Talk:Misumena vatia

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo of ''Mecaphesa'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: I removed the image. Thanks for the suggestion. Dger (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images identification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: 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)
thread_title: Behavioral Ecology Student Suggestions and Edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Some more comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Behavioral Ecology Student Comments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harmless 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spider bones?