peak frequencies similar to those from prey and courting males, but bugs generated lower amplitudes than prey or leaves; after excluding initial impact vibrations, bug amplitudes only overlapped those of courting males.
  • Linear discriminant analysis found significant variation among vibration sources, with 33.08% of vibrations misclassified, and the authors conclude bugs are general mimics of a subset of prey-like vibrations rather than specific prey mimics.

Methods

  • Recorded spider responses and web vibrations in Achaearanea sp. webs to hunting S. bituberus bugs, struggling Drosophila melanogaster and aphids, courting male spiders, and leaves falling into webs; 20 examples each were recorded for bugs, vinegar flies, aphids, and leaves, plus 5 courting males.
  • Used a laser vibrometer synchronized with video to measure frequency, amplitude, duration, and temporal structure of vibrations; analyzed responses with Fisher’s exact tests, repeated-measures MANOVA/ANOVA, Tukey’s tests, and linear discriminant analysis, applying Box-Cox transformations when data deviated from normality.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the physics of vibration propagation in three-dimensional webs is not well understood, and sample sizes varied slightly depending on whether a particular variable could be calculated from a vibration.
  • Evident from the text: the study is laboratory-based, uses one spider genus (Achaearanea sp.), and has a small sample of courting males (n = 5), with no field validation reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2010.2060

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 20 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 35 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The spiders' responses to the treatments are mediated by web vibrations alone, not by visual or other cues from the source.

    “Web-building spiders rely on vibrations in their webs to detect, identify and locate intercepted prey, and respond in a characteristic and predictable manner [14-17].”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • First-vibration ANOVA implies one more recording than reported

    Minor

    The paper reports 20 recordings for each of four sources and five for courting males, for 85 recordings. An analysis of one first vibration per recording across five groups would have 80 residual degrees of freedom, but the reported F statistic has 81.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 71

Metadata

Authors
Wignall, A. E., & Taylor, P. W.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Wignall, Anne E.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2010-10-27
Volume
278
Issue
1710
Pages
1427-1433
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2108076213
Cited by
71
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Spider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
Reduviidae, aggressive mimicry, spider predation, web vibration, web-building spiders, insect predation
MeSH terms
Aggression, Animals, Animal Communication, Female, Male, Predatory Behavior, Spiders, Vibration, Reduviidae, Food Chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-27, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-27 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review