Talk:Phidippus clarus

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phidippus clarus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In the lead section, first paragraph, should "Salticidae" have a wikilink? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• It redirected to Jumping spider, which already has a wikilink. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Like other jumping spiders, it has vision more acute than a cat's and 10 times more acute than a dragonfly's." Finishing the clause and the sentence with a possessive apostrophe does not read smoothly. How about: "Like other jumping spiders, its vision is more acute than a cat and 10 times as acute as a dragonfly." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• "... dragonfly's" (with apostrophe) is grammatically current. The expansion would "than a cat's vision and 10 times more acute than a dragonfly's vision", which would be clumsy. I also think e.g. "that more acute of a cat and and 10 times as acute that of as a dragonfly" would be clumsy. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  "more acute than that of a cat and ten times more acute than that of a dragonfly". Kittybrewster ☎ 11:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  I discussed this on the reference desk. The suggestion is "it has vision more acute than a cat, and ten times more acute than a dragonfly." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Er, you haven't changed this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Doh! Done. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also from the lead section, paragraph 2: "The eyes are used to target prey and rivals." How about "The eyes are used to perceive prey and rivals." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• To me, "perceive" sounds antiquated and I think imprecise - some times jumping spiders smell prey or rivals or mates first. I like "target" because jumping spiders are generally aggressive. How about "locate"? --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  "Locate" is good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, done. --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Again, you haven't done this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Homer II. Done. Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "All spiders have protruding through their cuticle ("skin") sensors for smell, taste, touch and vibration." This sentence would be better re-ordered: "All spiders have sensors for smell, taste, touch and vibration protruding through their cuticle ("skin")." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, done - and similarly in section "Senses". --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "P. clarus, a relatively large salticid, takes prey up to the size of an adult earwig." I don't know how large an adult earwig is, so this statement doesn't help me. Perhaps include the size of an earwig (in mm)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• The sources don't give that, and I guess species of earwigs vary - got this from Observations on phenology and overwintering of spiders associated with apple and pear orchards in south-central Washington. There are about 5,000 species of jumping spider, and I guess researchers have only scratched the surface. One consequence is that researchers concentrate on the most interesting aspect - in this case, their reproduction - while e.g. research on Phaeacius is all about camouflage. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• From Earwig, "generally 7–50 millimetres (0.28–1.97 in) long" (largest about 75mm) - no very useful here. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "In an experiment, P. clarus was offered as many fruit flies as it could eat, and in four-hour sessions individuals took 17 flies on average – while one took 41." I'm not convinced that the number of fruit flies that it eats in four hours should be in the lead. It would be better to provide information on the variety of different foods that it eats. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Another example of how hard it is to find sources about P. clarus′ hunting and feeding - I found Some factors affecting feeding behaviour in young Trite auricoma spiderlings (Araneae: Salticidae), and by this time I was grateful for it. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• At risk of repetition (see "Ecology"), P. clarus catches fourlined plant bugs. <OR>It seems P. clarus like insects.</OR> --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "In competitions between P. clarus males, the winners are those that produce the most vibrations on the surface and those that are largest." It is unclear what these "competitions" are about. Perhaps "Male P. clarus individuals compete for mates by causing leaf surfaces to vibrate." I don't think that the criteria for the most successful males needs to be mentioned in the lead. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, Axl, "size matter" is the focus of this paragraph and of the whole article, along with the serial adultery. The vibrations are just a preliminary assessment of the competition, saving energy when there's a mismatch in strength. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, how about "Male P. clarus individuals compete for mates by causing leaf surfaces to vibrate. Males that produce the most vibrations or are physically larger are the most successful." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  How about "In competitions, staged on large leaves, P. clarus males start by trying to produce the most vibrations on the surface. If that in indecisive, they wrestle, and usually the larger male wins." --Philcha (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Are the competitions for female mates? Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  In summary, yes. In the main text, "the prize is the right to cohabit in the nest of a sub-adult female who is about enter her last molt and become fertile." I've edited to "When P. clarus males compete for females, the winners ...". --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Body structure", paragraph 2: "Spiders maintain balance when walking, so that legs 1 and 3 on one side and 2 and 4 on the other move together, while the other four legs are on the surface.... However, P. Clarus and many other jumping spiders move on only six legs, using the front pair for other purposes." It is unhelpful to describe spiders in general, and subsequently say that P. clarus is different. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sources again. My big zoology textbook gives the leg pattern for spiders in general, and no other source gives this. My impression is that jumping spiders often use the front pair of legs for catching prey (may apply to most spiders) and especially for displays (contests, mating), as jumping spiders use vision so much - but no source specifies the walking pattern of legs 2 to 4 on each side in this case, although <OR>it's easy to extrapolate</OR>. --Philcha (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

From "Senses", paragraph 1: "While other spiders can jump, salticids including Phidippus clarus are the only spiders with good vision." The fact that other spiders can jump is irrelevant to their vision. This should be deleted to say: "Salticids including Phidippus clarus are the only spiders with good vision." Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Jumping spider" and the more formal "Salticidae" are misnomers, as some other spiders can jump. If that is removed, some editor with more enthusiasm than skill is likely to insert it in the wrong place and clumsily phrased. I already spend too much time fixing such changes from my watchlist. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Senses", paragraph 1: "their main eyes are more acute in daylight than a cat's and 10 times more acute than a dragonfly's." This should be changed per the discussion above and on the reference desk. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't work in the main text, where the subject of the sentence is the main eyes rather than the whole spider. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The section "Senses" should be a subsection of "Body structure". Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I disagree. The vision of the main eyes is what distinguishes "jumping spiders" from other spiders, and is crucial to their hunting and mating - and, in P. clarus, the possible use for biocontrol. The tubes in File:Jumping_spider_eyes_layout_2.png hints at the structure, but is extremely simplified - a less simplified explanation at "Eight-legged cats" and how they see - a review of recent research on jumping spiders gives a couple of nice diagrams. The really technical analyses scare me, as they're by experts in optics are well as zoology. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Feeding", paragraph 1: "Almost all jumping spiders are predators, mostly preying on insects, on other spiders, and on other arthropods." Repeating the word "on" is unnecessary. Please change to: "Almost all jumping spiders are predators, mostly preying on insects, other spiders, and other arthropods." Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've changed to "... mostly preying on insects, other spiders, and other non-aquatic arthropods." The word "non-aquatic" is precise - AFAIK no jumping spiders dive, but I know at least 2 genera are so agile that they take flies in flight. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In "Body structure", I would like to see more information about the size of the spider. How long is the body? How long are the legs? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Jumping spiders have a distinctive rectangular carapace, and that of female Phidippus clarus average 4.05 millimetres (0.159 in) wide, while the carapaces of males average 3.20 millimetres (0.126 in)" is all that the sources give me for this species. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I might be able to find a source about the relative leg length of jumping spiders in general: much shorter than those of most web-based spiders; and jumping spiders' back 2 pairs are shorter but stronger, for jumping, while the front 2 pairs are longer, for steering, displaying and in some cases catching prey - when they're not just walking around looking for mischief. Please remind me to look for the relative lengths. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are females different in appearance to males? The photographs in the Infobox and "Reproduction and lifestyle" seem to suggest that they are different, but this does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the article. (It should be in "Body structure".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• As I said above, "I guess researchers have only scratched the surface. One consequence is that researchers concentrate on the most interesting aspect - in this case, their reproduction." OTOH in Maevia inclemens appearance is crucial to mating. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Reproduction and lifecycle", paragraph 4: "Otherwise males may use leg-fencing." Is the term "leg-fencing" used by the source? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Most research about the behaviour of jumping spiders is based on 2 articles by Hallas and Jackson in 1986, each about 50 pages long, and "leg-fencing" is one of dozens of behaviours there. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. Leg-fencing is currently wikilinked to "fencing". Would it be reasonable to put leg-fencing in inverted commas? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  Un-linked, added inverted commas. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Reproduction and lifecycle", paragraph 4: "In contests, males with previous experience of winning are more likely to win later contests, and males with more experience of losing are more likely to lose in future. In both winners and losers, more recent experience is more important then much earlier experience. However, the weights of the contenders is a much stronger influence, and experience makes a difference only between individuals of similar size." If weight is more important than experience, weight should be mentioned first. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• IMO the most visible sentences of a para are the first and last. In this para, the first sentence describes the prize, and the last IMO makes clear that experience is a tie-breaker in contests between males of equal size. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Reproduction and lifecycle", paragraph 5: "In contests between P. clarus females." Why do females compete with each other? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Again, the sources don't specify. In this sub-topic, generalisations are dangerous. In many species females try to takeover other females' nests, and many eat the eggs of females of the same species (and any others they can get). A lot are cannibals, but the serial adultery of P. clarus suggests no cannibalism there - and another jumping spider is the most deadly killer of other jumping spiders and of web spiders, but enjoys connubial bliss. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• <OR>I can see another reason - females want good nest locations, see my additions about nesting and site fidelity below.</OR> --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for your copyedits! --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Reproduction and lifecycle", paragraph 8: "In these females, copulations after the first occur after longer courtships, and the courtship duration is positively correlated with male size. This shows that already-mated females are less receptive to mates, and suggests that females may be trading up in subsequent matings." I don't understand what this means. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I removed " and the courtship duration is positively correlated with male size." The source tried to summarise a more complex process, where mating tactics change during the brief mating season. See below. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the lifespan of P. clarus? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Vibratory communication in the jumping spider Phidippus clarus: polyandry, male courtship signals, and mating success implies that males mature earlier, and we know that "the prize" is to cohabit with a female about enter her last moult. We also know that females dies a few days after the eggs hatch, and that males "disappear" a few weeks after females become mature - presumably males die before females. I've been Googling again, nothing useful at Books, and so far the same sources at Scholar. I'm going to use a subpage to construct a timeline, as the mating tactics also change. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

From "Ecology", paragraph 3: "In the breeding season, one mated female can lay well over 100 eggs per sac, many females lay more than one egg sac." This information was already stated in "Reproduction and lifecycle". There is no need to repeat it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• There are 2 implications: in "Reproduction and life", females have to lay a lot of eggs in one go as females die soon after hatching; in "Ecology", profilic egg laying is an advantage for biocontrol. --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is its conservation status? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I got nothing new from Google Books or Scholar. Conservation Biology of Special Concern Jumping Spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) of Minnesota is the source for the article's "In a 2002 survey of jumping spiders in Minnesota, P. clarus accounted for 52% of the total found." <OR>Looks like "least concern".</OR> --Philcha (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary

In reference to the GA criteria:-

1. I disagree with Philcha on several points regarding editorial judgement and layout of the text. (If this criterion was my only concern, I would have asked for a second opinion.)

2. The article is factually accurate and appropriately referenced.

3. Unfortunately the article is missing important information. There is not even a basic description of the appearance of the spider. The size of the spider is not stated, only the width of the carapace. The photographs seem to show a difference between the male and female spiders, but again there is no information about this. There isn't enough information about the types of food that it eats; insects, spiders & other arthropods are mentioned—but which ones? The lifespan of the spider is not mentioned.

4. The article is neutral.

5. The content is stable, without any significant dispute.

6. The pictures are all freely licenced from Wikimedia Commons. They illustrate the article nicely.

On the basis of criterion 3, I do not believe that the article meets the GA requirements.

Philcha has worked hard to bring the article up to its current standard. I realize that Philcha has tried to find sources for the missing information, and I thank him for his efforts. It is unfortunate that references for this info are not readily available. I wonder if WikiProject Spiders may be able to help? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahamed01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Student Comments and Questions

Hello! I am peer reviewing your article and just had some clarifying questions about your information that I think could help your article. I did change quite a bit of the layout, so that it matched that of the article format layout given so some information has been rearranged. I also proofread and fixed any grammatical errors I found.Katherine.handley (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is the word "take" used throughout the article when discussing hunting prey? I might use words such as: consume, eat,steal, kill.

When mentioning information within the lead it should not necessarily be completely copied again within the sections, it should be a summary, if it can not be summarized or shortened I might not mention it in the lead. Some information just feels redundant. I might also remove/delete the information under Taxanomy as you already mention all of this information in the lead and it is sufficient and does not need to be stated again.

“ When the courtship display of wolf spider Schizocosa ocreata combines visual signals with vibrations, P. clarus responds to its wolf spider prey more quickly than when the wolf spider presents only one of the types of signal” This wording is a little unclear, maybe provide more information or reword I just wasn't sure what this sentence was trying to inform me about.

When discussing vibration of "surfaces" did you mean surface of the web? Plants? ground? all surfaces? I might be a little more specific just to give a better visual as to what you are talking about.

Under Male/Male interactions/fighitng you mention the importance of size, but never explicitly state that the largest males have the best outcome, might just add a sentence or 2 about this to clarify.

When bringing up female fighting you discuss that it is more physical, do you have any explanation as to why these females are fighting? what are they fighting for? Maybe elaborate more

Within the segment about biocontrol you mention cannibalism within the spider but this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article is this common within this spider? or was this a speculation? I might write more about this if it is prevalent within the species. I also think that the biocontrol sections ends a little abruptly. I might add another concluding sentence about why we would want to utilize these motives.

If you have any questions/confusions/need any clarifications let me know! Katherine.handley (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! This article is really great – the pictures provide a great visual aspect to the page. I removed a red link in the lead and added a map of where the spider can be found and in the parasites section. The prose is well-written and succinct. Akwan826 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I liked your article and think it was well written. A few sections were a little short, and I would have love to read a bit more. I added a couple sentences to your description and reproduction sections to help flesh them out a bit. Shaynarosenbloom (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)