Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
______________________________
______
____
____
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
  
Res.J.
Recent 
Sci.
 
 
 
 
International Science Congress Association
 
 
 
 
    
19
 
Household spider species exhibit 
Kleptoparasitism
: An interaction between 
Plexxippus paykulli
 
and 
Hasarius adansoni
 
 
 
Bayani A.S.
1
 
and Trivedi J.N.
2
 
1
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, MS, INDIA
 
2
Division of Environment and Toxicology, Dept
. 
of Zoology, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, INDIA
 
 
Available online at: 
www.isca.in
 
(Received 
6
th
 
February 
2012
, revised 
19
th
 
February 
2012
, accepted
 
21
th
 
February 
2012
)
 
 
Abstract 
 
Spiders of the family salticidae are kleptoparasites that steal prey from other web spiders. In this paper we have described 
the 
kleptoparasitism
 
between two species Plexxippus paykulli and Hasarius adansoni. Observation on distance of attack and prey 
stealing success rate were carried out for different body sizes of both species.  Significant correlations were obtained for 
attacking strategy and p
rey stealing between different body classes of both species. We conclude from these co
-
relative studies 
that the larger the leg span of kleptoparasites shows profound degree of such behavior as compared to that of the relative bo
dy 
size. it also shows that
 
the relative changes in body sizes of kleptoparasite proves to dominant on varied body size range in 
hosts.
 
 
Keywords: 
Plexxippus paykulli, Hasarius adansoni, 
k
leptoparasitism, 
a
ttack distance, 
p
rey stealing
  
 
 
Introduction 
 
In the 
unpredictable natural world, every species has developed 
a unique strategy of survival. Many arthropods have found it 
adaptive to sequester, and sometimes personally guard, 
resources for their future use or the use of their offspring
 
1, 2
. For 
example, som
e dung beetles spend many hours shaping, 
moving, burying, and shielding a fecal fragment they may either 
eat, or into which they may lay an egg
 
3
. Catching results in a 
delay between taking possession of a resource and its final 
consumption, and during the
se period owners are vulnerable to 
thieves, which are often spoken of as Kleptoparasites
 
4
. 
Kleptoparasitic spiders (those which regularly steal food from 
other species of spiders) are known to occur in five families
 
5, 6, 7
 
1) Theridiidae 
(
Argyrodes 
speci
es), 2) Dictynidae 
(
Archaeodictyna ulova
), 3) Salticidae 
(
Portia 
and 
Simaetha 
sp.), 
4) Symphytognathidae 
(
Curimagua bayano
), and 5) 
Mysmenidae. In the family of jumping spiders (Salticidae), 
Portia 
and 
Simaetha 
species are the most recorded species 
exhibit
ing the kleptoparasitic behavior
 
9
. Here we observed the 
kleptoparasitic association between two another wide
-
spread 
species i.e. 
Plexippus paykulli
 
and 
Hasarius adansoni
. Here we 
demonstrate the species interaction in laboratory conditions to 
prove the 
interaction and also the significance of such a 
behavior.
 
 
The observations of these two species interaction suggest that 
Plexippus paykulli
 
acts as a kleptoparasite on 
Hasarius 
adansoni, 
which acts as a Host. Their major food comprises of 
the Lepidopteran
 
and Dipteran insects. They were observed to 
be feeding on 
Catochrysops strabo
 
Fabricius (Lepidoptera) and 
Zizina otis
 
Fabricius (Lepidoptera), in wild, for most of the 
times (personal observation, unpublished). Both of the species 
of spiders are often fou
nd in the houses and near any kind of 
human residence. However, these both species often come 
inside the houses to feed on house flies, 
Musca domestica
. Thus 
these all observations were utilized to design the experimental 
set
-
ups and observations were made
.
 
 
Material and Methods
 
An extensive search for both the spider species was done in 
field to collect individuals of different sizes. Identification of 
species was done using standard key available
9,10
. Individual 
feeding habits were also recorded in wild and the species of its 
most preferred food was noted. This species were collected from 
the field as and when required. 
 
 
Based on our extensive field observations, we designated 
Plexippus paykulli 
as K
leptoparasite (K) and 
Hasarius adansoni 
as Host (H). We obtained 13 
Plexippus paykulli
 
males (K) of 
various sizes and kept in different boxes and given a designation 
by small alphabets to each to avoid the confusion. For the 
Hasarius adansoni
 
female (H) we
 
used the boxes of 30×30×30 
cm with a slit of 2×5 cm area at its top to put the prey inside the 
box. This slit was kept closed with a scotch
-
tape and is opened 
only while putting the prey species inside.  13 different 
individuals of 
H. adansoni
 
females of 
different sizes also were 
obtained and given individual designations by capital alphabets 
to avoid confusion. We fed individual 
H. adansoni 
with same 
species of butterfly 
Catochrysops strabo
 
(Fabricius) once a day 
for 10 successive days and hence the satur
ation of feeding is 
avoided.  We transferred 
Plexippus paykulli
 
immediately after 
the prey is captured by 
Hasarius adansoni.
 
To elucidate the 
Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
_
_
_______________________________
______________
_
______
__
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
    
Res. J. Recent Sci.
 
  
 
International 
Science Congress Association
 
 
20
 
effect of body size on distance of attack and success rate of prey 
stealing by K, experiments were carried out wit
h different body 
sizes of both K and H. Observations were taken for distance of 
attack immediately after the attack was attempted by K on H by 
marking the sites where they were sitting before the attack. 
 
 
Experiments were done between July 2009 to July 20
10, at The 
Department of Zoology of The Maharaja Sayajirao University 
of Baroda, Vadodara; Gujarat, India.  All the measurements like 
body size, leg span (extended) were taken by standard digital 
vernier Callipers while measurement of distance of attack wa
s 
taken with the help of standard measuring scale. All the boxes 
of both the species were kept in laboratory at a constant 
temperature of 30°C, with proper aeration to all the boxes and 
usual day
-
night cycles of light (intensity was not measured). 
 
 
A Pear
son’s Correlation has been used to compare different 
observations; the graphs were plotted using Microsoft Excel.  
 
 
Result and Discussions 
 
Kleptoparasites with larger body size are intrepid in attacking 
the Hosts
: 
When H is kept smallest (8.8 mm) in size
 
and K of 
different body sizes were allowed to go inside the box, we got a 
strong negative correlation (
f
ig
ure
 
1). This is clear from the 
f
ig
ure
 
1 that, as the body size of K increases the distance of 
attack reduces. This concludes that the K of smaller bo
dy sizes 
keeps a distance from H in response to predation done by H of 
smaller size and also this distance is maintained to avoid the 
inter
-
specific competition. But K of larger size is bold enough 
and can dominate the H of smaller size and also may give b
etter 
kleptoparasitic attempts.
 
 
When the Leg span of K is correlated with distance of attack by 
keeping the H smallest again, we found a correlation which is 
negative (
f
ig
ure 
 
2
). This implies that as the leg
-
span increases 
success in stealing a prey increases. Here it also implies that the 
leg
-
span can also influence the host in terms of size so the 
kleptoparasite may become a pirate or a robber when the host is 
significantly sm
aller than Kleptoparasite. 
 
 
To confirm the assumption we correlated the body size and leg 
span of K with distance of attack keeping the largest H (7.8 
mm). Here we observed a lesser significant correlation (
f
ig
ure
 
3, 
4) which suggests that the K becomes i
ndecisive when the size 
of H is significantly large.     
 
 
Host possess an ability to shield the food in response to 
Kleptoparasites
: 
Percent prey stolen is total number of 
successful steals out of total attempts. When we correlated the 
body size of H with
 
% prey stolen by keeping the K largest (11 
mm), we found that % prey stolen increases significantly. While 
correlating the same by keeping the K smallest (8.8 mm) we 
observed a strong negative correlation. This implies that as soon 
as the body size of a k
leptoparasite is decreased, the influence of 
H increased. When the kleptoparasite is shortest, host becomes 
more and more audacious. (
f
ig
ure
 
7, 8)
 
To prove this assumption we also studied the correlation of % 
prey stolen with body size of K by keeping the 
host constant. 
When H was largest (7.8 mm) successful prey steals increased 
significantly (
f
ig
ure
 
5). However, when the correlation of % 
prey stolen was done by keeping H smallest, a very significant 
correlation was expected but the correlation is not sign
ificant 
(
f
ig
ure
 
6). Hence it can be concluded that the host is able to 
defend its prey from the kleptoparasite. But since it becomes 
audacious, it may loss its prey. 
 
 
To understand, whether leg span of K can influence success of 
steals, we correlated the 
% prey stolen with leg span by keeping 
H constant. When the H is smallest K made successful attempts 
in stealing the prey. However, when H is largest, K still could 
steal the prey successfully. This implies that the leg span has 
greater influence than body
 
size. This also suggests that the H 
with larger body size become overconfident and lose the prey. 
(
f
ig
ure
 
9,10)
 
 
The use of leg span in defining the body size is an imperative 
tool for these spiders. Alone the body size does not have an 
immense impact on 
another species. Here we demonstrated that 
K with largest leg span has been more successful in stealing the 
food rather than having a largest body size. In other words, Host 
can hoard its food successfully when the leg span of K is not 
large enough, even t
hough the body size is larger. But host was 
found little unsuccessful in preventing the prey steal when the K 
is with largest leg span. 
 
 
Hasarius adansoni
 
is a very common species in houses, 
whereas, 
Plexipus paykulli
 
is not so frequent in the houses 
(per
sonal observation, unpublished). This actually reduces the 
encounters between these species. Hence the encounters cannot 
be seen very frequently in wild. But when we brought these 
species in captivity, they showed the kleptoparasitic behavior. 
 
 
H. 
adansoni
 
of shorter size could defend the food from getting 
stolen although 
P. paykulli
 
was significantly larger, is perhaps 
because 
H. adansoni
 
dwell in houses more, so getting 
encountered with diverse predators like 
Hemidactylus 
flaviviridis
, 
Hemidactylu
s brookii
, and competitor spiders like 
Menemerous bivittatus
, 
Telamonia dimidiata
, 
Lycosa
 
sps, 
Pardosa 
sps, 
Crossopriza lyonii
 
etc.  and in relatively smaller 
area and hence developed a stronger strategy to defend itself and 
its food, whereas 
P. paykulli
 
d
wells in gardens and other sort of 
vegetations. It is a wanderer and covers larger area than 
H. 
adansoni
 
in search of food. In doing so it can avoid many other 
predators and has more access to variety of prey species, but it 
may not be able to decrease its time spent in search of food. As 
per the 
optimal foraging theory
 
11
 
animals should employ 
foraging tact
ics to maximize their energy intake rate per unit 
time. By specifically targeting those individuals that take longer 
to handle prey, are smaller in size and are more vulnerable to 
attack, kleptoparasites may increase the efficiency and value of 
kleptoparas
itism as a foraging strategy
12
 
and
 
hence 
P. paykulli
 
has developed kleptoparasitic strategy. In captivity, neither of 
Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
_
_
_______________________________
______________
_
______
__
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
    
Res. J. Recent Sci.
 
  
 
International 
Science Congress Association
 
 
21
 
the spiders had access to avoid each other and kleptoparasitism 
by 
P. paykulli
 
is observed. However, as 
H. adansoni
 
stays in 
higher pressu
re of predation and competition, it should also 
have developed the strategy of stealing the food, which has not 
been seen in our experiments. Here the reasons could not be 
demonstrated and experimented as they are beyond the scope of 
this paper. Neverthele
ss, the reasons can be explained again by 
optimal foraging theory, as 
H. adansoni
 
has higher predation 
pressure and it perhaps has an ability of decreasing the time 
spent in search of food by occupying specific microhabitats in 
houses. Hence 
H. adansoni
 
he
re could not show any 
kleptoparasitic behavior. 
 
 
Kleptoparasitism among these two spider species has been 
experimented for the first time. As such it is even rare to see the 
struggle between these two species for food in natural habitats. 
This study has provi
ded some very important conclusions 
regarding kleptoparasitism as well as the species’ behavior. The 
research on kleptoparasitic behavior has a great significance in 
understanding the evolution of foraging strategies among 
different organisms. This would h
elp in understanding species 
behavior in different circumstances and variable environmental 
factors. Further research in this respect may give novel results 
and the species used here may turn to be a good model system 
to study behavioral ecology in laborat
ory conditions.
 
Figure 1
 
Body size vs distance of attack (H smallest)
 
 
Figure
-
2 
 
Leg span vs distance of attack (H smallest)
 
y = 
-
18.93x + 258.7
R² = 0.956
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
Distance of Attack (mm)
Body size of Kleptoparasite (mm)
y = 
-
39.06x + 142.8
R² = 0.924
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
Distance of atack (mm)
Leg Span of kleptoparasite (mm)
Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
_
_
_______________________________
______________
_
______
__
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
    
Res. J. Recent Sci.
 
  
 
International 
Science Congress Association
 
 
22
 
 
 
Figure
-
3 
 
Body size Vs distance of attack (H largest)
 
 
 
 
Figure
-
4 
 
Leg span vs distance of attack (H largest)
 
y = 
-
9.279x + 173.8
R² = 0.752
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
Distance odf Attack
Body Size of K (mm)
y = 
-
19.92x + 118.4
R² = 0.787
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
Distance of Attack (mm)
Leg Span of K (mm)
Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
_
_
_______________________________
______________
_
______
__
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
    
Res. J. Recent Sci.
 
  
 
International 
Science Congress Association
 
 
23
 
 
 
Figure
-
5 
 
Body size of K vs % prey stolen (H largest)
 
 
 
 
Figure
-
6 
 
Body size of K vs % prey stolen (H smallest)
 
y = 19.72x 
-
139.6
R² = 0.846
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
% Prey stolen by Kleptoparasite
Body size (mm)
y = 18.99x 
-
142.3
R² = 0.594
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
% Prey stolen by Kleptoparasite
Body Size (mm)
Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
_
_
_______________________________
______________
_
______
__
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
    
Res. J. Recent Sci.
 
  
 
International 
Science Congress Association
 
 
24
 
 
 
Figure
-
7 
 
Body size of H vs % prey stolen (K largest)
 
 
Figure
-
8 
 
Body size of H vs % prey stolen (K largest)
 
y = 25.05x 
-
129.7
R² = 0.793
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
% Prey Stolen by Kleptoparasite
Body Size (mm)
y = 
-
28.13x + 236.2
R² = 0.900
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
% Prey Stolen by Kleptoparasite
Body Size (mm)
Research Journal of 
Recent 
Sciences 
______
_
_
_______________________________
______________
_
______
__
 
ISSN 2277
-
2502
 
Vol. 
1(
3
), 
19
-
25
, 
March 
(201
2
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
    
Res. J. Recent Sci.
 
  
 
International 
Science Congress Association
 
 
25
 
Acknowledgement
 
The authors are thankful to Dr. Kauresh Vachhrajani, Dr. P. C. 
Mankodi and Miss Suchi Ghandhi for their valuable comments 
regarding data interpretation.
 
 
References
 
1
.
 
Coyle F.A., O'Shields T.C. and Perlmutter D.G., 
Observations on the behavior of the kleptop
arasitic spider, 
Mysmenopsis furtive
 
(Araneae, Mysmenidae), 
The Journal 
of Arachnology,
 
19
, 62
–
66 
(1991)
 
 
 
2
.
 
Andrea T.M. 
and
 
George W.U., Kleptoparasites: a two
-
fold 
cost of group living for the colonial spider, 
Metepeira 
incrassata
 
(Araneae, Araneidae), 
Beh
av. Ecol. Sociobiol.
,
 
64
, 389
–
399 
(2010)
 
 
3
.
 
Halffter G., and Matthews E.G., The Natural History of 
Dung Beetle of the Subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: 
Scarabaeidae), 
Folia Entomol. Mexicana
., 
12
-
14
, 1
-
132 
(1966)
 
 
4
.
 
Sivinski J., Marshall S. and Peterson E., 
Kleptoparasitism 
and phoresy in the 
dipteral,
 
Florida Entomologist
, 
82(2), 
179
-
197 
(1999)
 
 
5
.
 
Vollrath F., Kleptobiosis in spiders, 
In
 
Ecophysiology of 
Spiders 
(ed. Nentwig, W.),
 
Springer
-
Verlag
, Berlin,  74
-
286 
(1987)
 
 
6
.
 
Griswold C.E., 
Isela okuncana
, a new genus and species of 
kleptoparasitic spider from southern Africa (Araneae: 
Mysmenidae)
,
 
Ann. Natal Mus,
 
27
, 
207
–
217 
(
1985)
 
 
7
.
 
Griswold C.E. and Meikle G.T., 
Archaeodictyna ulova, 
new 
species (Araneae: Dictynidae), a remarkable kleptoparasite 
of group
-
livin g eresid spiders 
(Stegodyphus 
spp., Araneae: 
Eresidae)
,
 
Ame . Mus. Novitates
, 
2897,
 
1
–
11 
(1987)
 
 
8
.
 
Platnick N.I., The world spider catalog, version 9.5. 
American Museum of Natural History.
 
(
2009
)
 
 
9
.
 
Pocock
 
R.I., The fauna of British India including Ceylon 
and Burma, 173
-
271 
(1900)
 
 
10
.
 
Sebastian P.A. and Peter K.V., Spiders of India. University 
Press (India), 280
-
313 
(2010)
 
 
11
.
 
MacArthur R.H., Pianka E.R., On the optimal use of a 
patchy environment
,
 
Am. Nat.,
 
100
,
 
603
–
609 
(1966)
 
 
12
.
 
Agnarsson I., Spider webs as habitat patches
—
the 
distribution of kleptoparasites (
Argyrodes
, Theridiidae) 
among host webs (Nephila, Tetragnathidae)
,
 
J. Arachnol.,
 
31
, 344
–
349, 
(2003)
 
 
 
<end>