Talk:Tarantula

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tarantula article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Template:Vital article

Tarantula was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Spiders C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders 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.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sections of this talk page older than 360 days are automatically archived.

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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

[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

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)[reply]

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,^[1] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

References

^ Mendoza, Jorge; Francke, Oscar (2020), "Systematic revision of Mexican threatened tarantulas Brachypelma (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Theraphosinae), with a description of a new genus, and implications on the conservation", Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 188 (1): 82–147, doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz046 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[MendFran20-1] Mendoza, Jorge; Francke, Oscar (2020), "Systematic revision of Mexican threatened tarantulas Brachypelma (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Theraphosinae), with a description of a new genus, and implications on the conservation", Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 188 (1): 82–147, doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz046 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

[1]