User talk:Sarefo/Archive 01

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Sarefo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-19 20:30

Geology of Antarctica

Thanks for your translation of Antarctica. It really is a good contribution. Keep it up! :) Westfall 02:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Francis' Birth Date

The biography on his site says "today at 27" and was written on Monday, the third of January 2005. This means that unless his birthday is either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd of January, he turned 28 in 2005.

year - age he turns that year
2005 - 28
2004 - 27

[...]

1978 - 1
1977 - HE WAS BORN THIS YEAR THAT MEANS

Ofcourse, it is possible that he was born on the first 3 days of the year. but statistically it is much more likely that he was born in 1977. Please don't change it back to 1978. Thanks. (Sorry, it gets annoying having to change it all the time, people are constantly changing it 1968 because of his lyrics.)Febodyed 18:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Oh and he almost definitely was not born on September 11thFebodyed 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please do not blank pages as you did to Terebrantia. In this case, you should have put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 10:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider genus releated articles

You added alot of these articles in a short time, I'm impressed. But please expend your articles, such as where does this spider is usually found, what does he eat, what are his colors and maybe add a picture if possible. Providing the family and species of the spider is not enough.

Michaelas10 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. You know, and I know, that these articles will always be "one sentence wonders". Rather than creating a host of articles with no content, you should focus on each species one at a time so as to provide several paragraphs and photos. Wikipedia is full of these "one sentence wonders" and I don't think they add any value. george 14:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi there :) four reasons why i think the genus pages i'm inserting right now are useful:

easy way to see the diversity of a genus
easy possibility to start a species article (because parent article is already there)
normally not easy to find taxonomic information, much easier to do it all in one go.
very short, but useful distribution info is provided in parentheses.

i'm at the moment halfway through to adding 550 salticid genera. and no, i won't do species stubs for the 6.000+ species ;) I originally made a List of Salticidae species, but found this to be way to long, that's why i'm cutting it up right now. --Sarefo 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that these articles are not useful, I'm saying that these articles are not useful enough. About the reasons your added:

As I said, this information is not enough and it doesn't make the article very useful. Chances are that it nearly won't help any people trying to find information about a certain Spider genus.

It doesn't make the article useful.

Same as reason #1.

Same as reason #1.

Also, what do you mean by "cutting up"? Do you mean removing information?

Michaelas10 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cutting up: the list was very long, and i divided it into genus pages. i'd say, i'll finish the genus pages (i'm 2/3 through now), won't do anything like that afterwards, and will see what i can make out of the pages i just created, ok?

thanks for your input :) --Sarefo 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders

Hello and thank you for your contributions. Can you please always categorize your articles, for example with Cat:Spiders and mark them with stub {{Animal-stub}}. Thank you. - Darwinek 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, is there a way to automate this on a number of files? --Sarefo 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so.

Michaelas10 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i did not put them inte the Category:Jumping spiders because these 550 genera would probably clog up the category I thought it would be more practical to categorize the species pages that are linked from the genus pages. Didn't think about the stub though (damn! :) --Sarefo 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark them with "Arachnid-stub", this is good. Or propose new stub at WP:WSS/P. You can also create new categories based on species. - Darwinek 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portia-species?

Hi, do you have any idea this pic resembles a Portia-species? It looks like one but I am not sure, and all four Portia-articles lack an image. I've read they actually mimic their prey, but a frog?! Thanx in regard! B kimmel 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wow. cool spider :) never heard of this before, but i'll try to find out in the next few days. thanks for the picture :)

Portia labiata actually looks like detritus (check the images in this article or even better here). It mimics the prey of the spiders it hunts not by looks, but by behavior, plucking the net like a captured insect would. I think it could really be a Portia spider on your picture judging from the photo in the second link. but the thing with the frog is really strange, perhaps it's just a coincidence that it looks like that on the picture? how big was the spider? by the way, what do you mean with "four Portia articles"? I only count two. --Sarefo 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! The pic is now added here, here, here and of course here ;) B kimmel 11:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the ID of that spider ? It was taken in southern India and an expert suggested a Neoscona based on the picture. You might like to take a look at Draft list of Indian spiders. Thanks. Shyamal 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as a matter of fact, i already had doubts that it *is* a Portia. Thanks, i will relink the picture. --Sarefo 06:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orius (band)

A tag has been placed on Orius (band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be a biographical account about a person, group of people, or band, but it does not indicate how or why he/she/they is/are notable. If you can indicate why Orius (band) is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Orius (band). Any admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. -- Hawaiian717

hey, i just work here ;) i moved the Orius to Orius (band) because i'm working on Orius (bug). --Sarefo 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. :) Removed the db tag since the original article has been since March so I guess someone thinks its worthwhile. And oops, forgot to sign the original post, that was me. -- Hawaiian717 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of species

Hey Sarefo, I've noticed the huge lists of species you've been creating. I'm not sure those really qualify as articles and I'm worried that they might be an indiscriminate collection of information. This kind of information might be more appropriately placed at a sister project, Wikispecies. What do you think?--Kchase02 T 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, obviously i think that the info fits here just nicely ;) but i sure can see your point. there are those that have a horror of red links, and those that like to have an easy access point to create new articles in an ordered way. i belong to the latter.

i see these lists 1) as a wealth of information per se: showing diversity very nicely for example; 2) as an easy way to access branches of spider taxonomy in an easy way. i myself very often did not contribute something i know to wp because i had no time to go into the trouble of processing the framework that was needed to do it. i hope that these lists are used by people that want to start a new spider genus article for example, or for people (like me) that can't have enough of species diversity and want to see which species have already been covered and which ones still need to be researched for wp (obviously a lot at the moment ;). i think that in the middle to far future wp should grow to a size where e.g. at least every spider genus would have its own nice article, to please layman and scientist alike.

i did look into wikispecies, and it seems to me that it is still in its early stages. it's more like a very restrictive database, and did not fit my purpose. so, i propose to let the species family lists of spiders reside in wp. with the salticidae family, i divided the huge (almost a megabyte) file into its 550 genera and inserted these as stub articles, but i can see that this is problematic. i think the lists are the best solution to facilitate the creation of further information-rich spider species and genus articles. --Sarefo 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have clearly put some thought into this. My main aim was to make sure you were aware of wikispecies. Hopefully eventualism will win the day and there will soon be articles on all these species. Thanks for your response.--Kchase02 T 04:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nihoa Spider

Hi, Can you create a page on the Nihoa Spider? See, without its own page, it would be rather pointless to list it at the top of the page Nihoa, because there is nothing to redirect to. It would be more appropriate to talk about in the body of the article. For instance, if you go to the article Necker Island, you will see what I mean. You can make the page on the genus titled Nihoa (genus) and then we can have a redirect at the top. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i was doing lots of disambigs for spider genera, so that when somebody looks for the name, they now what it is, even if there is no article yet. but i did not realize that the nihoa genus fits just nicely into this article, so i think you found a very elegant solution. thank you :) maybe i'll do an article soon. I changed your sentence a bit, only two Nihoa species occur in Hawai'i. --Sarefo 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, i always use links like Nihoa (spider), not (genus), because there are several genera that have the same name (one animal, one plant kingdom). --Sarefo 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, thanks. You did a great job on the new page. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub display

Hi, I implemented that very function years ago; it seems to be little-known. Go to your preferences, "Misc" tab, and enter a number representing the number of characters you (personally) consider a stub. If you enter e.g. "500", it should mark all articles with less than 500 characters in a dark red. This is not related to categories or tags, only raw text length. --Magnus Manske 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, thx :) why not use the stub tag as a marker? i think text length is a hack ;) --Sarefo 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the spider species lists

Just wanted to congratulate you on a great job. Hopefully, these articles will continue to grow, especially for the more well-known spiders out there. Some of the comments above make it sound like this effort isn't appreciated; I wanted you to know it was. --EngineerScotty 01:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theraphosidae Range Map

I like the tarantula range map you put together. It is slightly incorrect in the northern extent of the range in the western US. On the map, that limit appears to be at about 35° N lattitude, whereas it goes to at least 40° N in the Great Basin area, and perhaps other areas as well. One of the photos on the Tarantula article - Image:Aphonopelma_spp_2.jpg - was taken by myself north of Reno, Nevada, about 20 miles south of 40° N. This same species (or a very similar one) is attested from Salt Lake County, Utah at ~ 40° 45' N.

You may have difficulty confirming this in the literature, as there seems to be a lack of information on Tarantulas in these areas. Absent corroboration of this information, I can understand not updating the map. Toiyabe 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! I was drawing the map from very inprecise data, e.g. it just says "USA". So the line was actually drawn pretty close ;) I updated the map, please don't hesitate to tell me if this or any other map is inaccurate in any respect. They are kind of alpha versions, better than nothing, but in heavy need of correction. For example, i have no idea where on the arabian peninsula theraphosidae occur. i just left it grey (except yemen, where my list confirms them). --Sarefo 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I understand that this is pretty difficult stuff to sort out. Toiyabe 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Nomenclature source, updates, and links to outside databases

Sarefo,

You have indeed put a lot of work into reworking the World Spider Catalog into a form useful for Wikipedia. May I ask how you did this & how you are going to stay on top of revisions and adjustments to the ranges you have provided as future versions of the World Spider Catalog are released? Do you intend to include synonyms and other recognized nomenclature? References?

In case you might not yet have stumbled upon it, I have been developing the Nearctic Spider Database (accessible from [1]) whereby I am using a local, normalized copy of the World Spider Catalog to coordinate nomenclature for a specimen-based database. I also produce a series of text files for 3rd party creation of links to the species pages being written by authors. If this is of interest to you, feel free to get in touch with me by visiting the web front-end of the database above.

David P. Shorthouse

hi david,

i mostly used linux scripts, and the macro possibilities of vim for this. the course of things was pretty much a big hack, but it would not be so hard to write one python script that would parse the wsc files into the wiki format. then, it would only need some diff'ing -> automatic comparison of old and new, and the Lists could be actualized. i don't know how often the wsc is revised though. this is one reason why i linked the list on every genus + family page: so that people that are inclined can compare the page with the list, that is being actualized, and make the necessary changes themselves. because i would not want to automate the updating of these pages :)

i do not intend to include synonyms; these lists are all the information i wanted to get from the wsc for now. the aim was to have an authoritative backbone for systematic work on the spiders in wiki. whoever wants to have this extra information should go to the wsc, it's a really great site. and at the moment i do not see the direct need to include this into wiki systematically. if one common taxon gets renamed, yes, this info should be included; but the dozens of renamings under each taxon, i don't think this is the time to include this into wp. we'll see how the spider section (or the tree of life) in wp develops, maybe in some years it will be so deep that this information will make sense.

about the references, i thought about this, and i think it would be nice if the first description references were linked at the bottom of the respective wiki pages.

but for the moment, as i said wsc has served its purpose, to provide the backbone. i've worked on the spiders in wiki for two weeks now, day and night, and i won't have this kind of time much longer ;) my hope with creating the backbone was to make the wp spider section attractive to other interested people that will help to stem the huge amount of work that is yet to be done: to fill the skeleton with flesh.

yes, i stumbled over nsdb a couple of times when searching for species information. because i was looking for very specific information, i often left disappointed, because it too is a rather complete backbone, with much information waiting to be filled in. but when looking at it from the other side, it's a really great wealth of systematically collected information; i guess it could be of much help for the wiki spider section. but i need to concentrate my work for now, as i said i can't go on like this much longer, i need to find a stable plateau that won't come crashing down on everybody when i stop putting 16 hours of work per day into it. maybe someone else could coordinate the sites, or me at a later time.

cheers --Sarefo 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very interested

I trusted you have contacted User:Patrick0Moran; he has particular expertese on tarantulas. A couple of things I'd like to do:

Clean up the "spider taxonomy" section of spider and the article Araneae taxonomy. I'd like spider to ref Araneae taxonomy as a main article, and contain descriptions of the uppermost levels of the spider hierarchy. I'd like Araneae taxonomy to contain prose descriptions of at least down to the superfamily level, and possibly list the families as well; I'm not sure whether it should be merged with Araneae families or not. (It's nice having articles in list format, but articles with consise prose description are useful to). A lot of the detailed species descriptions currently in spider should be moved to a sub-page.
One think I've discussed with P0M, and he agrees to (but neither have had time to do it), is finish cleaning up the unfortunately-named Poisonous spiders article. Our thought is to add more detailed information about spider mouth parts and the mechanics, whys, and wherefores of biting; and call the thing Spider bites (which currently is a redirect). de:Webspinnen has lots of good info that can be translated; I've translated a few articles myself but my German is rather rusty.
Likewise, the German artikel de:Vogelspinnen has lots of information which is absent from tarantula.
The spider template looks nice; I'd like to expand it a bit (though later).
Eventually, I'd like to nominate spider for feature article status. It needs lots of cleanup.

Sign me up! And again, excellent work on the family lists. (I wish I had as much time to work on Wiki!) --EngineerScotty 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Araneae taxonomy is a construction site at the moment. i killed most of it, but did not have the time or expertise to write it. And yes, Spider is *way* too long, it needs to be cleaned up and split into several articles. Araneae families is a temporary page (concerning the title). However, i think it should stay on its own, with a link to/from a prose article. The 'Spider bites' article is a very good idea, also to resolve the misunderstandings. The spider template was just a first 'tryout' version, would be interesting what you have in mind with it :) --Sarefo 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPIDERMAN

Keep up the work on spiders you are doing great!!!! Your work is very valuable to wikipedia! James Janderson 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous spiders

Whoops, I meant to rate Poisonous spiders as A, not GA. A brain fart on my part. :) Thanks for the correction. --EngineerScotty 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comments...

... on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders; that way others can join in the conversation. Hope you don't mind. --EngineerScotty 04:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for your message. Hope you did see User_talk:Sarefo#Portia-species.3F. Unfortunately List of spiders of India is too full of red links at the moment. I add stubs as and when I get pictures of spiders which can be identified. Those are the few blue links on the list page. cheers Shyamal 05:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i missed the message on Neoscona, thanks :)

Check out the other Category:Lists of spider species, you'll see that most of them are red link collections. I guess it will take some time until most of them are blue ;)

Please don't forget to add the {{WPSpiders}} template on the Talk pages of the spider articles you create, this way it's easiest for people working on WPSpiders to find and manage these articles. Also, it's best to put genus and species pages into the respective family category. cu --Sarefo 06:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A quick note ... Thanks for disambiguating the links on the list page. but the general disambiguation link convention for genera is currently Apollophanes (genus)... unless perhaps the genus name is used across taxa. Shyamal 07:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use (spider) all the time, because this way it's easiest to remember the link. i found taxa that occur in the plant and animal realm with the same name rather often (eg., Collinsia), so i rather prefer (spider) over (genus). I know many (by far not all) people use (genus) over (plant) or (spider) or similar; but in this case i think using (spider) throughout is better. When you use the both, you'll have a hard time wikifying these genera because you'll have to check every time if (genus) or (spider) was used. also, this way the link contains additional information (that it is a spider) that can be helpful by itself. That it is a genus is in most cases implicitit (single word with no ending like -idae). --Sarefo 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Huber

The arachnologist Martin Huber (User:Martin Huber), who has long been a frequent editor on the German Wikipedia, has been busy working on articles here in the English side; I have invited him to join WP Spiders. --EngineerScotty 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 29 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caponiidae, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I had no idea spiders could have 2 eyes. Many thanks for the contribution -- Samir धर्म 11:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider species

Thanks for letting me know about the discussions. Ardric47 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gasteracantha photo

Hi Sarefo. Best not to read too much into my image file names. I name them after what I am told and I sometimes just make them up to be unique. cheers Shyamal 03:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider bites

Hi,

I got your message. Thanks. Go ahead with your plans. They sound fine to me.

I just added something to "Poisonous Spiders" to go along with Scotty's suggestion that it be entitled "spider bites," which you just mentioned too. Strange. Anyway, I put in something on what a bite actually is. I got some good microphotographs out of the dead body of a spider that arrived from the dealer on death's door and died soon thereafter. I wish I could find actual measurements on how many degrees the two joints can open, and how far apart laterally the tips of the fangs can move. As it was I just made a general description.

Wikipedia does not like/accept article titles that involve plurals, hence Spider instead of Spiders, which I think is kind of dumb, but that is the way things are. I am thinking that maybe the title could be "Spider envenomation" and then have redirects from "Poisonous spiders," "Venomous spiders," etc. Those titles strike me as being a little like "deadly assault rifles" -- since when was there an assault rifle that wasn't deadly? But starting with the idea of "envenomation" I quickly disposed of the exceptions and then went on to discuss how the venom gets introduced into prey or perceived enemies.

It just occured to me that there should be something about the pharmacology of the venoms. It would really require a separate article. Medically, they turn out to be quite interesting because they interfere with inter-cellular processes in lots of "inventive" ways, and give people who want to understand things like the nervous system some tools to selectively interfere with processes and then see how the organism behaves. I read something at one time about the Recluse venoms that explained the most serious reactions, the life-threatening ones, as a kind of cascade of chemical reactions that is set off by the venom itself. The breakdowns the venom causes are themselves disruptive to the human system and systemic effects can be very serious. I have now learned to archive articles like that because they can disappear into the Void.

There are certain inconsistencies that I noticed while I was reading the article after putting in my changes and new photos. In particular, the phoneutria venom amounts are not consistent. I made a determined attempt to get the right information because one medical source listed their amount of venom as 100x the amount of Atrax and I was imagining a spider with a backpack to lug along its armaments. I wrote to a specialist in Finland whose site originally had the incorrect amount or at least cited an article with the incorrect amount. I expected that it would be about equal to Atrax, but he got me a medical source and it really turned out to be 10x the Atrax amounts. He said that they have huge poison glands in comparison to other spiders. (So if one should really want to do me in....)

I remember that I moved stuff out of the original spider article because the stuff about which spiders were how dangerous was repeated in two adjacent sections. Then I got involved in trying to get some sort of objectivity into the subject. I think that all the main article has to say is that there are three or four general kinds of spiders that you definitely don't want to mess with, and then people should be referred to the "poisonous spiders" article. If we can keep every claim there properly backed up with citations then we can't go wrong. (Currently the body of the article has a figure for Phoneutria venom volume that is an order of magnitude different than the amount I put in the table, but no citation for that claim.)

The envenomation article needs to be gone over for grammar and spelling, and weeded for repetitions. I'll see what I can do. P0M 03:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of the sort suggested above, and added a very cursory section on spider venoms. My knowledge of biochemistry is far too limited to do the topic justice; a better treatment should be in a separate article. I also requested a move from the admins; the page cannot be moved to spider bite by mere mortals like us, as there is something there already (even though it is just a redirect). I also added quite a few more sources. Take a look! Now, I have to go to sleep.... --EngineerScotty 05:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, i do have a degree in biochemistry, but i'm not sure i want to contribute to this part, as i said i'm just not interesetd in the venom thing. why isn't it possible to move it onto the redirect (i know it isn't i just tried it ;)? I normally do it all the time. --Sarefo 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your kind comments. After some unexplained, rather hostile reverts by another user I realised the error of my cattegorizing ways, and I've been following the standard since. (It is moments like that that can really put you off WP, but you have done exactly what the person who made the hostile reverts should have done and given me some pointers. My faith in WP is restored!)

I'm not entirely sure I 100% agree with the standard though, so there is the beginnings of a thread at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life discussing it. (Though I will follow of course follow the standard in the meantime.) I'm sure this has been discussed before, but if it has guidelines should be placed in the FAQ, and if it hasn't, lets. (^_^) More photos are on their way. --cfp 20:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Lear siegler ADM3a keyboard layout.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lear siegler ADM3a keyboard layout.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lear-Siegler ADM3A

Hi. I've uploaded an image of the ADM3A's keyboard layout — see Image:KB Terminal ADM3A.svg. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

name change of the wolf spider of Tarentum

Did the name really change from Lycosa tarentula to Lycosa tarantula? The last time I looked the Latin was still based on the ancient name of the area. In Platnick's catalog I find:

Lycosa tarentula c. Walckenaer, 1805: 12 (D).

Lycosa tarentula c. Walckenaer, 1837: 285 (Dmf).

Lycosa tarentula georgiana Walckenaer, 1837: 286 (Dmf).

Lycosa tarentula Dufour, 1835b: 97, pl. 5, f. 1 (f, misidentified).

Lycosa tarentula h. Walckenaer, 1837: 284 (Df).

L. tarentula n. Walckenaer, in Latreille, 1806: 119 (D).

Aranea tarentula Pallas, 1771: 337 (Df).

L. tarentula c. Caporiacco, 1949f: 143 (Dmf; N.B.: omitted by Roewer and Brignoli).

I don't know why some places call them Hogna tarentula, but the "tarantula" spelling comes up only in a couple of "mf" listings. P0M 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the 'mf' means 'male + female known' (j means juvenile).

Hogna is a genus closely related to Lycosa, and some species have been moved now and then between them. Tarentula is a synonym for Alopecosa. Yes, there are loads of Lycosa tarentula in WSC, but they are all obsolete synonyms (to several distinct species btw). The only ones that count are the one in bold font, which are the taxa currently in use. that's why i changed it. cheers --Sarefo 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Platnick 7.0:

mf tarantula (Linnaeus, 1758) *....................Southeastern Europe, Mediterranean, Near East
Aranea t. Linnaeus, 1758: 622 (D).
Aranea t. Rossi, 1790: 132 (D).
Aranea t. Petagna, 1792: 436, pl. 6, f. 6 (Df).
L. t. Latreille, 1806: 119 (D).
L. t. Hahn, 1833a: 95, f. 73 (f).
L. t. apuliae Walckenaer, 1837: 281 (Df).
L. t. C. L. Koch, 1838: 112, f. 413 (Dm).
L. rubiginosa C. L. Koch, 1838: 121, f. 416 (Df).
Tarentula apuliae C. L. Koch, 1850: 33.
Tarentula rubiginosa Simon, 1864: 350.
Tarentula fasciiventris Thorell, 1873: 526.
L. t. Simon, 1876b: 65, pl. 3, f. 16-17 (f).
L. t. Zyuzin, 1985a: 42, f. 1.

Species splits

I did that because the Salticidae one was one of Wikipedia's longest articles, and I split it by natural process, like the UK locations have become (but much simpler). Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown spiders

I did not realize that they are several different species, i thought they are probably male and female, but you're probably right.

Yeah, it's not just one spider; there are at least five individuals, and two or three species represented, and those aren't moths, either.

So i propose this to you: i (for the third time iirc) delete the Category:Araneae from the pictures, but i leave the Category:Unknown spiders,

Yes, that is the best way to categorize things. I've removed the Aranae category. What a big deal about some crappy pictures! — Omegatron 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi again :)

the unfortunate critters on Image:Spiders eating 139.jpg are actually moths, but the ones in Image:Spiders eating 149.jpg are probably related to flies, and here + there there's the occasional mosquito (good riddance ;). could you specify which part of the US you took these pictures? could be useful for determining the spider species. cheers --Sarefo 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very strange. I could swear I included the information about where and how I took the pictures, but it's not there. I will add it. — Omegatron 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh... I put it here. — Omegatron 00:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sphodros Rufipes

Hi! I wanted to let you know that I expanded on the Sphodros rufipes page and added some info to it and another picture; as I took an interest to this spider recently and wanted to add to its article. I wanted to make sure you knew since I think the article was created by you to begin with, and hopefully you can look over it to make sure everything's in order. I'm semi-new to wikipedia so I'm still getting the hang of everything. :) - Indy Gold 22:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]