Talk:Hobo spider

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of spiders. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
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:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Spiders To do:

Contents

[edit] Distribution map contradicts article text

The article says they are native to Europe but the distribution map only shows them inhabiting the Pacific Northwest of the US, and part of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radishes (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The map shown is just the distribution within North America. I don't know who supplied the graphic, or any way to mark it to indicate that it omits that NATIVE range. Dyanega 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also missing that they are now in Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.110.137 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an authoritative citation for this? Dyanega 17:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[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).

There really does seem to be a huge bias in the presentation of the information in the two flagged sections (agressiveness and avoiding bites). It struck me quite strongly and felt overtly critical. I almost feel the need to put the weasal word flag on the aggressiveness section for the way it has been written. Both sections need to be reconstructed such that they present information from a "despite popular opinion, the data supporting such claims is inconclusive" perspective instead of wholly undercutting the current state of research. 81.201.56.15 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand - the current state of research is that the bites are rare, non-necrotic, and the spiders are not aggressive or dangerous. This is amply documented and referenced throughout. The original study appears to be quackery, but it's better to be polite about it and say that there is no evidence to support it, and that attempts to repeat it have failed. The harsh tone helps to combat misinformation that the typical reader has been exposed to, and possibly even to prevent well-meaning would-be editors from constantly trying to change the article to make it sound like hobo spiders ARE dangerous, when all the evidence is piling up that they are NOT. Part of this comes down to undue weight concerns; it would misrepresent the controversy to give the "hobo spider is dangerous" theory equal weight with the numerous studies and pieces of evidence that indicate it is not. Vest's theory qualifies as a fringe theory, held by a tiny minority of experts, against a vastly larger body of experts that dismiss the theory. Therefore, if the fringe theory is to be cited at all, it needs to be cited with explicit reference to the aspects which qualify it as a fringe theory. Dyanega 06:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article about a research group trying to determine if the hobo spider's gettin' a bad rap.[1] — Scientizzle 18:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Medically significant" is quit opposite the ranting and raving about this spider's harmlessness. I just caught one of these spiders in a jar. What should I feed it, to keep it alive long enough to send it to Dyanega, who apparently is volunteering to let it bite him/her? Checking http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566464_6/Spider_(arthropod).html I see the sentence "Bites from these spiders can be fatal to humans without proper treatment." Seems pretty small-minded to try minimizing the severity of a resultant bite, no? My camera is currently broken, but the spider I just caught, I caught on the same wall where that previous one was (that I photographed long ago.) Offhand, I'd guess this specimen is a direct descendant of the one I photographed. (Apologies for the poor picture - I was too close when I took it, but the preview looked fine. By the time I zoomed and cropped, that specimen was already converted to an even blurrier - but harmless - smudge.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The only reason that there is anything in this article about Hobo bites being medically significant is because it got into print that they were - Wikipedia cites all published opinions, even ones that have no evidence to back them up. Dyanega 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why people are disputing this. Ask anyone who's been bitten by a Hobo Spider and they will tell you exactly what happens. It is not fun. My mother was bitten several years ago by one and the site definitely turned necrotic and to this day is still tender to the touch. Lost Cosmonaut (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hobo spiders definitely cause necrosis in some humans. Plenty of reports tell you that. I think it's just not safe to say it causes necrosis in all humans. Different breeds of rabbits showed immunity; it'd make sense that different races of humans would show immunity. Either way, I'm cleaning up the article. Taking out some redundant statements and condensing it a little, but leaving the overall message and disputed effects there. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking up more sources shows that only one confirmed instance of necrosis in humans exist. As far as your mother, sorry to hear, but it wasn't a hobo spider, says the facts. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I believe that I have offered the article an NPOV. It covers both sides of the dispute. Let me know if there's something missing, and I'll personally go look up sources and rectify the article. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There sure is something missing. A single confirmed case of necrosis in a healthy human. You state "Hobo spiders definitely cause necrosis in some humans. Plenty of reports tell you that." Please give ONE citation. "Reports" that do not actually involve a spider caught in the act of biting are NOT data points, and NOT reliable sources. Darwin Vest's rabbit study IS NOT PROOF that hobo spiders induce necrotic wounds in humans. It's really that simple. NPOV demands that extraordinary claims require evidence; the claim that these spiders are dangerous is extraordinary, and has NO evidence to date. There is nothing "definite" about this except that a lot of people say a lot of things with nothing to back their claims up. The claims can be cited in Wikipedia, but to slant the article as if these claims are valid is a violation of NPOV. Dyanega (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll fix it some more. My edits to that part of the article merely condensed the article to take out redundant statements and offer a little organization. Now I'll go back and fact-check. So far, only one confirmed report of necrosis in humans exists in a patient that already had necrotising skin. I'll keep that in there, but make explicit notice that no other suck cases exist. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Doing research, it seems that only the one extreme case exists, so I took out all mention of necrosis except for that case. It seems that all points of view are neutral now, so anyone against me removing the NPOV flag?

[edit] Giving undue weight to anecdotes and non-authorities

I'll say it again for clarification for all the people who prefer to trust outdated and/or non-authoritative sources: Wikipedia is not here to promote theories; if there are competing theories, then both sides are presented according to the number and reliability of sources, and the evidence behind both theories is presented objectively. To treat two hypotheses as equal when one theory has no evidence to support it is considered undue weight, and POV-pushing to favor the weaker hypothesis. There is no objective evidence, nor are there authoritative sources, to support the claim that hobo spider bites are medically significant - it's on a par with the old tale that putting pencil leads in your mouth would give you lead poisoning. There are literally dozens of controlled, peer-reviewed studies on the composition and medically significant effects of the venom of widow spiders, dozens more on the venom of brown recluses, and ZERO on the venom of hobo spiders. These spiders have co-habited with human beings in Europe for centuries, and yet there have been no confirmed medically significant bites there. As in the U.S., the only reports of necrotic wounds in Europe that have been associated with hobo bites are those where no one ever actually saw a spider, and (also as in the U.S.) ALL these reports post-date Darwin Vest's original - and still unconfirmed - suggestion that hobo bites were a source of necrotic wounds. If the absence of supporting evidence is not enough to make one stop and reconsider the urban legends, consider this: to date, not a single authority on spiders or spider bites has come forward to support the claim. The only ones that have come forward have done so to state exactly the OPPOSITE. Surely, after more than a decade since Vest's report, there would be ONE legitimate authority who would have come along and said "Yes, the bites of this spider are medically significant". You can try a simple experiment: if your doctor tells you that hobo bites are dangerous, just ask him whose research, published in what medical journal, he learned this from. You'll find that doctors are just as vulnerable to urban legends as the next person. The bottom line is simple: the authorities are saying that there is no reason to believe that hobo bites are dangerous. The WP article reflects what the authorities have to say; that's WP policy. Dyanega 17:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)