Talk:Hexathelidae

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hexathelidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danger from Hexathelidae

Re this edit: the best I could find at short notice is this source. It's well known that only the Sydney funnel-web spider poses a serious medical threat to humans. The Australian Museum says that there have been 13 recorded deaths from Sydney funnel-web bites.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem with describing the danger of spider bites is the mass of unreliable popular press reports people keep adding. Serious quality reviews (as per Spider bite) consistently show that confirmed spider bites are a small proportion of claimed spider bites. I note that even from confirmed Sydney funnel-web spider bites, there have been no deaths since 1979. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When assessing the risk to humans from spider bites, there are two main areas to be considered:

1. The probability of being bitten by a spider.
2. The probability of serious injury if actually bitten.

The news media often overestimates both of these risks. In March 2017, a report showed that Australians are more likely to die as a result of a kick or trampling from a horse than of spider and snake bites put together.[2] But it's just more fun to say "Australian spiders and snakes are deadly" rather than "Australian horses are deadly". The disputed sentence in the WP:LEAD puts this in some sort of perspective, but there is a certain amount of WP:SYNTH in it. In this particular group of spiders, only the Sydney funnel-web has very medically significant venom. Even then, no human has died from a Sydney funnel-web bite since an antivenom was developed in 1981.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family split

Three families have been carved off from Hexathelidae: Atracidae, Macrothelidae and Porrhothelidae.

The article needs more checking and updating; now that Atrax is not in this family, its venomous nature isn't clear to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now updated it as best I can, but there aren't any secondary sources yet that discuss the family with its new circumscription. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous vs Venomous

Re this edit: It is explained with this diagram, but there are also venomous frogs.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, in Wikipedia we are supposed to reflect the world, not attempt to change it. Although some sources make the distinction in the cartoon, many more do not. See e.g Merriam-Webster online or Univ. of Utah Health Care. Google searches suggest that "poisonous spider" is a more common phrase than "venomous spider", and I doubt whether so many spiders are being eaten. The Google ngrams are particularly revealing. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian article says "Some people use the words interchangeably because once in the body, the chemicals do similar damage, attacking the heart, brain or other vital targets. But the terms do mean very different things. Traditionally, venomous creatures bite, sting or stab you to do their damage, while you have bite or touch poisonous critters to feel their effects. That means venomous organisms need a way in, like fangs or teeth." This is essentially what the diagram says. However, some people do use the terms interchangeably, much to the disappointment of the purists.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more language (mis)usage that disappoints me, so I guess I'm a purist. But purism and editing by consensus don't go well together. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit the edit summary was "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar" but the person seems to have gone along with the Smithsonian/purist view about the difference between poisonous and venomous. The Oxford English Dictionary says "Poisonous and venomous are not identical in meaning, although they are often used interchangeably. A poisonous animal or plant produces toxins that are harmful when the animal or plant is touched or eaten, whereas a venomous snake or other creature is able to inject venom by means of its fangs, spines, or stingers" [4] so it is also in the purist camp.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]