Talk:Solifugae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Arthropods (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Untitled[edit]

I think the "Anatomy" jeffsection is slightly confusing as it is. I am offering this minor edit, primarily rearrangement with a small amount of added text. Since this page is protected, I can't edit directly:

Solifugids are moderate to large arachnids, with the larger species reaching 7 centimetres (2.8 in) in length. The body is divided into a forward part, or prosoma, and a segmented abdomen. The prosoma is divided into a relatively large anterior carapace, including the animal's eyes, and a smaller posterior section.

While Solifuges appear to have ten legs, they actually have eight legs. The the first pair of appendages are long pedipalps, which function as sense organs similar to insects' antennae and give the appearance of an extra pair of legs. The pedipalps terminate in eversible adhesive organs which are used for climbing and to capture flying prey. These are very strong and are used for various functions such as drinking, fighting, feeding and mating. Posterior to the pedipalps are the eight legs typical of all arachnids. The first pair of these legs are thin and short and used as tactile organs, so that only the other posterior six legs are used for running.[3] The fourth pair of legs are the longest and strongest and carry white structures called racket organs - the purpose of which is not known. [1]

The most distinctive feature of Solifugae is their large chelicerae, which are longer than the prosoma. Each of the two chelicerae are composed of two articles forming a powerful pincer; each article bears a variable number of teeth. They stridulate with their chelicerae, resulting in a rattling noise.[2] Mombat (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As anecdotal evidence. What I saw, and was told at the time that it was a camel spider:- Whilst I lived in Oman, The specimen I obseved was approximately 300mm +-50mm leg end to leg end. It ran into our camp fire whilst we were camping in the desert close to Fasad/Shisur in Oman. It was extremely aggressive and eventually one of our party had to hit with a spade, thereafter we examined it.

This order seems to go by a host of names; I'm just a layman, so it would be nice if someone who's a specialist could clarify things. I added a list of alternate names from [1], although they prefer Solpugida. Solifugae seems to be the most common though. DopefishJustin 01:42, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

that should be listed and linked to this page. -TF

merge?[edit]

Should this page be merged with Camel_Spider??

Pud 17:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

camel spider blues?[edit]

whats the deal with the http://www.chinapost1.org/guestbook.asp link at the bottom of the page? took me a couple of minutes to find the right page in the guestbook, and the entry isn't really relevant (http://www.chinapost1.org/guestbook.asp?recordnum=90 at the moment)

camel spider redux[edit]

de:Kamelspinne suggests that Camel Spider is a name for one species of solifugid, namely Galeodes arabs. Is this true, or is the name applied indiscriminately? —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that first picture you see at the top of the article page would be considered a camel spider. I don't know about the "Galeodes Arabs" name but when I was over in Afghanistan we saw plenty of these things. Funny thing is, I've seen those in Arizona too. I'm not sure how to identify them by sight, so it probably wasn't the same Solifugae native to Afghanistan. 221.191.98.122 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference for Rhagodes venom?[edit]

151.26.58.170 is the IP number of the person who contributed the tidbit about Rhagodes nigrocinctus having venom. I'm fairly new to this, and am unsure how to contact users directly to inquire about problems. Specifically, I cannot find an actual literature citation to back this up - just webpage after webpage saying R. nigrocinctus in India paralyzes lizards - accordingly, I am suspicious that this, too, is an Urban Legend. I'm tempted to do an edit to remove the claim, or state that the claim is unverified. Anyone have any other ideas?

It do`nt give any camel.spiders, which can paralyze another animals. Paralyzing means to have poison. But this spiders have powerful pincers. So it is not necessary for them to have venom. Venom often have animals, which do not have strong "weapons". Their claws are sharp enough to kill a small lizard. --Fackel 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that whole poison thing can be removed. It just reads too hokey for me. --Gbleem 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how hokey you may think it is - this was a published, presumably peer-reviewed, study. Admittedly, that does not make it true, since scientists can make mistakes, or lie, but it DOES mean that it should be discussed here, because it could *be* true. Saying that the study is "unconfirmed" is good enough to alert the reader to possible "hokey-ness" - the same exact thing can be said about venom in the hobo spider, but since the status quo is that people believe the venom is dangerous, you can't just edit it out because the research on which it was based was "hokey". Dyanega 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
By hokey I meant that the way the paragraph is worded makes me believe the study does not exist or the person writing the paragraph got it all wrong. --Gbleem 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it again. I'll rewrite it if someone can direct me to the study. --Gbleem 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The citation for the study is, and has been, on the page ever since the text was first placed there. Is that direct enough? I don't believe it, and I don't like it, but it needs to be cited. That's what NPOV is all about. Dyanega 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the name of the Journal? What are the full names of the authors? What is the title of the article? --Gbleem 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Here, I'll cut and paste it from the article itself, which you have evidently never read:
I'm very sorry. Sometimes I miss things that are right in front of me. --Gbleem 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A slice of this article under "Urban Legends" seems to be identical to the text here: http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Solifugae In that link, the text "with the possible exception of one species in India (see below)" makes sense. In this wikipedia article, there does not seem to be any reference to the Indian study "below". Perhaps the appearance of plaigiarism should be corrected, and the Wiki article edited to flow properly?

The link is actually a mirror of and old version of the Wikipedia article when the citations were undamaged. Have added the reference and removed the "see below" bit. Shyamal (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

  • Aruchami, M. & Sundara Rajulu, G. (1978). "An investigation on the poison glands and the nature of the venom of Rhagodes nigrocinctus (Solifugae: Arachnida)". Nat. Acad. Sci. Letters (India)l, 1:191-192. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyanega (talkcontribs) 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

inserting links[edit]

How do I insert a link into a text so a word or phrase becomes the link itself. When I highlight the word and click the external link icon, I don't see a dialog box asking for the http: address to be inserted. How do I get this to work??Jlujan69 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of a wikilink such as 'an article on snake scales' this is how you do it! (Press edit this page to see the syntax). In the case of an http link this is how you make IT.AshLin 14:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Harvard Study[edit]

removed: "Recently, there has been a study conducted at Harvard regarding this controversy: as it turns out, solifugae are able to produce saliva that both numbs feeling by killing nerve endings as well as destroy {sic} the ability to heal."

If somebody wants to clean that up and add a reference, feel free, otherwise, it's out.Anazgnos 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

humvee running[edit]

If they like shade and the humvee was driving slow they might try to stay in the shade. --Gbleem 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I could beleive that ... if they can do 10 m.p.h then that's pretty reasonable! LookingYourBest 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

spam video[edit]

Why is this considered spam? --Gbleem 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:ADS - the page is full of advertising, therefore it qualifies as link spam. Dyanega 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As a follow-up, I noticed the other video link contained ads on the page, so it will also be removed. Might as well be consistent about enforcement. If either of these were your videos, then that's a shame, but if you can find a website that does NOT contain advertising to post it on, then go ahead and do so, then link it. Dyanega 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not my video. I don't think you will not find many video posting sites that have no ads. The National Geographic link and the Snopes link have ads also. I also found this: "Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites: There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines." Wikipedia:External links--Gbleem 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't actually looked at the others - I didn't recall snopers ever having ads on their pages, but I see that they do. Guess I'll have to think over what criterion to use; it IS certainly true that the Snopes page and NG page both present a significant amount of information (where the videos don't actually say or explain anything), so I don't think they should be removed. Maybe I'll re-instate the video links, after all. I'm busy today, but maybe later. Dyanega 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
ClockC (Five years later...) That site currently doesn't have any ads, but it does receive a 'Poor' rating from WOT. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Speed[edit]

A human cannot run 30 miles per hour... 10 mph, maybe, but even that can be hard to achieve. (not Anjouli)

Not to sure about "exaggerations about their... speed". I've seen them and when they move they are blindingly fast. They aren't too big, so I would guess 10mph is about right, but that's not hanging around. It's practically impossible to catch one in a net, unless you sneak up.Anjouli 19:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, most treadmills have a maximum speed of 10 mph that a lot of people do sprint training on. Most "healthy" adults can reach up to 15 mph on average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.54.12 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As Name Implies ...[edit]

A little way down the page there is this sentence;

"As indicated by their name, Solifugae ..."

Talking about them being nocturnal - I'm a bit of a biff (I und be 'meone explain what this means, and maybe add a bit in brackets to clarify for the simple pg3 JokingYourBest|LookingYourBest]] 07:49 section.
"S"
I ask th

Incorrect Image[edit]

You guys might wish to remove the drawing of a Persian False Spider from the upper right of the page. 75.176.108.7 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As a Galeodes it is a Solifugid. Any other reasons for it being "incorrect"? Shyamal (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I can find only one reference that ever called Solifugae "false spiders", and it was published in 1901 - the very work in which this illustration was published - in the section of the book titled "False Spiders - SOLIFUGAE". So, "false spider" is an archaic "common name" for Solifugae that hasn't been used for over 100 years. There's no reason to bring it back now. Dyanega (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the image could be cropped. Shyamal (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If you know how to do that, that might certainly help. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Image bowdlerized. I guess the "natural size" needed to go anyway. Shyamal (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Size[edit]

Ive seen those Solifugaes, and they can get as large as 15 cm! 84.186.92.210 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently I've had an invasion of these things in my home. One crawling on my neck last night woke me out of a dead sleep and one just crawled across my desk (which is why I came to this article), creepy damn bastards. Luckily they only seem to get up to about 2 or 3 cm where I live in New Mexico. IJB TA (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
They really DO get fairly big, around 5-7 inches max. I came around to this from the much disputed picture of two being held by soliders. By comparing the animals to certian aspects of the pictures, (the patch was one) I figured that the lower one is at least 3 1/2 inchs. 64.134.18.24 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Camel spiders are fairly common in the California desert areas around Los Angeles, often called "wind scorpions" and "sun spiders" by locals. Typical size here is 1-2 inches but they can get bigger. I once found one in my shoe -- with my foot! -- but it didn't bite, just freaked me out. These guys like to eat other more pesky bugs so while I am likely to squish one if startled, I am going to just toss it outdoors if I can.

Stories from troops and pictures on the web show that the citation which says these only grow to 4.7 inches is whacked. This article needs a new citation from as more recent reliable source. 66.97.213.202 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"They may grow to a length of 300 mm (12 in) including legs"

What is the source of this information? Later, this article states, "They are not especially large, the biggest having a leg span of perhaps 12 cm (4.7 in)" --FreudianSlippers (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Where I live the small sizes such as 5cm or less are the plausible ones. The problem is to prove that they don't grow larger elsewhere. Also, figures are bandied about with very little indication of their basis, whether leg-tip to leg-tip of stretched specimens, or celicerae-to-posterior-tip body length. I recommend that all size figures be reduced to a statement along these lines, plus any really thoroughly documented figures with full descriptions of how they were measured. Bearing in mind the fact that there are several families of different sizes and shapes in various countries, a single figure means little anyway. This is definitely an example of where we need to apply WP citation requirements stringently. JonRichfield (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute... So you morons are claiming the maximum possible size is based off of bad estimates of size from pictures where the things pictured are clearly much larger than you're claiming? That is invalid criteria on Wikipedia! And, some of you off of species in North America, despite the huge ones in non-edited "urban legend" photos are in the Middle East! This is not authentic research at all! You're all stupid! And, Wikipedia needs to do a crack down on this page's editors for not following correct protocols in what is pushed as facts! This is awful! There's numerous wikipedia arachnid pages just awful like this! (Yeah, I'm not supposed to call you morons either... But, that's nowhere near as bad as pushing false facts to hundreds of thousands of strangers over personal stupidity!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.247.182 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Locked Page[edit]

So this page is locked because people are adding erroneous information to it on purpose or are they just confused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texhausballa (talkcontribs) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a constant stream of vandalism, mostly the urban legend crap that soldiers think is funny to put here. When every anonymous editor for four straight months is a vandal, pages tend to get protected. Dyanega (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It being different from what you see in New Mexico, or California does not make it vandalism. The fact you even think sun scorpions out here are camel spiders is ridiculous! What part of there are no camels here, do you not understand? These are not the same species of creature, even if they might be related species! To argue that a camel spider can't possibly be big just because a tiny sun scorpion isn't is like arguing that a tiger must be little because domestic cats are! Two different species, living in two different environments, in two different parts of the world! That is not vandalism! You lot should be banned for not being about facts, or science, and instead being about sun scorpions you see in your living rooms! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.247.182 (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction is too long[edit]

The introduction is too long and does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. Its content should be organized into sections and moved to the main article. Solian en (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

These things have to be alien ;0)[edit]

The structures

I just scooped one of these guys into a jar and noticed some really strange structures on its underside. From the front the structures look mushroom shaped (they looked like suction cups at first glance), from the side they look pretty much flat and are white in color. They run from where the legs attach to the body outward, and all the way up the first section of the rear most legs. I'm not able to get a good picture of this guy yet as he is still alive but I managed to get a blurry one through a jar. Anyone have any idea what these are? IJB TA (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are the "malleolar organs". They drag along the substrate as the animal walks. As far as I know their function(s) is(are) unknown. The nerve tracts that connect the malleolar organs to the rest of the nervous system are large, suggesting that they are very important to these guys.

Scorpions have similar organs called "pectin organs" in roughly the same place. In scorpions they kind of look like little wings. I did some electron microscopy of pectine organs and they appear to be sensory, but, as with the malleolar organs, the exact functions are unknown.Desoto10 (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Strage Fact[edit]

a few soliders including myself captured a Camel Spider in Shouz Afghanistan. We fed it a lizzard and out of boredom threw in a piece of a Slimjim. The Camel Spider did begin to eat the beef jerky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.85.208 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

hey spiders[edit]

Solifugae is an order of Arachnida, containing more than 1,000 described species in about 140 genera. The name derives from Latin, and means those that flee from the sun. The order is also known by the names Solpugida, Solpugides, Solpugae, Galeodea and Mycetophorae. Their common names include camel spider, wind scorpion, jerrymuglum, sun scorpion and sun spider. In southern Africa they are known by a host of names including red romans, haarskeerders and baarskeerders, the latter two relating to the belief they use their formidable jaws to clip hair from humans and animals to line their subterranean nests.[1]

Solifugae are not true spiders, which are from a different order, Araneae. Like scorpions and harvestmen, they belong to a distinct arachnid order.


I think the "Anatomy" section is slightly confusing as it is. I am offering this minor edit, primarily rearrangement with a small amount of added text. Since this page is protected, I can't edit directly: Solifugids are moderate to large arachnids, with the larger species reaching 7 centimetres (2.8 in) in length. The body is divided into a forward part, or prosoma, and a segmented abdomen. The prosoma is divided into a relatively large anterior carapace, including the animal's eyes, and a smaller posterior section. While Solifuges appear to have ten legs, they actually have eight legs. The the first pair of appendages are long pedipalps, which function as sense organs similar to insects' antennae and give the appearance of an extra pair of legs. The pedipalps terminate in eversible adhesive organs which are used for climbing and to capture flying prey. These are very strong and are used for various functions such as drinking, fighting, feeding and mating. Posterior to the pedipalps are the eight legs typical of all arachnids. The first pair of these legs are thin and short and used as tactile organs, so that only the other posterior six legs are used for running.[3] The fourth pair of legs are the longest and strongest and carry white structures called racket organs - the purpose of which is not known. [1] The most distinctive feature of Solifugae is their large chelicerae, which are longer than the prosoma. Each of the two chelicerae are composed of two articles forming a powerful pincer; each article bears a variable number of teeth. They stridulate with their chelicerae, resulting in a rattling noise.[2] Mombat (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This order seems to go by a host of names; I'm just a layman, so it would be nice if someone who's a specialist could clarify things. I added a list of alternate names from [1], although they prefer Solpugida. Solifugae seems to be the most common though. DopefishJustin (01:42, Apr 7, 2004 UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.166.10 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the pic of a a US Marine getting attacked by one[edit]

Is that legit or shopped?--ILoveSky (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bogus story (reference 6)[edit]

The final paragraph in the "Urban Legends" section needs to be significantly edited, as it references an article almost based entirely on opinion. The cited article claims that an "Afghan Spider" is not only incontrovertibly poisonous, but that it used the said poison to kill the family's dog. It is later stated in the article that the dog's death is just assumed to be attributed to a spider only a 4 year old has seen... Could a 4 year old really identify an Afghanistan Camel Spider? I'm not for removing the article's reference, but rather clearly stating how it is an example of the urban legend and exaggerated image of danger a Solfugid can present.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosthetix (talkcontribs) 10:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The referenced article appears to contradict more reliable sources for every fact in it, and barely supports the conclusion the spider caused the death of the dog (which unless it was a pup would be unheard of). Edited to clarify this. IrregularApocalypse (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Common Names[edit]

The inclusion of a list of "Common Names" or alternatively redirects for such names should be considered to assist in the finding of this article. Solifugae appear widely in many countries and can therefore be known by several common or regional names, not to mention linguistic variations.

For Example:
"Rooi Roman" (Afrikaans) or "Red Roman" (English) commonly used in Southern Africa - Rooi Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by UseYourGreymatter (talkcontribs) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reluctant reversion[edit]

provided the following:

Solifudid species are not known to be venomous, although a couple of studies confirm that during a bite of certain species, a liquid is inserted in the prey from their chelicera, which may or may not be the venom (most likely, it simply consists of digestive enzymes, however, unlike other arachnids - for example, centipedes - solifugids insert the enzymes with the first bite). It is however confirmed that solifugids descend from a highly venomous species of arthropods and share common ancestry with the centipede, which possesses deadly venom delivered by its bites.
The biting force of a solifugid is, however, the strongest amongst all arachnids, and the second strongest (to that of the Kamchatka crab) of all arthropods. It is known that if lifted while biting something, the solifugid can hold up to three times its body weight with its chelicera closed shut. While ants can drag objects ten times their weight, they are unable to lift them.

I dislike reverting contentious points and I cannot specifically deny every point made in the foregoing paragraphs quoted, (how to prove a negative?) but when left in doubt, that is what citations are for. I don't mind doing a bit of editing for slips and finger trouble (eg Solifudid) but after going through the foregoing quotes,I reckoned it wasn't worth it. Kodenamezeus, if you have support material in any form we can reasonably verify, please cite it and we can have another round at tidying it up and fitting it into context. JonRichfield (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Why is there a book on pseudoscorpion biology listed as a external link for solfuges? (Weygoldt, Peter (1969). The Biology of Pseudoscorpions. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674074255.) Makes about as much sense as including a book on hamsters in the article on dolphins. rkent, 184.76.106.37 (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable point; I had missed that one, possibly seeing it as a citation rather than just "recommended reading". I checked to confirm that it was present in the Pseudoscorpion article (it was!) and removed it from here. Thanks. JonRichfield (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If it could spout poetry, I'd understand...[edit]

This article gets about 1200 hits a day, which is about 4x more than Pindar and 10x more than Archilochus. How is a desert-dwelling spider more relevant to humanity than are the two greatest lyric poets of ancient Greece? McCnut (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An arresting question, if slightly eclectic, not to say whimsical... I had no idea the article was so popular. If asked to guess, I might have bet on one hit a day. I'll have to accelerate my intentions of improving the text; I managed to get some photographs of the malleoli the other day (α! ευτυχισμένη ημέρα!). (Not so happy actually; I got it courtesy of a neighbour who had semi-accidentally killed it when it came indoors and terrified the family; it was a beautiful big gravid female, and I still grieve at its fate. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to queuing up for my sympathy Pindar missed the bus; being dead is part of the business of classic poets, and occasions no tears. It is books on palaeontology that I cannot bring myself to read for sheer recurring horror at the thought that I shall never see all those incredibly beautiful and fascinating creatures alive and functional. As for the relevance to humanity, to begin with all of Archilochus and Pindar, not to mention some other lyric poets of ancient Greece, are dead. Some Solifugae are alive. They also are more engaging and interesting than the poets, with greater delicacy, sensitivity, speed and zest. They endure longer and make less noise and with less pretention. They don't drop shields and pretend that that is all in order. We keep learning new things about them. In such senses they spout poetry that neither of the late lamented Attic gentlemen could aspire to Or were they really Attic? Pindar I reckon, but Archilochus probably was probably not up to Paros, I reckon.
Ummm... I do admit that I suspect that the majority of the 1200 hits are for the thrill and yuck factor, by readers who commonly think Solifugae are spiders, and I deplore this at least as deeply as you might deplore a preference for a "Pindar rules OK" or "I <red heart icon> Pindar" T-shirt to a book of his poetry in parallel Greek-English text, or who think a pindar is a crisp Bengali pastry or a sculpture from a Jain temple. To coin a phrase, the poets are already reduced to silence by the disinclination of the multitude for elegant learning.
But in sum yes; I think it is largely because Pindar and Archilochus are still deader than the Solifugae. JonRichfield (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. You grieve for a dead arachnid but you laugh at the deceased bards? Don't pick on a poet, even a dead one, or he'll rise up and bite you. My sympathy however for your neighbour. Nothing so messy as a semi-accidental killing. Do it with intent or don't do it at all, I say! It's kinder that way. Now, where is that arachnid I saw a few hours ago? Ah there he is. Must go.:} McCnut (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, I don't laugh very loud. Some of the risibility arises from the impossibility of fair translation; though of small Latin and less Greek, and fluent in two modern languages plus the veriest smatterings, I do not suffer from the complete language blindness that I have observed among many of my contemporaries, and I went to WP for samples of Pindar. Speaking as an entomologist of a day, I assume that the translation "Creatures of a day" was something like "Ephemera" in the original? As for the rest of the verse, I find it hard to take it seriously on reflecting on the triumphs of a soccer crowd or the annual obsequies for say, the fallen of WWI. Oh well...
Meanwhile a Solifugid upped with his own reaction to being slighted. He might not rival archy the cockroach, but at least, being larger and with lighter keys to deal with, he could manage the capitals, not having to deal with Don Marquis' old Remington:
A Solifugid lamented being mute
He had mastered no song and no lute
What's this poetry about
That Pindar can spout?
I think stridulation is cute!
Cheers, lunch beckons! JonRichfield (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Creature of a day, you got that right. ἐπάμεροι It's the Aeolic form of 'ephemeral'. Your verse-skills are just about OK for an arachnophile but I can do better.:

Last night a Solifugid sang to me
(Or maybe it was a soliloquy)
About how short life is, à la John Keats,
Beating the rhythm out with its eight feets
While I pressed down on it with one of mine;
We reached an octave nearer the Divine
And then the cherub gave a little Pop!
At which the song came to a sudden stop.
Arachnophiles might call it stridulation
But it looked to me like evisceration.

Now that is poetry. McCnut (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! The puir wee sleekit, cowering, timourous (slightly rapacious) beastie! I hope he stuck to your sole and took hours to clean off. Oh well, poetry seems to revel in the pointless poignancy of tragedy and disaster, so your specimen seems true to type. My wife and I enjoyed it, so thanks. Go well, JonRichfield (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Greek poets were very combative (in fact ancient Greeks as a rule tended to fight over everything) and I blame them for my misbehaviour here, if I have overstepped the mark. Thanks for locking horns! McCnut (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No more than I did; it's been fun. Pity I don't know of any extant anthologiser of comic and curious verse, like J.M. Cohen in the 1950-1960s. JonRichfield (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading this...[edit]

...from a CNN article (referenced here): The desert-dwelling camel spider, actually an insect rather than an arachnid... Per WP:BOLD I decided to make it clear in the lead that they are not insects -- believe it or not some otherwise reputable reporters actually use WP for background "research".

  • Added: They are not insects, and are related to, but are not true spiders.
  • Also corrected a minor grammar-logic problem in 1st sentence.

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail disinformation[edit]

I have reverted a claim that a British soldier's infection was the result of a Solifugid bite; the symptoms don't match anything a Solifugid bite might resemble. The effects might well be some kinds of snakebite or some kinds of spider-bite, such as some of the Sicariidae, but the only evidence adduced was the opinion of the soldier who not only was no naturalist, but said himself that he never saw what bit him. As for the remark that they might carry horrible diseases because of their carrion eating, that is as relevant to Solifugae as the fact that "His (Carnarvon's) death is most probably explained by blood poisoning (progressing to pneumonia) after accidentally shaving a mosquito bite infected with erysipelas" is to mosquito bites or razors. The entry had no value to the article and I deleted it. This is just in case anyone was in doubt about why. JonRichfield (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not a credible source either. Just like the folks talking about sun scorpions in their house, expecting all species on Earth to match that are not credible sources. Where is this refusal to ccept the possibility of their being big, and maybe even dangerous camel spiders coming from? I can't help but assume it's to do with prejudice against Middle Easterners. Some kind of weird pride thing? They can't have giant arachnids in the Middle East because people akin to just-now-made-up Joe in Wyoming don't like people there? I have to assume this is it, because NONE of you are using citations, and proofs to support your decisions to write off camel spiders as explicitly an urban legend, and push anecdotal stuff about North American sun scorpions that are likely far-from close cousins to camel spiders in the Middle East. How TF this page isn't locked down over the lot of you, with the lot of you reprimanded/punished in some way is beyond me, as things like having good citations as proof are usually top priority on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.247.182 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Really Entomology?[edit]

I'm NOT suggesting it should be taken out because apparently it is true but do we really need a specialized word for part or segment called "tagmata" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(biology)

  1. REDIRECT tagmata

Does Entomology want an entirely separate vocabulary like another language? Perhaps we could call it Entish? Q: Perhaps it's an attempt to use all Latin instead of Latin and English? A: It's Greek so apparently not. I actually may like it because Greek root words give glimpses into the ancient Greek mind. It just reminds me of the Catholic Church somehow.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdwomack (talkcontribs) 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Better image?[edit]

As a reader who'd never heard of these creatures before, I managed to get to the end of the article only to be surprised that their physical appearance was called "bizarre".

To my mind, the pictures currently on the page don't give a very clear idea to me as a newcomer to the subject, as there are no clear full-body photos. To me, a picture more like this would have been helpful: http://biologypop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kapak.jpg

Or perhaps this? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p0pMzlb3rco/TzkIr4ETuoI/AAAAAAAAHuk/Q9f9AYDY1FY/s1600/Camel-Spider3.jpg

Unfortunately, I don't know where to find some good public domain pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.134.1 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a larger, clearer image to the taxobox that shows the full body. Other images can be found at WikiCommons. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Dippenaar, A. 1993. Sunspiders - some interesting facts. African Wildlife. 47(3): 120-122.