1976] Greenquist & Rovner — Spiders on Artificial Foliage 207 
wise on the two Lyeosa spp. found in this stratum, since such 
markings would provide cryptic coloration. Ground-dwelling 
lycosids lack such bold, anterior to posterior, striped patterns. 
The next most common orientation on artificial foliage and on 
broad surfaces was perpendicular to the vertical one, i.e.. 90° or 270° 
(when 0° = facing up). In such a horizontal position on a sloping 
or vertical surface, the spiders were holding primarily by the tarsal 
claws of the upper four ipsilateral legs. For some reason, positions 
intermediate between vertical and horizontal are less satisfactory 
for long-term resting postures on elevated surfaces. It may relate 
to the effective use of the inwardly curving tarsal claws for securing 
a grip or to a tendency to prefer similar proprioceptive inputs from 
four ipsilateral legs as the next best condition to that provided by 
the bilaterally symmetrical input of a vertical orientation. All 
things considered, it is likely that vertical orientation would pre- 
dominate in the field, where stems and the edges of grass blades 
provide largely vertical grasping sites for the claws that would 
add to the laboratory-demonstrated preference for a vertical posi- 
tion. 
Prey-wrapping. — Our data supported Rovner and Knost’s 
(1974) hypothesis that post-immobilization wrapping of prey by 
wandering spiders is an adaptation for successful feeding in the 
herbaceous stratum. This behavior did not occur in our ground- 
dwelling Schizocosa spp. Wrapping prevents prey loss from elevated 
sites when the cheliceral grip is relaxed during feeding, grooming, 
or a startle response, since wrapping always includes attachment 
of the prey to the site. Furthermore, when we forced spiders to 
leave immobilized prey, they were able to return to the site. Ob- 
viously, wrapped (i.e., attached) prey are far more likely to be 
recovered at an elevated site than are non-wrapped. Since the 
spiders sometimes returned by a route different from that taken 
when chased away, they were not depending on draglines to re- 
locate the prey. They may have used kinesthetic orientation, or 
visual orientation, or both (Gorner, 1966). 
Rovner and Knost (1974) also suggested that wrapping by lyco- 
sids might serve to free the spider for subsequent attacks on addi- 
tional prey, as occurs in web weavers. Out data did not support 
this idea. Subsequent captures were never observed in which the 
spider returned to the original prey at a previous site, as was also 
noted to be the case in Cupiennius salei (Melchers, 1963). Ap- 
