Talk:Portia fimbriata

Hi, Stemonitis
Hi, Stemonitis. Re your copyedits a few minutes ago:
 * Thanks for alerting me about "lions", I've changed it to "... as their hunting tactics are as versatile and adaptable as a lion's."
 * I've restored " | subfamilia = Spartaeinae " as that becomes increasingly important going up the taxonomic tree - I guess I'm now Wikiproject Portia (spider):-D Spartaeinae are a "primitive" group (more basal), and one distinguishing trait is that the middle pair of secondary eyes are fairly large and fully functional. The more derived Salticoids (most jumping spiders) have only vestigial middle secondary eyes. Most Spartaeinae have relatively poor vision, but Portias have among the best of all jumping spiders. I know Platnik doesn't use subfamilies, but Jackson, who does, is one of the gods of jumping spiders and especially Portia. --Philcha (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that what you've just said only strengthens my opinion that the subfamily doesn't belong in this taxobox. It is mentioned once in the article, and does not seem to be of major importance. It is certainly not a familiar taxon to the average reader (whereas Salticidae might be). The information you have just given about the subfamily is interesting, but it belongs at Spartaeinae; some mention of it – including a taxobox mention – might belong at Portia, but not at the species level. I don't think any of us would doubt that Norman I. Platnick has an exceptionally good understanding of spider taxonomy. If he's not using subfamilies, then that really does undermine their status. It is easy to get lost in an interesting taxon and lose the global view; I've done it myself often enough. Speaking as an impartial outsider, I would have to say that the subfamily doesn't belong in the taxobox here. Likewise, I think there's too much material in the text here that isn't directly relevant to the species, which was also my main criticism in the GA review of Phaeacius. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Body structure
I reverted this by Kaldari and this by User talk:Korrawit. IMO the summary of features of spiders, jumping spiders and Portia in general are helpful for readers who are not familiar with these taxa, for example those who read Portia fimbriata or Portia labiata at DYK. And I think the annotated image is a quick fresher for those who have vague memories of reading about spiders or Portia elsewhere. In addition, I'm still wary of generalisations, e.g. I'm working on a Portia that has unusually long legs (and another idiosyncracy), and IIRC another Portia does not build capture webs(!). When I think I'm on reasonably solid ground, I'll going in greater detail features common to all Portias, e.g. their cephalothorax (ugly by human standards) and comparison of mating habits (some cannibals, some not). --Philcha (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be OK with including a few sentences about Portia in general, but going through the entire explanation of what constitutes a chelicerate, a spider, a jumping spider, etc. in every species article is much too redundant. This is the reason we have separate articles on those taxons. Otherwise, every jumping spider species article is going to be mostly identical to every other jumping spider species article. Take a look at Katipo and Zygoballus sexpunctatus for examples of articles that do a good job of sticking to the article scope. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Maevia_inclemens/GA1, reviewed by a good all-round biologist with no great previous knowledge of jumping spiders, was passed with "Body structure" as at Portia fimbriata. Talk:Phaeacius/GA1, with a reviewer who knows a lot about arthropods in general but not great previous knowledge of jumping spiders, was passed after we agreed a slightly more abbreviated "Body structure". I think these reviews suggest that a non-specialist in jumping spiders needs a bit of the basic anatomy, otherwise general readers would have to just up 1, 2 or 3 levels to Portia (spider), Sparteinae or Jumping spider - and the latter scares me, as the main eyes of jumping spiders are really complex. --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By that rationale, every article about a different model of car should explain how the combustion engine works. I agree that it could be useful to mention a couple sentences about the genus, and maybe even the family, but we certainly don't need to explain spiders and chelicerates. Those are far outside the scope of an individual species article. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)