Talk:Tarantula/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unverified name changes

Please do not change identifications on these pages unless you have done your homework. Somebody changed the identification of the main image to "Chaco Golden Knee...", which is incorrect. See a clear image of that species (same genera as the pictured spider, but with clear "golden knee" bands) by Googling for images, e.g., http://homepage.ntlworld.com/the.tarantula.store/gal-G.aureostriata.JPG P0M 19:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The same user has changed the name again. I have communicated with the V.P. of the American Tarantula Society who is a better judge than I (or the other contributor), and his judgment is that any assignment to species by means of a photograph is imprecise. The store from which I bought the spider identified it as G. rosea, and I kept this spider for more than 10 years and saw it under various lighting conditions. I have shared the e-mail message from Mr. Schultz (the aforesaid V.P.) with the other contributor, who has made no reply to my message. Therefore I am changing the identification to G. species as a compromise. P0M 02:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of offending someone, I'll weigh in on this one. First, it is difficult to make specific this is asumeyo VINOD

really know what they have) the identification of this as Grammostola rosea is as reasonable as one can make. It is possible that it is a related species, but almost certainly NOT the Chaco Golden Knee (also called the Chaco Giant Golden Stripe on the web - common names for tarantulae seem to be very mutable.) In any case, as a professional arachnologist (admittedly a specialist in the Salticidae and "clubionoid" families) I see no reason to avoid calling it Grammostola rosea (which it certainly resembles), or as a compromise, Grammostola sp. I would totally avoid a common name as I really do not think that they are sufficiently stable for that. Tarantulae are hard to identify and I really don't like the tendency to trivialize that issue.User:Richman 11 Apr 2005

Funnel web tarantulae?

The various "funnel web tarantulae" (such as the deadly Sydney funnel-web spider) seem to also be known as "tarantulae"; yet no mention of them on this page. At least they deserve a mention?

--EngineerScotty 20:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody just argued vehemently (on another article's talk page) against calling the "cousins" tarantulae at all. Ideally the Taxonomy box should clue people in, but maybe we need something like the "finder" maps where, in the lower left corner of a map of Nebraska, for instance, there is a little map of the US with a colored spot in the middle to represent Nebraska. The name "Tarantula" originally didn't even apply members of this Suborder, it was the name of a kind of wolf spider. Then it came to be used for the Theraphosidae, and now (at least on Wikipedia) it has been broadened to include about half of the "cousins" of the Theraphosidae. The Germans and the Chinese call the Theraphosidae "bird-eating spiders". I don't know offhand whether they even have special names for the other Families.

One of the things that I have tried to do to make things less abstract is to find pictures that we can use of a representative of each Family. Lucky for me I found an "atypical tarantula" right on my front porch. But there are lot of other Families among the spiders for which nobody has donated images. We're lucky to have a photo of the Brazillian Wandering Spider, for instance, but the copyright owner won't make it available on Wikipedia Commons so I can't put it up on the Chinese spider article. People who own tarantulae as pets, to the contrary, have provided loads and loads of images.

A thumbnail picture of one representative of each of the Families in this Suborder might make a good "finder map" -- especially if we could make the sizes proportional. An "atypical tarantula" is much smaller than any of the Theraphosidae. Maybe if somebody were to provide good drawings of the lesser photographed Family representatives we could get around not having legal photos. (I have a very good Brazilian wandering spider that I copied from a website because I just liked its looks. Now the whole site has disappeared and I have no way of tracking down the copyright owner. That's one of the sad things about the WWW -- books may last for hundreds of years, but a website can disappear and not leave a trace. P0M 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Chicken-eating tarantulae

Did anyone else see the Public TV program on the so-called "chicken-eating tarantula" early a.m. on 26 September 2005? Having been bitten by a couple of rather small jumping spiders (for just cause, unlawful imprisonment in fact), I was irritated by the amateur researcher's claim that most spiders are too small to bite, fangs are too short to pierce human skin, etc. (He should examine the fangs of the full-grown Latrodectus mactans on my coffee table. I can see her fangs only under fairly strong magnification. They appear to be at maximum about 1 mm. long. But even he knows that female Latrodectus species spiders all are perfectly able to give the errant human something to think about.)

Anyway, he went deep into the Amazon where he found and photographed one very large spider. The trouble is, it all went by too fast for me to get a clear idea of the spider's size. He was filming in the dark, so the lighting was highly contrasty, lots of shadows. And of course he didn't put her against a white background with an inch grid on it. If I remember correctly he estimated her fangs at about 1/2 inch long. To me, the spider appeared to make a good handfull for him. (He reached down and grabbed it and held it up to the camera.} I found a couple of websites with photos. The article on one website says they meaured a length of 95mm and a leg-span of 250mm. The websites have daytime photos, but nothing to judge lengths by.But a veriaty of Spiders are sold to children with may be moust dangerous if they are not treted propoly and may be venomous if not devenomed it can inject venomis liquid in to the blood stream and can over tiime kill the victom of the bite.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/deepjungle/episode2_nicholas.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/spiderman.shtml

Well, at least he should have been satisfied by now that there is at least one spider in the world large enough to bite -- probably could have bitten through his shoe. ;-) P0M 02:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Swimming Tarantuas

can someone plz add a section about tarantulae and swimming? whole research can be found here: http://atshq.org/articles/swimming.pdf --sin-man 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a link instead of trying to address the question with a special section. There are some spiders that actually swim. Walking on water does not fit the definition of swimming. The biggest item of interest w/ regard to tarantulae is how large a spider can be and still be supported by the surface tension of the water. "Swimming" in this manner is something that many, maybe even most, spiders can do. One of the ways that I use to try to hold spiders on a little stage to be photographed is to overturn a small bowl in a larger bowl of water so that the spider is surrounded by a moat. It is surprising how many spiders will strike out across the water barrier without any hesitation. wow that is surprising!!

There is a fascinating species (one that occurs in Europe but, as far as I know, not in the U.S.) that lives its life in a kind of silken diving bell under water. Periodically it swims to the top, does a kind of flip, and comes down again with a bubble of fresh air to take into its dome. Those spiders really swim. P0M 18:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation for the great work done on this site

I saw this site link as a sample site worth visting link on Wikiproject_Arthropods. It's blown me away. It demonstrates the superiority of the collaborative principle over the single authors principle (Cathedral & the Bazaar, a la Eric Raymond). I just loved it too much and immediately wanted to thank and congratulate you all on behalf of the world! Well done & keep it up! AshLin 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

I've done a bit (OK, a lot) of refactoring on the page; primarily moving sections around. In particular, the bit about the wolf spiders was moved to the bottom; I've tried to make this page primarily about true tarantulae. Other sections have been rearranged to make the article flow better.

I've also tried to clean up some unencyclopedic tone in various parts of the article.

One other suggestion. The German Wikipedia article, de:Vogelspinnen, contains a lot of detail that the English article does not (plus a great picture of a tarantula climbing a glass window). 'Twould be great if someone, der besser als mich deutsch sprechen kann, could translate the German text into here. I attempted a translation of Ornithoctoninae but it needs work.

Hope folks don't mind.

--EngineerScotty 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where can they legally be kept?

This article does not provide any information on where in the world Tarantulae can be kept as pets, does anyone have any information on this? Night Bringer

Keeping them is legal in most parts of the world; though importing them may be trickier. I know they can be legally kept in most of the US; I can't really comment about anywhere else. --EngineerScotty 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember a discussion on a tarantula list-serv that was started by somebody in Australia (?) who complained that he had a widow spider in his house, didn't want it to be where his kids could get bitten, did want to study it, but was forbidden by law from putting it in a bottle.

There are restrictions of some sort on who can keep certain kinds of invertebrates in Florida. You can find Todd Gearheart's commercial site (he sells tarantulae and other spiders, etc.), and read his limitations on the sales of certain items. (It's also one of a very few sites that give information on which spiders have bites that will set you back a bit, spiders he won't sell to juveniles, etc.) If I recall clearly, people have to have a license or a certification to keep certain kinds of creatures -- probably they are worried about introducing new things into their ecology.

More and more tarantulae are being classified as endangered and are, or will soon be, available in the U.S. only through captive breeding programs. P0M 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thermographic Image

Variations of this image keep getting added with no context, explanation, etc. I've been removing b/c they are disruptive to the article. I'm not opposed to this (or some version of it) being added, but it must be made to fit into the article. What information is it adding or enhancing? What is it supposed to tell us about a Tarantula? Aboverepine 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox image

I replaced Image:Tarantula.jpg in the infobox -- this quality of this image is too poor (blurry, and has weird artifacting around the spider's body) to use as the lead image. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

subfamilies

It seems that the categorization into subfamilies is accurate and up to date, just wanted to mention that i'm working on bringin subfamilies into the spider family pages systematically. i use Joel Hallan's pages, here's the one for Theraphosidae, in case somebody wants to compare the two. --Sarefo 00:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I nominated this article solely because someone rated it as A class and that is above GA. Generally an article has to be a GA before it's rated A class. Personally I think it needs more inline citations as it has 3 now. We'll see what the reviewer decides though. Quadzilla99 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• One thing for sure: It's got legs. Wahkeenah 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ? Quadzilla99 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, to say something has "legs" means it has endurance, strength, "staying power". As does this article, apparently... as well as its subject. ::::) Wahkeenah 05:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this off-line before seeing the class and notes above. It confirms my analysis, even though the article was already class "A". Here's how I measured it against the good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Nicely done. Strategy for red links? Remove species of spiders and other red links except for the latin family names so they will link as the rest of the geneologies are filled in. This seems a good balance between removing red links and facing reality that it's a lot of work to put those links in manually as they come on line. IMHO. The article also should be a little more aggressive on wikilinks throughout.

2. Factually accurate?: Lacking adequate footnotes. For the length, only 3 footnotes isn't aggressive enough. This is the show-stopper for G.A. status IMHO. The other issues would not eliminate the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: Amazingly broad and thorough. Nominate for Feature Article after the GA issues dealt with!

4. Neutral point of view?: Ok.

5. Stable?: Verify stability.

6. Images?: Verify fair use rationale for all photos/graphics.

Resubmit soon, this one's a shoe in after item 2 is resolved! — Kghusker 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Several problems

Somebody recently put in a great deal of nonsense. In the process of trying to correct all of the junk (apparently it had gotten put in over several weeks), I discovered that the article contains lots of repetition and several possible inaccuracies. Please have a look at the article with a critical eye.

Also, I noticed that there is a difference of opinion regarding sub-families names. Is it currently Thrigmopoeinae or Selenogyrinae? P0M 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just read through it and while it's a nice read it has some glaring issues in terms of... insertion of point of view comments, insertion of original research, and insertion of unsupported claims. It is also contradictory to itself at some points. [Wednesday, 2007-04-04 T 08:08 UTC]

Strange Opinions.

Someone has added a lot of really bizarre opinions to this page. I cleared out one of them - the statement that a tarantula is a "sexy pet" - but some of the others are so bizarre that I can't quite figure out how to fix them. Could someone please help with this?

There's also a reference to the tarantula's "hot legs" in there, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emptyandgray (talk • contribs) 07:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Down graded article

I'm down grading this article to B class until someone fixes up the body type section, which is way to long, unwikified and needs copyediting. Feel free to help out and then move this article back to A-class. St.isaac 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is wayyyyyyyyyyyy too long, especially with all of the links that go nowhere. XU-engineer 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tarantula Page

I've decided to take on the mess that is the tarantula page. It's too long, full of buried vandalism, unreferenced, etc. I've pulled it into my sandbox to start. I'm putting in the wiki links and cleaning out unnecessary content, fixing style, etc, to start. I'll tackle the references after that. I've only gotten thru the first few sections but I'll keep cranking away. I'm being fairly aggressive so if anyone sees something that should be put back, let me know.

Anyway, the main reason I'm posting here is that the article review comments mention splitting up the body section. I'm not sure what to do there. I'm going to remove the taxonomy section because we have the list already. Should each section on the body just reference a main article? Thoughts? Anyone have a good model page that the tarantula page should be aspiring to? Aboverepine 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Spiders?

I may have misheard my guide, but at a recent school field trip to the zoo, I was told that tarantulae aren't actually spiders (I forget exactly why, although I think the direction of their fangs had something to do with it). Was I misinformed? 68.207.177.57 00:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarantulae are definitely spiders, belonging to the family Mygalomorphae, their fangs do not cross. This is different from 'true' (sometimes called modern) spiders which are of the family Araneomorphae, their fangs do cross. Most spiders extant today are 'true' spiders. See the taxonomy section of the spider article. Aboverepine 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

can tarantulae jump? how far?

Somebody put this topic up, but didn't sign and didn't say anything about it.

Tarantulae can jump. One of the biology professors at my university has an ultra high speed TV camera with which she has photographed tarantulae capturing prey. I saw one of her movies, the one in which a cricket approached a tarantula from behind. The cricket did not actually initiate contact with the tarantula. As soon as it came fairly near something alerted the spider and she jumped completely out of contact with the floor of the cage, switched directions in mid air, and came down in good position to capture and bite the spider -- all is one smooth motion.

Female

A friend of mine claims, and I have no reason to doubt his veracity, that when he and his girlfriend came back from a hike in the mountains in the southwest part of the U.S. they noticed a tarantula walking across the parking lot. Thinking that it would be a kindness to shoo the tarantula out of harm's way, my friend began to pelt the tarantula with sand or litter from the surface of the parking lot. Rather than thanking him for his good wishes, the spider jumped on his hand (my impression is that it was from a distance of a couple of feet) and bit him. He has long maintained a resentful attitude toward that spider, but I believe that she escaped the scene in the confusion that followed her retaliatory act.

The G. rosea that I kept for a dozen years was incredibly strong for her body weight. Her cage was divided into two areas by a vertical wall pierced by a 2.5 inch hole cut out by a lock-mounting drill -- the kind that leaves you with a circular plug. The wall was made of compressed wood chips, so it was really dense and the plug weighed far more than the spider. But putting the plug back in the hole was not an effective way to keep her out of the second part of her cage. When she wanted to go in there she would just pull the plug out. She moved regally except in the 1/25 second bursts of activity she used to pounce on prey, so I think she had both the power and the speed to jump a fairly great distance. But in all the time I had her she was never motivated to jump.

If you Google "arboreal tarantula" and "jump" you will find several references to the fact that these lighter-bodied tarantulae can jump pretty well.

--Jesses555 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Terrestrial tarantulae do not jump. Falling even a few inches onto a hard surface can rupture and kill a tarantula. Arboreal tarantulae will jump and leap. Also, if your friend tried to shoo me by throwing sand and rocks at me, I'd bite him too. Also I've never heard of a tarantula jumping on someone's hand and biting them.

Hairs? Other major edits

--Jesses555 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm removing several sentences and some whole paragraphs due to redundant and possibly wrong information.

There needs to be some agreement about "hairs." Tarantulae do not have hair, they have setae. There should be a single sentence explaining this, and then every reference to "hair" needs to either be quoted (since they don't have hair) or changed to "setae."

AFIAK, all new world tarantulae have urticating hairs, so I'm not sure why only four genus were listed. I took out the references to the four genuses and replaced it with "new world tarantulae." If I'm confused about this then please undo my edits there.

Also, I was under the impression that urticating hairs contain a small amount of the substance found in their venom, which is what causes them to irritate. If this has been proven incorrect then please remove my edit and add a citation.

I removed several paragraphs about male reproductive habits from the "Ecdysis" section, since reproduction has it's own section. I didn't move the paragraphs into the reproductive section because I'd have to rewrite that entire section in order to incorporate it and make sense. I'll leave that to someone else.

Removed the last paragraph from the "Reproduction" section since that paragraph relates only to keeping Avics communally. That has absolutely nothing to do with reproduction, and it's factually wrong anyway.

This is a pretty good article overall. The main problems are the whole paragraphs of information that have nothing to do with the section they're in (example, reproductive habits inside the section on molting). There is also a lot of redundant and some contradictory information which needs to be fixed. Much more cleanup and fact checking is needed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesses555 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote from TV show "Bones"?

"Tarantula hair has been used as the main ingredient in the novelty item "itching powder"." This is a direct quote from last nights episode of bones. Has anybody got a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.161.221 (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information

Tarantulae, as well as other spiders, have a large history of poor reputations, tall tales, and misconceptions. I'm surprised that nothing of this has been added, I might come around and do that myself.

I'm also surprised that there is no TOXICITY portion to this article. What the hell?? Everybody is asking me "are they venomous?" ...The answer is yes, but no. All spiders have venom, but the venom in Tarantulae is relatively harmless (unless one is allergic, in that case the victim tends to develop anaphylactic shock). Although some genuses have proven to possess "medically significant" venom, there have been no reported deaths from a tarantula bite.

G.Egebrecht (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Six pairs of appendages?

A tarantula has 4 pairs of legs but 6 pairs of total appendages. [...] The seventh and eighth pairs of appendages are the four spinnerettes, which also are hypothesized by some to have been leglike appendages.

Shouldn't that be 8 pairs of total appendages? Autopilot 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Natural prey

Under the section "Habitat and behavior" I expected to see what the various species of Tarantula eat in the wild. -Wfaxon 01:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose something might be added, but as far as I know the tarantulae will eat just about anything that moves and is in the right size range. I haven't tried it myself, but I have read that if a minnow is put in a tarantula's water bowl she will capture and eat it. Many people feed their tarantulae the occasional new-born mouse, and some spiders have even been called "chicken-eating tarantulae." I saw the TV program by a supposed expert. He said many things that I didn't agree with, but he did travel to somewhere in S. America (?) and visit a village where "chickens" were supposedly carried off by tarantulae. I got the impression that the demised were not full-grown Cornish game cocks or anything of the sort. Maybe baby chicks? But, anyway, the only insects that are disliked by most spiders are ants, and then there are some ants that are the special prey of some spiders. Many spiders eat bees despite their lethal venom. Many wasps collect spiders for baby wasp food, and I've read that the spiders seem to be hypnotized (?) by the wasps, i.e., they don't avoid them as one would expect.

I can't imagine tarantulae eating fruit flies. They would be much too small to capture. It would be like a human trying to catch a rat in his/her mouth. You could do it, but only if the rat was drugged or something.

What I have noticed is that arboreal tarantulae seem to be much more interested in moths than in crickets. Conversely, a burrow-dwelling tarantula would be unlikely to find many butterflies walking around on the ground in front of its burrow.

Except for cases where spiders have prey for which they seem to be especially adapted or there is at least some word of mouth preference (Huntsman spiders are said to snack on cockroaches and to be welcome in homes for that reason), I haven't ever seen much written on their natural diet.

Web weavers will eat anything that is not so large that it can break out of the web. Some of the Nephilla have such sturdy webs that they can catch and eat sparrows or other small birds -- or maybe they just kill them to protect their webs from further damage.

I haven't heard of spiders eating snakes, lizards, or slugs. P0M 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They will eat small lizards. Aboverepine 23:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a few genera of spiders that have particular prey preferences, but tarantulae seem to be satisfied if it is about the right size and is moving. P0M 00:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tarantulae will consume anything within their body size, or slightly larger. I have heard of more aggressive eating (not aggressive disposition, but let's call it a "hearty appetite") species such as Lasiodora Parahybana killing large, venomous snakes.

The reason "fruit flies" may have been brought up is because it is a very plentiful and effective food source for spiderlings throughout the hobby. It is a species of Drosophila that has no wings, hence the name "flightless fruit fly." However, wild spiderlings will eat anything, as stated above, that is of their body (Thorax + Abdomen length as a rule of thumb) size. Anoles are also a common feeder for aboreals as variety, as MANY aboreal tarantulae in the wild are seen eating lizards, birds, and even bats. Check Rick West's website, there are several pictures showing this.

Prey being the body size of the Tarantula is not set in stone; Spiders are very capable of subduing much larger prey then themselves. Rodents and some reptilian species seem to be extremely reactive to the venom, dying withing just seconds of being bitten.

G.Egebrecht (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

I notice the popular culture section was deleted. While I agree it is not directly relevant to the topic at hand, there are a great many articles that include such a section (when a separate article is not warranted). Is there an official policy on this matter? If not, I am inclined to resurrect the deleted section. Shultzc (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article's pop culture section, but it was likely removed as being too trivial. Most pop culture sections are like this, and they do need to be removed, and the notable things salvaged. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by me

Hi everyone, I recently made several changes to the article, that I felt seemed like improvements. I am not an expert on the Tarantula, so most of my edits were focused on formatting and removing stuff that seemed like it didn't belong. I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes here. If so, I am sorry.

It seems to me that the article is unorganized and has a lot of redundant information. I am not saying it does not have lots of potential, because it does. This article should be of high priority to whoever belongs to any wikiproject that has to do with spiders, so I am surprised to see that this is NOT a featured article. Anyway, good luck to anyone making improvements to the article. P337 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am doing a tarantula project and I am disapointed to say that someone has severely screwed up the tarantula page and I am extremely pissed off. I also want to thank wikipedia for supplying me with such wonderful information.

Vandalism now corrected - Adrian Pingstone 08:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I would correct it myself but Im not that technologicaly oriented and so therfore would likely end up screwing up the page. I might wnt to add some vital information about the tarantulae body to the site this is strait from my report and i encourage tarantula lovers to edit this information as much as they think needs to happen.

The page has been getting vandalised quite a bit lately. I and others fix it as soon as it's noticed. Regarding any info you want to see added, feel free to edit. If you're more comfortable, you can post what you think should be added on the talk page and others can take a look and add it, etc. --Aboverepine 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone using only an IP address has claimed Tarantulae are not spiders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds incorrect. Neon9nine (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Behavior/Intelligence

I would like to see a section discussing this area. In a article some years ago, there were anecdotes that seemed to show that Tarantulae could do things like unscrew jars and sort sand into different colors. The scientist interviewed in this article seemed skeptical about such behavior but I would like to know what the current view is. Have Tarantulae been tested for learning ability?Jrm2007 (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some experiments on spider intelligence that I've seen recently. I don't know about tarantula intelligence. Sorting pebbles by color has been reported, as you suggest, but I have never seen picture, nor have I seen descriptions of how the tarantulae go about it. The first Grammostola rosea I kept was able to remove a two inch diameter pressboard plug in the side wall of her cage to get into a tube that led to a large exercise area. She was also good at muscling her way out of cages by lifting the lids. So it seems to me that, especially in the first case, she had to have had a memory of where the plug and door was.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/stalking-spiders has the information you mentioned, but it is anecdotal. But the scientist interviewed for that article is doing his own research, so keep an eye out for what he may publish in the future. P0M (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Patrick, thanks for the reply. It looks like you have some evidence for learning in spiders! I have observed a spider cautiously remove a blade of grass put in its web; when the grass was replaced by me a few seconds later, the spider's response was almost instant (with apparent scorn, but I am sure I am anthropomorphizing...), so some evidence of memory, I think.

I think that while pebble sorting might be hard to see, there must be many easy experiments to perform. My intuition is that spiders should have some learning ability, maybe surprising levels. There is a spider that tries different hunting strategies -- this has been documented.

Tarantulae specifically ought to be smart as spiders go based upon longevity -- why wouldn't something that can have many experiences be able to benefit therefrom?Jrm2007 (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

People who raise tarantulae and are interested in taking them into schools or other places where they may decondition people with irrational fears of spiders have given the recommendation that one take along a tarantula that has become accustomed to being taken out of its cage, allowed to run over one's hand, etc. They clearly believe that tarantulae can learn that no harm will befall them.

The same G. rosea I mentioned above lived in a terrarium right above my computer keyboard and screen, so I could watch it as I worked. Once I put a dried pear peeling that had dried into a long cylinder a little like a cinnamon "stick" into her cage. She did not want it where I had left it, near the front right corner of the 2 x 3 foot surface. She tried to carry it away, but she picked it up so that she was carrying it perpendicular to the way she wanted to move. The result was that her front legs would knock it out of her chelicerae as soon as she took a step. As I watched in fascination, she tried several times to pick it up. Finally she got a hold on it that made it trail between her legs, and without any pause or hesitation she carried in to the diagonally opposite corner of the terrarium and dropped it. I wrote everything out as I sat there watching her. To me it seemed that she had a clear plan in mind, the intention to get the stick out of her way, and that once she positioned herself appropriately she carried out her plan. Once the plan was completed she went back to the area where she liked to stand.

This is almost amazing: That she tried multiple times and finally "hit upon" something that worked (although this might be by chance) is remarkable. There are insects that cannot modify their behavior at all, I believe. For example, the Tarantula Hawk will not drag a paralyzed Tarantula by any body part other than a specific leg (as I recall) -- if that leg is removed, the Hawk cannot improvise.

Lobsters, another long-lived invertebrate, seem to be able to remember other lobsters to whom they have lost in combat and avoid them. I wonder about the "thought processes" of the beetles that mate with female while two larger beetles are fighting -- how does it know that it should not be fighting? The Scorpion Fly presents a fly to a female but if a fly in unavailable, it does something else.

In general, we are finding out more and more about intelligence in animals and how it does not strictly correlate to brain size. It could be argued that parrots are just below humans in intelligence and yet have dinky brains. And of course, lobsters and spiders do not have brains at all really.--Jrm2007 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-5967.2003.tb00059.x

Spiders have a CNS, and they have structures that are doing "brain work" but are not like the brains of vertebrates. It's sort of a matter of definition, at least for the authors of the article cited above. P0M (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course -- what I meant was that something not only small but even not clearly a brain might result in something like intelligence.Jrm2007 (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a sensible experiment would be to determine whether a tarantula could solve the lady and the tiger problem if "lady" was written on one door and "tiger" was written on the other. Actually, I guess it would have to be "cricket" and "nothing." The tarantula I had was perfectly able to open doors, so the next step would be to determine whether another G. rosea could learn to react appropriately to an arbitrary symbol. The costs for the experiment would be limited to a large wooden box, a drill such as is used to saw a circular hole in a door to install a lock in, a couple of smaller boxes to attach on the other sides of these doors, a G. rosea (and they are among the least expensive tarantulae), and a ready supply of crickets. I think the tarantula would have to be trained that when put into the large box she could find a juicy cricket behind the appropriately marked door. She would get a sign of the cricket's presence from its motion, so when the tarantula had learned to head toward the marked door first then the experiment could be performed without the cricket's really being there. I guess you would have to give her five or six crickets, then give her a blank to see which door she would try, and then give her another five or six crickets before trying a pure symbol-recognition test again. Otherwise the spider might get discouraged. Another factor that would make this a long term experiment is that tarantulae do not get hungry every day. P0M (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a very practical experiment.Jrm2007 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that a large Avicularia of unknown species seems to know the location of the door in her cage. Once a web weaving spider found its way into her "window frame" cage, and she was really upset by getting tangled in its sticky web. She was moving all over the cage in an agitated way. I opened the door and she came out in a straight line trip from a couple feet away. She walked right onto my hand and let me put her in a temporary cage while I cleaned the web and its weaver away. Later she went back in from my hand and through the door. Ordinarily when I open the door to clean her water dish or push a moth in she makes no move toward it. P0M (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Error in the name of the Lycosa T. ?

I recall that the correct binomial name for the 'Taranto wolf-spider' is Lycosa Tarentula (from the latin name of Tarentum), as reported in the italian wikipedia article about it, and not Lycosa Tarantula as reported in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.203.198 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Both names are sometime seen on-line. The authorities have decided in favor of "tarantula." I originally used the ancient Latin name and got corrected. P0M (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange assertion

The article currently says:

Tarantula or " tarantule " are the second venomous spider on the spider venom chain.

What is "spider venom chain" supposed to mean? If it means a ranked list of spiders by venom toxicity, then neither Lycosa tarantula nor any of the Theraphosidae would place in the money.

If this sentence has some reasonable interpretation it should be rewritten so that it makes its point properly. Otherwise it needs to be deleted. P0M (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. This is clearly an uninformed edit. Away with it! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Plural in English is "tarantulas", NEVER "tarantulae"

Sorry folks but, as our article correctly states, The name 'tarantula' comes from the town of Taranto in Southern Italy and was originally used for an unrelated species of European wolf spider. It is NOT a Latin word and thus cannot form the Latin plural in -ae. The Italian plural is tarantole, the French tarentules. The only acceptable English is tarantulas, as I have verified with a senior arachnologist. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Along with using "an" before any word starting with "h," we have the recent English language cool thing of the day to give the Latin plural to normal English words such as "forum." (Those practices are not as bad as a former fad of a decade or so ago when every cool person was pronouncing "s" as "sh," or the habit adopted during the first half of second Bush's reign of interrupting words in the middle with a chuckle, but about as annoying as the current "I'm sooo cool too" thing of adding "r" after as many "a" sounds as the marlefarctor can remember to mistreat.) Thanks for stomping on this one. P0M (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pat but, er, 'forum' (like 'medium') was a Latin word before being borrowed into English. So the usage of 'forums' and 'mediums', etc, while often quite OK, may need to be corrected to 'fora' and 'media' in some strict contexts. IMHO. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

analysis situs or a spelling mistake?

The text currently says:

Brachypelma are topical new-world species.

The new world is a topos, but isn't the proper assertion that they are a "tropical" species? P0M (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's a genuine typo, and not the only one in the section! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I noticed this section had become messed up, and someone had tagged it for serious review. At this stage, I've simply cleaned it up and placed the society lists below, without deleting or changing any of the details. It seems to me that, to be fair on all viewpoints, we really need a separate article on collecting and caring for tarantulas as pets, in which case the society links and bulletin boards can be moved there. Any ideas on that one? Btw, I myself am not a collector or petperson, and would personally prefer to see this particular article edited into more scientific, less passionate shape (and be given many more and better citations) like those on other spiders, eg Australian funnel-web spider. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We survive without links to care sites and social clubs on almost every other article on animals which can be domesticated; this one should be no exception. As far as I'm concerned the society links, the forums and fan sites can all be happily jettisoned. This isn't a portal and we should neither be encouraging readers to treat it like one nor doing the same to editors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Range?

The graphic shows range throughout the entire US. I live in Pennsylvania and can tell you that we don't have tarantulas living in the wild. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I do not know how the work was prepared. It appears that if a some species of tarantula is found anywhere within a country the whole country gets colored green. I'm pretty sure there are no tarantulas in the Sahara Desert either. P0M (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Subfamily Acanthopelminae

Hello, I see my editing for the describer of Acanthopelminae was reverted. If you think that the subfamily Acanthopelminae (not the genus Acanthopelma) was described by F. O. P.-Cambridge, could you point me to the reference? F. O. P.-Cambridge only described the genus Acanthopelma in 1897 - reference [1]. In fact, he discussed the subfamilial placement:
"Although this form is undoubtedly allied to other of the group Chaetopelmateae founded by M. Simon, yet I prefer for the present to place it amongst the members of the subfamily Theraphosinae."
Placing Acanthopelma in its separate subfamily Acanthopelminae was done by Andrew M. Smith in his "Tarantula Spiders: Tarantulas of the U.S.A. and Mexico. Fitzgerald Publ., London, 196 pp." Idiothele (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So why do not you cite your reference? It might be the main reason of the reversion. Mithril (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Old World Tarantulas and Urticating Hairs

In the "Bites and Urticating Hairs" section, the paragraph on Old World Tarantulae seems to have some mutually exclusive statements. The first sentence states that Old World Tarantulae have no urticating hairs. However, the paragraph later describes their behaviors when defending themselves, and includes the statement "If that response fails to deter the attacker they may next turn away and flick urticating hairs toward the pursuing predator." This doesn't seem to refer to New World Tarantulae (who were addressed in the previous paragraph,) but I don't know anything about Old World Tarantulae and therefore can't choose which statement is correct. Someone who can should probably fix it. 24.20.23.86 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks. P0M (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Tarantulas on the move

I grew up being told that when tarantulas are on the move, it's going to rain and they are moving to higher ground. As an adult I have heard they are on the move because of mating season.

Just like to know for sure.

Thanks, Rick EvansBassflyer (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a sure thing that male tarantulas move in search of females. How their wanderlust is connected to the time of the year may be an open question. Do they move according to the season or according to their own level of physical maturity? Both would seem possible.

I also think that tarantulas have become well suited to select burrow sites, create burrows, and move if they discover they are getting flooded out. Nothing I've ever seen would suggest that they can tell that a big rain storm in approaching. If one of them moved it would very likely be an isolated case, and the tarantula would probably not go very far. Perhaps after a storm that flooded it out it would look around more a moderately dry spot and start digging a new burrow there.

In my pasture there are probably hundreds of tunnel-dwelling wolf spiders. They don't make parapets around their holes, the holes go straight down, and the land is pretty flat, so in a heavy rain their holes surely fill up with water. The occasional flooding seems not to bother them.P0M (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Split the article into "Tarantulas"and "Theraphosidae"

Wikipedia redirects "Theraphosidae" into "Tarantula", but these two English words are not synonymous. The English word "Tarantula" just means big hairy spider, whereas the word Theraphosidae has a more welldefined meaning. The "Scientific classification" classification refers to the family of "Theraphosidae", but the text describes "Tarantulas". This is confusing. Therefore this article should be split in to two separate articles.

Other languages such as German, French, and Spanish have separate wikipedia pages for the words "tarantulas"and "Theraphosidae". But you have to be careful when adding translations. The German word "Vogelspinnen" means "Tarantula", whereas the German word "Tarantel" means "Theraphosidae".

---

Hi, I'm just a random reader (I was an on and off editor till 5 years ago), and I came to the talk page expecting a huge edit war over new world and old world tarantulas. Why you ask? Because the article reads like it's been the victim of such a stubborn war.

If this article is about only new world tarantulas, it should say so clearly, direct people to another article if they're looking for that, and then move on. If it's only about the old world, it should do the same. If, however, it is about all things which are referred to as tarantulas, then it shouldn't sound like it is moralizing to the readers about which ones are technically tarantulas and which are not.

Personally, I believe in option three. It should have a neat little paragraph at the beginning telling the readers about the naming issue, and how it covers two (or more?) unrelated kinds of spiders, and then go on to clearly explain all the different kinds of spiders which are referred to as tarantulas, old world and new world.

Right now, this article is confusing as hell. And if this can't be done, then split the article not into two, but three. Tarantulas for disambig, and the two kinds of them, old and new, I believe old world already has a page. But make sure both of those spider pages have a short and clear explanation about the name issue:"sometimes referred to as a Tarantula, etc..." 66.131.12.27 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to explain one thing. Like I said, I came to the talk page expecting to find pages and pages of discussion about an edit war between old world and new world fanatics. Clearly, that is not the case, and I'm glad. But I think it's obvious from the text that the overall edits have pulled in two different directions, like the section on etymology, which seems to contradict itself in the space of two paragraphs:

The word "tarantula" has been applied to several very different kinds of spider. The spider originally bearing that name is one of the wolf spiders, Lycosa tarantula, found in the region surrounding the southern Italian town of Taranto. Compared to new-world tarantulas, wolf spiders are not particularly large or hairy.

...

New-world and other divergent usages

When theraphosids were encountered in the Americas, they were named "tarantulas", causing usage of the term to shift to the tropical spiders. Nevertheless, these spiders belong to the suborder Mygalomorphae, and are not closely related to wolf spiders.

The name "tarantula" is also mistakenly applied to other large-bodied spiders, including the purseweb spiders or atypical tarantulas, the funnel-webs (Dipluridae and Hexathelidae), and the "dwarf tarantulas". These spiders are related to tarantulas (all being mygalomorphs), but are classified in different families. Huntsman spiders of the family Sparassidae have also been termed "tarantulas" because of their large size. In fact, they are not related, belonging to the suborder Araneomorphae.

Please, someone more qualified than me, help fix this. Untie the Gordian knot that is this article.66.131.12.27 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the lead. The problem, for the English-speaking readers, is that "tarantula" has switched from being the name of a species of wolf spider to be a popular name for the Theraphosidae. It is my understanding that Wikipedia wants us to key articles to the common English terms for things, so I have kept "tarantula." The issues of where the name comes from, its possible wider applications, e.g., "funnel-web tarantulas," belong later in the article. All we have to do in the lead is to establish how Wikipedia is using "tarantula." P0M (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Somebody has taken exception to the assertion that spider bites can produce dangerous allergic responses. The rationale given was that spider venom does not act as an allergen. Spider venom is directly toxic, but that does not prove that humans cannot be allergic to it. Bee venom is directly toxic, but humans can have severe and even deadly allergic reactions to that toxin. Humans can even become allergic to formic acid, a major non-protein component of bee and ant venom. So as far as I know there is a simple question of fact involved here -- do humans suffer medically significant allergic reactions to any spider venoms? P0M (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

taste

do tarantulas taste like crabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.14.27 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In //Life of the Spiders// Crompton relates that a famous opera singer of his time liked to eat spiders. According to her, they tasted like shrimp (if I remember correctly). So probably that idea that tarantulas taste something like crabs is about right. P0M (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

They probably taste very similar to the way they smell. I can't speak for the odor of tarantulas, but brown recluses smell nasty to me-- I wouldn't want to taste a brown recluse. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Assam spiders

I have reverted two recent additions saying that tarantulas have caused human deaths, supported by this Times of India article. However, the article does not identity the Assam spiders as tarantulas, and it does not confirm that the two deaths were as a result of spider bites. It quotes Dr L R Saikia, head, Department of Life Sciences, Dibrugarh University, as saying "As of now, we cannot give a specific name. It's similar to the tarantula, but it could be a whole new species...". It also quotes Dr Ratul Rajkhowa of the zoology department of Cotton College, Guwahati as saying "It could be the black wishbone or a species related to it. Or may be a species related to the funnel-web spider". Dr Vejay K Singh has opined that a photo he was shown is probably a Selenocosmia species of tarantula - but the genus Selenocosmia is native to Australasia, not the Indian sub-continent. And one against two, judged only by a photograph, is insufficient for a positive identification. Until there is a positive identification of the species and a confirmation that the deaths were caused by their bites, we should not include this fatality claim. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I, too, read through what I could find of the press coverage. To me it seemed that there is some element of hysteria involved. One of the reports indicated the sudden appearance of large numbers of mature spiders. It may have been that whatever species of spider was observed it is characterized by the production of large numbers of eggs and offspring. Perhaps in normal years most of these offspring get killed in one way or another, but that for the last couple of years the spiders had a much easier time of it. Such a scenario would explain how large numbers of immature spiders could suddenly become noticed, but it is hard to imagine some circumstance under which large numbers of mature spiders would suddenly come out of nowhere.

By now someone should have caught one of these spiders and taken it somewhere for a professional opinion on its genus and species. Maybe a well-documented account will emerge. Until then, however, I too think that we should not include anything in the article on them.P0M (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And a follow-up story from today, denying the existence of killer spiders... http://www.indianexpress.com/news/no-killer-spiders-in-assam-say-experts/958855/ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Silk-producing feet

Hello,

This part of the article is incorrect. There are three new articles who shows, that the fact, that tarantulas have silk-producing spigots on their feet isn't a fact anymore.

Silk-producing feet

It was discovered that some tarantulas have silk-producing spigots on their feet.[1] As the research subjects used to make this discovery, which was first proposed in 2006, varied widely, Dr Claire Rind of Newcastle University suggests that it is likely that all tarantulas have the ability to produce silk from their tarsi (feet).[2] The existence of these structures is thought to enable the spiders to cling to smooth surfaces and thus avoid a harmful fall. The discovery was published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.[3]

Please read following articles. If you don't have them, let me know, I'll send them to you. bastian.rast@hispeed.ch

Pérez-Miles, F., Panzera, A., Ortíz-Villatoro, D. and Perdomo, C. (2009). Silk production from tarantula feet questioned. Nature 461, E9-E10.
Foelix, R., Rast, B., Erb, B. and Wullschleger, B. (2011). Spinnspulen auf den Tarsen von Vogelspinnen? Eine Gegendarstellung. Arachne 16, 4-9.
Foelix, R., Rast, B. and Peattie, A. M. (2012). Silk secretion from tarantula feet revisited: alleged spigots are probably chemoreceptors. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 1084-1089.


Could someone change this please, I don't know how that works.

Thank you

Bastian Rast (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bastian, I have read one of those articles, and I have understood the German title of the second one, but I have only read the abstract of Pérez-Miles et al 2009. If it is convenient to send a copy to jonrichfield@gmail.com, or otherwise make it available, I would be grateful. Thank you anyway for alerting us to developments in this very interesting topic. By the way, if you have access to high quality public domain electron micrographs of spider spinnerets, or can make any of them available to http://commons.wikimedia.org, I would love to see them in appropriate articles in Wikipedia. (Same goes for other images of encyclopedic value of course!) If it would help I wouldn't mind posting them myself if you are too busy. Thanks for your attention, Jon JonRichfield (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information.

The original observation that led to belief in silk-producing feet was made during the course of photographing some specimens of one species of tarantula. They were being posed on glass sheets that were held in frames that allowed for tilting the glass at various angles. Although the tilting feature was probably originally used to avoid reflections from stage lighting directly into the camera lens, experimenters discovered that the tarantulas would not move after the sheets were tilted to a certain degree. The tarantulas could not move forward and were evidently wary, under the circumstances, of lifting any feet and trying to turn. So the researchers could "freeze" the spiders in place and go to lunch. When they came back after lunch on one day somebody noticed a streak on the glass above each foot of the tarantula. They concluded that this was spider silk, and they accounted for its presence by asserting that it must have come directly from the feet of the spider.

I do not know whether anyone repeated this experiment but remained to see what the spider actually did over the length of a lunch break while constrained to remain on the inclined glass, nor do I know how many times the experiment was repeated.

Foelix has written a great book on spider body structures, so if he has examined these materials and cast doubt on them then I think the article ought to reflect this fact.P0M (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Before realizing there was discussion already on the talk page, re: 'Silk-producing feet', I added a bit about the "controversy" and cited 2 recent studies from reliable source (JEB). Hope that's okay. I tried to follow existing citation format, but went with the automagic {{cite doi}} instead. The reader should probably know that this is an uncertain claim, rather than attempt to "prove" anything one way or the other. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the situation needed mention. I made some changes, both to this article and some associated ones. Will interested parties please see whether they approve? JonRichfield (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The content seems fine, but the section could be clearer by putting events in chronological order. Unless somebody would like to do this (please), I'll give it a try in a few days. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, JonRichfield for putting things in order. I tweaked a bit more, hope it's okay - some vagueness is appropriate in this situation, but not too much; let's wait for the scientists to duke it out before stating anything too specific. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem Eric, I apologise for not reporting back here that I had responded. I was a bit rushed, so I did not have time to organise it properly, leaving the original messy sequence. It was (is?) a very interesting, even radical, question, and I am keeping half an eye on it. Cheers, Jon JonRichfield (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep tabs on the topic as well. Even if it turns out to be chemoreceptors, that would be interesting, indicating they might "taste" with their feet (similar to many flies). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There are all sorts of intriguing possibilities; sex recognition, prey recognition, environmental status... You name it!  ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To-do

To-do list added to top of this page (please see). This article has the potential for being a GA, and possibly "Featured" someday. However, it needs some organization, etc. - The most obvious problem is the lack of in-line referencing. I'll try to do some stuff, but currently have other priorities. ~Thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see how this article has potential for being a GA, but I know nothing about spiders and have many other priorities. I came across this page while trying to correct a disambiguation link for a history article. I noticed that the specialized defensive hairs are discussed both in the predators section and extensively elsewhere. IMHO those need to be combined. Furthermore, I wonder whether there's more spider reclassification going on, and I've left similar talk page comments concerning the seemingly new family Nemesiidae and for the golden-kneed tarantula, now known as Grammostola pulchripes.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Fatalities

See http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/18334/5582. Seems some fatalities have been attributed to tarantulas. Sancho 03:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would make us change the article. Getting stuck by a tack and subsequently dying of gangrene does not make tacks deadly weapons. Bites attributed to "tarantulas" that turn out to refer to something other than the Theraphosidae don't have any place in an article that tries to pin down the toxicity of Theraphosidae bites. On top of everything else, if the "tarantula" that bit a person in his barn was a true tarantula then it is significant that the species of tarantulas that are found in the US have been studied as to the toxicity of their venom, and nothing appears to be remotely problematical. P0M (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the references is a Theraphosidae bite, though: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20944295 Sancho 09:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tarantula/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It's a bit too long, maybe the taxonomy section could be split. --Sarefo 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Body makeup section needs to be split. St.isaac 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"the venom of the African tarantula Pelinobius muticus also causes strong hallucinations"

Anyone have any more information about this? The citation, 17, refers to a book titled Sklípkani : krasavci s chlupatýma nohama. There appears to be no digital copy of this book online and this listing is only aware of three copies in libraries around the world: http://www.worldcat.org/title/sklipkani-krasavci-s-chlupatyma-nohama/oclc/320370211

It doesn't appear, as far as I can tell, that there is any English version of this book, so presumably whoever added this citation was able to read it in Czech?

Anyway, I ask because I find this fascinating and was really hoping to uncover more information about it. I've never heard of any venomous bite causing hallucinations in and of itself, though I can imagine fever brought on by venom could have that result in any case. Basically I'm trying to see if there's any way of verifying whether this tarantula's bite actually has some kind of hallucinogenic property inherent to it, or if this is really just based on cases where someone developed a severe fever and reported hallucinating as a result. If it's the latter, it doesn't seem like it ought to be presented here, since theoretically any fever-inducing venom might have the same effect. 74.109.28.92 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Is "No species of tarantula is dangerous to humans" accurate?

I recently made what I felt was a common sense edit, which User:Peter coxhead unfortunately felt the need to respond to with the rude gesture of a revert rather than engaging in discussion. I really don't understand how we can claim that Tarantulas are not dangerous. They bite. They have venom. From the article:

In general, the effects of the bites of all kinds of tarantula are not well known. While the bites of many species are known to be no worse than a wasp sting, accounts of bites by some species are reported to be very painful and to produce intense spasms that may recur over a period of several days; the venom of the African tarantula Pelinobius muticus also causes strong hallucinations.[11] For Poecilotheria species, researchers have described more than 20 bites with the delayed onset of severe and diffuse muscle cramps, lasting for several days, that in most cases resolved completely with the use of benzodiazepines and magnesium. In all cases, seeking medical aid is advised. Because other proteins are included when a toxin is injected, some individuals may suffer severe symptoms due to an allergic reaction rather than to the venom. Such allergic effects can be life-threatening.

And:

New World tarantulas (those found in North and South America) are equipped with urticating hairs (technically bristles) on their abdomens, and almost always throw these barbed bristles as a first line of defense. These bristles irritate sensitive areas of the body and especially seem to target curious animals which may sniff these bristles into the mucous membranes of the nose. Some species have more effective urticating bristles than others. The goliath birdeater is known for its particularly irritating urticating bristles. Urticating bristles can penetrate the cornea, so eye protection should be worn when handling such tarantulas.[12] Old World tarantulas (from Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia) have no urticating bristles and are more likely to attack when disturbed. They often have more potent, medically significant venom, and are faster and much more nervous and defensive than New World species.

Not dangerous? Give me a break.

Finally, the source used for the statement "No species of tarantula is dangerous to humans" is NWF.org. Is that even a reliable source for this kind of claim? It's an activist web page.

Jozsefs (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jozsefs: as per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit, I reverted, now we discuss. This isn't "rude", it's normal practice here. In your edit summary, you wrote "'what is the point of saying "it isnt dangerous except for when it is"' and I said in my revert "there is a point, because it's widely believed that tarantulas have toxic bites", which is, I agree, a bit over-simplistic. New World tarantulas are often shown crawling over 'victims' in films, with the implication that they are deadly poisonous, whereas the main danger from such tarantulas is their urticating hairs, as per Tarantula#Bites and urticating bristles. Old World tarantulas are reported to be more likely to bite and to have more serious effects when they do. However, the section is poorly referenced, and needs more work. Spider bite is much better sourced; note that tarantulas don't get a look in there. Careful studies show that reports of the danger of spider bites are generally exaggerated. Are there any such studies of tarantula bites?

Part of the problem is that the lead is far too short to summarize the article properly. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:ROWN. My concern at this point is that the statement "No species of tarantula is dangerous to humans" is blatantly incorrect, and nothing you are saying is refuting that. You are saying the primary danger of a Tarantula is it's urticating bristles, that's fine with me. Implied in that, is that you agree that Tarantulas possess dangers, and therefore are dangerous. I don't understand why you are therefore aggressively defending the statement "No species of tarantula is dangerous to humans". I feel like we've already reached consensus that there is a danger, and remain puzzled at why you chose to revert. Jozsefs (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It has been a full week and you have not responded, therefore I am going to conclude that we have resolved your objection to my edit and reached a consensus and I am proceeding with the change. Jozsefs (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Does general spider anatomy really belong here?

What's the point of all the information on this page that is not unique to Theraphosidae? Quite a bit of this page is just general spider anatomy without a specific focus on Theraphosidae, including a lot of the information in the Appendages, Digestive System, Nervous System, Respiratory System, and Circulatory System sections (do those all really need their own section anyways?). It seems really out of place- shouldn't general spider anatomy belong on the Spider or Spider Anatomy page, while this page discusses specific characteristics unique to Theraphosidae? Maharama (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Maharama: I agree completely. I think the origin of this material is that quite a few people keep tarantulas as pets, but not other spiders, so editors with this orientation added material that would be found in books on keeping tarantulas. However, it doesn't belong here, except very, very briefly, if it's not specific to theraphosids. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think all the anatomical information should be condensed into one anatomy section that links to the Spider Anatomy page and lists only diagnostic features for Theraphosidae. I'm personally not particularly knowledgeable about tarantulas, so I think it'd be better if someone more invested in this particular page did it, but I could make the changes if nobody else wants to. Maharama (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Entry About Webs Needed

This entry needs a section about the web making habits of tarantulas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.161.10 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

better image required

This image, "Austin tarantula.jpg" should be replaced with something much better.

187.143.57.238 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC) baden k.

Smallest tarantula?

The species mentioned in the cited article "Farewell to the World’s Smallest Tarantula?" is Microhexura montivaga, which is not a Theraphosid, but rather a different family of mygalomorph. It's incorrect to refer to it as a tarantula. So what is actually the minimum size of tarantulas? According to Quora it's about 5cm, does anyone have some reliable source to confirm or revise this? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, this is a good example of why it's not, in my view, a good idea to use English names for spider taxa. "Tarantula" is used to mean 'theraphosid' but also something like 'typical mygalomorph'. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. It seems this article is about theraphosidae though. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Taxbox image

Peter coxhead, I brought back the image and left out the caption so we don't have to worry about species identification. I think this image is better because it is of featured quality, with a non-distracting background and fairly plain colored. This is what the average person think of when they hear "tarantula". The images you proposed are too flashly colored. LittleJerry (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The image in a taxobox should be of a clearly identified species belonging to the taxon in question. File:Brachypelma vagans p1.jpg was used previously. It's supposed to be Tliltocatl vagans (syn. Brachypelma vagans), but the definitive account which defined the genus describes this species as having reddish hairs on the abdomen, and has photos (on p. 136) which show this, unlike this image. So although it's a good image, it's probably not correctly identified.

I think the Mexican redlegged tarantulas are very well known – they are often kept as pets. However, I don't care what image is used, so long as it is of a clearly identified species belonging to the family. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think image quality is more important. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In an article about a group of organisms, the identity of the organism is of paramount importance. This is an encyclopedia article not a photo gallery. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The image you have put back is not as good, because its identity is not clear; B. hamorii and B. smithii have long been confused. Could we agree on File:Theraphosa blondi MHNT.jpg? Theraphosa is the type genus of the family, so is an obvious choice for an image. It's also a very clear image. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the average person cares about the species in an introduction picture. But away, can't we find someone to identify the species of the other image? LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I doubt the "average person" is seriously interested in tarantulas, but those who are deserve accuracy. Most spiders cannot be identified accurately from photographs; this is particularly so for ones without clear external markings, like File:Brachypelma vagans p1.jpg. Identification of spiders depends largely on a study of their genitalia. All we can do with a photograph is to try to make sure that it at least matches the description in a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I put the Tliltocatl vagans image back. It appears that it's rump doesn't look as red because it doesn't have as many hairs. In fact if you zoom in, you can see that the few hairs they do have are the same color as File:Brachypelma vaganis.jpg and File:Brachypelma vagans adult.jpg. I think we can trust Cvmontuy to have identified the right species. LittleJerry (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The spider on File:Brachypelma vagans p1.jpg was the pet of my son, in Mexico is very common to have this species as a pet, and its color changes a lot during the year, this picture is from the same pet but on different date File:Brachypelma vagans AfterMoulting 160601.png, regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Also the species appears to be polymorphic. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I still think it's confusing for most readers to see a caption "red rump tarantula" and an image without a red rump, so I've reverted. I'm happy to discuss further. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

How about just having the specific name? I actually think it does look like it has a red rump when you look at it from the taxbox. LittleJerry (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The image that is there now is a "featured image" in Commons, so I really don't see why you want to change it. What's wrong with it? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The other image is featured too. It has a white background that is less distracting. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Size?

How big are a BB pellet and a dinner plate??? Why not give size in cm or even inches if you must??? 81.110.103.46 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Shape?

What is the shape of such species? 137.189.241.54 (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Post-ultimate molt

This term is used without explanation. Can someone add one? Rcaetano (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Tarantula

Fun facts 79.66.202.232 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

add a habitat section 67.0.196.81 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Body size

The article says, "Tarantula sizes can range from as small as the size of a BB pellet to as large as a dinner plate when the legs are fully extended. Depending on the species, the body length of tarantulas ranges from about 5 to 11 cm (2 to 4+1⁄2 in), with leg spans of 8–30 cm (3–12 in)."

These two sentences are inconsistent. The Spruce fir moss spider (the one the size of a BB pellet) is 3-4 mm, much smaller than 5 cm. Phr0n3s1s (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be the inconsistent use of "tarantula". The article, and indeed spider articles generally, use "tarantula" to mean a member of the family Theraphosidae. The spruce-fir moss spider is not a theraphosid, but a member of the family Microhexuridae. The source for the BB pellet comparison seems to be using "tarantula" in a different sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)