Talk:Book lung

Untitled
I took this image partially with the idea of getting a view of the book lungs.

It might be nice if this or a similar image was added to the article to show an exterior view of the book lungs. In this image the posterior book lungs are readily visible but the anterior ones are difficult to see. So maybe it's not the best. It's also interesting to me that different spider groups have different combinations of breathing apparatus. This might be an area where the article could be expanded a bit. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.39.251 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2009
 * That image does not show any part of either pair of book lungs.(And also, let me urge you not to dispose any more trapdoor spiders from their homes. As someone that has worked with them, around them, and for their conservation seeing someone dig up such a sensitive species is quite disheartening.[not to mention that the spider, unless you collected it, probably died due to the way they do not dig new burrows...that is if the ruptured abdomen you caused did not kill anyway.]) In the future, please utilize the numerous images already available online instead of digging something up. Arachnowhat (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded to Arachnowhat on his talk page and he kindly responded to me. A brief summary of the exchange.

1. I (davefoc) didn't dig the spider up or collect it.

2. It's not clear what the depressions on the cephalothorax that davefoc thought were associated with book lungs but they clearly have nothing to do with the book lungs which are on the abdomen.

3. Arachnowhat provided a link to a picture he had taken of the ventral side of a trapdoor spider which clearly showed the exterior part of the book lungs.

It seems like it would be nice to include that picture or a similar picture in this article. One question I had was whether the exterior part of the book lungs are an actual opening or is it a thin membrane that oxygen is exchanged across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefoc (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Book lung → Chelicerate respiration – Article already covers book lungs, trancheal lungs, and book gills, all with a relatively equal level of detail to the point where the article seems to spend more time differentiating the other two from book lungs than it does actually discussing book lungs. This information should either be split away, which I would oppose on grounds of WP:NOTDICTIONARY, or the article should be retooled to include all three directly, something that should not even be that difficult given how short the lead is and how prominent the relevant sections are. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. You're on to something about the content needing to be revised to be more cohesive, but I think WP:COMMONNAME trumps those concerns. I'm particularly opposed to the proposed alternative "Chelicerate respiration" since I think it is unlikely to be found by non-experts, while book lung I've seen in museum diagrams. too_muchcuriosity (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Respiratory system of chelicerates would be consistent with Respiratory system of gastropods and Respiratory system of insects, the problem is that the current title does not cover all of the information presented in the body so the only way to fix the cohesion issues would be to remove the content wholesale. Orchastrattor (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree; please note my comment below: in order to "compare and contrast", some discussion of related topics is always needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. The article could do with some work, but it is clearly focussed on book lungs. As is often the case when discussing a topic, it's necessary to "compare and contrast". Discussion of tracheae and book gills is necessary in relation to the evolution of book lungs. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.