4H 
Psyche 
[December 
ing (Fig. 7), depending on its size. Three to five minutes after the 
first bites, the prey ceased its struggles. 
If a second prey animal was offered to a spider feeding on one 
previously caught, it was usually ignored (Fig. 8), except when the 
spider was almost finished feeding. The spider then attacked, either 
holding the partially eaten remains, or allowing them to drop. If the 
second prey was vigorous, and as large or larger than the spider’s 
abdomen, the first prey was merely released and held by the still- 
attached threads of the lampshade, while a typical attack on a second 
prey followed. Spiders were not seen to return to the original prey. 
Feeding took up to two hours, during which time the prey was 
reduced to a shapeless mass. After the meal, the spiders drop the ball 
of remains, and many of these bits of detritus catch in the tangle 
below. 
In some cases, when prey was brought in contact with the palpi and 
jaws, the spider cut the threads surrounding the prey with its fangs, 
and dropped the live animal out of the web. This could not be cor- 
related with the species of prey organism or with the feeding state 
of the spider. The same individual prey animals were captured and 
fed upon by other H. gertschi , and such rejection behavior was ob- 
served in spiders that had not fed in at least four hours, as well as 
those that had just devoured prey. Twice, very active prey was ig- 
nored by spiders that had not fed during that day’s study period. 
The steps in H. gertschi predatory behavior consists of a simple 
sequence summarized in Figs. 9 and 10. 
Escape behavior 
Since the spiders responded to large, active prey in the tangle as 
to a mild threat, escape behavior of seven individuals was studied. 
A “mild threat” consisted of irregular tapping of the frame line and 
its supports. The primary response, as observed by Kraus (1965), 
was a vigorous shaking or oscillation of the body and web, as is often 
seen in Pholcus phalangioides (Pholcidae). If the threat continued, 
the spider moved to the side of the lampshade farthest from the in- 
trusion, facing to the outside. Finally, five of the seven individuals 
used their chelicerae to cut a hole in the side of the lampshade, 
through which they escaped to crawl 10 cm to 1 m away from the 
web site. All seven returned within 20 minutes to the original web. 
A “heavy threat” consisted of direct attempt to capture the individ- 
ual. Upon being touched, the immediate response of the spider was 
to drop from the web. Usually this resulted in the spider being 
caught in the lower tangle, where it clumsily struggled until it could 
