Talk:Solifugae
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: |
|||
This order seems to go by a host of names; I'm just a layman, so it would be nice if someone who's a specialist could clarify things. I added a list of alternate names from [1], although they prefer Solpugida. Solifugae seems to be the most common though. DopefishJustin 01:42, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
Solifuge is another name that should be listed and linked to this page. -TF
Contents |
[edit] merge?
Should this page be merged with Camel_Spider??
Pud 17:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] camel spider blues?
whats the deal with the http://www.chinapost1.org/guestbook.asp link at the bottom of the page? took me a couple of minutes to find the right page in the guestbook, and the entry isn't really relevant (http://www.chinapost1.org/guestbook.asp?recordnum=90 at the moment)
[edit] camel spider redux
de:Kamelspinne suggests that Camel Spider is a name for one species of solifugid, namely Galeodes arabs. Is this true, or is the name applied indiscriminately? —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ah, that first picture you see at the top of the article page would be considered a camel spider. I don't know about the "Galeodes Arabs" name but when I was over in Afghanistan we saw plenty of these things. Funny thing is, I've seen those in Arizona too. I'm not sure how to identify them by sight, so it probably wasn't the same Solifugae native to Afghanistan. 221.191.98.122 12:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reference for Rhagodes venom?
151.26.58.170 is the IP number of the person who contributed the tidbit about Rhagodes nigrocinctus having venom. I'm fairly new to this, and am unsure how to contact users directly to inquire about problems. Specifically, I cannot find an actual literature citation to back this up - just webpage after webpage saying R. nigrocinctus in India paralyzes lizards - accordingly, I am suspicious that this, too, is an Urban Legend. I'm tempted to do an edit to remove the claim, or state that the claim is unverified. Anyone have any other ideas?
It do`nt give any camel.spiders, which can paralyze another animals. Paralyzing means to have poison. But this spiders have powerful pincers. So it is not necessary for them to have venom. Venom often have animals, which do not have strong "weapons". Their claws are sharp enough to kill a small lizard. --Fackel 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think that whole poison thing can be removed. It just reads too hokey for me. --Gbleem 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't matter how hokey you may think it is - this was a published, presumably peer-reviewed, study. Admittedly, that does not make it true, since scientists can make mistakes, or lie, but it DOES mean that it should be discussed here, because it could *be* true. Saying that the study is "unconfirmed" is good enough to alert the reader to possible "hokey-ness" - the same exact thing can be said about venom in the hobo spider, but since the status quo is that people believe the venom is dangerous, you can't just edit it out because the research on which it was based was "hokey". Dyanega 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- By hokey I meant that the way the paragraph is worded makes me believe the study does not exist or the person writing the paragraph got it all wrong. --Gbleem 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted it again. I'll rewrite it if someone can direct me to the study. --Gbleem 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The citation for the study is, and has been, on the page ever since the text was first placed there. Is that direct enough? I don't believe it, and I don't like it, but it needs to be cited. That's what NPOV is all about. Dyanega 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- What's the name of the Journal? What are the full names of the authors? What is the title of the article? --Gbleem 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here, I'll cut and paste it from the article itself, which you have evidently never read:
- I'm very sorry. Sometimes I miss things that are right in front of me. --Gbleem 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here, I'll cut and paste it from the article itself, which you have evidently never read:
- What's the name of the Journal? What are the full names of the authors? What is the title of the article? --Gbleem 21:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The citation for the study is, and has been, on the page ever since the text was first placed there. Is that direct enough? I don't believe it, and I don't like it, but it needs to be cited. That's what NPOV is all about. Dyanega 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how hokey you may think it is - this was a published, presumably peer-reviewed, study. Admittedly, that does not make it true, since scientists can make mistakes, or lie, but it DOES mean that it should be discussed here, because it could *be* true. Saying that the study is "unconfirmed" is good enough to alert the reader to possible "hokey-ness" - the same exact thing can be said about venom in the hobo spider, but since the status quo is that people believe the venom is dangerous, you can't just edit it out because the research on which it was based was "hokey". Dyanega 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
- Aruchami, M. & Sundara Rajulu, G. (1978). "An investigation on the poison glands and the nature of the venom of Rhagodes nigrocinctus (Solifugae: Arachnida)". Nat. Acad. Sci. Letters (India)l, 1:191-192. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyanega (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] inserting links
How do I insert a link into a text so a word or phrase becomes the link itself. When I highlight the word and click the external link icon, I don't see a dialog box asking for the http: address to be inserted. How do I get this to work??Jlujan69 11:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- In the case of a wikilink such as 'an article on snake scales' this is how you do it! (Press edit this page to see the syntax). In the case of an http link this is how you make IT.AshLin 14:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Harvard Study
removed: "Recently, there has been a study conducted at Harvard regarding this controversy: as it turns out, solifugae are able to produce saliva that both numbs feeling by killing nerve endings as well as destroy {sic} the ability to heal."
If somebody wants to clean that up and add a reference, feel free, otherwise, it's out.Anazgnos 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] humvee running
If they like shade and the humvee was driving slow they might try to stay in the shade. --Gbleem 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] spam video
Why is this considered spam? --Gbleem 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Read WP:ADS - the page is full of advertising, therefore it qualifies as link spam. Dyanega 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, I noticed the other video link contained ads on the page, so it will also be removed. Might as well be consistent about enforcement. If either of these were your videos, then that's a shame, but if you can find a website that does NOT contain advertising to post it on, then go ahead and do so, then link it. Dyanega 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not my video. I don't think you will not find many video posting sites that have no ads. The National Geographic link and the Snopes link have ads also. I also found this: "Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites: There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines." Wikipedia:External links--Gbleem 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't actually looked at the others - I didn't recall snopers ever having ads on their pages, but I see that they do. Guess I'll have to think over what criterion to use; it IS certainly true that the Snopes page and NG page both present a significant amount of information (where the videos don't actually say or explain anything), so I don't think they should be removed. Maybe I'll re-instate the video links, after all. I'm busy today, but maybe later. Dyanega 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not my video. I don't think you will not find many video posting sites that have no ads. The National Geographic link and the Snopes link have ads also. I also found this: "Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites: There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines." Wikipedia:External links--Gbleem 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- As a follow-up, I noticed the other video link contained ads on the page, so it will also be removed. Might as well be consistent about enforcement. If either of these were your videos, then that's a shame, but if you can find a website that does NOT contain advertising to post it on, then go ahead and do so, then link it. Dyanega 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speed
A human cannot run 30 miles per hour... 10 mph, maybe, but even that can be hard to achieve.
