Talk:Tama novaehollandiae

Spiders Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Tama novaehollandiae is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Name superseded

this reference suggests the name Tamopsis novaehollandiae is actually dubious and has been split into several species. I think we need to get the original paper and have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: somewhat belatedly (!), I have looked at the original Baehr & Baehr (1987) and their several follow-up papers on the family Hersiliidae in Australia. It seems that this species is destined to remain a nomen dubium. It's not a case of the species being split, rather that other species have been misidentified as this species, and as its type specimen is lost, it's never going to be clear what it actually was. I've edited the page accordingly, but I don't have access to Child, John, Australian Spiders, of which there seem to be at least two editions, one in 1965 and one in 1968; as the date wasn't given in the original use of the ref, I can't be sure the page number is correct. Do you have access to this book? Or any other book that uses the name? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had this book when I was a kid...might have gone out in a garage sale...or maybe not. Am checking my bookshelf now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope...gone....sorry....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for looking. I think this article and Tamopsis are now accurate. More light may be shed by the promised new book on Australian spiders – see [1]. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]