Talk:Latrodectus geometricus

Untitled

I live in St.Petersburg Florida and I recently found a bunch of egg sacs. I looked on the internet and found out they were the Brown Widow. Then, while spraying for wasp nests, I found a huge bunch of sacs in the back yard under the gutter. There must have been 20 sacs all together. It was really wild to see how many were bunched together. Never knew they were dangerous at all!

Unusually High Numbers?

I live in Tampa Florida and have never heard of Brown Widow Spiders before this last week. Since identifying the spider hanging from an oak tree in our yard, we have since located more than 12 adult brown widow spiders, as well as countless egg sacs and baby spiders on our property (1 lot, basic house and yard). Since speaking with my neighbors and showing them pictures I printed out along with information about this spider, they have also found large numbers of these spiders on their property. I have always paid attention to the population of 'critters' outside since I have small children and I want to keep an eye out for nests that I should keep the children away from. The amount present now is mind blowing (for lack of a better term). If anyone has any information about what is making the summer of 2008 so special for them, please post something about it! I would like to know what could be causing these high numbers in such a short amount of time (<4 months). ~ Mrs. Torres ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.82.108 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not sure if it's significant but they're allll over the place in Sarasota; have been for at least a few years now, probably were before but I didn't notice. Local lore is that they're nonaggressive and not a problem-- if one touches their web, they run away from the disturbance, rather than towards it in the manner of black widows. Usually at least 3-5 of them out on my porch, often about 10 in every outdoor stairwell of my college campus, and I've never even known anyone to get bitten. --Nevah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.52.172 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L. geometricus Spoted in South America

Hi, I'm a Biology student from Brazil and I must say we have this spider here in the southeast part of our country. Please add this information to the article. Marco Bonamico - Mbonamico@gmail.com (201.81.95.134 (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

South as well. Paraná, for instance. 187.113.64.10 (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Texas

Just found one in Edinburg, Texas in a mailbox out on a ranch. Not the most pleasant suprise. Since were only 20min from the border of mexico I'm sure it's a pretty common spider in mexico too. Since I teach a lab for microbiology I'm taking it so I can really look at it under a good microscope when I get back to A&M. It would be interesting to find out if its toxicity is twice as potent as the black widow. --Jake (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said the latest finding was in Ruthin?

This sentence has no source & is simply just there. Before I linked Ruthin just now, it didn't even have that. We must just assume Ruthin, Wales is where the contributor even meant. Maybe it should be removed altogether unless proof is linked? Just my opinion. Beatriceblue (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Latrodectus geometricus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dodgeglobe.com/news/x386655782/Its-officially-confirmed-Theres-a-new-spider-in-southwest-Kansas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence Interval

Fairly sure confidence intervals require quantification. E.g. a 95% confidence interval of 0.31 - 0.53. Unless 95% is a standardised assumption in the field, the line "with a confidence interval of 0.31-0.53" contains no real information.

Unfortunately the source is behind a paywall. Should the line be deleted?

Eriataka (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that by itself "confidence interval" is not sufficient. Fortunately I can access the article, and it says "95%" (which is the usual, but still needs to be said). I've fixed the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latrodectus geometricus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822052011/http://ward-co.tamu.edu/publications/spi.pdf to http://ward-co.tamu.edu/publications/spi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]