Talk:Steatoda bipunctata

Wrong Photo

The picture in this article does not show Steatoda bipunctata, but an Achaearanea/Parasteatoda species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.205.1.93 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the carapace seems tiny compared to the abdomen and front legs, and the coloration is not normal for S. bipunctata. However, without a close examination of all eight eyes and adult genitalia, it is hard to be absolutely positively sure !

If anybody is bold enough to delete it, please do the same to es.wikipedia.org

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will be bold (but only because I know the subject of spiders and there is no doubt in my mind). I removed the image of the Achaearanea/Parasteatoda (I agree that's what it was) and replaced it with an image of the correct species. (In honesty, one doesn't need to see the eyes, nor the genitalia in this case, to know it was not an S. bipunctata; that determination can easily be made by someone who studies spiders.) I'm pretty new to editing things here and haven't learned how to do it all, but am an expert on spiders and have come across quite a few images that are incorrectly identified and placed in articles for the wrong species. Sometimes these errors are very obvious (to arachnologists), but the general public will have no way to know they are incorrect. There should be a way that things as specific as spider identification (which takes experience and skill) are verified or OK'd by experts on the subject before being placed on pages where they will potentially spread misinformation. Or perhaps the people adding the images could do some research first and get the images identified by experts at some place like BugGuide.net or Spiders.us (or any other reputable identification resource). Most online info on spiders is so inaccurate as it is, so it doesn't help when online encyclopedias further spread the errors. I know it's a difficult subject, though, because many photographers that upload images have misidentified/mislabeled their specimens, and then the person writing the article goes to look for images and doesn't realize it's the wrong species. There can be multiple sources of error as pages are written. Sometimes even article authors can be misled by online references that seem legitimate. With spiders, the only way to be sure of things is to have actual arachnologists or people with real spider experience write or review the pages... but I guess that could take a long time to happen, so perhaps we just have to continue to fix things as we come across them. I am thankful that people take the time to write the pages, of course; it's just unfortunate when something as important as what the species looks like is incorrect.

--Lady Arachnophile (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that Parasteatoda tepidariorum is known as the "common house spider" in the USA, this mistake

• is very probable
• is likely to cause unnecessary alarm

NB "common house spider" in the UK is most likely to be Tegenaria domestica - this can cause confusion. The Daily Mail is notoriously not a 'Reliable Source' !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"pattern resembling the infinity sign"

The citation says "marking which looks like the 'Alpha' of the Greek alphabet". I suppose alpha is like 8. I believe the Black Widow has an 'hourglass' marking - not a different shape, but with the loops filled-in and red-on-black. The photo looks as though one end of the 8 is hidden by a specular highlight from a reflection of the light source, so 8 may be more accurate than 'alpha'. I'm sure there's huge variation. I'm not sure about the eponymous 'two spots' - are they indentations (spiracles ?) or pigmentation ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)