Talk:Portia fimbriata

Hi, Stemonitis

Hi, Stemonitis. Re your copyedits a few minutes ago:

• Thanks for alerting me about "lions", I've changed it to "... as their hunting tactics are as versatile and adaptable as a lion's."
• I've restored "| subfamilia = [[Spartaeinae]]<ref name=HallanSalticidae />" as that becomes increasingly important going up the taxonomic tree - I guess I'm now Wikiproject Portia (spider):-D Spartaeinae are a "primitive" group (more basal), and one distinguishing trait is that the middle pair of secondary eyes are fairly large and fully functional. The more derived Salticoids (most jumping spiders) have only vestigial middle secondary eyes. Most Spartaeinae have relatively poor vision, but Portias have among the best of all jumping spiders. I know Platnik doesn't use subfamilies, but Jackson, who does, is one of the gods of jumping spiders and especially Portia. --Philcha (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what you've just said only strengthens my opinion that the subfamily doesn't belong in this taxobox. It is mentioned once in the article, and does not seem to be of major importance. It is certainly not a familiar taxon to the average reader (whereas Salticidae might be). The information you have just given about the subfamily is interesting, but it belongs at Spartaeinae; some mention of it – including a taxobox mention – might belong at Portia, but not at the species level. I don't think any of us would doubt that Norman I. Platnick has an exceptionally good understanding of spider taxonomy. If he's not using subfamilies, then that really does undermine their status. It is easy to get lost in an interesting taxon and lose the global view; I've done it myself often enough. Speaking as an impartial outsider, I would have to say that the subfamily doesn't belong in the taxobox here. Likewise, I think there's too much material in the text here that isn't directly relevant to the species, which was also my main criticism in the GA review of Phaeacius. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Body structure

I reverted this by Kaldari and this by User talk:Korrawit. IMO the summary of features of spiders, jumping spiders and Portia in general are helpful for readers who are not familiar with these taxa, for example those who read Portia fimbriata or Portia labiata at DYK. And I think the annotated image is a quick fresher for those who have vague memories of reading about spiders or Portia elsewhere. In addition, I'm still wary of generalisations, e.g. I'm working on a Portia that has unusually long legs (and another idiosyncracy), and IIRC another Portia does not build capture webs(!). When I think I'm on reasonably solid ground, I'll going in greater detail features common to all Portias, e.g. their cephalothorax (ugly by human standards) and comparison of mating habits (some cannibals, some not). --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be OK with including a few sentences about Portia in general, but going through the entire explanation of what constitutes a chelicerate, a spider, a jumping spider, etc. in every species article is much too redundant. This is the reason we have separate articles on those taxons. Otherwise, every jumping spider species article is going to be mostly identical to every other jumping spider species article. Take a look at Katipo and Zygoballus sexpunctatus for examples of articles that do a good job of sticking to the article scope. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Maevia_inclemens/GA1, reviewed by a good all-round biologist with no great previous knowledge of jumping spiders, was passed with "Body structure" as at Portia fimbriata. Talk:Phaeacius/GA1, with a reviewer who knows a lot about arthropods in general but not great previous knowledge of jumping spiders, was passed after we agreed a slightly more abbreviated "Body structure". I think these reviews suggest that a non-specialist in jumping spiders needs a bit of the basic anatomy, otherwise general readers would have to just up 1, 2 or 3 levels to Portia (spider), Sparteinae or Jumping spider - and the latter scares me, as the main eyes of jumping spiders are really complex. --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By that rationale, every article about a different model of car should explain how the combustion engine works. I agree that it could be useful to mention a couple sentences about the genus, and maybe even the family, but we certainly don't need to explain spiders and chelicerates. Those are far outside the scope of an individual species article. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Portia fimbriata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well written

Lead

The lead is too detailed and redundant with content in the article. As explained at WP:LEAD: The lead should "avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Here are some examples:

• "The vision of a jumping spiders' main eyes is more acute than a cat's during the day and 10 times more acute than a dragonfly's. "P. fimbriata is one of the best, distinguishing arthropods up to 280 millimetres away (47 times its own body length), and identifying features of the scenery up to 85 times its own body length away, which helps the spider to find detours."

  Rather than repeating so many statistics from the article body, you should summarize it by saying "Jumping spiders have extremely good vision, and that of Portia is among the most acute." Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  I think readers need a simple comparison, which the 1st sentence gives - while "extremely good vision" looks WP:PEACOCK to me. How about I replace "P. fimbriata is one of the best, distinguishing arthropods up to 280 millimetres away (47 times its own body length), and identifying features of the scenery up to 85 times its own body length away, which helps the spider to find detours" with "This helps P. fimbriata to navigate, hunt and mate." --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds good, although I would also encourage you not to repeat word for word the sentence about jumping spider vision from the body. The wording should be unique and less detailed in the lead than in the body. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Changed. Hows that? --Philcha (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  I've trimmed it down slightly more and changed the wording so that it doesn't repeat the same sentence from the body. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• "P. fimbriata in Queensland has additional tactics when hunting the very abundant jumping spider Jacksonoides queenslandicus. The Queensland population of the jumping spider Euryattus can defend itself as it can see through P. fimbriata′s cryptic stalking. Females of the subfamily Lyssomaninae are translucent, which makes their main eyes appear to flicker and sometimes confuse P. fimbriata into using normal rather than cryptic stalking, giving the prey a chance to defend itself."

  I suggest I: remove the bit about Jacksonoides queenslandicus; condense the bit about Euryattus and Lyssomaninae to "Some jumping spider prey have partial defences agaisnt the cryptic stalking technique." --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Describing Queensland P. fimbriatas hunting interactions with individual species in the lead is information overload. You should delete these sentences entirely. The other sentences about Queensland P. fimbriata's hunting tactics in the lead are totally adequate for summary purposes. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  As just above? --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds good. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Philcha (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• "When meeting another of the same species, P. fimbriata does not use cryptic stalking but displays by moves quickly and smoothly, and displays at 4 to 27 centimetres away."

  "displays at 4 to 27 centimetres away" is too detailed for the lead. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Done. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• "In P. fimbriata from Queensland, contests between males usually last only 5 to 10 seconds, and only their legs make contact."

  Too detailed for the lead, should be deleted. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's a contrast compared with female-female fights. The males of the jumping spiders I've read about are wimps. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could just say "short and non-fatal" so that you aren't being over detailed for the lead. The information about female contests is also a bit lengthy in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  I've condensed it a bit. But IMO it must show the differences between male-male, female-female and female-male behaviour. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• "All species of the genus Portia have elastic abdomens, so that those of both sexes become almost spherical when well fed, and females' can stretch as much when producing but not yet laying eggs."

  This also seems unnecessary in the lead. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure. It's short, and IMO interesting. Perhaps you take for granted your own knowledge of jumping spiders. --Philcha (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  I think it would be fine for the lead of Portia, and perhaps in the "Body structure and appearance" section here, but it doesn't seem important or relevant enough to this specific article to be mentioned in the lead, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  I've condensed the bit about abdomens. But I think the lead needs something about this in case a reader sees a photo or specimen with distended abdomen, as it makes a large difference in the appearance. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kaldari. I suggest we revisit the lead after the body of the article. --Philcha (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

PS Did you enjoy your trip? --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Body structure and appearance

This section contains only 1 paragraph that is actually about the species specifically. The detailed information about spiders and jumping spiders should be removed. If you really feel the need to explain jumping spiders, please do it in a short less-detailed description. This section should consist primarily of a description of the species itself and how it differs from other species of Portia in appearance. Also, the information about spider's use of silk and grooming habits falls under behavior, not appearance. Either way, I think such information about spiders in general isn't needed in this article. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll a redraft in User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia fimbriata 2, but I think we need to discuss a few things first:

• What level of reader should be assumed? I've assumed that some readers will have negligible knowledge of spiders, and less about jumping spiders. At Talk:Phaeacius/GA1, User:Stemonitis, who knows a lot about arthropods in general but less about any spider, accepted the "Body" section. Less knowledgeable readers will need more info, including the meaning of strange words like "cephalothorax", "chelicerae" and "pedipalps", which will appear in various parts of the article. --Philcha (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If someone is looking up this species specifically, we should assume they at least know what a jumping spider is. Jumping spiders are not very obscure, as they comprise the largest family of spiders on the planet. You are right that it is important to explain jargon such as "cephalothorax", "chelicerae" and "pedipalps", but I don't think that necessitates a full overview of jumping spider anatomy and behavior, especially when such content exceeds the content we have on this species specifically. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I've improved the 1st para, esp. about uses of silk (it's important, e.g. many of Jackson & co.'s articles have a large section about the uses of silk). --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I think a description of P.fimbriata needs all these aspects. I really do think you underestimate your own knowledge. While jumping spiders are the largest family of spiders, they account for only about 10% of the total species. Most general readers will think of capture webs (esp. orb-web spiders' webs, a minority!), and in some countries the best known spiders are those most dangerous to humans. That's all I knew until I started to rescue Spider from GAR and had to re-write the article completely. That's where I first found that there were jumping spiders, which are inconspicuous. --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • For these reasons, I structure the section to start with the most general and move towards the particulars. As a bonus, using a standard structure means that readers of 2 or more Portia species will recognise the most general parts and either skim them to refresh their memories or move to the size and appearance of the species in this case. --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• The summary of spinning silk is relevant to movement (draglines), hunting and reproducing (moulting, mating, egg laying). --Philcha (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but those are all behaviors, not appearances. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Tells readers that it will be important later - "reader, please remember this". --Philcha (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to explain web building behavior in both the appearance and the hunting sections. Since It is adequately covered in the hunting section, and has no bearing on the spider's appearance, I have removed it from the appearance section. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Grooming is relevant to feeding on both prey and nectar. --Philcha (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Same as above. Not relevant to appearance. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Removed. --Philcha (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hunting tactics

The hunting tactics section includes paragraphs that are unrelated to hunting. The section should either be renamed or these paragraphs should be moved or deleted:

• "Spiders have a narrow gut that can only cope with liquid food…
  • I removed "Some spiders pump digestive enzymes ...holds the food they are processing." But I've kept "Spiders have a narrow gut ... filters to keep solids out", which explains another exampling of grooming. --Philcha (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • How is this relevant to hunting tactics? Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Removed. --Philcha (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• "A test in 2001 showed that four jumping species take nectar…" Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Feeding on nectar is a relatively new research area (around 2001), but the field studies and lab tests suggest that it's an important food source - and frequent grooming is needed as nectar is sticky. I put it in section "General tactics of P. fimbriata" because: it's part of feeding; it's a safer method, and these spiders have a tactical choice between nectar and predation. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Feeding and hunting are separate behaviors. Your section title is specifically "Hunting tactics". Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Should I retitle the section "Hunting and feeding tactics"? --Philcha (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • How about just "Hunting and feeding"? Kaldari (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Done, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Movement

I don't mind that there is a lot of information here about Portia in general, but the paragraph about spider movement in general isn't necessary in my opinion. Otherwise the section is concise and well-written. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Which parts in this section? The 1st para is relevant to hunting and mating. Draglines are important for general movement, hunting including abseiling, territory marking and mating. --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm specifically referring to the dragline paragraph. As none of the information about draglines is discussed in regard to P. fimbriata specifically, I don't see why it is necessary in the section. The section is completely understandable and coherent without it. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Section "Reproduction and lifecycle": "smell" of draglines use by females to avoid conflicts and by males to find mates. Section "Hunting tactics": abseiling. --Philcha (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Reproduction and lifecycle

• "A laboratory test showed how males of P. fimbriata from Queensland minimise the risk of meeting each other, by recognising fresh pieces with blotting paper, some containing their own silk draglines and some containing another male's draglines." This is awkwardly worded and difficult to understand. Perhaps it could be rewritten differently. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • How about "Testers gave captive P. fimbriata males fresh pieces with blotting paper, some containing their own silk draglines and some containing another male's draglines. The specimens were cautious when approaching blotting containing draglines of other males, showing how males minimise the risk of meeting each other". --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • That sounds much better, although shouldn't it say "fresh pieces of blotting paper" rather than "fresh pieces with blotting paper"?
      • Oops! Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• There were several grammar errors in the first few paragraphs (which I fixed). I haven't gone through the rest of it, but it could probably use a good copyediting from someone at the Guild of Copy Editors. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the copyedits. --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I see that activity at Guild of Copy Editors seems very variable, and low at present - I last look at the Guild 2 years ago, also at a low ebb. I'll look through the rest of the section. --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I fixed a couple of types and removed an almost duplicate para. Do you have an other concerns in this section? --Philcha (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I apologise if my responses are slow - I'm overloaded, as a GA review of another article I nominated started a few days ago, and I was already conducting 3 GA reviews which are more complex than they looked. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ecology

This section had a run-on sentence and some badly worded sections, as well as off-topic information about other species. I went ahead and cleaned it up. Kaldari (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Any instances where you have used the pages parameter to indicate total number of pages in the work need to be changed to the pages that are specifically relevant to your citation(s), per Template:Cite book and Template:Cite journal.

• I checked and all uses of pages= refer to specific page ranges. Some of these are long, and I use {{r}} to identify shorter ranges (usually 1 to 2 pp) if the work is used in various parts of the WP article. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That's fine. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate

1. "Although other spiders can also jump, salticids including Portia fimbriata are the only spiders with good vision" Should be changed to "...salticids including Portia have significantly better vision than other spiders". Or even better: "Jumping spiders have good vision." Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • "... have significantly better vision ...", as they do. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
     • Looks good. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Spiders, unlike insects, do not have a 'head'. Please use cephalothorax or carapace as appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • "cephalothorax " --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
3. "All species of the genus Portia have elastic abdomens, so that those of both sexes become almost spherical when well fed..." Virtually all spiders have elastic abdomens. It would be better to say "Portia have very elastic abdomens" or "especially elastic abdomens" so that it doesn't imply that other spiders don't have elastic abdomens. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • I don't think this makes an contrast with non-salticids, but shows temporal variance in a Portia. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
     • How about "Like many spiders, all species of the genus Portia have elastic abdomens. The abdomens of both sexes become almost spherical when well fed..."? Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
       • Thanks. I've still combined "... elastic ... both sexes become almost spherical ...". --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
4. "Northern Territory specimens live in caves where the light varies from rather dark to much brighter than in Queensland." How is the light in a cave much brighter than in Queensland? Queensland must be very dark indeed :) Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Outside and in back of a cave. I made ce. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
   • PS The article says that in general P. fimbriata(Q) enjoys more subdued lighting than other regional variants. --Philcha (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
5. "Both a male and a female have a generally dark brown carapace". Wanless describes his female specimen as having an orange carapace. Is there regional variation in appearance?[[User:Kaldari|Kaldari] (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • See the source I cited, and the pics in the article. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
     • Perhaps you could change it to "Both the male and female have a dark brown or brownish orange carapace" and add Wanless 1978 as a reference. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
       • Or perhaps Wanless saw pickled specimens rather than live ones. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
         • The spiders in these photos look orangish-brown to me: [1][2] Kaldari (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
6. "Females of the jumping spider Portia fimbriata have bodies 6 to 9 millimetres long". Wanless reports a female specimen with a body length of 10.5 mm.
   • I used another source, which has the benefit of giving a range for both sexes. P. fimbriata is sexually mature at instar 7 but can reach instar 9 in both sexes (no cannibalism). --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
     • You could extend the female range (6 to 10.5 mm) and add Wanless 1978 as a references. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
       • Comparative biology of jumping spiders ... (Jackson & Hallas, 1986) p. 433 says typically Portia females are 7-10mm long and males 5-6mm. The source current used has 2 advantages: both sexes; and is specifically about P. fimbriata. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Broad in coverage

The article relies too heavily on one source (1986), and doesn't cite the genus revision at all, which should be a major source. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Jackson & Hallas "Comparative biology of jumping spiders Portia ..." (1986) is the base for all later articles on P. fimbriata, and later articles are on newer aspects, e.g. crossing a little lagoon. The Jackson & Hallas article is 66 pages long, and gave later authors little scope for more general articles. --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The Jackson and Hallas article is concerned with Portia behavior. Wanless's article is concerned with taxonomy and morphology. I would expect you to rely on the Jackson and Hallas article extensively in the behavior section, but to cite mostly Wanless for the sections on taxonomy and appearance. Indeed I think you could expand these sections significantly if you incorporated Wanless. As it stands now, the appearance section has little information about the appearance of this species specifically. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Portia fimbriata#Description is fairly detailed. What do you is lacking? --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Wanless (1978) is used in section "Taxonomy" --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned as the name authority for a species, but is otherwise unused as a source. None of Wanless's discussion of the taxonomy of Portia or P. fimbriata is reflected in the article. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The "Taxonomy" section says P. fimbriata is 1 of 17 species in the genus. Wanless (1978) divided the genus into the "schultzi" and "kenti" groups, but apparently no-one followed this lead - so this division appears to be ignored, or perhaps considered wrong by later authorities. As I said, these things happen - Jackson & Blest (1982) suggested that Portia is evidence that jumping spiders evolved from web spiders, but has also got no followers. --Philcha (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The genus hasn't been revised since Wanless, so it doesn't make sense to say that the species groups may have been "considered wrong by later authorities". There are no later authorities. Wanless is the most recent authority on the genus's taxonomy. Regardless, even if later authorities did disagree with Wanless, it would still be notable to mention that Wanless placed the species into a certain species group, as this is part of the history of the species' taxonomy. Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Added. --Philcha (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

1. There is no mention of the type specimens (or lack of type specimens). This is critical information for a taxonomist. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Wanless (1978) A revision of the spider genus Portia (Araneae: Salticidae) (Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology 34(3):83-124 (1978)) p. 99 gives female holotype Linus alticeps (Pocock, 1899) and no male. Wanless gives 2 lectotypes for males, both designated by Wanless (1978): Salticus fimbriata" (Doleschall, 1859) from Amboina, and Boethoportia ocellata (Hogg, 1915) from Dutch New Guinea. Lectotype - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "lectotype" as "a specimen chosen as the types of species or subspecies if the author of the name fails to designate a a type". I suggest this total muddle would only be of interest to taxonomy specialists, and even specialists in other aspects to the species would just say "see Wanless (1978)". --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
     • Fair enough. Kaldari (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
2. The taxonomy section should mention the 2 species groups within Portia (as defined in Wanless's revision of the genus): the schultzii-group and the kenti-group. (P. fimbriata belongs to the schultzii-group.) Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • At Google Scholar for "portia salticid subgenus" got me nothing. Google Scholar for "portia wanless kenti" got me little. Is it important to other authors, rather just cited with no implications? For example, Jackson & Hallas (1986) "Comparative ..." suggested that P. fimbriata be split into subspecies, but AFAIK no one else followed this (yes, I Google, as the large differences in the hunting tactics made me wonder is this was evolution in action - Darwin said species are just varieties writ large). --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
     • This is now addressed in the article text. Kaldari (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
3. I would like to see a sentence or two about Doleschall's initial description of the species. Was it described from a male or female or both? If it was only the male or female, who first described the other gender? What journal did he describe the species in? Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Where would I find that? And is it relevant today, when revisions such as Wanless' appear all over taxonomy. --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
     • Yes, the original description is important since this description determines the name of the species and Doleschall's status as the name authority. It looks like the journal (Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo-Neêrlandicae) is pretty obscure, so there isn't much chance of actually tracking it down. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
       • I added a single sentence about the initial description. Since it looks like this is the best we can do, you can consider this piece resolved. Kaldari (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
         • Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Body structure and appearance

1. There is no description of the cheliceral teeth (important for taxonomy). Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • That would be too detailed at this stage in the article, and incomprehensible to general readers. Even in section "Taxonomy" I think it would be too much for all but budding spider taxonomists, and those can read Wanless (1978) online for free. --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
2. There is no description of the epigyne or male palpal organ for this species (also important for taxonomy). Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Ditto. --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
3. There are no descriptions of the male or female abdomens except that they are "elastic". Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • The length of the abdomens in both sexes can be calculated from the overall length and the length of the cephalothorax. The colouration of the cited book is not shown by Google Books ("these pages are not shown"). The appearance of all part of the body Wanless' A revision of the spider genus Portia (Araneae: Salticidae) pp. 99-100 shows different colouration of the cephalothorax than in the book I cited (effectively about the Queensland variant), and in the pics in the WP article. Wanless, who had not seen any specimens from anywhere in Australia, described a female from New Guinea and a male from Amboina in Indonesia. Perhaps there regional differences? Google Books and Scholar for "portia fimbriata" appearance description got me nothing useful. What do you suggest? --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
     • Chang and Tso (2004) describe the abdomen of both the male and female as "dark brown mottled with white spots". That would be a good start. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
       • You're absolutely right about Chang and Tso (2004) - how did I miss it! --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
4. The appearance section should explain how P. fimbriata can be distinguished from other Portia species, especially the closely related P. crassipalpis. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
   • Google Scholar for "Portia crassipalpis" "P. crassipalpis" got me only Wanless (1978), and Google Books gave only gave me snippets views which say (in 1978 and 1984) that only the male has been found. Wanless (1978) p.101 says "closely related", but with no explanation, and my Googling got no corroboration from other sources. --Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Good. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Article stability

Stable. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

Good, although the general spider images are not necessary. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

I'm putting the GA nomination on hold for now, pending article revision. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Remaining concerns

The article has been improved substantially, but there are still a few problems:

• The lead is still too long - The lead of this article is longer than the lead for World War I. A lot of this material could be removed, especially material not specifically related to Portia fimbriata. The entire paragraph on jumping spider vision, for example, could be removed, as well as the sentence about P. fimbriata never attacking ants (very few spiders attack ants). Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The lead of World War I understates the Russian October revolution (promoted by Germany) or the entry of USA. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Removed sentence about ants. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see possible slight simplification in hunting and mating. But hunting has 3 complexities which IMO can be summarised: types of prey; in the open, in Portias web and in a web-based spider's (non-salticid) web; and 3 regional variants with hunting differences - including some other salticids' partial defences againt cryptic stalking. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll revise the lead when we've agreed the body of the article. --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• The "Body structure and appearance" section includes information that has nothing to do with body structure and appearance, for example most of the 2nd paragraph. I also think that you could add more information about the specific appearance of P. fimbriata by incorporating material from Chang and Tso (2004) and Wanless (1978). Both give detailed descriptions of the physical characteristics of this species. Right now less than 50% of this section is about the appearance of P. fimbriata specifically. Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You mean "Jumping spiders generally have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs ..."? I can see some simplification, but most readers will only have seen orb-spiders, which generally have long spindly legs - which was my impression until I worked in Spider. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I was specifically referring to the following sentences: "Jumping spiders can leap up to 50 times their own length by powerfully extending the third or fourth pairs of legs, reaching up to 200 millimetres with the forelimbs extended to grasp the prey. Spiders maintain balance when walking, so that legs 1 and 3 on one side and 2 and 4 on the other side are moving, while the other four legs are on the surface. To run faster, spiders increase their stride frequency." These sentences are not related to the spider's appearance. They are describing behavior. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Re para "Jumping spiders generally have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs ...", I've removed some. If the phrases about jumping are moved, the legs still would be in "Body structure and appearance" but just a very short sentence. I'm thinking of another Portia which is AFAIK different. --Philcha (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Added "P.fimbriata in Queensland is slightly smaller". --Philcha (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll think about it and make notes on a subpage. --Philcha (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Adding Wanless 1978 p. 99-100 would make this para about twice as long: different colouration; specify regions for all cases, and Wanless uses difference locations for the 2 sexes; and Wanless' female larger than others, at 10.4 mm. Then the lead would need to gives the differences. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• The section "Tactics used by most jumping spiders and by most of genus Portia" is too long and detailed. Most of this material should be moved to Portia and summarized here. Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Could take out para "Almost all jumping spiders are predators, ... so that they maximize their chances of a catch." --Philcha (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we need to think about each of the paras. --Philcha (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I've structured "Hunting tactics" into 2 levels, Portia "general" and P. fimbriata because: the complete hunting tactics of any regional P. fimbriata consists of Portia basic / general tactics plus those of regional P. fimbriatas; I think that, for most reader, it's useful to see what is general and what is specific. I think removing the "general" stuff would give an unbalanced view of any regional P. fimbriata. Also sources give a lot about the Queensland variant but next to nothing about the other regional variants. --Philcha (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting removing all of the general information. I'm just suggesting moving it to Portia and summarizing it here. The information specific to P. fimbriata is fine here. I was specifically talking about the general Portia material. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
        • See below, about 90% / 10%. --Philcha (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm also wary about over-generalisation at Portia (spider) as there are large differences, e.g.: some are vicious cannibals, while P. fimbriata (Queensland) is not; while the "standard" vision is as I've described, I know one Portia species whose vision is used at only smaller distances that the "standard". Given the gaps in researchers' knowledge of Portia species, over-generalisation is dangerous and for the present it's much safer to described only the species for which good info is available. --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting generalizing the information at Portia. I suggested moving it to Portia as is (without generalization). Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Please look at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia_fimbriata_2#Hunting_and_feeding_2. Remember that: P. fimbriata (Queensland) has the most varied prey capture techniques of any animal in the world except humans and other simians; but about 90% of that is shared with other Portias, and the unique hunting behaviours of P. fimbriata (Q) consists of cryptic stalking and 2 tricks used only against Jacksonoides queenslandicus. The other P. fimbriata regional variants seem (so far) to have only "standard" Portia hunting behaviour, although with differences in performance stats. --Philcha (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That's a great improvement. Nice work. Kaldari (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Moved into the article. --Philcha (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
          • As far as I can see, we have only (?) 2 issues - any ideas?

            Description. While the Taiwan and Austrialian specimens are very dark brown, Wanless's Indonesian specimens have lighter colouring and differences between the female and male (from different locations). Wanless's Indonesian female is also 0.4 mm longer, so this regional difference would need to be highlighted. Add both the different appearances and the locations would make the para at least 50% longer. --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

            What do you think of User:Philcha/Sandbox/Portia_fimbriata_2#Descr.2C_incl_Wanless_1978? --Philcha (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

            I like it. It feels more like it is reflecting all the information available from the different sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

            Thanks, I've moved it into the article. --Philcha (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

            I also added this info (very brief summary) into the lead. --Philcha (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

            Lead. The visible differences would make the 1st para significantly longer. I find it difficult to simplify the "hunting" para - Portias, and especially P. fimbriata(Q), are spider special forces™ (Special Air Service, Navy SEALs). --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

            The hunting paragraph is probably fine how it is. I agree that there is a lot of material on hunting to summarize there, so it makes sense that it is a longish paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the following sentence is well worded: "However, the male also has white grooves from side to side of the thorax." First of all, spider's don't have a thorax, but they do have a "thoracic groove". Secondly, this wording doesn't describe the appearance accurately. I would suggest "The male also has white bands along the lateral margins of the cephalothorax and along the thoracic groove." If this is too technical, perhaps "The male also has white bands along the sides of the cephalothorax and along the thoracic groove" although this is less specific. Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've just checked the male pic (in Portia_fimbriata#Reproduction_and_lifecycle) and this looks from behind, just what's wanted! And Chang & Tso p. 31. In summary, the female has a white fringe just about the chelicerae and the male has the white back and groove. Instead of "However, the male also has white grooves from side to side of the thorax", how about, "However, the female has a white fringe just about the chelicerae, while the back half of the male's cephalothorax has a white band round the bottom edge and a white groove down the back"? --Philcha (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That sounds good to me, and a bit of an improvement over my suggestion—accurate and understandable to the layperson! Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think this article is close to GA quality now. I'll try to give it another read tonite and see if anything else needs to be done. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I found some important information regarding taxonomy in the Jackson & Hallas paper that was missing, namely that P. fimbriata from Queensland is probably a distinct species from the Sri Lankan P. fimbriata. I've added this to the article. Kaldari (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I've added that Queensland-Sri Lanka matings are infertile. OK? --Philcha (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks like Wanless (1978) does give a range for the male and female P. fimbriata body sizes on page 100. According to his paper, he examined males and females of the species from 5 different locations and came up with the following ranges: Male: 5.2-6.5 mm; Female: 6.8-10.5 mm. As Wanless is a very respected arachnologist, and his paper gives more exact figures, I would regard it as more reliable than Ross Piper's Extraordinary Animals. Kaldari (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and switched it to the ranges given by Wanless. Kaldari (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I think a little further tightening of the lead and appearance sections is all that is lacking. If you'd like me to make some specific suggestions, just let me know. Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
        • In lead, I've hidden details of display, and change a later sentence to ".. do not kill and eat the losing female". I see no other tightening. What would you suggest? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I guess that's good enough. Kaldari (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
        • What tightening would you suggest in "Body structure and appearance"? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I would suggest, at the least, to delete the paragraph that starts "Jumping spiders generally have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs" as that paragraph has no relevance to Portia fimbriata. Portia fimbriata doesn't have large forelegs or short, powerful back legs and doesn't seem to be an especially powerful jumper. The only way I could see it being relevant is if you contrast the legs of Portia fimbriata with the legs of a typical jumping spider - explaining how they are different. Otherwise I don't think it is useful for the article. Kaldari (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I've 2 reservations about removing the para about the legs: many general readers will only be aware of web-based spiders, which often have very long, spindly legs; and AFAIK one Portia species has longer legs and a strange gait (coming soon). --Philcha (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Yes, but Portia actually has long, spindly legs, so what's the point of giving the reader the impression that they don't. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
            • Removed. As far as I can see, Portias' legs are a bit longer than those of most jumping spiders, but much less long and spindly of some common web spiders - but can't find citation(s) for the relative legs lengths, nor absolute lengths. --Philcha (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
              • That seems better now - less confusing, more focused. Marking GA. Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • Pics of P. frimbrata and P. labiata show the pair Legs IV in a knock-kneed pose. I've been unable to find a citation for this pose or its presumed advantage(s). Do you know anything about this. --Philcha (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
            • No, haven't seen anything about it specifically. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)