Talk:Hadronyche

Spiders Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: New South Wales / South Australia / Queensland / Tasmania / Victoria / Biota Low‑importance

Hadronyche is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).

Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Victoria, or the State Library of Queensland, or the State Library of South Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.

The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help

wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Confusing Images

The image used on this page is a rotated and colour-modified version of the Atrax genus page (or vice versa, more likely), the German Wikipedia likewise uses the the same image for two different species in different genera. I'm no authority on spiders, but one of either must be wrong? As I understand variance in phenotype is large for both species, and the genera are evidently closely related, so the phenotype shown could be correct for both in theory, but the fact that the very same specimen is used for both species is impossible, obviously. At the very least it would make sense to delete the redundant rotated version and note that the image may be either species.--XV-E-DCI (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@XV-E-DCI: well spotted! I suspect that the one labelled "Atrax robustus" is an unacknowledged and incorrectly identified version of the other one. I've e-mailed the author of File:Victorian_funnelweb02.jpg, so we'll see what transpires. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated File:Atraxrobustus.jpg for deletion. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]