1974 ] 
Rovner & Knost — W rapping of Prey 
411 
Our sealing of the anterior spinnerets (site of spigots for the 
piriform glands) prevented attachment disk production, as was well- 
known in the literature. Such spiders could wrap the prey but not 
attach it to the substratum. This was also the case with spiders that 
had their anterior and median spinnerets sealed, with the further 
limitation of being incapable of producing draglines. In summary, 
for complete wrapping of the prey, these lycosids are using all three 
pairs of spinnerets and employing silk from three types of silk glands 
(the third being the ampullaceal glands — for production of drag- 
lines — whose spigots are on the anterior and median spinnerets). 
This agrees with observations made by Melchers (1961) on prey- 
wrapping by normal individuals of Cupiennius salei , a large ctenid 
spider. 
Since the wrapping of prey by lycosids (and at least some other 
wandering spiders) probably correlates with a. preference for the 
herbaceous (or higher) stratum, we hypothesize that the size of the 
aciniform glands, source of swathing silk, would also. This expecta- 
tion is based on Richter’s (1970^) demonstration of such a corre- 
lation between ampullaceal gland size (dragline silk) and preferred 
vegetation structure in Pardosa spp. Indeed, we should expect lyco- 
sids with larger ampullaceal glands to have larger aciniform glands, 
based on our hypothesis and on Richter’s findings. 
Stimuli releasing prey-wrapping. — The correlation between the 
frequencies of prey-wrapping and multiple prey-capture suggests that 
the latter event provides a stimulus situation to release prey-wrap- 
ping. The value of wrapping for retaining multiple prey has been 
discussed above. However, wrapping certainly occurs after single prey 
are captured, if these prey are about as large or larger than the 
spider’s body size. It seems, then, that the stimulus for post-immo- 
bilization wrapping is that of ,a relatively large volume or mass of 
prey material beneath the spider, not the absolute number of prey 
captured. We suspect volume rather than weight to be the stimulus, 
since very large prey are wrapped without being held in the cheli- 
cerae following a capture in which the bite was maintained without 
the spider supporting the weight of the prey resting on the sub- 
stratum. 
Prey-wrapping was initiated after the prey had ceased most or all 
of its struggling. Groups of small crickets or grasshoppers, each 
member of which succumbed quickly to the spider’s bite, were 
wrapped within a minute or two after capture. Mealworms, which 
performed active twisting of the free end of their body for a long 
time, were not wrapped until about 10 min after capture. Very 
