Talk:Phaeacius

Malaya
Malaya is a disambiguation page. --Ettrig (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Btw, Malaya is an obsolete name. By Malaya do you mean the Malay Peninsula, Malaysia, or the Malay Archipelago? I've replaced "Malaya" with Malay Peninsula for now. - Yk (talk | contrib) 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source wasn't that specific, your edit is OK. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article

 * "salticids including Phaeacius are the only spiders with good vision" (stated twice in the article)
 * All non-primitive hunting spiders (Lycosidae, Thomisidae, Salticidae) have good vision. Indeed, our article on Lycosidae says this in the second sentence. Salticids just happen to have the best vision.
 * New Zealand Journal of Zoology 1986 p 521, right column: "the cursorial spiders can be divided in to two further groups, those with acute vision ('visual hunters': the Salticidae) and species with poor vision ('non-visual hunters')" --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The quotation you cite is ambiguous. I imagine they are mentioning Salticidae as an example rather than the only instance. Here are some clearer citations:
 * "In the families Lycosidae and Salticidae, which have good vision…"
 * "…some have exceedingly good vision (Salticidae, Thomisidae, Lycosidae, etc.)"
 * "[Lycosidae] are vagrant hunters with good vision used in prey capture."
 * "…at least some of the lycosids have good vision."
 * "Spiders with good vision (eg Salticidae and Lycosidae) engage in courtship displays…"
 * "...excellent vision is vital for diurnal 'hunting' spiders belonging to the orders Lycosidae, Thomisidae and Salticidae"
 * "Eyes with such impressive properties and forming good images all belong to hunting spiders, such as salticids, lycosids, thomisids and sparassids."
 * "…in certain of the hunting spiders (eg, Lycosidae, Attidae), which possess good vision" --Encyclopaedia Britannica
 * "The Attidae and Lycosidae are hunting spiders endowed with relatively good vision"
 * How about e.g. "salticids including Phaeacius have significantly better vision than other spiders"? There seem to be 3 levels of vision: pure web-spiders have very poor vision; non-salticid hunting spiders; and jumping spiders. --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Phaeacius is rarely found in museum collections because it is very well camouflaged."
 * Many cryptic species are common in museum collections (Platycryptus for example). The reason Phaeacius is not is because it is endemic to Southeast Asia, an area whose fauna is poorly studied.
 * I've restored the main text (last sentence) and its citation, which is explicit. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean about "restoring" the text. The sentence was never removed and is now repeated twice in the article. Your citation actually states that "Wanless (1981) attributed this rarity to the remarkable camouflaged appearance exhibited by these spiders in life". This statement is, however, completely untrue. Wanless (1981) states: "In spite of their large size Phaeacius species are rare in museum collections and in the majority of cases only the types were available for study." He does not mention or imply in any way that this rarity is due to their camouflage. Such a claim would be dubious anyway for two reasons: Arachnologists typically collect jumping spiders by using sweep nets, beating sheets, or traps, thus the camouflage is largely irrelevant; As I mentioned before, many cryptic spiders are common in museum collections. The spiders that are uncommon are those from remote areas such as Southeast Asia. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the book Riceland spiders of South and Southeast Asia I can't see Wanless (1981) in the "References" (p. 695). Can you tell me where to find Wanless (1981). --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wanless's revision of the genus can be found here. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. It was meant as a little joke, but you've shown that the source is faulty. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "While most jumping spiders do not build webs to catch prey"
 * No jumping spiders build webs to catch prey.
 * Females of Portia, see e.g. Portia fimbriata & citations. --08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like your source does back up this claim, although it should be noted that this conclusion is not universally accepted: "The main reason for these webs does not seem to be catching prey items, because P. fimbriata is ararneophagic. The spider will however eat a caught insect if the opportunity arises. The spiders use these webs mostly for courtship and mating principals."
 * The [colostate.edu course notes are not peer-reviewed. See [[Portia fimbriata]] and Portia labiata, especially the 6-column table on hunting tactics. The enthusiasm for insects in a Portia′s own web varies between Portia species, and some use insects as bait to catch non-salticid web spiders. In any case Phaeacius apparently does not build a capture web and avoids other spiders' webs, which is the main point. --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You've convinced me. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The highest point of Phaeacius′ cepholothorax is just past the head"
 * Spiders don't have "heads" and if they did it would be considered the entire cephalothorax. What you are referring to here is the cephalic region of the carapace. It would be better to say "just past the posterior lateral eyes" (assuming that is accurate).
 * Changed to "The cepholothorax of Phaeacius′ is relatively long, and the highest point is a little behind the last pair of eyes", see diagrams at cited work (Wanless). --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jumping spiders have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs"
 * Lots of jumping spiders have back legs that are quite long. In Tutelina elegans, for example, the back legs are the longest. And in many ant-mimic jumping spiders the back legs are not especially powerful since they are not used for jumping.
 * Changed to "generally have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs". --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The name Salticidae is based on the Latin saltus, meaning 'a leap'."
 * The etymology of "Salticidae" doesn't belong in this article. The scope of this article is the genus Phaeacius, not jumping spiders in general. Much of the content of the Body structure section is also too broad for the scope of this article.
 * See the GA reviews of Phaeacius and Maevia inclemens. Some readers may think spiders have antennae and 6 legs, some may think think all spiders are like lycosidae or "daddy long legs", etc. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The GA review makes the exact same criticism I do "All this is very good material for the article jumping spider, but its relevance here is limited... Give the etymology of Phaeacius, rather than that of Salticidae." Even if it was true that readers don't know what spiders are (which is absurd), that doesn't justify putting the etymology of "Salticidae" in this article. The etymology of "Salticidae" has absolutely no relevance to this article. Do you really think that we should explain the etymology of "Salticidae" for all 5000 jumping spider species? Wouldn't it be a lot more useful to explain the etymology of "Phaeacius" (which is given in Spiders of North America: An Identification Manual)? Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd gladly trade the etymology of "Salticidae" for that of "Phaeacius". Google gives me only sales pages for Spiders of North America: An Identification Manual. Can you give the usual citation details - just as text, I'll use a tool to build a good citation. --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look it up as soon as I get a chance. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Etymology added to the article. Kaldari (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman Mythology does not mention Phaeacius at all, let alone say explicitly that the name Phaeacius is derived from the Phaeacians. That people built ships that were un-crewed but the fastest in the world (Homer's Odyssey; from my Oxford Classical Dictionary) - while Phaeacius is very sedentary. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Simon was fond of using names from Roman and Greek literature, for example Rhetenor. Of course they didn't always make sense :) I wasn't able to find an explicit reference for the etymology, but the reference to Phaeacia seems straightforward. The latin suffix -ius means belonging to, so the rest of the word must either refer to a person or place. There doesn't appear to be any other people or places with a similar spelling, so it must refer to Phaeacia. Since I don't have an explicit source, however, you are free to remove it. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. --Philcha (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jumping spiders... can leap up to 50 times their own length by powerfully extending the third or fourth pairs of legs."
 * This is a dubious claim and it is definitely "not backed up by the 2nd source". My earlier edition of the first source doesn't back it up either, so unless a specific claim can be quoted, I think it is misinformation.Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm away from home, and will check the book tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about "not backed up by the 2nd source", I can only assume I had a slip of the keyboard. Ruppert, Fox and Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (2004) p. 578 says up to 50 body lengths. The private life of spiders by P. D. Hillyard (2007) says up to 20 body lengths. I've Googled for a tie-breaker and got nothing useful. Can you come up with other citations? --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly surprised that Invertebrate Zoology says up to 50 body lengths, but I'll take your word for it. Sorry I was so incredulous. There is virtually no information published on jumping distances for jumping spiders, so I have no idea where they are getting that figure from. From the small bits of unpublished data that I know of, most American genera, such as Phidippus, can jump about 10 times their body length. The most exceptional jumper in the U.S. is probably Habronattus (which uses both 3rd and 4th legs for jumping). Habronattus has been recorded jumping up to 24 times its body length. This is the longest range that I know of, but it isn't citable. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. An unsolved problem - damn! --Philcha (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At my Talk page you said "Although I don't have the same edition of Invertebrate Zoology as the one you cite for this statistic, ...". If you have a different edition of Ruppert, Fox and Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (mine is 2004), would it be useful to check yours in case a type-setting error slipped into the 2004 edition (I've just seen one in the TOC - "CYCLONEURALIASP", where the "SP" should have been superscript for "super-phylum"). As the pagination is probably different in yours, here: ch. "Chelicerata"; section "Arachnida"; sub-section "Araneae"; sub-sub-page "Internal transport" (i.e. circulation - legs are extended by "blood"-pressure). --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll check when I get home. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)