Talk:Bagheera kiplingi

preconceptions

"a discovery attributed to the fact that non-specialists with fewer pre-conceptions about what was important in this ecology were involved in the inquiry." Thanks again WikiPedia for your perfectly objective trivia, you are a bastion of integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.115.86 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, maybe, rather than being snarky on the extremely low-traffic talkpage, you could, like, fix it --King Öomie 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and checked the citation for that statement, found it didn't support the text, and fixed it myself. Agree with Öomie though that bringing up issues can be helpful, but being snarky about it is not, and fixing the issue oneself is best. -kotra (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

i very clearly remember having read this in one of the publications that i read when the news was broken. While I can't find the source atm, i'll leave it in there for now. --Sarefo (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Importance

I would hope given the peculiar diet of the spider it may warrant a higher rating than "low". - RoyBoy 03:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's purely the purview of Wikiproject Spider. --King Öomie 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Diet

I tried to rewrite the first paragraph of the diet section because, as written, it was difficult to discern whether B.kiplingi was actively involved in the symbiotic process and because the symbiosis is tangent to the subject. If I'm actually wrong and the spider is involved some way in the symbiosis (e.g., key to the evolutionary development of the process), then that can be expounded in another section. --Helena srilowa 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In media

I think this spider appeared in a documentary called Wild Mexico which aired on Animal Planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)