Talk:Svenska Spindlar

Fauna Europea
I know the persons who compiled the mollusc data for Fauna Europaea personally, and they definitely included results of their own unpublished research and took personal decisions when two or more alternate decisions had to be taken. Others did that too. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, a reliable source is still required. It would be quite plausible for that not to be the case. As frustrating as it can be to someone who knows some statement to be a fact, Wikipedia can only work with published information. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On Opiliones
The first sentence on "Presentation" says "For the spiders, which included Opiliones, Clerck used a single genus name (Araneus), to which was added a specific name which consisted of only one word." That the spiders included Opiliones is not true, at least not in the sense Clerk used it. (In one way Opiliones still are spiders in Swedish as their name is "lockespindlar" and Araneae is "spindlar" - Aracnida is called "spindeldjur", "spider-animals". This might be the reason for why Clerk did mention them in a small paragraph at the end [of the 151 pages of text 149 and a half is on spiders], just like modern popular works on insects mention spiders, millipedes etc. because the are arthropods that should not be confused with insects.) In the book Clerk describes 66 spiders still belonging to Araneae, he describes none that belong to Opiliones or anything else. He mention "two-eyed spiders" and tell why they are not spiders, that is what he does.

The first paragraph of the first chapter in "Svenska spindlar" says (freely translated from Swedish and slightly modernised - he called the palps "arms" for instance - all italics etc is in the original and not my additions): "Under the name of Spider I will not include any others than those whose body and abdomen are connencted at a thin point and whose males have their sexual organ on the palps, but the females under their abdomen." The third paragraph says: "All spiders have eight eyes, eight legs, two palps [...] spin their threads through curious tubes for that purpose..." Thus it is clear that Opiliones are not spiders. And to show how clear it is we jump over 147 or 148 pages about eight-eyed spiders to the ninth and last chapter.

The ninth chapter titled "On the so called TWO-EYED SPIDERS" says: "While between the sixty and some hitherto described spiders there can be seen common correspondance and resemblance, from which the Two-eyed differ more distinctly than the hawk from the hen. But as those not are spiders, even if the elders, who have not studied them so carefully, have found it for good to give them this name, with the difference that they are two-eyed; I will, without describing them this time, only hastily show their appearance in illustrations 6:10:2 and 3, and give some short words why they can't be included as spiders. 1st, their breast and abdomen is in one piece, and not narrowly connected as in spiders. 2nd, they have not eight eyes placed as the spiders'. 3rd, the legs show no resemblance to those of the spiders. Thus I have not been able to do otherways, with regards to so peculiar contradictory circumstances, than to pass them by as not belonging here." And this is all what is said about "two-eyed spiders" in the book.

The sixth and last page of illustrations can be viewed at this link and shows a (well, two images of one) pseudoscorpion and a harvestman (Opiliones).

And excuse the rather imperfect translation (Swedish is my first language, but definitely not English), but the meaning is the same as in the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Episcophagus (talk • contribs) 10:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What you wrote was absolutely correct. The statement in the text that Clerck's concept included Opiliones was incorrect. I have modified the text and wrote a small passage explaining Clerck's modern concept of spiders. -- FranciscoWelterSchultes (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A single genus?
Under "Presentation of the spiders" it says "For all spiders Clerck used a single generic name (Araneus), to which was added a specific name which consisted of only one word". While it is true when it comes to the descriptions that some spiders are named for instance "Spec. I. Araneus ANGULATUS" where the "generic" name could be read as Araneus, while others are listed as "Spec. 3. Aran. QUADRATUS" or "Spec. 4. MARMOREUS" in chapter 2. Chapter 3 starts with "Spec. 1. Aran. CASTANEUS" and continues with "Spec. 2. HAMATUS" and from chapter five and on there is not any more "Aran." preciding the specific name (unless I missed some). But Clerck also makes a division in "Skarar, Flockar, Slägter och Arter"/"Agmina, Classes, Genera & Species" on page 15-16, where he gives two Agmina (p 15): 1. Luft-spindlar("Air-spiders")/Aëoreorum 2. Vattu-spindlar("Water-spiders")/Aquaticorum. The "Air-spiders" (Aranei aerei) are then (p 16) divided into two Classes: 1. Gillrare("Trappers")/Retiariorum 2. Hoppare("Jumpers")/Saltatores. Then he continues to divide the "Trappers" into the genera Verticala("Vertical(s)")/Verticalium, Irreguliera("Irregular(s)")/Irregularium and Linneväfvare("Linen weavers")/Textorium and the "Jumpers" into the genera Lupi/Lupi, Phalangia/Phalangiorum and Cancriformes/Cancriformium (he mentions that Lister had already made this latter division [note BTW that Martin Lister coined Opiliones in 1678]). In the following chapters he describes one of those genera in each chapter like in the second chapter named "About the TRAPPER-Class' FIRST GENUS, that is called VERTICALA"/"De retiariis primi Generis, sive VERTICALIBUS".

In the text itself I found (under montanus page 70) "This spider-species stretches its nets almost as dense as the linen-weavers, and places them also horisontally, that one, considering that, easily could move them into their genus"/"RETIOLA sua haec species aeque spissa tendit axtextore, tamque planis lineis instituta, ut eo respectu ad horum Genus facile referri posset" and (under the following species, triangularis, page 73) "Of these two species one could with good reasons make a new genus; if it yet not seemed superfluous..."/"Novum haud temere Genus hae ambae species constituerent, ni adhuc ducretur supervacaneum". Under the "linen-weavers" he starts the second paragraph (page 74) with "If one like to call this Genus horisontal net-weavers..."/"Si hujus Generis araneus retiorum planorum Textores adpellare placet..." and on the next page (75) he discusses whether this genus should be placed in the same class as the other "trappers".

The fifth chapter (page 83) is called "About THE JUMPER-CLASS, first in general, and then in special about the first genus, that is called LUPI"/"Primum de SALTATORIBUS generatim, & deinde de primo Genere, sive LUPIS" and the second paragraph starts (page 84) "As this Class is clearly divided into three Genera (...) view that Genus, that the elders called Lupi..."/"Classis haec quoniam in tria Genera lucide dispescitur (...) id Genus inpiciamus, quod Luporum cognomine priscis notatum est..."

The sixth chapter is named "About THE JUMPER-CLASS' Second Genus, that is named PHALANGIA"/"De Secundo SALTATORUM Genere, sive PHALANGIIS".

The seventh chapter is named "About THE JUMPER-CLASS' Third Genus, that is named CANCRIFORMES"/"De SALTATORUM Tertio Genere, sive CANCRIFORMIBUS" and then he starts the chapter with discussing characters of the class and genus (page 127).

Finally the eight chapter is named "About the later SPIDER-CROWD, that LIVES IN WATER"/"De altero ARANEORUM AGMINE, sive AQVATICIS". The only spider in that chapter is described like all previous (with image, plate 6:8), but not given a name - unless one consider "aquaticis" (or perhaps rather "aquaticus") its name (it is called Argyroneta aquatica today and Clerck is considered auctor).

Note: The Swedish words he uses for the taxons are "skara" (meaning "crowd") for "agmen" (meaning "crowd", "troop" and having no taxonomic use today), "flock" (meaning "flock", "herd", "cluster", "crowd" - I use "class" above beacause it is translated to that in the Latin text) for "class", "släkt"/"släkte"/"slag" [modern spelling] (the word "släkte" is the Swedish word for the taxon "genus" still used today, "släkt" means "relatives" and "slag" means "type") for "genus" and "art" (still the Swedish word for "species") for "species". However I don't live in the 18th century and don't regularly read 18th centrur literature, thus some of the Swedish words might have had a somewhat other meaning back then. I also note that all(?) occurances of the words "Art"/"Species", "Slägte/Genus" etc. the first letter is capitalised.

Thus it is clear to me that he didn't consider all spiders as placed in the same genus just because some of the species are named "Araneus xxx" in the descriptions. In all situations (I think) the taxons are written in all-capitals - even in the case of the "two-eyed" Opiliones ("TVÅ-ÖGDE SPINDLAR"/"ARANEIS BINOCULIS"), see above - and thus only the capitalised words/names is probaly to consider as taxons (and then Araneus should not be considered a genus, but what is today the order Araneae or even the class Arachnida; if it should be considered a taxon at all and not just the word "spider"). This should, I think, be reflected in the article.

I apologise if you found the above too long and too cumbersome to read (it was, however, more cubersome to write and, especially, to "read" half the book [I jumped several pages - you should appreciate that :) ]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Episcophagus (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of pages?
Apart from the title page, the book starts with three pages to the (almighty etc.) King of Sweden, one page with a short something from the Royal Academy of Sciences signed by Linnaeus, and ten pages of Foreword ("To the Reader"). There are 152 numbered pages. And then an index on two pages (plus corrigenda). --Episcophagus (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)