# Talk:Misumena vatia

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): Eanisman. Peer reviewers: Ahamed01, Delanieludmir, Davidcho122.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The image  is actually a Mecaphesa, not M. vatia. The abdominal pattern and submarginal carapace bands shown do not occur in M. vatia. For example, consider [Misumena vatia]. Jtlapp2 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Colleagues, are you sure that Image:Spider_and_bee_June_2008-1.jpg and Image:Spider_and_mites_May_2008-1.jpg is M. vatia and not some Thomisus sp.? Coiuld anyone check the identity of the spider. My reasons for a doubt: (1) lateral humps on the abdomen, (2) distance from the anterior to posterior medial eyes is bigger than that from the anterior median eyes to the chelicerae. Alexei Kouprianov (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The image "File:Misumena vatia Luc Viatour.jpg" does not show a male of Misumena vatia, but a male of a Xysticus species. Koen Van Keer, Belgian Arachnological Society ARABEL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koenvk (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 

I removed the image. Thanks for the suggestion. Dger (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I also feel that "File:Goldenrod_Spider.jpg" is not a male, but it is labeled as such. This is based on my observation of matings in my garden. The males I have seen seem smaller and have very different markings. See http://bugguide.net/node/view/464007 for males similar to what I've seen. Also, I've seen other web-spinners drop down and spread out their legs, perhaps to pay out silk when the wind blows. How is this photo an example of it "imitating a flower"? Fuhrmanator (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Suggestions:
1. Maybe give some examples of the types of flowers the spider is found on and going into detail about how the color change happens on a specific flower
2. Maybe also talk about how effective the camouflage of the spider is in catching prey
3. Maybe also talk about studies done the these spiders  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakami.107 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 

I reviewed this for DYK, but regardless of whether you can lengthen it as required there are some minor reference issues to tidy up. The references 7 and 11 are the same, and so are refs 2 and 21. For the URL references you should give the name of the website as well as the just the link, and some of the books are missing information like publication date, publisher, etc.DrThneed (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ahamed01 (talk)I saw that there was a mention of having the same references, so I deleted the duplicated references. Furthermore, I made some tiny edits that would help with clarity. This was a well written Wikipedia page. The information was incredibly thorough and provided a lot of insight into the spider at hand. I think this is a great example of a resource for good content. One of the general guidelines about a good Wikipedia page was that it was to have illustrations. There were pictures of flowers, and I wonder if it would be better to solely focus on the spider at hand. When observing the references this Wikipedia page provided, I noted that there were over 10 scholarly works used; therefore, I would say that this Wikipedia page has accurate information.  —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 

delanieludmir (talk)Emma’s Wikipedia age for Misumena vatia was very informative and had many categories of information. I particularly liked that she had short paragraphs, which made it easier to read through. The main edits I made were to the headers and sub-headers. In the description section, I added a sub-heading for the description of the spider’s coloration called “color”. I also moved part of the description in order to combine all the sentences describing the spider’s coloration. Furthermore, I changed the “home range” section into a subheading since it fits into habitat and distribution. Finally, I changed a subheading from “adult” to “hunting patterns” since it better depicted the information provided in that section.  —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 

This was a very well-written article with extensive coverage on many important sections. It also has a decent amount of images to help accompany the information. I made a few grammatical corrections. I also suggest connecting details under sections to allow a better flow of information instead keeping a resemblance to bullet points. I moved the video of the spider attacking the bee to the hunting behavior because it seemed the placement was more in line with that section. I also added a sub-header to bites with human and animals to specify a section on the venom details of the spider. Overall, all the information had proper references and the article was very informative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcho122 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 

Early in the main text: 
"These spiders may be yellow or white, depending on the flower in which they are hunting (active camouflage). Younger females especially, which may hunt on a variety of flowers such as daisies and sunflowers, may change color at will."
I have two problems with this. (1) The intention seems to be to say that it takes on the ambient colour. It doesn't say this explicitly. It should. (2) My sense is that at will is anthropomorphic, stating intention. 
These spiders may be yellow or white, normally the color of the flower it is on. Especially younger females, which hunt on a variety of flowers, such as daisies and sunflowers, have a strong tendency to adapt to the surrounding flower. 
--Ettrig (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry is very well-researched and well-written. It has really informative sections and subsections. The text is fully referenced. I especially like the mating section as it has many subsections and has really interesting information. I found it fascinating how these spiders change color based on visual cues. I think overall this article is really good and there are no missing section topics. I only made minor edits to the grammar and sentence structure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saachijain (talk • contribs) 05:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC) 

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Crab spider (Misumena Vatia) with prey silver-spotted skipper (Hesperia comma).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 10, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-05-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC) 

The article states that the spider is harmless to humans as its fangs are not capable of piercing human skin. However, I have been bitten on the foot just yesterday by one of these critters, identification certain. While the bite was painless and the effects did not go beyond redness and swelling the size of a small coin, is it still correct to call them harmless? I realize this is original research per wikipedia standards, my intent is to let someone more versed in citation hunting know that these spiders' bites do have some moxie in them. 85.186.138.169 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Under “Other physical characteristics” is a startling statement: “The legs do not have spines, except under the tibia and metatarsal bones of the first two sets of legs.” Jkdt65 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)