Talk:Thomisidae

message: Why not skull crab spider here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.30.54.158 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This subject seems to have attracted some questionable attention. As far as the "web" comment is concerned, we cannot take it seriously as long as no picture has been presented. For one thing, there are plenty of orb weavers that are not crab spiders, but look superficially rather like some spp. The correspondent offers no evidence that the picture that he did not display, really showed a crab spider.  Secondly, It might well have been a crab spider, on a web, even its own web, but that the web was not a hunting web, but one spun for reasons connected with reproduction or protection. The claim in this context remains anecdotal. No picture, no comment! JonRichfield (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article certainly deserves to exist because it contains more information than belongs in any redirection article. However, most of the material within it really belongs in the Thomisidae article. If no one raises any objection and I find myself with enough time on my hands <siiigh!> and no one beats me to it, I think I will strip it of out-of-place material which I will fit into the Thomisidae article and add a few links. Sometime. JonRichfield (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Partly redundant article

message: Article 1: Corcobado, G,Rodríguez-Gironés, M.A, De Mas, E, Moya-Laraño, J. 2010. Introducing the refined gravity hypothesis of extreme sexual size dimorphism. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10: 236. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/236
Article 2: Hormiga, G, Scharff N, Coddington, J.A. 2000. The Phylogenetic Basis of Sexual Size Dimorphism in Orb-Weaving Spiders (Araneae, Obiculariae). Systematic Biology. 49: 435-462.http://www.jstor.org.ezp.slu.edu/stable/2585381?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Ff0%3Dall%26amp%3Bpt%3D%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bisbn%3D%26amp%3Bq6%3D%26amp%3Bq4%3D%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3Bq5%3D%26amp%3Bsd%3D%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bq2%3D%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bq0%3Dsexual%2Bsize%2Bdimorphism%2Bin%2Bcrab%2Bspiders%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND%26amp%3Bed%3D%26amp%3Bq1%3D%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bq3%3D%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bla%3D%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Article 3: Head, G. 1995. Selection on Fecundity and Variation in the Degree of Sexual Size Dimorphism Among Spider Among Spider Species (Class Araneae). Evolution. 49: 776-781. http://www.jstor.org.ezp.slu.edu/stable/2410330?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Ff0%3Dall%26amp%3Bpt%3D%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bisbn%3D%26amp%3Bq6%3D%26amp%3Bq4%3D%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3Bq5%3D%26amp%3Bsd%3D%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bq2%3D%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bq0%3Dsexual%2Bsize%2Bdimorphism%2Bin%2Bcrab%2Bspiders%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND%26amp%3Bed%3D%26amp%3Bq1%3D%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bq3%3D%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bla%3D%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Article 4: Prenter, J, Elwood, R.W, Montgomery, W.I. No Association between Sexual Size Dimorphism and Life Histories in Spiders. Proceedings: Biological Sciences. 265: 57-62. http://www.jstor.org.ezp.slu.edu/stable/50930?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Ff0%3Dall%26amp%3Bpt%3D%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bisbn%3D%26amp%3Bq6%3D%26amp%3Bq4%3D%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3Bq5%3D%26amp%3Bsd%3D%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bq2%3D%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bq0%3Dsexual%2Bsize%2Bdimorphism%2Bin%2Bcrab%2Bspiders%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND%26amp%3Bed%3D%26amp%3Bq1%3D%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bq3%3D%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bla%3D%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Article over sexual size dimorphism is very well written. The article as a whole flows very nicely and transitions into the more specific details work great. Each hypothesis was introduced and explained with the right amount of evidence needed for the nature of the article. Making sure to state that these are the current hypotheses that are being looked at and being researched while keeping the need for further research. Overall, a very well written article and no major changes, that I can see, are needed. ThatEvolGuy (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References