Talk:Tarantula

From Academic Kids

Can we get a smaller version of the image to put inline, with a clickable link to larger version below it? The current one is way too big to be inline. --Delirium 21:54 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

thanks for revising my text

Thank you two for changing my mistakes and for revising the order to the better. I am dyslectic so I easily make mistakes, but I thought the plural of Tarantula was Tarantulas, not 's. The new order is also better. I added the sub chapter names more as an afterthought, so it need a change of name.

The image was not mine, and I don't have a tarantula of my own, so I can't make a good one and I can't find a good one from the internet that is public domain.

The genus and subfamily list is maybe a bit to long. First I added 25 common genus's, but then I wanted to add the subfamilies and I tried to rearrange the genus's into the families, then I found out that one subfamily (speleo-something) has been removed and the cave-tarantula's had been added to another family. Not sure which Genus's should stay in there. Also the sub-families don't look good in that list, something should be changed about it, but I am nt sure what. User:Magraggae 19:45, 13 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

Hi, I don't know who changed "tarantulas" to "tarantula's". What you thought is right, so I changed it back.

What is wrong with the image? It is a perfectly normal tarantula, mine in fact.

Ah, I see now. You are looking at Delerium's message, which is about a year old. Don't worry, somebody fixed the image size problem. P0M

One of the people who has done a lot on the Spider article is an authority on scientific nomenclature. He has done a lot to straighten out naming on that page. The problem is that the names get revised from time to time, and if you don't have the latest sources you can easily get an out-dated name. (I started trying to straighten things out before the expert came on the scene, and I can testify that it is a real mess.) Maybe I can get the expert to look at this page. P0M 08:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the picture, but that text said somethign was wrong with it, so I just replied. Looks good to me. I added the kingdom, phylum stuff. I added the families that I could find out of the most recent information I could find. However I am not an expert, but I think it is pretty recent (this stuff changes so fast because there is soo much we don't know yet). Maybe someone could get some pictures of other more colourfull species as an example how they can also look? lauches hairs into the hair ROFL, thanks for noticing that and fixing it to air :x User:Magraggae 13:25, 14 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)

Picture

[comment by an anonymous user moved from the article page] The picture to the right is not that of a tarantula, but an enlarged picture of a jumping spider. The person that put the picture of the jumping spider up on this site stating that it is a tarantula is mistaken and is now miseducating the interested masses who are coming to this great site to get good, factual information about tarantulas.

He's right, I think. Sure looks like a jumper; I've removed the image and put it here, so as not to orphan it. -- Hadal 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. Probably a Phidippus. The depth of field on the picture is not too good, but it's a good picture because it shows the spider looking around trying to figure out what kind of a critter the photographer is. When I find my big book of Phidippus pix I'll see whether I can pin it down further. I wrote a note on the images page for that photo indicating that it isn't a tarantula. P0M 08:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, good to know... The site said to tarantula, so don't hold it against me personally. -- user:zanimum

Unverified name changes

Please do not change identifications on these pages unless you have done your homework. Somebody changed the identification of the main image to "Chaco Golden Knee...", which is incorrect. See a clear image of that species (same genera as the pictured spider, but with clear "golden knee" bands) by Googling for images, e.g., P0M 19:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The same user has changed the name again. I have communicated with the V.P. of the American Tarantula Society who is a better judge than I (or the other contributor), and his judgment is that any assignment to species by means of a photograph is imprecise. The store from which I bought the spider identified it as G. rosea, and I kept this spider for more than 10 years and saw it under various lighting conditions. I have shared the e-mail message from Mr. Schultz (the aforesaid V.P.) with the other contributor, who has made no reply to my message. Therefore I am changing the identification to G. species as a compromise. P0M 02:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of offending someone, I'll weigh in on this one. First, it is difficult to make specific identifications of tarantulas from photos, and indeed many times even from specimens! Second, I have compared what I think are the two species involved, based on online photos, in the dispute and can say that while the identification is not certain (dealers often do not really know what they have) the identification of this as Grammostola rosea is as reasonable as one can make. It is possible that it is a related species, but almost certainly NOT the Chaco Golden Knee (also called the Chaco Giant Golden Stripe on the web - common names for tarantulas seem to be very mutable.) In any case, as a professional arachnologist (admittedly a specialist in the Salticidae and "clubionoid" families) I see no reason to avoid calling it Grammostola rosea (which it certainly resembles), or as a compromise, Grammostola sp. I would totally avoid a common name as I really do not think that they are sufficiently stable for that. Tarantulas are hard to identify and I really don't like the tendency to trivialize that issue.User:Richman 11 Apr 2005