# Talk:Phaeacius

Malaya is a disambiguation page. --Ettrig (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Malaya is an obsolete name. By Malaya do you mean the Malay Peninsula, Malaysia, or the Malay Archipelago? I've replaced "Malaya" with Malay Peninsula for now. - Yk (talk | contrib) 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The source wasn't that specific, your edit is OK. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phaeacius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are a number of comments, in no particular order. Some are desirable changes, rather than requirements, but others fall under criterion 3. I'd prefer only to rate it against those criteria once my initial comments have been addressed. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be an awful lot of material that refers to the whole family, not just to this genus. Some background is necessary, but there seems to be too much focus on the capabilities of the family as a whole, beyond that dealing with the subject of the article. For example:Jumping spiders have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs. Unlike most arthropods, spiders have no extensor muscles in their limbs and instead extend them by increasing their blood pressure. Jumping spiders can leap up to 50 times their own length by powerfully extending the third or fourth pairs of legs, reaching up to 200 millimetres (7.9 in) with the forelimbs extended to grasp the prey. Their scientific name, Salticidae, is based on the Latin saltus, meaning "a leap". All this is very good material for the article jumping spider, but its relevance here is limited. Can Phaeacius jump 200 mm, or does that apply only to other genera? Give the etymology of Phaeacius, rather than that of Salticidae. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we should look this case by case. The sources, mainly Comparative biology of jumping spiders Portia africana, P. albimana, P. fimbriata, P. labiata and P. schultzi, areanophagic, web-building jumping spiders (Araneae: Salticidae) utilisation of webs, predatory versatility, and intraspecfic interactions, take a hierarchical approach: features are inherited from higher taxa unless specifically countermanded. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"Jumping spiders have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs" is useful for readers, as many will only see web-builders, which often have long, spindly legs. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed "Unlike most arthropods, spiders have no extensor muscles in their limbs and instead extend them by increasing their blood pressure." --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"Jumping spiders can leap up to 50 times their own length ..." is important. Phaeacius′ uses this power in its explosive lunge, and sometimes jumps when it goes actively hunting after having no food for over a week. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I moved "Their scientific name, Salticidae, is based on the Latin saltus, meaning "a leap" to "Taxonomy". --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For a genus found in India and Sri Lanka but not in the United States, Commonwealth English is the appropriate variant of English ("defense" => "defence", "molt" => "moult", "-ize" => "-ise", "maneuver" => "manoeuvre", "practise" => "practice", etc.). --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Mostly I agreed - and the principal sources use UK English. I've checked as far as I can - is there a tool? But the OED gives "-ize" (e.g. "organize). Thanks goodness the article uses the noun "practice", as OED gives "practise" for the verb. --Philcha (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you put an Edit Note on this article, like the one at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, where Randy in Boise keeps Americanizing (with a zee) the title. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that the OED uses "-ize" is annoying. Everyone else uses "-ise". I think an edit notice isn't necessary unless someone starts edit warring over spelling. I think that's unlikely here. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"-ise" as used by  the authors or editor (New Zealand Journal of Zoology) of Predatory versatility and intraspecies interactions of spartaeine jumping spiders (Araneae, Salticidae): Brettus adonis, B. cingulata, Cyrba algerina, and Phaeacius sp. indet. - "specialised" at p. 491 & 516. --Philcha (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"Phaeacius is rarely found in museums because it is very well camouflaged." I assume this means that, since it is well camouflaged, it is rarely collected, and so there are few museum specimens. "Phaeacius is rarely found ... because it is very well camouflaged." could apply anywhere, not just in museums. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
We already know that the camouflage fools other jumping spiders. I think "Phaeacius is rarely found in museums because it is very well camouflaged" is amusing in an otherwise technical article, and it hints that difficulty getting specimens also hamper research. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
A photo of a real Phaeacius would be great. There are a lot of images on Flickr, but none under an appropriate licence. Perhaps ask the photographers if they would release a picture or two under a usable licence. (I see you've also made notes about a possible image at malaeng.com.) A photo isn't necessary for a GA pass, I should add, but it would be a big improvement to the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The photo at malaeng.com is easily the best - and will be a good puzzle for readers. The people at malaeng.com have told that the photographer gave permission for malaeng.com to use it, and I've emailed the site from which it came. I really do want this one, but it may take time.--Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Taxonomy section, list the 12 species and state which is the type species. (Has it been divided into subgenera? Have other species been included in the past?) --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've listed the 12 species. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I've given which is the type species. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Subgenera, after your objection to subfamily? More seriously, see main page of WikiProject Spiders - "Not long ago the spiders were the most neglected of the most interesting animals..." (Theodore Horace Savory, 1962) - and researchers are still playing catchup. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Re "Have other species been included in the past", I expect synonyms and misidentifications have been common, but do not see the usefulness to general readers - unless they make a vivid point, as at Maevia inclemens, and that is a species-level article. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done OK, I was just wondering in case there had been recent or significant taxonomic changes. If not, that's fine. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the references in the Distribution section, they are not needed in the lead. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the refs for the geographic regions. And I don't like refs in the lead either. But editors, including reviewers, have asked for refs for strong claims and for numbers, which I think means all the phrases about vision. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlink "insinuation". --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. Someone doesn't understand the difference between "insinuation" and "innuendo". --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The URL for Forster (1977a) (doi:10.1080/03014223.1977.9517936) is broken. Including DOIs isn't strictly a GA requirement, but again, would be very helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. The ********s vary the URL dynamically, so one has to go via DOI through the abstract and that has adverts. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Remove the leading whitespace – never leave an empty line after {{italic title}}. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Philcha (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll be back, I need a rest. --Philcha (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Some good work has been done, but I still think the text lacks focus. There are still too many sentences dealing with other taxa. It may be possible to make some of them more directly relevant by changing openings like "Jumping spiders are..." to "Jumping spiders such as Phaeacius are..." or "Like other jumping spiders, Phaeacius is..." Other sentences may need to be removed entirely. Doing this may also reveal problems of referencing; just because something is true in at least one species of salticid, that doesn't mean that it's true of Phaeacius. In the lead, for instance, it is claimed that the eyes of "salticids including Phaeacius [are] 10 times more acute than a dragonfly's". The reference doesn't back this up. It states simply that the eyes of Portia are that acute. I don't doubt that Phaeacius is likely to have similar visual acuity to other salticids, but that needs to be demonstrated by a reference before using data from other taxa to make claims about Phaeacius (ideally one that mentions Phaeacius by name, rather than one discussing "all salticids" or somesuch). In some cases, removal of material seems to me to be the best option. For instance, I would change:

Almost all jumping spiders are predators, mostly preying on insects, on other spiders, and on other arthropods. Most jumping spiders walk throughout the day, so that they maximise their chances of a catch. However, Phaeacius is unusually sedentary for a jumping spider,...
to the more straightforward:

Phaeacius is unusually sedentary for a jumping spider,...
This is focussed on the taxon in question, but still makes the point that other jumping spiders are more active. Later on in the text, "Phaeacius does not use the usual hunting tactics" is followed by a relatively long description of the usual hunting tactics of salticids, even though we have just learnt that they don't apply here. This frequent problem of straying from the topic is the only outstanding issue preventing this article becoming GA, but it will take a fair amount of effort to remedy. The article is otherwise well-referenced, stable, neutral and suitably illustrated, as far as I can see. I'm in no hurry; take your time. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've condensed it a bit and slightly restructured section "Hunting tactics". --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO what's left is needed to show how unusual Phaeacius, which requires comparisons with jumping spiders and especially with close relatives such as Portia, an effective raider of other spiders' webs. --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I know you don't like subfamily Spartaeinae, but it's all over the source (p.491, etc.). Distinctive characters include: middle pair of secondary eyes almost as large as the other secondary eye, and fully functional (in more derived jumping spiders the middle pair are vestigial); Spartaeinae lunge rather than jump on prey; most Spartaeinae enter other spiders's webs easily - Phaeacius′ incompetence with webs is exceptional among spartaeines. --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in reviewing, but I do now believe that the article matches all the standards for good articles. I have re-read the article this morning, and feels much more focussed now. The weakest side is the use of images, but I can see that none are available yet, and that you are working on that. Congratulations. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Y"salticids including Phaeacius are the only spiders with good vision" (stated twice in the article)
All non-primitive hunting spiders (Lycosidae, Thomisidae, Salticidae) have good vision. Indeed, our article on Lycosidae says this in the second sentence. Salticids just happen to have the best vision.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 1986 p 521, right column: "the cursorial spiders can be divided in to two further groups, those with acute vision ('visual hunters': the Salticidae) and species with poor vision ('non-visual hunters')" --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The quotation you cite is ambiguous. I imagine they are mentioning Salticidae as an example rather than the only instance. Here are some clearer citations:
"In the families Lycosidae and Salticidae, which have good vision…"[1]
"…some have exceedingly good vision (Salticidae, Thomisidae, Lycosidae, etc.)"[2]
"[Lycosidae] are vagrant hunters with good vision used in prey capture."[3]
"…at least some of the lycosids have good vision."[4]
"Spiders with good vision (eg Salticidae and Lycosidae) engage in courtship displays…"[5]
"...excellent vision is vital for diurnal 'hunting' spiders belonging to the orders Lycosidae, Thomisidae and Salticidae"[6]
"Eyes with such impressive properties and forming good images all belong to hunting spiders, such as salticids, lycosids, thomisids and sparassids."[7]
"…in certain of the hunting spiders (eg, Lycosidae, Attidae), which possess good vision" --Encyclopaedia Britannica
"The Attidae and Lycosidae are hunting spiders endowed with relatively good vision"[8]
How about e.g. "salticids including Phaeacius have significantly better vision than other spiders"? There seem to be 3 levels of vision: pure web-spiders have very poor vision; non-salticid hunting spiders; and jumping spiders. --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Y "Phaeacius is rarely found in museum collections because it is very well camouflaged."
Many cryptic species are common in museum collections (Platycryptus for example). The reason Phaeacius is not is because it is endemic to Southeast Asia, an area whose fauna is poorly studied.
I've restored the main text (last sentence) and its citation, which is explicit. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean about "restoring" the text. The sentence was never removed and is now repeated twice in the article. Your citation actually states that "Wanless (1981) attributed this rarity to the remarkable camouflaged appearance exhibited by these spiders in life". This statement is, however, completely untrue. Wanless (1981) states: "In spite of their large size Phaeacius species are rare in museum collections and in the majority of cases only the types were available for study." He does not mention or imply in any way that this rarity is due to their camouflage. Such a claim would be dubious anyway for two reasons: Arachnologists typically collect jumping spiders by using sweep nets, beating sheets, or traps, thus the camouflage is largely irrelevant; As I mentioned before, many cryptic spiders are common in museum collections. The spiders that are uncommon are those from remote areas such as Southeast Asia. Kaldari (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In the book Riceland spiders of South and Southeast Asia I can't see Wanless (1981) in the "References"  (p. 695). Can you tell me where to find Wanless (1981). --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Wanless's revision of the genus can be found here. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed. It was meant as a little joke, but you've shown that the source is faulty. --Philcha (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Y "While most jumping spiders do not build webs to catch prey"
No jumping spiders build webs to catch prey.
Females of Portia, see e.g. Portia fimbriata & citations. --08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like your source does back up this claim, although it should be noted that this conclusion is not universally accepted: "The main reason for these webs does not seem to be catching prey items, because P. fimbriata is ararneophagic. The spider will however eat a caught insect if the opportunity arises. The spiders use these webs mostly for courtship and mating principals."[9]
The [colostate.edu course notes are not peer-reviewed. See Portia fimbriata and Portia labiata, especially the 6-column table on hunting tactics. The enthusiasm for insects in a Portia′s own web varies between Portia species, and some use insects as bait to catch non-salticid web spiders. In any case Phaeacius apparently does not build a capture web and avoids other spiders' webs, which is the main point. --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. You've convinced me. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Y "The highest point of Phaeacius′ cepholothorax is just past the head"
Spiders don't have "heads" and if they did it would be considered the entire cephalothorax. What you are referring to here is the cephalic region of the carapace. It would be better to say "just past the posterior lateral eyes" (assuming that is accurate).
Changed to "The cepholothorax of Phaeacius′ is relatively long, and the highest point is a little behind the last pair of eyes", see diagrams at cited work (Wanless). --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Y "Jumping spiders have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs"
Lots of jumping spiders have back legs that are quite long. In Tutelina elegans, for example, the back legs are the longest. And in many ant-mimic jumping spiders the back legs are not especially powerful since they are not used for jumping.
Changed to "generally have large forelegs and short, powerful back legs". --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
"The name Salticidae is based on the Latin saltus, meaning 'a leap'."
The etymology of "Salticidae" doesn't belong in this article. The scope of this article is the genus Phaeacius, not jumping spiders in general. Much of the content of the Body structure section is also too broad for the scope of this article.
See the GA reviews of Phaeacius and Maevia inclemens. Some readers may think spiders have antennae and 6 legs, some may think think all spiders are like lycosidae or "daddy long legs", etc. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The GA review makes the exact same criticism I do "All this is very good material for the article jumping spider, but its relevance here is limited... Give the etymology of Phaeacius, rather than that of Salticidae." Even if it was true that readers don't know what spiders are (which is absurd), that doesn't justify putting the etymology of "Salticidae" in this article. The etymology of "Salticidae" has absolutely no relevance to this article. Do you really think that we should explain the etymology of "Salticidae" for all 5000 jumping spider species? Wouldn't it be a lot more useful to explain the etymology of "Phaeacius" (which is given in Spiders of North America: An Identification Manual)? Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd gladly trade the etymology of "Salticidae" for that of "Phaeacius". Google gives me only sales pages for Spiders of North America: An Identification Manual. Can you give the usual citation details - just as text, I'll use a tool to build a good citation. --Philcha (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll look it up as soon as I get a chance. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Etymology added to the article. Kaldari (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
N Encyclopedia of Greco-Roman Mythology does not mention Phaeacius at all, let alone say explicitly that the name Phaeacius is derived from the Phaeacians. That people built ships that were un-crewed but the fastest in the world (Homer's Odyssey; from my Oxford Classical Dictionary) - while Phaeacius is very sedentary. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Simon was fond of using names from Roman and Greek literature, for example Rhetenor. Of course they didn't always make sense :) I wasn't able to find an explicit reference for the etymology, but the reference to Phaeacia seems straightforward. The latin suffix -ius means belonging to, so the rest of the word must either refer to a person or place. There doesn't appear to be any other people or places with a similar spelling, so it must refer to Phaeacia. Since I don't have an explicit source, however, you are free to remove it. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it. --Philcha (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"Jumping spiders... can leap up to 50 times their own length by powerfully extending the third or fourth pairs of legs."
This is a dubious claim and it is definitely "not backed up by the 2nd source". My earlier edition of the first source doesn't back it up either, so unless a specific claim can be quoted, I think it is misinformation.Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm away from home, and will check the book tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree about "not backed up by the 2nd source", I can only assume I had a slip of the keyboard. Ruppert, Fox and Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (2004) p. 578 says up to 50 body lengths. The private life of spiders by P. D. Hillyard (2007) says up to 20 body lengths. I've Googled for a tie-breaker and got nothing useful. Can you come up with other citations? --Philcha (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm frankly surprised that Invertebrate Zoology says up to 50 body lengths, but I'll take your word for it. Sorry I was so incredulous. There is virtually no information published on jumping distances for jumping spiders, so I have no idea where they are getting that figure from. From the small bits of unpublished data that I know of, most American genera, such as Phidippus, can jump about 10 times their body length. The most exceptional jumper in the U.S. is probably Habronattus (which uses both 3rd and 4th legs for jumping). Habronattus has been recorded jumping up to 24 times its body length. This is the longest range that I know of, but it isn't citable. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. An unsolved problem - damn! --Philcha (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
At my Talk page you said "Although I don't have the same edition of Invertebrate Zoology as the one you cite for this statistic, ...". If you have a different edition of Ruppert, Fox and Barnes' Invertebrate Zoology (mine is 2004), would it be useful to check yours in case a type-setting error slipped into the 2004 edition (I've just seen one in the TOC - "CYCLONEURALIASP", where the "SP" should have been superscript for "super-phylum"). As the pagination is probably different in yours, here: ch. "Chelicerata"; section "Arachnida"; sub-section "Araneae"; sub-sub-page "Internal transport" (i.e. circulation - legs are extended by "blood"-pressure). --Philcha (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check when I get home. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)