Talk:Up-island spider

Not real?
From what I can find there doesn't seem to be wolf spider species called the "Up-island spider" or "hearse-house spider". Looking at the information included in the article from your source it seems to be a possible local folk tale? of the region. The largest wolf spider species in the US, Hogna carolinensis, only gets to 22-35 mm in length, while the reported size for the "Up-island spider" is in the range of 230mm. This plus the lack of any hits for either name on the web are concerning. Did the Working Waterfront article provide a genus or species name to go with the vernacular names?-- Kev min  § 17:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, along with the external link, or "alleged picture," is just a regular wolf spider (I didn't bother to identify it its not rely relevant).   Bugboy52.4 ¦  =-=  02:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's real. I can send a scan of the newspaper article I got it from to anyone who's interested. The article isn't written in the context of a folk tale. Clearly the author was interested in the subject and did some research. It also includes a picture. The 9 or 10 inches is admittedly my own paraphrasing of reports of specimens being "as big as a pie plate" (see title of the article cited). After looking at an actual pie plate, I have changed it to 8 inches.
 * I have been trying to find a genus or species, but have failed. The article didn't mention any, although there's an implication that the habitat is so tiny that the spider may have never been studied or classified.
 * Google "up island spider" and you'll get a number of hits. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I attempted to google it when I reviewed your dyk nom and found no reliable sources that supported the assertions of the article you are citing. If you have other reliable sources please add them to the article. The few images that have the name attached to them are all of regular size wolf spiders.  Considering the purported size and the populated area it inhabits, it is very highly unlikely that an arachnologist would not have studied it by now.-- Kev  min  § 12:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Be it as that may, as long as there is no scientific description or classification, it remains a cryptid; that's not necessarily saying it's not real (after all the okapi used to be a cryptid). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the cryptid category for now. I have written to the newspaper to ask if the author is still around and has any further information. The spider is known locally by that name, but surely it has a "real" scientific name. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What real evidence is there regarding this species? Mmilan1170 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)