# Talk:Pholcus phalangioides

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): Kekaze. Peer reviewers: Cjing99, Ahamed01, Stomatz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article probably needs to be merged with Daddy long-legs spider (or vice versa, i.e. I prefer the scientific name because the common name is so confusing). Anbd it needs an entry in the disambiuguation page Daddy longlegs. Rocksong 05:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever merged the two articles deleted a lot of information found in the entry for Daddy long-legs spider. For instance, I think it's already been well established that Pholcids can penetrate human skin, in fact almost every spider can, although the venom has no effect. This very information is confirmed almost word for word in the very link you provide to verify that P. phalangioides are harmless. And yet this article again erroneously "informs" the reader that pholcids cannot penetrate human skin. Secondly, the wording is extremely poor, for example; "This is probably to blur the vision of a predator" To blur the predator's vision? Or to make themselves harder to see? There's a huge difference. Thirdly, "daddly long-legs" is a blanket term applying to many pholcid spiders, since a few them look almost indentical except for the general shape of the abdomen. The article should begin by informing the reader that "Daddy long-legs spider" is a nickname usually refering to P. phalangioides. --Mad Max 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No merging has been done yet. The old Daddy long-legs spider article has been renamed to Pholcidae. (Which is kind of confusing because Daddy long-legs spider is now a redirect to Pholcus phalangioides). If those two articles remain unmerged, some editing is required, so that the family-specific stuff is in Pholcidae and the species-specific stuff is here in Pholcus phalangioides.  Rocksong 09:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Still confusing because "Cellar spider" redirects to this article ('Pholcus phalangioides'), but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pholcidae would seem the more general/more useful article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizofaus (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The "long description" link at http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Pholcidae/Pholcidae.htm states that:
"Since the fangs of these spiders are too small to penetrate the skin, it is not considered a dangerous spider."
This directly contradicts the article.  Should the resource be removed? Stinkman 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I live in Perth in Western Australia, and we certainly get these spiders. But the map included would indicate that they only exist in the eastern states. Shouldn't this be fixed? Black-Velvet 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this query has been hanging for three years. I was just researching this spider and came here to make alert of the exact same thing. These spiders are highly commonplace in Western Australia, and probably a lot of other greyed areas of the country. Revendetta (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
These spiders are also quite abundant in Mexico, where they go by the name "araña patona" ("long-legged spider"). However, the map doesn't include this region. I also hope this can be fixed soon. Theodopulus (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Black-Velvet: @Theodopulus: Firstly, I'm not sure that User:Sarefo, who drew the map, is around much these days – his record shows 14 edits this year to date. You could ask at User talk:Sarefo.
Secondly, the map must be based on a reliable source, not just personal observations by editors. Are there sources for the wider distribution? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The picture does a poor job representing what a phalangioides really looks like; it seems to provide better for shock value than for any educational purpose. Does anyone have a better one?72.81.38.64 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I found another one and used that. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

recently my spouse and i moved into a new residence.  after a few hours we noticed that it had a spider infestation.  after killing numerous amounts of this one type of spiders and spraying poisin throughout the house we decided to do some research on this spider to see if it was detrimental to our childrens health. we came across this page and immediately indentified our spider as the cellar spider or daddy long legs i would like to know if we have to be caustious and worry about our children dying from a bite by one of these spiders?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.239.238 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC) 

There is already some general guidance in the article, but please be aware that Wikipedia has a specific policy that it does not give out medical advice - see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. If want to know my personal opinion, ask me at User talk:Peter Ballard. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply: The Daddy Longlegs Spider is not deadly. It is harmless to humans. It's venom is weak.Please Reply if i am wrong --58.170.1.130 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more worried about the poisons you sprayed everywhere. Hesperian 04:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, who figures "MythBusters" is a scientificly established source of information?  Its a great show, but its no source of reliable information.  Any references to the show are completely irrelevant here. 173.183.146.29 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC). 
Yeah, and I thought the myth about Daddy Longlegs usually referred to Opiliones in that case, not Pholcus Phalangioides. Heck, until the year I looked up "Daddy Longlegs" on Wikipedia, I didn't know these existed, even though they probably live in my basement and that I've probably seen the webs before.
96.245.50.130 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The primary photo of the animal in the top right corner shows it consuming a fly or other insect of some sort. At first glance, this can give one an incorrect impression of what the animal looks like. In the gallery of images that this image is from, there are several where it is not consuming another insect or carrying eggs or whatever that I feel would serve as a better representation of the animal. 184.88.235.102 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the image with one of the others. Colintedford (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Why was the common name "daddy long-legs" removed? Confusingly the article has a section with these words:

"Confusion often arises over its common name, because "daddy long-legs" is also applied to two other distantly related arthropods: one being Opiliones, another order of arachnid known ::also as a "harvestman", the other an insect less ambiguously called the crane fly."
Despite the article does not mention anywhere else that it has the common name "daddy long-legs spider". Come on, this article has become much worse than it was previously.109.57.247.56 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I have tentatively removed that statement pending discussion on whether "daddy longlegs" should be included as a common name, as some sources used in this article would indicate. In my experience, the term "daddy longlegs" is incorrect when used for this species. I grew up using the term only for Opiliones. But it seems the usage varies by region.
See the first section above, "Merge required?", which appears never to have been resolved. Eric talk 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hesperian, do you have a source to support placing "daddy long-legs" ahead of "cellar spider" as a common name? Eric talk 01:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Ordering is style not content. You want a source for what exactly? -- a source that says that "daddy long-legs" has sentence order primacy over "cellar spider"? Hesperian 02:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Um, no, not that exactly. Sorry if my question was not clear. A source that demonstrates that "daddy long-legs" is in widespread use, correctly, as a common name for P. phalangioides. One that might explain why it's not included as a common name in the ITIS report for the species, while it is in the species description by the Australian Museum. A look through the history of this article will show that this name has been at issue here over the years. Eric talk 12:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Eric: how about this source? Of course, it could be argued that sources only spend so much time explaining why "daddy long-legs" is the 'wrong' name because it's widely used. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Peter- Thanks, that's a good 'un! Well, it seems we should work this name into the intro somehow. It just occurred to me to check my favorite insect id site, and there I discover some interesting info regarding the etymology of phalangioides. Eric talk 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It should at least be mentioned that it is also called the "daddy long legs" spider, as well as "cellar spider". It is only the "long bodied cellar spider" because in America there's a "short bodied cellar spider". This distinction is not needed in Britain, where it may just be the cellar spider. 109.57.247.56 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has been expanded well. This is a very well-known spider - I would like to see information added about its mating behavior. What is the maternal and paternal care like in this species? Also, it may be useful to add information about the genitalia and reproductive systems and cycles of this species. 
Cjing99 (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For this article, I consolidated the lead section into one paragraph. I also made several minor grammatical changes to add in commas, correct spellings, and improve sentence flow. I added links for a few terms, corrected issues with italicization (some species names not italicized, other names, such as salticid, did not need to be italicized), and removed phrases like “in studies” to make sentences more concise and in-line with Wikipedia guidelines. I found the switching between names (daddy long legs, skull spider, and P. phalangioides) confusing at times, so I changed some of the uses of the common names to the latin name. Since daddy long legs is a common name attributed to other species, suggest avoiding using this name after the lead section, and changed it in a few particularly confusing areas. The last few sections switch almost exclusively to the use of the name skull spider, which is not used in the first half of the article, so I changed most of these to the scientific name as well. I made some more significant edits to the predator section as the wording made the distinction between predator (jumping spider) and prey (P. phalangioides) ambiguous. I would just make sure the naming is consistent across the article, but everything else looked great!
Stomatz (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

ahamed01 (talk)I really liked the information on the medicinal use of their webs. This was an intriguing and such a unique fact mentioned about this spider. I also appreciated how the headers were very indicative of what the topic about the spider would be about. The Wikipedia article had information on a variety of topics and there was relevant information on the background of the spider. The references were organized in a well manner. In terms of editing, I made some small suggestions and fixed grammatical errors. I noticed that some species were italicized while others were not, so I made it all consistent. I also hyperlinked some common information.  —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC) 
Hi! I thought this was a very well-thought out and extensive article. I especially enjoyed learning about the medicinal and antibacterial properties of the spider silk. I removed a few words that I found to be inconsistent with the flow of the article such as simplifying "they themselves" to "they" and phrases like "in fact." I also changed Venom as a sub-heading for the more general heading of Bite. I would suggest adding a section on the egg sacs as it seems that there are a few images in the gallery regarding that topic. In general, this was a nicely organized article with interesting topics  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcho122 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 

ahamed (talk
This was definitely a very interesting article. I appreciate all the suggestions you implemented. I added a few more hyperlinks but overall I think this is a great article and a potential example of a good source article. I did remove a few words that seemed to be repetitive, but nothing major at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahamed01 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 

Hi Keyon! I really like the Wiki page, I think it contains a great variety of information about P. phalangioides. I also think the style in which it's written is good for Wikipedia and doesn't come across as journal article-like. I made a few small spelling and grammar edits, or changed the way certain sentences were phrased. Content-wise, I first added a sentence about how several other species go by the name "daddy long legs," and that as a result the term can be misleading. I then also noticed that common names were used to reference the species in several places in the article and changed these all to the scientific name. Lastly, I removed the picture of a harvestman because I felt like it wasn't relevant to the article and could confuse readers who are trying to understand what P. phalangioides looks like. Otherwise, the article could be worth of Good Article status!  Shay bala (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pholcus phalangioides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below:  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Right then, having edited a metric f**kton of bio articles I am a strong believer in uniformity wherever possible. Also, some of the sections are over-subdivided, which chops the prose a little. Have a look at Redback spider, which shows the default headings and placements. e.g. taxonomy is way up the top as the definition of an organism is pretty important (way back we had a discussion over whether taxonomy section should come above a description section...can't for the life of me remember where we had it now...sigh. (e.g. like this)
Paragraph 3 of the Morphology is applicable to all spiders so is unneeded here as there is no information specific to this species here.
The last three sentences of the Diet section are uncited...and could probably be folded into previous bit or removed entirely. (actually does Different variations of cannibalism are observed in nature- most often used when resources are scarce and an individual needs to propagate its genes into future generations. refer to this species at all or is it general?)
This does not present either spider with any problems.  - sentence is redundant as implied by following sentence
Social species of spiders are known to remain in the communities in which they were born in for their entire life. They feed and live communally, usually sharing webs and resources.   - if it is not social this segment is unneeded and confuses reader and should be removed
Similar to other members of the family Pholcidae,... - unneeded as pretty much diet of all spiders
they are not near as dangerous to humans.  - err, not dangerous at all?
gallery use is discouraged - much better to insert relevant images near relevant text through article
broaden scope of phylogeny section by calling it taxonomy and adding who named it (Johann Kaspar Füssli) and when.
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article! I greatly appreciate the helpful comments you left! I went through and made the appropriate changes per your comments. The only change that I did not make was that of changing "phylogeny" to "taxonomy." Instead, I made a taxonomy section and put naming information as well as a paragraph that was previously in my phylogeny section in there. Some of the information that I am wanting to portray does not fit under the title of taxonomy as it does not pertain to naming but rather population structure. For that reason, I still kept the phylogeny title to represent that paragraph. Please let me know if you recommend any further changes such as maybe just combining the two aforementioned sections into a "Taxonomy and Phylogeny" title. Thanks again!! Kekaze (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think a unified "Taxonomy and Phylogeny" section is good.
I'd ditch the subsections of the Description section too.
Much like most other species of spiders, P. phalangioides must be aware of other spiders that could be looking to feed on them. - I think this is pretty much true of all organisms (except maybe the largest...) so is redundant and fluffy
One such family of spiders that is a commonly known predator of Pholcus phalangioides is the Salticidae, better known as the jumping spiders - this switches between singular and plural which is jarring, why not just, "The species is preyed upon by jumping spiders" - ?
NB: regarding primary sources, I find they are much more useful in articles that are esoteric/niche and uncontroversial, such as many many biology articles, as they are integral to comprehensiveness.
Hi! Thank you for going back through and making some very good suggestions. I went in and made the changes that you recommended including removing some of the redundancy. Please let me know if anything else sticks out as needing to be changed. Again, thanks for bearing with me through this process! Kekaze (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Need to address the  tag Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I totally forgot to add that originally. Thanks for catching that! It's now fixed. Kekaze (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay then...
Earwig's copyvio clear (apart from two silly false positives)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality:  (could do with a bit of tightening but is ok)
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requires clarification as this is stated without reference to normal range and where it is and is not native itself 2A00:23C7:D78C:6901:6933:7417:B737:C614 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed this sentence as it is both unsourced and unclear, as noted. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)