Talk:Tarantula

Image

Can we get a smaller version of the image to put inline, with a clickable link to larger version below it? The current one is way too big to be inline. --Delirium 21:54 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

thanks for revising my text

Thank you two for changing my mistakes and for revising the order to the better. I am dyslectic so I easily make mistakes, but I thought the plural of Tarantula was Tarantulae, not 's. The new order is also better. I added the sub chapter names more as an afterthought, so it need a change of name.

The image was not mine, and I don't have a tarantula of my own, so I can't make a good one and I can't find a good one from the internet that is public domain.

The genus and subfamily list is maybe a bit to long. First I added 25 common genus's, but then I wanted to add the subfamilies and I tried to rearrange the genus's into the families, then I found out that one subfamily (speleo-something) has been removed and the cave-tarantula's had been added to another family. Not sure which Genus's should stay in there. Also the sub-families don't look good in that list, something should be changed about it, but I am nt sure what. User:Magraggae 19:45, 13 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

Hi, I don't know who changed "tarantulae" to "tarantulas". What you thought is right, so I changed it back.

What is wrong with the image? It is a perfectly normal tarantula, mine in fact.

Ah, I see now. You are looking at Delerium's message, which is about a year old. Don't worry, somebody fixed the image size problem. P0M

One of the people who has done a lot on the Spider article is an authority on scientific nomenclature. He has done a lot to straighten out naming on that page. The problem is that the names get revised from time to time, and if you don't have the latest sources you can easily get an out-dated name. (I started trying to straighten things out before the expert came on the scene, and I can testify that it is a real mess.) Maybe I can get the expert to look at this page. P0M 08:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the picture, but that text said somethign was wrong with it, so I just replied. Looks good to me. I added the kingdom, phylum stuff. I added the families that I could find out of the most recent information I could find. However I am not an expert, but I think it is pretty recent (this stuff changes so fast because there is soo much we don't know yet). Maybe someone could get some pictures of other more colourfull species as an example how they can also look? lauches hairs into the hair ROFL, thanks for noticing that and fixing it to air :x User:Magraggae 13:25, 14 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

Picture

Tarantula

Tarantula

[comment by an anonymous user moved from the article page] The picture to the right is not that of a tarantula, but an enlarged picture of a jumping spider. The person that put the picture of the jumping spider up on this site stating that it is a tarantula is mistaken and is now miseducating the interested masses who are coming to this great site to get good, factual information about tarantulae.

He's right, I think. Sure looks like a jumper; I've removed the image and put it here, so as not to orphan it. -- Hadal 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. Probably a Phidippus. The depth of field on the picture is not too good, but it's a good picture because it shows the spider looking around trying to figure out what kind of a critter the photographer is. When I find my big book of Phidippus pix I'll see whether I can pin it down further. I wrote a note on the images page for that photo indicating that it isn't a tarantula. P0M 08:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, good to know... The site said to tarantula, so don't hold it against me personally. -- user:zanimum

oh uh, here's an (unverified) anecdote

From Austin, Texas: http://austin.craigslist.org/rnr/209754888.html

Fossil record

I find it strange that the infobox says Theraphosidae originated as late as the Neogene, especially without citing a source. Many families of spiders are considerably older. I have in my head that Theraphosidae date back at least to the Carboniferous but know no reliable source. The Fossil record section of the article claims that fossils of mygalomorph spiders date back to the Triassic, with two specimens convincingly assigned to the Theraphosidae, but also cites no source. Shinryuu (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shinryuu: This normally very reliable source says on p. 144 "Cretaceous – Recent", but when you look at the three species, they are all labelled "Ne" for Neogene.

@Shinryuu: Actually, there's an error in the line for Protertheraphosa spinipes in this source. If you look in the References section on p. 324, "Wunderlich, J. 2020b" is a paper with the title "New and already described fossil spiders (Araneae) of 20 families in mid and late Cretaceous Burmese amber with notes on spider phylogeny, evolution and classification". The paper is online here; the species description for Protertheraphosa spinipes starts on p. 44. It's clear that Dunlop et al. should say "K Burmese amber" not "Ne Dominican amber". So we can say that currently the earliest known fossil member of the Theraphosidae is Protertheraphosa spinipes, dated to the Cretaceous. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, that seems to make more sense, thank you very much! Now someone should probably tell Dunlop et al. ;-) Shinryuu (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shinryuu: I have e-mailed the World Spider Catalog. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)