Talk:Thomisidae

Untitled

Why not skull crab spider here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.30.54.158 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually have a picture of a crab spider ON a web. Who wrote that they don't make webs? This needs to be changed. Ozsvensk GMT 22:36 2 November 2008 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.135.80 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lies. 148.129.129.154 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a link in this article (Fiducia Petrunkevitch, 1942 † (fossil)) which leads to a wrong destination: 380 Fiducia. Fiducia gives the same result as 380 Fiducia. Maja 4 aug. 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maja46 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This subject seems to have attracted some questionable attention. As far as the "web" comment is concerned, we cannot take it seriously as long as no picture has been presented. For one thing, there are plenty of orb weavers that are not crab spiders, but look superficially rather like some spp. The correspondent offers no evidence that the picture that he did not display, really showed a crab spider. Secondly, It might well have been a crab spider, on a web, even its own web, but that the web was not a hunting web, but one spun for reasons connected with reproduction or protection. The claim in this context remains anecdotal. No picture, no comment! JonRichfield (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly redundant article

This article certainly deserves to exist because it contains more information than belongs in any redirection article. However, most of the material within it really belongs in the Thomisidae article. If no one raises any objection and I find myself with enough time on my hands <siiigh!> and no one beats me to it, I think I will strip it of out-of-place material which I will fit into the Thomisidae article and add a few links. Sometime. JonRichfield (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Article 1: Corcobado, G,Rodríguez-Gironés, M.A, De Mas, E, Moya-Laraño, J. 2010. Introducing the refined gravity hypothesis of extreme sexual size dimorphism. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10: 236.

Article 2: Hormiga, G, Scharff N, Coddington, J.A. 2000. The Phylogenetic Basis of Sexual Size Dimorphism in Orb-Weaving Spiders (Araneae, Obiculariae). Systematic Biology. 49: 435-462.

Article 3: Head, G. 1995. Selection on Fecundity and Variation in the Degree of Sexual Size Dimorphism Among Spider Among Spider Species (Class Araneae). Evolution. 49: 776-781.

Article 4: Prenter, J, Elwood, R.W, Montgomery, W.I. No Association between Sexual Size Dimorphism and Life Histories in Spiders. Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 265: 57-62.

Article over sexual size dimorphism is very well written. The article as a whole flows very nicely and transitions into the more specific details work great. Each hypothesis was introduced and explained with the right amount of evidence needed for the nature of the article. Making sure to state that these are the current hypotheses that are being looked at and being researched while keeping the need for further research. Overall, a very well written article and no major changes, that I can see, are needed. ThatEvolGuy (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The portion Sexual Dimorphisms is written very well, with the flow of information being easy to follow and described. The hypotheses and research highlighted and explained gives enough evidence and background to allow the reader to have clarity and factual support of the information written. Overall, I think that this is a well-written piece and will educate viewers on Thomisdae (crab spiders).

Here are some minor suggestions I have to this section:

• Maybe explain or find a picture of the various colors different crab spiders can have. I think that this would bring some life to the page and key in viewers to this section of the page, as well as enforcing the dimensions of the dimorphism. • Maybe find an article on how size difference between males and females is advantageous or disadvantageous from predators. I think that this could give some more insight on how significant this dimorphism is on sexual selection and success of the male/female. • Maybe highlighting Fecundity hypothesis would be beneficial, and then also keeping what it written about it in the section would give further context clues to this phenomenon. Namaste314 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Responed in the following ways to critiques:

1. I did not add a picture (although I agree it would make the page more visually appealing) because of Wikipedia's copyright requirements. I had stated that coloration depends on the species, so I left it at that.

2. I added a sentence with a source at the end of the first paragraph about size being neither necessarily advantageous nor disadvantageous in predation because of Thomisidae's ability to camouflage themselves.

3. I was unsure what "highlighting" meant, but I did link the word to the "Fecundity" page.

4. Added a sentence with a source at the end of the second paragraph stating that fecundity exists as well in other sister groups of spiders. Kyranavia (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kyranavia!

I made some minor edits to your article, such as grammar, punctuation and maybe adding a few words. Overall, I think your article is great! It is very well written and explains the dimorphism well. It also does well to explain the hypothesis for this difference in phenotype. I think you should expand on the fecundity hypothesis just a little -- why do males not need to expend energy towards a single reproduction? What are they spending more energy on? (finding mates, perhaps). Also, for the gravity hypothesis, maybe you could explain why females are still large? You did well to explain why males are smaller -- they need easier access to females, but also explain how this hypothesis applies to females. Overall, I think you wrote an outstanding article!

BabyPug49 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 22:22 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to second round of critiques:

I mostly worked on formatting and sentence structure; I changed a lot in the wording and deleted some sentences, but not so much in the content. I did add a sentence to each paragraph as to why the size of the opposite sex did not change in terms of selection, but I tried to keep it as brief as possible as to not contribute unnecessary information.

Kyranavia (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

References