Talk:Hobo spider
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: Spiders To do:
|
|||
[edit] untitled
I'd like to see a reference to the trial involving rabbits, because it sounds alot like a survey of directly opposite results referenced on the UC Davis page. The necrosis seems to be septic rather than posionous, according to these guys.
This article was clearly written by someone who particularly likes this type of spider. It ought to be revised by someone who has more experience with these spiders, as it is currently inconsistent with other information on the web about the hobo spider.
--A reader
- Study of the article history will show that quite a few people have contributed to this article. There has been a great deal of misinformation about this spider on the WWW and maybe in other places. The University of California at Riverside article (see link at the bottom of the article) is quite objective and was written by professionals in the field.
- Nobody would enjoy being bitten by these spiders. If I had to choose, I'd much rather be bitten by a 5" Huntsman. Pain is one thing, and necrotic tissue damage is something else. That being said, they are not nearly as damaging to humans as are the brown recluse spiders, and the real champion killer, world wide, is still the genus Latrodectus. There are worse spiders to be bitten by, especially the venomous funnel-web spiders of Australia, but the widow spiders manage to kill more people simply because there are so many more of them building their nests in places where people will stick their hands or other parts of their anatomies.
- Nobody I've ever read has indicated any particular affection for this kind of spider. The medical sources that collect data on bites and consequences do not pretend that these spiders can't or won't bite, nor do any of them maintain that the bites provoke nothing more than a momentary unpleasantness. On the other hand, one should not let one's subjective reaction to a rather unappealing-looking spider with a medically significant bite blind one to a clear awareness of the relative degree of threat they pose to humans.P0M
The article link recently added, Discover Magazine, is not nearly as good as the articles it cites. The author of the Discover article has only a M.F.A. from the University of Arkansas, and has written some secondary materials on black widows. The article on the hobo spiders starts with the account of a death, but it is not clear what spider or other agent was the cause of the death. Then it gives an account of a serious bite case where the spider was collected and identified. That's a sort of journalistic "bait and switch" IMHO. I'm rather surprised at Discover for publishing the article. The Riverside site and the hobospider.com site both mention deaths, but they don't sensationalize the deaths. I think it is the Riverside site that mentions one death in which the spider bite was a contributory cause. That kind of reporting is much more sober and responsible. Do we really want to direct people to sensationalistic articles? P0M 05:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I was concerned about citing Discover, believe me. :) The reason for the link is not for the sensationalist content--if anything, the changes I made to the article support the case that maybe the hobo isn't as bad as thought. The reason for the link was to reference some of the work of Greta Binford, some of which I haven't found a better reference for (such as her repeat of Vest's experiments). I have found one referenced to a relevant Binford paper (on her home page), which I will include. --EngineerScotty 16:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This article's treatment section seems to be heavily geared toward home treatment based on internet advice. I've changed this to refer a reader to professional medical consultation, as messing with necrotic tissue with only the inconsistent wisdom of the 'net in one's layman's arsenal seems foolish at the very best.
-user thescathed
You can sign by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.
Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention. The advice is wrong on a couple of counts. The main thing that is wrong with it is suggesting that people "cut off necrosis." I guess that means the writer imagines somebody going after necrotic tissue with a razor blade or an x-acto knife. Bad idea! I don't like the idea of putting a greasy antibiotic ointment on a puncture wound either. A buffered iodine solution would be more likely to get down to any microbes or viruses deep within the wound. P0M 05:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "hobospiders.org" not truly an "independent organization"
It is worth noting that the website "hobospiders.org" was created and maintained by Darwin K. Vest, the author whose original rabbit skin toxicology study is the basis for all subsequent claims of medical significance for this spider. Calling it an "independent organization" is disingenuous; it is a single individual whose personal reputation is at stake if the claims of toxicity are false, and therefore must be treated as a potentially biased source of information, and readers should be made aware of this conflict of interests. To date, the original research has not been supported by independent researchers, nor replicated. It is not a controversy at the level of cold fusion, but it is a fundamentally similar situation; a single researcher publishes a study making certain claims, numerous others accept the results of the study, and it becomes public knowledge and propagated by the media, but later independent attempts to confirm the study all fail. While it may yet prove to be that hobo spider venom is dangerous, at this stage any such claims should be considered highly suspect, and it is important that this page reflect these facts as objectively as possible. Potential editors of this article need to exercise caution and vigilance accordingly, as non-professionals who read websites like hobospiders.org are likely to constantly attempt to edit the article to a more sensationalized form. Dyanega 18:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- First and foremost: You should realize that Darwin Vest is missing and presumed dead, so he most certainly isn't maintaining that site. While some of your concerns are perhaps warranted (there have been many instances of various forms of pathological science proclaiming spiders species to be dangerous, only for further research to discover otherwise--the hobo is only one example of this phenomenon), the above strkes me as a rather disingenious--and unfair--attack on Vest's reputation. To compare him to Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons is outrageous. Vest's research has been published in peer-reviewed journals; he has not engaged in the dubious practice of announcing new findings at press conferences. While it may eventually be superceded and/or contradicted by subsequent research (Greta Binford at Lewis and Clark College has been unable to replicate his experiments), suggesting that Vest is in a "fundamentally similar situation" to Fleishmann and Pons, who have been accused of gross sloppiness, is an unwarranted smear. I'm not aware of Vest ever being accused of any sort of scientific misconduct or incompetence. It's perferctly reasonable to question a scientists's findings, after all, without impugning his reputation, and it may be that Binford and others are right, and Vest was wrong. But the above strikes me as a hatchet job. If you have evidence that Vest has acted unprofessionally, by all means, post it. --EngineerScotty 19:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am saying his research cannot be repeated, and is therefore questionable. That's science in a nutshell.
- Agreed.
- If you interpret that as "attacking his reputation" then that is your interpretation.
- What I was concerned about were the references to cold fusion; a situation where findings were promoted in the press in advance of any peer review--a significant breach of scientific protocol. Vest, to my knowledge, hasn't made claims in non-reviewed forums that didn't correspond to his peer-reviewed research (or the research of others). And obviously, he shouldn't be held responsible for the current contents of the site--being dead, he has little control over it. :) Fleischmann and Pons have been severly criticized for their methods--comparing a scientist to them (or their work to the cold fusion debacle) is easily interpreted as a smear. THAT is what I objected to; not to the suggestion that Vest's work may turn out to have been flawed in some manner. (That's why peer review is done, after all...)
- I'm a professional scientist, a reviewer for over 20 journals dealing with insects and other arthropods, and I understand that things can get published that are not true, not because of "misconduct or incompetence", but simple error. If I had stated that Vest's work was *intentionally* fraudulent, that would be an attack, and I make no such claims. I claim that there is reason not to trust the original research, nor to continue accepting it at face value. That much is demonstrable.
- I agree; this article should document the issue as much as possible.
- These spiders may be harmless, and people need to be educated as to that possibility, rather than presenting pages like hobospiders.org without rebuttal to the claims made there. It's really quite straightforward. The only "unprofessional" thing I see is the hobospiders website itself, which treats the issue of necrotic wounds being caused by hobos as a given fact, rather than something unproven. It does say "Text and Photographs by Darwin K. Vest" on the website, after all - but just because he believed it to be true does not make it true, nor merit promoting it *as* true in the face of contrary evidence. I think we can agree on that. Dyanega 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much. Unfortunately, hobospiders.org is these days being maintained, near as I can tell, by non-scientists. Being related to a scientist doesn't make you one. Your original paragraph above made it sound that Vest himself was running the site to promote his work in extrascientific forums, despite mounting evidence to the contrary coming from within science. As he's most likely dead, that's obviously not true. Many of the questions concerning hobo venom have been raised since his disappearance, so it's highly likely that he believed that hobospiders.org contained valid and sound research during the time that he controlled it. At any rate, I'm for strenghtening the disclaimer on the site's reference in the external links section (and am glad that it isn't used to back up any claims in this article). I think we are in agreement on substance; and have only minor disagreement on tone. --EngineerScotty 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am saying his research cannot be repeated, and is therefore questionable. That's science in a nutshell.
[edit] NPOV?
This article has way too much crap about whether or not the bite is necrotizing. Can't someone condense the stuff in the article to, oh, about a 5 sentence paragraph with references that a reader can visit for more information? This reads like it's someone's pet topic.
- The subject matter of this article is CONTROVERSIAL. A five-sentence paragraph is not going to be able to present all the claims and evidence from both sides of the controversy, and the point of WP is so people DON'T have to look elsewhere for references - THIS page is where it should be collated and summarized, and that is why there is so much "crap" presented here. Especially true when - as in this case - nearly all of the websites one can find easily promote the unproven claims. What would be a violation of NPOV is to eliminate the discussion via condensation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyanega (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
