Talk:Hogna

Format?
The format of this article is such that there is a HUGE gap of white space between the intro and the next section for me; I expect this has something to do with the image, but I'm unsure as to what to do about it. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Image
The image used in the description box does not belong here. It has been misidentified as Hogna frondicola, when it's actually Tigrosa georgicola. Tigrosa spp. were moved from Hogna to their own genus and are easily identified by their thin median lines. T. georgicola is distinguished from its cousins by its heavily banded legs. While T. aspersa also has leg banding, its median line is only visible towards the front of the cephalothorax, between the eyes. This should be replaced by a photo of an actual (correctly identified) Hogna. Eximago (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ok, I removed the image from the taxobox. As you seem to know about these spiders, could you please look at the images [//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hogna here] and find one from North America that is definitely Hogna? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
Re your recent addition of some etymology, in Simon's original 1885 description (which I accessed via the World Spider Catalog), he wrote of the group he was defining (not then a genus) "tarsi III and IV scopulati sed vitta media setulosa versus basin sensim angustiore longitudinaliter secti". My zoological Latin is limited, but I think the qualification means "but [sed] the middle setulose band [vitta media setulosa] gradually narrowed [sensim angustiore] towards the base [versus basin] in longitudinal section [longitudinaliter secti]". A shape gradually narrowing towards the base can be described as "pear-shaped", so this might be the origin of Hogna. However, this is just my speculation. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the Latin phrase this way too. And your speculation seems plausible to me. EricLaporte (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did e-mail the originator of the Taxacom comment. He suggested in reply that a derivation from ὄκνος, meaning slowness, hesitation, and also fear, is also possible, and fits the behaviour of the type species. However, both speculative derivations have the drawback that ὀ should not be transcribed as "ho", which should be reserved for ὁ. I can't find any Greek word of the form ὁ..νος where .. is any one or a combination of γ κ χ, so we are left with speculation. Unfortunately, there are almost 1,000 genus names in the World Spider Catalog authored by Simon, and he seems almost never to have explained the etymology. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it is a latinization of the Greek word, it is a very approximate one. I just alluded to this in the page. But did Eugène Simon care about morphology? for example he named Lycosa inominata Simon 1886 (p. 142). About other hypotheses, I also looked, in vain, for Greek etymons with ω instead of ο, and for Arabic or Berber origins. EricLaporte (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I've had to read enough of Simon's original writings to be clear that he was cavalier in creating Latin or Latinized scientific names. So I think your latest edit is as far as we can go. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)