Arachnologische Mitteilungen 56

Diversa v distribution are also provided. The species are sorted alpha- betically according to their Latin names; the Czech name, as well as a brief morphological characterisation, is also in- cluded. I remember how the authors were checking the true state of morphological characters on museum specimens, in those cases when other literature had provided contradictory data. Similarly, they were checking the body lengths of spiders (some publications give the body length whereas other only the length of prosoma). Furthermore, the biology and ecolo- gy of each species is described as well as the period of adult activity. This information was also being checked and conso- lidated, because some publications provide the entire period of adult occurrence (including resting or hibernating adults), whereas other sources give only the period of reproduction when the adults reach the highest activity and it is thus likely to encounter them in nature. The distribution of the species both in the Czech Republic and in the rest of the world is summarized. The atlas was prepared to be as up to date as possible. We can find all species occurring in the territory of the Czech Republic. Those species that were found after the editorial deadline are mentioned in an addendum. In some cases, the atlas even foresaw changes – the authors also included those species whose description was “in press” at that time. Howe- ver, as arachnology is a very dynamic branch, several changes occurred while the atlas was being printed, e.g. several Hahnia species (p. 358) were transferred into other genera and the eresid mentioned on p. 112 as E. cf. illustris was described shortly after as a new species: E. hermani Kovács et al., 2015. Nice photographs of living Czech spiders (despite their smaller size) are very valuable. In comparison with other simi- lar monographs published all over the world, the Czech atlas is unique as it is the only national atlas showing photographs of almost all species living in a given area. Only after having a look at the Czech alas, can the reader imagine the species proportion and richness of central European spider families. Only a few people know that more than two thirds of the species are represented by tiny, 1–2 mm long, money spiders (Linyphiidae). When comparing the photos in the atlas, we also see that it is almost impossible to identify spider species based only on the image. An experienced arachnologist can identify more than 60 species from photographs – in the case of Czech araneofauna this still corresponds to only 7% of the spider species. A subjective disadvantage of the atlas is that it is written in Czech and thus only easily understandable for Czech and Slovak people, with more difficulties also for those people speaking other Slavic languages. On objective disadvantage is a lack of literature sources.The references include, at most, only books and it is a pity that original scientific papers (that surely served as sources of information for the general part of the book) were omitted. The list of references is printed on one page and on four lines of the other page, so there would have been enough room to include more literature.The inde- xes of Czech and Latin names follow. Unfortunately, they are sorted according to the generic names – this may complicate searching for a species after it was transferred to another ge- nus. A terminological index is not included. Attractive photos, reliable information, excellent graphics (I would only have chosen a different colour for the cover) and a high quality print on glossy paper surpassed my expec- tations. It is thus not surprising that the atlas “Spiders of the Czech Republic” became a bestseller shortly after being pub- lished. Also thanks to its suitable format it is a practical and highly recommendable field book for all naturalists, students and professional arachnologists. References Baum J 1938 V říši pavouků [In the realm of spiders]. Vesmír, Praha. 176 pp. [in Czech] Baum J & Buchar J 1973 V říši pavouků [In the realm of spiders]. SPN, Praha. 292 pp. [in Czech] Buchar J & Kůrka A 1998 Naši pavouci [Our spiders]. Acadamia, Praha. 155 pp. [in Czech] Buchar J & Kůrka A 2001 Naši pavouci [Our spiders]. Academia, Praha, 2 nd edition. 163 pp. [in Czech] Krištofová L 2015 Znaky používané pro determinaci pavouků (Ara- neae) [Characters used for determining of spiders (Araneae)]. Bachelor thesis, Univ. South Bohemia in České Budějovice. 51 pp. (in Czech, English abstract) Krištofová L, Dolejš P & Berec M 2015 Comparison of two identi- fication keys for spider families (Araneae). In: Pekár S & Mašová Š (eds.) Programme and Abstracts, 29 th European Congress of Arachnology, 24–28 August, 2015. Masaryk University and the Czech Arachnological Society, Brno. p. 53 Řezáč M, Kůrka A, Růžička V &Heneberg P 2015 Red list of Czech spiders: 3 rd edition, adjusted according to evidence-based national conservation priorities. – Biologia 70: 645-666 – doi: 10.1515/ biolog-2015-0079 Petr DOLEJŠ, National Museum – Natural History Museum, Praha; E-mail: petr_dolejs@nm.cz