Talk:Orb-weaver spider

Expansion

Could the following passage be expanded?

The orb weavers web could be weaved with a strand of yarn could in fact stop jet mid-air.' The web has always been thought of beacon of hope and of course an an an an engineering marvel. It is built by the spider starting with a line floated on the wind to another surface. The spider secures the line and then drops another line from the center, making a "Y". The rest of the scaffolding follows with the radii of non-sticky silk being constructed before the final spiral of sticky capture silk.'

After the spider makes the "Y," what specifically happens? The line dropped from the center is presumably dangling in the air. Is it also blown by the wind? And how exactly is the rest of the scaffolding created, and in what order?

I have seen spiders inhabiting webs which, amazingly, are stretched between the two highest places in my garden. I can't understand how this is possible, so any explanation someone could offer would be much appreciated!

And would all this information actually be better placed in the article 'Spider Web?'

Deece 08:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous

In another article it refers to these spiders along with another, as being the only spiders to have no venom or something to that effect.

I've recently added Image:P7130741_edited-size.JPG which appears to be Argiope keyserlingi according to http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/australian/araneidae/araneidae.html. I'm not adding the pic to the article myself since I'm no expert on spiders and don't want to hand out false info. That spider is as of this date still in front of my house, only fatter. Pecosdave 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of pictures

I am not entirely sure, but aren't some of the spiders shown as orb-weaving spiders actually St Andrew's Cross spiders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.175.73 (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Argiope (e.g., St. Andrews cross spiders) are members of the orb-weaver (Araneidae) family. 212.202.28.67 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orb?

I hunted down this page to discover what the "Orb" in "Orb-weaver" indicated. The artical refers to "the orb" at one point, but there is not enough context to discern it's meaning. Is there a page we could link to which explains this.. or should it be explained on this page? Rossc719 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'orb' in this context refers to the round design of the web. I will include it. Naturenet | Talk 10:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stridulation

On the page it says "Orb-weavers have eight similar eyes, legs hairy or spiny and no stridulating organs." Yet on the page about European garden spider there is a sentence "Garden spiders have been known to stridulate when threatened." and the page states that they are orb-weaver spiders. So if they are orb-weaver spiders and all orb-weaver spiders lack stridulating organs then how do they do it? Or have I misunderstood something? 78.27.79.182 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decoys

I don't know much about the subject but a recent news article at the BBC details findings that some Orb spiders produce life size decoys to protect themselves from Predators. Perhaps someone who knows more about the subect wouldn't mind amending the article? (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8135000/8135844.stm) --86.136.20.242 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these spiders venomous?

I found one of these today and I'd like to know if they are venomous or dangerous to humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.183.13 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An arachnologist told me that "The bite (very rare as the spiders are quite docile) may cause mild pain and should be washed with disinfectant. Any symptoms of an allergic reaction, also rare, should receive medical attention.", referring to members of the Eriophora genus. But there are nearly 2800 species in the family so I don't think one could comment on all of them. I'd treat it with care unless you have information about the specific species. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pokemon darkglow

this is the web poage for facebooks game pokemon darkglow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.190.167 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

The numbers are not clear. Please clarify:

Araneidae = orbweavers: [The "typical" orb-weaver spiders (family Araneidae)]

[There are 3,006 species in 168 genera worldwide, making Araneidae the third largest family ]

[The orb-weavers include over 10,000 species ]

Probably the key is "typical" versus all orbweavers - but it is not clear from how it is presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGwroc (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Dimorphism

I have a couple of articles on sexual dimorphism. Any feedback on these articles would be great!

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2409679
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/3/435.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00868.x/epdf
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=95ff98d5-7c14-41f4-8d1e-919ab2a7ee7a%40sessionmgr113&vid=4&hid=113

ThatEvolGuy (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any popsci or online resources you could use for your article? Those articles look useful and fun! You might share the last one with the others in your group in case it is helpful to them!Evol&Glass (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice writing in this section over all. I'm not sure if explaining dimorphism is exactly necessary. Maybe just a hyperlink to the sexual dimorphism page would suffice. None-the-less this section is very interesting and flows well. Keeping with the small paragraphs to break up the writing works well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adowney31 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is a problem with this material, since quite a bit of it isn't specific to the family covered in this article, namely Araneidae, but applies to orb-weavers in general (and indeed some other kinds of spider). Actually, the article as a whole is sometimes confused between the different uses of the term "orb-weaver", which can mean Orbiculariae (a possible clade of spiders but not supported by the latest evidence), or Araneoidea, the superfamily to which araneids belong, or just araneids, which are supposed to be the subject of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the information on sexual dimorphism was well presented and had great organization into separate paragraphs. I did correct several minor grammatical errors such as leaving out needed verbs/prepositions as changing “are” to “is” when needed in a sentence. Also, I added at the end of the dimorphism section more information on sexual cannibalism as in my own research of orb weaving spiders I came across it and added in when large vs. small males have an advantage in different orb weaving spider species. Also, one organizational suggestion I have is to maybe add subheadings to each of these paragraphs to help denote what they will explain such as dimorphism in spiders, size and dimorphism, and sexual cannibalism and dimorphism. All in all, I liked the paragraph breaks and the content shown.Cbiology (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. I went ahead and kept the small paragraph style with similar information within them. I also added a hyperlink to the sexual dimorphism page, but kept a short one sentence summary of what it is. Thank you for the small grammatical corrections, as another view from someone else usually catches them. Also, thank you for adding in some extra information on the sexual cannibalism. I thought about adding in subheadings for organization purposes, but decided that that there just wasn't enough information within the article to separate them in that way. Again, thanks for all your help. ThatEvolGuy (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your article was well written, and you did a good job explaining the evolutionary significance of the sexual size dimorphism. I think that you could maybe do a better job explaining the sexual cannibalism versus sexual size dimorphism cycle. I also would try to avoid summarizing the results of one study as well. I removed the following sentence: One study showed that the greater the size difference between a male and female, the greater the chance for a sexual cannibalistic event to occur. Otherwise, good work! 64.19.26.194 (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Leflame123[reply]

I think you should consider placing your section above reproduction, and maybe even as a sub-section to another section like the “orb-web” or “Natural History.” Its current placement is odd and the entire page should flow better with better placement. I changed not typical to “atypical” in the first paragraph to make the section flow better. I removed “the” in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph because it was unneeded. I think you need some more citations. I tried to mark a few locations where you should place them. In the third paragraph, you mention a correlation. What type of correlation? The third paragraph is a little confusing and I recommend on making your sentences more concise and clear. Also you should just say hypotheses/theory, instead of a study. “Evidence suggests” may work too. You could also expand on the hypotheses suggested by these studies and how it might have caused sexual dimorphism to occur in the spiders. Drhumz (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback and your suggestions. As far as the suggestion to move the section within another section, I placed the sexual size dimorphism section under the "reproduction" section, due to the continuation of the sexual cannibalism content, as well as the fact the SSD has a major effect on reproduction. I also removed all references to specific studies and simply changed to evidence suggests or variations of that. With this, I also added citations to the areas that needed them, and removed some sentences that did not need to be there. Again, thank you for all of your suggestions and feedback, it has been a great help! ThatEvolGuy (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused article

I find the lead section in particular to be confused and hence confusing. Part of the problem is the use of the term "orb-weaver spider" to refer both to araneids (members of the family Araneidae) and to all spiders that weave orb webs regardless of their family placement. The article is supposed to be about araneids; the issue of their relationship to other orb-weavers is secondary.

I would strongly suggest using the term "araneid" throughout to refer to members of the Araneidae. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be better to say Araneid when that is what is meant. Orb-weavers are not, strictly, the same thing. It would be quite a job to unpick the article but if somebody were to volunteer, that would be a good thing. You say that this is 'part of the problem' - perhaps you could point out the other parts too? Naturenet | Talk 10:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Naturenet: the section titled "Natural history" (which isn't about natural history!) is about orb-weavers generally; the Gustavo, Scharff & Coddington (2000) source used in the "Sexual size dimorphism" refers to Orbiculariae and so needs using with care for araneids. I agree that it would be quite a job to unpick the article; I might do so at some time in the future, but can't right now, so I hope someone else might volunteer! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now started doing some work on the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The sexual size dimorphism section is a project for an evolutionary biology class. I was not aware of the distinction between the term orb-weaver and araneid. I have removed all reference of "orb-weaver" and replaced that with "araneid". I have just made the last changes to the article that I need to be finished with the article, so feel free to make any changes necessary to the article. Thanks for not just deleting it as many others in my class have run into this problem. ThatEvolGuy (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatEvolGuy: it's a classic problem with using English names for taxa – they just don't have the precision of scientific names. The material on sexual dimorphism does need a bit of copy-editing but is definitely a useful addition to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orb-weaver spider. 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/20031208183121/http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Araneae.html to http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Araneae.html

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) 17:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Invertebrate Zoology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Megfennelly (article contribs). Peer reviewers: C.bellavance20, Baylou402.

— Assignment last updated by GrillinBubbles (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]