Talk:Amblypygi

Untitled

Why is the list of genera a separate page? WormRunner 01:47, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It would be nice to see information about location of these creatures, as well as a picture. Big Dave Smith 21 April 2005

Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Tarret 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• A tailless whip scorpion makes an appearance in the movie Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, as the creature Mad-Eye Moody demonstrates the Unforgivable Curses on. In the book it is a spider.

• It also appears to be the organism consumed on the 10/19/2005 episode of Fear Factor and referred to on the program as an African cave-dwelling spider.

This is clearly drivel of no importance whatsoever to the article and has therefore been removed. I'm putting it here because at least one person thinks it should be kept. --Stemonitis 10:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling it drivel doesn't make it drivel. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for removal.

The statements answer the question, "Where might I have seen a tailless whip scorpion before?" Most people are unlikely to ever encounter a tailless whip scorpion in their travels. It is useful to point them somewhere they might have seen one before. Lunch 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fear Factor episode is the entire reason I went to this article. What's more, those ones were several inches long, whereas this article says 4cm is the max, so .. obviously that fact is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Whip spiders?

Just watched an episode of Life in the Undergrowth and these creatures were referred to as "whip spiders". I checked using Google and apparently this name is quite common. I wanted to add a redirect pointing to this article, but decided to ask here first, because biology isn't a subject I know much about. --Jashiin (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whip spiders

WTucker wrote (Everything I can find says tailless whip scorpion with a couple of mentions of whip spider) That is because many people posting are not scientists. Many laymen call the amblypygids by the name false whip scorpion, tailless whip scorpion etc, but in fact whip scorpions belong to the suborder Uropygi, and the whip spiders to the Amblypygi This is a fact. And I have seen and collected these different animals in caves in SE Asia. You can see pic of Uropygi and Amblypygids on Wiki and there it is clear they are totally different animals. Cavingliz (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I understand the difference. I know that Amblypygi and Uropygi are totally different creatures. But, the common names (even if misguided) are just that -- common names. Tailless whip scorpion and whip spider appear to be two common names for Amblypygids even if "scorpion" is misleading. I would argue that "spider" is misleading, too. But, they are the common names and are the names which are used in the references -- weak as they are. I have never had the privilege of visiting caves in SE Asia so I am no expert on the subject. I am only going by the references before me and those already in the article. If you feel a strong need to remove the phrase again, I will not change it. But, please update the references in the rest of the article so that the common name doesn't just appear out of the blue to the uninformed reader. Better yet, explain how the name is a misnomer, preferably with references. WTucker (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I decided after further reflection to follow your lead on this. I have updated the article. How does that look? WTucker (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for doing the changes. This wrong use of names has always been a problem, and the names get wrongly passed from person to person and become accepted. I was in Cambodia earlier this month and saw quite a few Amblypygids so am quite familiar with them. Cavingliz (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tailless whip scorpion is nevertheless a common term that exists and it would be incorrect to remove the name. Common names do not have to reflect scientific taxonomy. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580747/tailless-whip-scorpion, http://www.jstor.org/pss/3705513 It would be a good idea to restore the common name in the lead. Shyamal (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia it seems silly allowing wrong information. Whip spiders and whip scorpions are completely different animals, but as I said earlier, there is a lot of confusion over the names and people who don't know just copy the wrong name. If you really want to include 'Tailless whip scorpion' on the Amblypydi page, please say the name is inaccurate. Cavingliz (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"Tailless whip scorpions"' are different from "whip scorpions". "Whip spiders" incidentally refer to spiders in the genus Argyrodes at least in Australia. Folk taxonomy rarely reflects the views from molecular phylogenetics, and it is not always necessary to say that the English names do not reflect phylogenetic relationship. Incidentally, the name scorpion is used in folksonomy due to the chelicera and if you see Arachnid you will see that the Uropygi are in a clade with the Amblypygi and even closer to the Schizomida. Shyamal (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote ""Whip spiders" incidentally refer to spiders in the ....", but strictly speaking they are not spiders as in the spiders that everyone knows. It is better to refer to them as arachnids. See http://www.australasian-arachnology.org/arachnology/amblypygi/ Cavingliz (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So while we're at it, lets change horseshoe crab since that incorrectly identifies them as being crabs. --PixieDragon (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Link

The link "charanidae" on the amblypigi chart takes you to The Erycinae a subfamily of snakes, please fix it!! take care.

these spiders are poisonous?

I know some whipscorpions are poisonous, but the whipspiders...? - EH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.104.28 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication that they are poisonous. In fact, they are described as "totally harmless". As you have indicated, they are not to be confused with Whip scorpions. Do you have a better source of information? WTucker (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor sourcing in the Care section

The entire section has not a single reference and sounds like it is based mostly on personal experience. I doubt that many people come to this article looking for breeding tips, so the section could likely be removed. Pullarius1 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

60 cm

I think the description of the size of these animals is kind of exaggerated. A leg span of 60 cm would make them the biggest arachnids on earth (except some deep sea species), since most other arachnids rarely exceed 30 cm of leg span. --79.243.255.236 (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

first of all, there are no aquatic, let alone deep sea arachnid species. If you're referring to sea spiders, they are chelicerates, but not arachnids. second, I have heard qualified keepers report sizes in the range of 60cm, and personally seen a photograph of a specimen with a legspan of 18 inches (45 cm). These numbers refer to the span of the antenniform first pair of legs, the walking legspan is smaller Jsamson2001 (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Found in tropical and subtropical environments *humid*

I have seen one of these spiders in the Fraser Valley of BC, Canada....as it is quite wet here and warming up due to climate change. First time I thought it was a scorpion without a tail, then realized it was a spider with scorpion like appendages. So these spiders are moving north. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.19.171 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Amblypygi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Lack of references Possibly some more information could be added. IronChris | (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amblypygi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517002449/http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_Congress/JoA_v27_n1/arac_27_01_0103.pdf to http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_Congress/JoA_v27_n1/arac_27_01_0103.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)