Jump to content

Talk:Redback spider/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Clarification needed

The article states: Contrary to common belief, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous, as reported by the Queensland Museum.

This needs to be reworded by someone more intimate with the subject than I am.

Either of these would clarify: 

* The Queensland Museum reports that, contrary to common belief, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous.
* Contrary to common belief, and reports from the Queensland Museum, bites from male red-back spiders are not dangerous.

However I'd go further and suggest that the Queensland Museum might not be needed there at all. Just make it a reference link if they have useful information on their own website. 218.214.148.59 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FA Class Article

What'll it take to bump this article and other spider articles up to FA-Class? Does it just need more references, or is there more to it than that? Orichalcon 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Dispute

In the Following paragraph:

Most Australians dislike the redback spider, thanks in part to the frequency with which it is encountered in the environs of human habitations (it managed to secure a footing in Australian folklore in 1972 when it was immortalised in the song "Redback on the Toilet Seat" by Slim Newton,[1] (though often incorrectly credited to Slim Dusty)).

I feel the bolded sections need to be revised or removed, as they either violate NPOV, or are irrelevant for the topic. The Slim Newton reference would go in a trivia section which is discouraged by Wikipedia anyway. And I can find no evidence that 50.01% or more of Australians dislike the redback.

I look forward to everyone's opinion on this matter.

The only references I could find on the internet about disliking redbacks were sites that quote this article. I think it's reasonable to assume that a lot of people don't like spiders but I don't think people dislike the redback more than any other type of dangerous spider. I support the removal of these of that text. --Fruv (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your cautiousness by using the "Dispute" template, but I think it would have been quite reasonable to just be WP:BOLD are remove it. It's obviously unencyclopedic. While I generally detest trivia sections, "Redback on the Toilet Seat" was a pretty big song in its day and can probably stay in. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will be sure to "Be bold, be bold, but be not too bold." Erick880 (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Red-back, Redback or Red Back?

I know nothing about these spiders but, after reading the article, I still have a question. Is it Red-back, Redback or Red Back? It may not be an important point but it stood out to me immediately. The article is titled Red-back spider and the opening sentence says "The redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti)...". The Bites in Humans sections says "Red back spider bites rarely cause significant morbidity".

It's possible that all of these forms of the name are correct but I think the article should adopt one and stick to it for consistency. --Fruv (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the NCIB and it seems the correct usage is redback. I will change all occurrences for consistency. Erick880 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick check of the links. Not only is "Redback" most used, but all the Australian links, and all the official or scientific links, use "Redback". So I believe the article should say "Redback", and the article should also renamed from "Red-back spider" to "Redback spider". Peter Ballard (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I just undid an edit where a user changed all occurrences to red-back including external links which broke them. I agree that the article should be moved but it could be quite a job because there are a large number of articles that link here. --Fruv (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Photographed eating a snake?

The article states that One instance of a snake being eaten has been photographed. Any refs? There is a series of photographs floating around on the web of a spider resembling a L. hasselti eating a snake, but according to hoax-slayer this was a brown button spider (probably L. rhodesienses), and it happened in Africa. Wocky (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"One Redback brought to the Museum had spun its web in some sheets hanging on a clothes line. It had captured a small lizard and lifted it over a metre into its web. In the United States, a Black Widow Spider was photographed with a small snake that it had captured, killed, bound head to tail and lifted into its web." - Queensland Museum web site.[1] Peter Ballard (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Of possible interest...

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious benefit

I removed the statement "This strategy [i.e. eating him] seems to benefit the male because the female will not mate again." Clearly, being eaten cannot benefit any creature.--Shantavira 14:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If it ensures that the female will not mate again (disclaimer: I've no idea whether it does), then it benefits him in the sense that the progeny are guaranteed to be his, not someone else's. Rocksong 03:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It can benefit the species because the process guarantees that the female is nourished in order to produce progeny. Perhaps the person who wrote "benefit the male" had misunderstood the meaning of some source material. --Amandajm 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It may actually benefit the male (or at least the male's genes) if by allowing itself to be eaten the male prevents any other male replacing it as the gene source for the female's offspring. Evolution and heredity can be much more complex than they first appear. Robert Brockway 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No disrespect is intended, but as long as you know the spider is a male, which you do in this context, the correct pronoun is "he," not "it." The pronoun "it" is reserved for when sex is unknown, for non-dioecious (hermaphroditic, unicellular, etc.) organisms, and for non-living particles. Any biology textbook will, except on occasions when the editor doesn't catch this mistake, use "he" and "she" for dioecious organisms of known sex. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.187.144 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Current photos

The large abdomen photos on the white background in the articlew are by no means an average visual for the species - it is unusual in shape and a not typical example. SatuSuro 12:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a photo of a large female L. hasselti guarding an agg-sac in a web; of particular interest is the fact that there's a male in shot as well. I took a separate photo of the male. Should I add them to the article? Wocky (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth a look. Add them to the article and see what people think. --Fruv (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

The three images in the distribution section have messed up the articles formatting, I would fix it but don't know how.Jse11 (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on the "Red" aspect.

On one of my holidays in Queensland I saw somewhere a display of redback spiders where the red back was either orange (not red-orange, but orange, like the eponymous fruit) or white. There was an opinion expressed that this was a mutation caused by eating insects containing significant amounts of insecticide. Pity I didn't take a photo, eh? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are not forums and should be about article issues and improvements. Bidgee (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, I am trying to do that. There is already some discussion about the colour in the article, I am trying to add more info. Old_Wombat (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed pic

The picture was not a male red-back.

Female red-backs are not always marked. The male is tiny and pale coloured, with white markings and could easily be mistaken for something else, unless you are familiar with the species. --Amandajm 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind helping me identify what type of spider it actually was? The picture was fairly good, so I'd like to put it on the correct article. For anyone who missed it, it's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Redbackmale.JPG Orichalcon 19:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
If anyone stumbles upon this picture years after the post, it is a Steatoda sp., either S. grossa or S. capensis. It is in the same family as the genus Latrodectus (Red-backs), Theridiidae. Pim Rijkee (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the most dangerous?

"In reality it is far less dangerous to the general population than a number of other dangerous spider species native to Australia." - Is this really true? What other Australian spiders have killed people? The article should name these more dangerous spiders, or the sentence should be removed, IMHO. Rocksong 00:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Funnel-web? CSIRO Web Site - [2] according to the article: Bites from the Sydney funnel-web spider have resulted in deaths AdamJudd 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that's the only one. The quoted sentence was edited a while ago and now mentions the Funnel-web. So my complaint (written back in March) is no longer relevant. Rocksong 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article opens with the sentence Redbacks are considered one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia. No references are given, and it is not clear who considers them so dangerous. (This is an example of weasle words.) Isbister (Isbister, G. K., Gray, M. R. "Latrodectism: a prospective cohort study of bites by formally identified redback spiders", MJA 179 (2), 88-92; Isbister, G. K., White, J., "Clinical consequences of spider bites: recent advances in our understanding", Toxicon 43, 2004) states that these spiders are medically significant and an antivenene exists, but doctors are reluctant to administer the antivenene. I have been unable to find any cases of L. hasselti causing the death of anybody, although they do pose such a threat to small children and infirm adults.

That they are medically significant is certain; that they are "considered one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia" is doubtful. Wocky (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a ref (Australian Museum) which lists them as one of the most dangerous[3] Peter Ballard (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the comments and references above I removed "are considered" because it is unnecessary and weasely, but this has been reverted twice by Bidgee now. Please explain how "Redbacks are considered one of the most dangerous species of spiders in Australia" needs the term "considered", or "species of" for that matter? Would you accept "Redbacks are one of the most dangerous spiders in Australia"? Djapa Owen (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Earlier comments

The article originally claimed red-backs are native to Western Australia, but the (new)Queensland Museum link says they were first seen in Queensland, and in ports, so may be introduced. I've put origins 'uncertain' until this can be sorted out. --Townmouse 01:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally put in the West Austalian origin based on a few sources I read. I'm happy to leave the origin as uncertain until we get better information. I wonder if any genetic studies have been done on the Red Back. --Robert Brockway 17:00, 5 Oct 2004 (EST)

The Australian Museum article on the red-back [4] mentions the Queensland Museum suggestion that the species may be introduced (which has been removed from their website), but goes on to say DNA studies suggest that the red-back and katipo are both locally evolved. Even so, it seems that opening with a categoric statement that this is an endemic species is rather heavy handed when major authorities are not certain. The reference [1] ackowledges the argument, but suggests the species may have originated in South Australia. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I edited the Distribution section to reflect the discussion about the origin of the species better, and to reflect the fact that human activity is continuing to spread redbacks. Frankly it is ridiculous to suggest that human activity stopped spreading redbacks in 1999 when a large part of the spread is likely to have occurred after 1939 as human activity increased throughout most of the continent since then. When I was studying ecology in the 1980s and 1990s investigating the link between human activity and the on-going spread of redbacks was a common topic for field work. I would appreciate it Bidgee if you would engage more in the discussion rather than blindly reverting all edits. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

GA drive

I and a couple of other editors are interested in getting this to GA soon. If you're watching this page and want to help, feel free to jump in. Some things we need to do are:

  •  Done (mostly) Go through the academic biology & medical literature for anything we're missing.
  •  Done Go through Trove for any cultural or newsworthy notes.
  •  Done Find sources for any outstanding {{cn}} templates and unreferenced sentences.
  •  Done Check if we've dealt with the feedback.
  • Copyedit and proofread.

--99of9 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

All {{cn}} tags have been removed and the relevant references have been added. James (T • C) • 8:33pm • 09:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Funny - I just had a look at that in the library - there is a paper on Missulena species online which I have read. Will be back at library tomorrow and take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that - there is quite a bit of material on redbacks in NZ. They love living with us. We have a few in our laundry. I was moving a big pile of bricks in my backyard last year and I found 12. My chickens thought they were very tasty. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we're getting close to being able to put this forward as a GA candidate. Any aspects we haven't covered properly? (chicken predation?) Obviously we can keep copyediting/proofing, but if there are any sections missing, it would be worth adding them now. --99of9 (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The other thing is tidying references and getting them in specific format. if a ref is not web only, it doesn't need an accessdate. consistent author formats (I've chosen "Smith, John; ..." or "Smith, J.; ..." etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've tried to homogenize: author naming, accessdates, date formats, page ranges. So far I haven't looked for anything else, but I'm done for the night. --99of9 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Conspecifics

I don't really understand how Theridium melanozantha could be the redback if it was found in coastal New Zealand. That sounds exactly right for katipo... which for most of history was considered the same as redback, so maybe they've merged it into the wrong synonym. I'm also wary of T. zebrina and L. ancorifer since the specimens were collected outside Australia. --99of9 (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes tricky isn't it - as wikipedia is supposed to reflect published content/sources. Be good to see if there is any discussion of these elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Since the source is just a govt database website, maybe we could write to them to find out why they say what they say? Or get an expert opinion to say it's unreliable. --99of9 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, here we go... katipo claims T. melanozantha and T. zebrina as synonyms too (which I believe). They also have a source. So I'd prefer to cut those two out of redback, and maybe declare our source unreliable to ditch the PNG one as well. --99of9 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

L. melanozanthus (Urquhart, 1887, removed from S of L. hasselti) is L. katipo Powell, 1871 (Vink et al., 2008: 599).

L. zebrinius (Urquhart, 1890, removed from S of L. hasselti) is L. katipo Powell, 1871 (Vink et al., 2008: 599).

actually, maybe it's better to say they were "once considered synonymous". --99of9 (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Realistically they are pretty obscure. The originals were only later considered to be hasselti and then not. I would be ok with leaving them out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Redback spider/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esoxid (talk · contribs) 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Gave it a few initial reads, but I'll go more in depth. Esoxidtalk•contribs 02:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for choosing to review this. --99of9 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Review table

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose: ok; Copyright: looks ok; Spelling: ok; Grammar: ok
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead: ok; Layout: ok; Weasel: ok; Fiction: N/A; Lists: N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Ref layout: ok
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Ok
2c. it contains no original research. Ok
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Everything appears to be covered
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good detail
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Presented in NPOV
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No rapid changes or edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All under Creative Commons.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. All ok
7. Overall assessment. Passes GA review

Comments

  • In the lead I have a few minor concerns. Very technical terms should be briefly described per WP:MOSINTRO, even if they are wikilinked. Specifically spermathecae would be better with a short description like, a female reproductive organ found on the leg, or something to that effect. Latrodectism is probably fine with the part about causing severe pain. The sentence "Populations can be controlled by squashing these sacs, killing the adult spiders and removing litter" feels really out of place being in the lead. Moving it into a body section would read better. Another concern in the lead is the sentence "The redback is one of the most dangerous species of spider." The only mention of how deadly is in the Toxicology, which only mentions Australia: "Redback venom is considered the deadliest venom (for equal quantities) of any Australian spider." For that bold claim it needs to be backed up in the body. The citation in the body does not specifically mention it being compared to only Australian spiders, but the title of the article implies it. I think an additional source is necessary to say it is one of the most dangerous species of spiders (which implies in the world), since that could be challenged per section 2b.
I have removed sentence which veers into how-to territory from the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Bookmarking link which claims one of the most dangerous in the world. Will keep pondering this.--99of9 (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that page talks about the genus (rather than species) as being one of the most dangerous and it is not clear why - but mentions "many countries" in sentences below. I wonder if there is work on the comparative toxicity of lactrodectus species with each other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Another paragraph says: "In summary, on current evidence the most dangerous spiders in the world are funnel-web spiders (Atrax and Hadronyche species), Redback Spiders and their relations (Latrodectus species), Banana Spiders (Phoneutria species) and Recluse Spiders (Loxosceles species)." which I think squarely includes the redback. --99of9 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be sufficient to keep that statement in the lead if it were to be addressed in the body and cited from your link. It sums up my concern too, since the body goes into the dangers and toxicity of the redback, but doesn't compare it to other spiders, which like it said will depend on how you define dangerous. Once that is done, and the technical term is briefly defined, I think it should be good. Esoxidtalk•contribs 22:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that it isn't quite clear on the context - i.e. more because of the numbers of people bitten and how common these spiders are. Truth be told, if I were bitten by a redback I'd be way less worried than if I were bitten by a funnelweb or even a white-tailed spider (my wife spent two days in hospital on IV antibiotics thanks to one of those to avoid the necrosis!) - and I worry that the statement as it stands blurs the degrees of dangerousness. I am sure there will be some more detailed discussion of comparisons. I think that counting six genera as "most dangerous" is not a good use of a superlative adjective and that "more dangerous" or "more hazardous" is a better - or "one of the six most dangerous genera" I could accept I guess Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
When was she bitten? Apparently the necrosis thing from white-tailed spiders was studied and debunked in 2003 (see White-tailed spider), so it's lower down the list than redback. Pretty much everyone puts the funnel-web higher on the danger list, and I agree with that, although I was interested to find out that redback venom was worse per unit volume. Within lactodectrus, I get the impression that the redback is not the worst (black widow has 5% mortality), but nor is it too far off, because some of them never kill. I think six genera is ok as "the most dangerous spiders" list, because there are ~40,000 spider species total. But on the other hand I'm fine with your alternative terms too. --99of9 (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
ok, I added it like this - long story on her bite - will tell at next meetup.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done Great. I've also added the plain language spermathecae. --99of9 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The image within the Prey section would be better placed directly above it for ease of reading. The way it is positioned now, it's easy to miss that section heading. I'll go ahead and do that as a minor edit and mark as done.
 Done Esoxidtalk•contribs 06:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For consistency the Parasitoids and prey section heading and body text should mirror the order. The way it is now, prey is discussed first in the body. I don't think that would fail anything in the GA review, just a suggestion.
 Done 99of9 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've switched the ref to the Australian Museum, which has almost exactly those words under "Feeding and Diet". --99of9 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This sentence under the Web section gives the impression that this has been documented more than once. "Rare observations suggest that they occasionally utilize dead leaves to construct a more enclosed nest.[21]" The citation only gives one account, so I think at least 1 more citation would justify the wording, or change the wording to reflect a single observation.
 Done Another citation added. --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the ref, I hadn't seen that. I've put in the official publication details and link, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. Is there a simple way to add a second link to TheFreeLibrary.com? Maybe as I would a webarchive in {{cite web}}? --99of9 (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No extra consequences for pregnant women

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.1998.00455.x/pdf --99of9 (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done --99of9 (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Venom LD50 comparisons

  •  Done Nothing on redbacks, but I've put the values into the other articles, so comparisons will be possible when we know redback LD50 definitively. This one also had venom volumes. --99of9 (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Secondary [www.researchgate.net/publication/234145218_Reed_safe_arachnid_management/file/d912f50f937478c2f6.pdf source] that discusses redback LD50 in comparison to other medically important spider species. --99of9 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Primary source of the above Rauber, Albert (1 January 1983). "Black Widow Spider Bites". Clinical Toxicology. 21 (4–5): 473–485. doi:10.3109/15563658308990435.
  •  Done Primary source had LD-50s for three Latrodectus species. Now in their articles. Not redback. Secondary source says mactans (least toxic of three venoms) is less effective than scorpions and other spiders discussed. Not clear enough to use for redback comparison. --99of9 (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • this cites a 1956 study: WIENER, S. 1956. The Australian red back spider (Latrodectus hasseltii): II. Effect of temperature on the toxicity of venom. Med J. Australia 2:331-4. as saying that the lethality of Latrodectus hasseltii venom is 100 times greater in mice kept in an environment at 0 or 37 C., than mice kept at 18-24 C. I haven't seen the original.
  • Redback LD50=0.90mg/kg... but no idea where they got it from! --99of9 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic - just tidying up some stuff - access is a bit patchy at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible item for cultural impact

Do we want to mention these? Or would that be a bridge too far? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a clear secondary RS that makes a big deal about the connection, or the significance of the name? I've had a brief look in web news archives, but nothing so far. --99of9 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reproduction query

Can I just check I have read the first sentences of this section correctly: the redback males do not leave their mother's web until their final moult, then do not eat again, searching for a mate. Is this correct? If so, perhaps the previous section should refer only to female spiderlings leaving the maternal web by ballooning etc? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not how I took it (I must have missed this little segment being rewritten) - one of the papers is online here. Though it reads like this, having read Forster 1995, I took it to mean the spiderlings (of both sexes) all leave and scatter (and sometimes live in small groups). Females are more or less sedentary, while the males after the last moult go looking for them. But it isn't really clear. I assume it is this way as the article doesn't specify that it is female spiderlings dispersing. I will adjust the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation of this is that spiderlings leave maternal web to go and find a second web (which young females remain in), males leave this second web to go to find female. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation is that both male and female baby spiders leave the maternal web when they are very small and at about the same age. Both male an female spiders make their own webs completely separate from the maternal web (perhaps sometimes cooperatively when they are small). The male spider leaves his web after his last instar to look for a female and her web. Females stay in there own webs. I suspect that the problem line is "Before a juvenile male leaves its mother's web, ..."; I think this refers to a tiny baby spider. Perhaps, this is being misinterpreted as quite a big juvenile (or pre-adult) spider. Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, the linked article can be used to source that the spiders have "relatively poor vision" and rely on there tactile senses a lot when on the web. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I saw that - wondering where the best place would be to add that information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Aaah, I see now - hamiltonstone has read the first two sentences of the reproduction section which are talking about the male. It is talking about their development and sounds like they directly leave from the maternal web looking for the female. Need to re-read source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You got it! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this - this is tricky and needs unfatigued mind to dwell on it..(how to unravel these sentences so they don't give a misleading idea of male spider's life cycle)..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Update - right, I changed it -main thing was to replace verb "leave" with "set off" as leave (mistakenly) appears to come after previous sentence. Tricky thing is we're trying to focus on reproduction and not life cycle in this section so was bound by what could be said where. "Set off" at least shifts the emphasis a little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Latest research

really? Hmm. Wonder when publication will happen... hamiltonstone (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is not entirely a surprise. Need to keep an eye on that. Meanwhile I think some of the Review Articles foreshadow concerns and we can emphasise that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, Ibister's Lancet article is already going somewhat in that direction. I think we need to be careful not to be too reliant on one expert's theory/data. The other big data point for me is that there have been no deaths since the antivenom, and there were quite a number before it. --99of9 (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, the 2008 Review Article is rather sobering in its appraisal of the antivenom - added now. Strictly speaking, even if the study is published, it will still be a primary source until the repercussions are seen in adjustments to Review articles etc. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Boom this is suddenly a hot article - good timing for our FA! New editors were inserting copyvio text to add what we were "missing". Can someone please check my latest adjustments to include some balanced secondary news reports? --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Congratulations!

...on yet another excellent Aussie article.

My only unhappiness is that the picture of the male is poor quality, and too large by comparison with the female. It would be better as a text image, rather than in the box. Amandajm (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. We've often had male/female double images for taxoboxes. Not hugely fussed either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Amandajm. I think it's quite important to have photos of both if they're dimorphic - otherwise it forces you to choose which sex is more representative (!) and generally reinforces stereotypes or ignorance. But I agree it's not fantastic quality - one day I hope to get a great macro of a male... --99of9 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
As the person who started this article in 2004 but hardly touched it since I want to say congratulations to everyone who worked on it to get it to this point. Well done. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Robert - always funny how articles develop as one editor passes the baton to the next. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"However"

The third paragraph of the "Treatment" section has three uses of however in a few sentences. See general info on the overuse of the word however, and in this case specifically, it would be good to vary the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

switched two howevers to althoughs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

MOSDATE#Precise language

This article has a section heading that breaches WP:DATED (current). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume that this is about the heading "Current placement". Snowman (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Removed "Current" as redundant then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"superglue like material"

<quote>"Once alerted to a creature becoming ensnared in a trap line, the redback advances to around a leg's length from its target, touching it and squirting a superglue-like material"</quote> In what way is this material like superglue (beyond being sticky)?

I guess it means it's very sticky. And maybe that its viscosity is similar. I can't really add anything as it would be pre-supposing the source and hence OR. It didn't seem contentious at the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Which part of the spider squirts it? Is this selective for prey of any particular size? Snowman (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand that the redback spider puts very small droplets of glue on it silk threads, but I can not find anything on squirting of glue directly on its prey. I do not have access to the in-line citation given in the Wiki article. This youtube video shows a redback spider dealing with prey caught in its web, and I do not see any squirting of glue. I think that the information that the article has on squirting clue should be double checked and cross referenced with other literature. Snowman (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Effectiveness of antivenom

"A recent unpublished study of the antivenom has questioned its effectiveness. 224 Australian patients were treated for redback spider bites with either standard pain relief or antivenom, but no difference in outcomes was observed.[101] These findings are disputed, and as yet have not changed clinical practice.[102]"

This seems to me to be placing undue weight on a single non-peer-reviewed study of its efficacy. Neither reference comes near to meeting the WP Medicine guidelines for reliable medical sources. I would suggest removing this material entirely at least until the study has been published in a peer-reviewed source. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I did ponder whether to include this or not but eventually did so because (a) the reporter of the study, Geoff Isbister, is one of the 2-3 people who have studied redback bites more than anyone else, and (b) it made the newspapers here in oz. I felt that to not include it would be compromising comprehensiveness. Also, older material mentions the need for a more rigorous study, which this looks like being. Hopefully it will be published very soon....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Two sentences, with a third qualifying sentence is not undue weight for one of the most respected clinicians in the field. This controversy made international news in reliable sources, it's a real controversy, and the page you link explicitly states "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources." If we were stating this as a medical truth, we would need better info, but at the moment it is carefully and correctly explained as a controversy. I'm about to revert your change, please get consensus before re-removal. --99of9 (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Newspapers are notoriously poor at conveying medical information accurately. I've asked the WP Medicine people to take a look. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. 99, per this edit summary, see WP:BRD, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT (news) and WP:RECENTISM and please get consensus before re-adding it. Further, from reviewing the Featured article candidate page and the text now in the antivenom section, and treatment, it appears that more vigorous review per MEDRS would not be out of order. This template should be placed in the relevant sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this article. Do not rely on it for medical advice.
Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources.
Concur with SandyGeorgia. There are subtleties to the subject which would require secondary sourcing. No disputing that Isbister knows his subject, but we have no idea how significant the sample size was, what treatments were compared (IM vs IV antivenom?), when they were treated, or even how many of the people treated were confirmed to have been envenomed by redbacks (vice some other biter). All these factors cloud the meaning of his findings (which are still unpublished). There is a good reason we use wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I also dislike the appeal to Isbister's authority; I'm sure similar was stated about Andrew Wakefield's position of authority, and it's really not for us as editors to judge. We should stick to guideline in a case like this; people can get their news from newspapers. Has the rest of the medical content been vetted per MEDRS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying Ibister is right, nor is the text of the words removed. The point here is that there is a controversy. We've got an entire article about that over at MMR vaccine controversy, all we've implemented here is three sentences. News reports directly quoting experts in the field seems sufficient to state that there is a controversy and what it is. --99of9 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I was undecided in the first place about putting it in but felt it was helpful on the balance of things. I do not have a real problem with its removal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The MMR controversy was played out in journals, with the press fueling the fire. Here we've got news reports only ... not good, and not necessary for us to stick our necks out, since we are not news. If the idea is that the article was not comprehensive without mention of this, I don't think so ... if it doesn't meet our sourcing requirements, we aren't obligated to include laypress speculation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Procedural note: The WP:BRD cycle started with Espresso Addict's removal of content from a pre-existing consensus. These sentences had been discussed and implemented during the FA review period. --99of9 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

OK on BRD, but as far as the review at FAC, well, this was a miss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The news item happened right at the tail-end. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
From a cursory skim of the edit history, it looks as if the paragraph in question was added on 26 November, the day the FAC was closed, so most of the reviewers would not have seen it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That's correct. Also see the talkpage section about this. My point is not that it was heavily reviewed, just that when you removed it, it had been solidly in place for 3 weeks with an open talk discussion, so my revert pointing to discussion was correct per WP:BRD. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It has been stated that the research has not been peer-reviewed. This may be incorrect. The Newspaper article states that the research has been presented at a conference. In my experience, many conferences peer-review their submissions. These reviewers may be of exactly the same standard as in international journals, or they might not be. It is highly likely that if there was peer-review for a conference, this was only for an abstract of e.g. 200 words, and almost certainly not the entire paper. It might have also been peer-reviewed by the funding body before making their last payment to the research institution, or before allowing submission for publication. Of course I have no way of telling whether it has or has not been peer-reviewed, but I suggest caution befor simply assuming it has not. We can say it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but that is about all.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point, if the sentences go back in, we can ensure we only specifically exclude journal peer review. --99of9 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I no not know what level of peer reviewing the recent study has had. I suspect that it may be better to source the information seen in the Australian newspaper report and conference material after a relevant review has been published, but I might be wrong. Nevertheless, the 2001 review in The Lancet included some doubts of the effectiveness of the antivenom, and I think that elements of the "controversy" can be sourced from that and included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not done a thorough check-- only flagged a few that were easy[6] -- but my review is enough to reveal that this article was not checked at FAC for compliance with WP:MEDRS. (I don't believe it was checked either for citation consistency-- many PMIDs were missing, and there are various citation styles, but that is less critical than MEDRS. I don't think it was checked for MOSDATE#Precise language either.) I'm disappointed, considering I routinely scream at DYK for putting non-MEDRS-compliant articles on the mainpage. I hope someone will run through and make sure sources are used properly-- there's an awful lot of news sources in there, and I found numerous very old case reports, comments, and letters (and I didn't check everything). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If the cite DOI template is used, available PMIDs will be added automatically. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
If the cite DOI template is used, you end up with inconsistent citations, since its format sucks. (You also end up with something whose PMID cannot be checked in edit mode, which is the best way to look for and flag reviews-- going between two windows, one that shows PMID and one that doesn't, to flag reviews is unnecessarily time-consuming, and cite doi is prone to errors. Cite doi and cite pmid are sloppy shortcuts for beginning editors that shouldn't be used on FAs, particularly not when mixed with another citation style.) Let's see on quick glance only, I see:
  • Maretić, Zvonimir (full name)
  • Isbister, G. K.; Gray, M. R. (Initials)
  • Isbister, Geoffrey K.; Gray, Michael R. (2003). (First full name, middle initial)
the result of using multiple citation methods, including the error-prone cite doi.

Anyway, the citation issue is just a distraction, making it harder to locate and flag reviews; what is more important is that the content needs to be vetted per MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree there, when there are problems and inconsistencies, they're extremely easy to fix. Only problem I regularly encounter is that it does not recognise italics. Has to be done manually. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

In reading this discussion, I went to the WP:MEDRS page for the first time. It indicates that newspapers are not reliable sources. Is this something which only applies to medical research? I ask this because I am fed up with writing articles on animal behaviour or welfare based on thorough research of scientific material, only to have an editor add some newspaper article which says completely the contrary based on one reporter's interpretation of a single report/research article. Are the rules of reliable sources different for medicine compared to other subjects? I realise this topic might not belong on this Talk page and I'm happy to raise it elsewhere if anybody has any suggestions of a more appropriate page.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we've been going with, "use with great caution" WRT newspaper articles. In general, medical articles are much more strictly policed as the reality of misinformation with medical claims in the press is much more prevalent and problematic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. I think I will change my editing style by reducing my efforts to include newspaper articles and in deleting those which are potentially unreliable or give undue weight to a single observation/study.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
GIven I am inclusion-minded, I often leave things I suspect are true and worthy of inclusion in until i find a better source, rather than remove outright initially. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
[To DrChrissy]: With newspaper reports, they are often based on the publication of a research paper in a reputable peer-reviewed source, and an effective way of dealing with them can be to seek out that source and present the information accurately and proportionately based on it, rather than the newspaper's (often incorrect) understanding of it.
Medical articles have the special responsibility that human lives can quite literally depend on our information being appropriate, which is not often the case for animal behaviour articles. Thus WP Medicine has developed a set of guidelines relating to medical sources which are substantially stricter than the standard reliable sources guidelines. I personally don't think it's appropriate to broaden them to apply to other topic areas without first gaining an informed consensus from editors in the area, with consideration of the risks to readers of articles containing inaccurate information. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not usually the solution, Espresso. Per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT (news) and WP:UNDUE, anything that gets reported in the laypress isn't necessarily content that should be added to our articles. Depending on context, we typically wait for a secondary review of primary sources (original studies) that are usually reported in the press. Not only does the press get it wrong, but the fact that something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean the content has been subjected to a secondary review, which is the preferred medical sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course we shouldn't necessarily add all material reported in the press. But purely in the context of non-medical content (DrChrissy mentioned animal behaviour/welfare), just because it's reported in the press isn't necessarily a reason to exclude it. In my opinion, there's no reason to extend the existing reliable sources policy to exclude all primary literature, although as it states, caution is always necessary: "While [primary sources] can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Part of the reason I raised this issue is that there seems to be a dichotomy (hypochrisy?) in Wikipedia policy here. If I write an article on animal behaviour, the principal policy is whether it is verifiable (the truth is a secondary concern). However, if I write a medical article, then it is the truth that is the principal policy of the article....and it appears there are particular Wikipedians who monitor this. I am not here to fight Wikipedia. If there is a dichotomy or inconsistency, I know I will not change it, I am simply trying to understand this organism.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I hate the "verifiability not truth" meme - my take is that we're striving to make the articles as accurate as possible - but that the nature of medical information in primary, secondary...and lay- and technical sources mean that some big caveats are required to be accurate (hence MEDMOS) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that the "verifiability verses truth" balance can go the wrong way sometimes. In particular verifiability from text material is often considered an absolute requirement, which is fine most of the time, but certain topics have very little wrote about them. I have previously been outnumbered on a discussion on the topic of the sleeping position of the Atlantic Puffin in its burrow. A text source says that it sleeps with its head (whole head) under its wing, and I recall that this was based on observations of one burrow by one bird warden years ago from an underground observation pit (in a time before small video cameras). Nevertheless, all the pictures that I have seen show this species sleeping (or resting) with only the beak (part of its head) under its wing. I have only found pictures of the bird sleeping outside its burrow and not in its burrow. I went on to look at dozens of pictures of other birds sleeping (or resting) and none show them sleeping with all of the head under the wing. All the ones I looked at showed them sleeping so that they could open one eye and see around them without moving anything except the eyelid (and perhaps nictitating membrane). I think that the answer is to read a lot about the topic and write the best article that you can (without OR) and then be ready to justify and explain your version. Snowman (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I am having similar problems with an article (Tripoding) I recently uploaded. I sourced several photos of different quadrapeds on their hind legs and supporting themselves by their tail. But, because there is so little written about this behaviour, some editors are arguing it is not verifiable and wish to delete the article. Anyway, this is probably getting off the subject of this Talk page, but thanks for the input.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Redback spider. 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) 16:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Redback spider. 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) 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Redback spider. 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) 08:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible recent death

A news article has spoke about a possible death of a 22 year old man due to the redback spider, but the actual cause has not been determined. Will follow up soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One source I read cannot confidently blame the spider, but it also discusses an infection the victim had due to the bite. If that's the case, the victim died from the infection and not the bite itself. Therefore, more reports are needed to clarify my statements. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Just found more posts discussing this, and people are stating that the victim died from an untreated infection of some sort. So now there is doubt that the redback was responsible, but at the same time being unfairly blamed. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I saw this as well and was loath to add it as it appears to be a red herring....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Same here. Until we see more solid medical reports I'd leave this out because of the ambiguity. --99of9 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I will keep my eyes peeled for anymore information. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I read more about it and I don't think the infection was from the bite, but rather from something else and left it untreated instead. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Reported as Redback (still at 03June 2018) at https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/the-10-most-venomous-spiders-in-australia/ 120.16.11.145 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)MBG

But still not in a reliable source. See the discussion at Spider_bite#Diagnosis. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

Pinging Casliber and 99of9, I just reverted a series of changes by Moderntarantula that removed a source with the unsubstantiated claim that it's "a bunch of hogwash" and introduced several other changes that don't appear to be supported by the cited sources and/or are poorly written. Moderntarantula, with due respect we can't accept your personal opinion on the cited sources unless you can cite a reliable published source debunking that source. Everything else you introduced has to be verifiable by reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @Moderntarantula: Thanks for your engagement. I will try to get some time to go through your proposed changes. I agree with some of them. --99of9 (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference distributions paper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redback_spider/Archive_1&oldid=1154688034"