Talk:Argiope bruennichi

Untitled
Do these spiders bite humans and what are the effects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.108.219 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction Section
I am trying to research the dimorphism within this species and here are some sources that I found that should be useful.

Elgar, M., Schneider, J., Herberstein, M., 2000. Female control of paternity in the sexually cannibalistic spider Argiope keyserlingi. The Royal Society.

Foellmer, M., Fairbairn, D., 2005. Selection on male size, leg length and condition during mate search in a sexually highly dimorphic orb-weaving spider. Oecologia. 142: 653-662

Elgar, M., 1991 Sexual Cannibalism, Size Dimorphism, and Courtship Behavior in Orb- Weaving Spiders (Araneidae). Evolution. 45 no. 2: 444-448.

Fromhage, L., Uhl, G., Schneider, J., 2003. Fitness consequences of sexual cannibalism in female Argiope bruennichi. Behavioral Ecol Sociobiol. 55:60-64

Adowney31 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Hi Alex - I wonder if you might be able to find a 'popular science' article on sexual size dimorphism in spiders to add as a reference?

Hello, just added a few notes on Sexual Dimorphism and reproduction. Looking for any feed back. Thanks! Adowney31 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the content of the article is very thorough; however, because of the sub-heading "Monogamy", the transition from your previous section is slightly confusing. It took me a while to understand that the last sentence ("they may also be doing their part as well") was more to do with male plugging and monogamy than with the section in which it was placed. Other than that, I have no other suggestions.Kyranavia (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I decided to switch the order of things and fixed the sentences you mentioned! Adowney31 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I think that your divisions of the information flow nicely. I think that the sub-headings have the pertinent and most interesting facts taken from your sources. However, I have a couple of suggestions. I contemplated on making the edits, but decided to only make grammatical edits to ensure that I am not altering the message you are trying to get across with the mating habits of this species. These suggestions are:

•	In the opening line of the Cannibalism section, it is stated that females “almost always consume their male counterpart after copulation.” However, under the Monogamy section, it is stated that monogamy and “plugging” doesn’t “lead to higher rates of male care for the young.” I think that a ratio or experiment maybe showing the amount of male Argiope bruennichi that survive after copulation is important here to explain this relationship. I also don’t quite grasp how plugging is advantageous for the care from the father i.e. male for offspring. Also, if this is an essential part of reproduction, maybe highlight what damage “plugging” does to the female spiders. Can they copulate again? Do they die after producing one set of offspring? •	In the Cannibalism section, it is stated “one study shows that variation within these spiders can lead to males that are able to produce a clutch with more offspring.” There isn’t a reference of the study cited nor is the journal mentioned that supports the evidence. Maybe squeeze in an accredited source for such findings here. •	In Cannibalism section, it is reported that the female’s chelicerae become soft in order for copulation to occur and have successful mating. I feel that after reading the reproduction section published, this is a key feature to the mating of these species. Maybe bold and hyperlink the chelicerae to show this body part and add the hyperlink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelicerae This is a really cool! •	Under Cannibalism again, I noticed the term “clutch.” I had no idea what this was, so I clicked on the fecundity selection hyperlink. After this I felt a little more confident in what the term meant, but when finding this article online, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2390120?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, I felt like I got the complete picture. Maybe incorporate this journal into that section if you see it beneficial. Namaste314 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments Namaste314, they helped me organize the article in a more consistent way. The other article helped a whole lot! hopefully the article reads easier. Adowney31 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adowney 31!

I really like the organiation of your section and how there are fixed sections for each trait seen in the reproduction of these spiders. It is good how you emphasise on how each trait or behaviour promotes to the fitness of the organism and the different methods of how fitness is raised as how you linked it back to class. I think that you could talk more on the origins of the dimorphism in this species and how it is maintained however. Such an example could be explaining what drove the males to be so much smaller than the females in the first place, and why they don't have to be small to avoid predators during mating. Also, for the section on cannibalism, you end by stating that the males can benefit from small size. Here you could refer back the section added on small size or you could omit this phrase as it is redundant in this article. Finally under the section for "Benefits" you say "males that are able to produce a clutch with more offspring." I'm not sure if you meant "females" in this sentence so I didn't change it but if males is intended to be there, if possible you could reword it to make it less confusing to the reader. Overall, the additions are thorough and are good in relating to the class material.

Biol&#38;steel (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback! I decided to omit the part at the end of the cannibalism section to avoid confusion. That other part about male or female was meant to be female so I also corrected that. I hope that you enjoyed the article! Adowney31 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)