Help me know if this kills people or not.

[Jason Arthur Taylor]

Please help me identify this. This is from the underside.

Thanks in advance. If you need a better image, let me know. It was hard to focus in the dark and this doesn't appear during the day.

 

[Ghost56]

Yes. Much death. Such bad.

 

[Jason Arthur Taylor]

I'm a troll because I want help identifying a spider blocking my door so I can't take out the trash but at the same time helping cut back the moth issue and if it cannot hurt people I want to keep it but I don't know so I posted here for help?

You, sir Ghost56, are a massive A**. I take back the thanks in advance since you don't deserve any thanks at all and your remark is the only trolling here.

 

[chanda]

That is a harmless orb weaver of some sort. Orb weavers are beneficial predators that devour insects. They are not dangerous to people. I can't tell you from just a ventral shot which species it is, but see, for example, this one: http://bugguide.net/node/view/864598

 

[RTTB]

It is harmless.

 

[The Snark]

Yes. Much death. Such bad.

Thanking you for a picture perfect example why irony and facetiousness should be avoided on forums. Can we get a mod in here to downgrade Ghost56 to earthworm?

@Jason Arthur Taylor Apologies for our odd ways here at times. Your spider is difficult to identify beyond genus. However, it bears the classical shape of the orb weaver, possibly of the Araneus family. Memorizing the body and legs shape and configuration will go a long way to keeping track of these beautiful beneficial animals.
There are actually very few spiders of medical concern. In the US Latrodectus and Loxosceles, the black widow and the recluse respectively, are the only spiders with dangerous venoms though bites are very rare and significant ones even rarer.

PS Araneus are typically night people, sometimes eating their web come dawn and making a new one at dusk.

 

[RTTB]

I support a downgrade to tapeworm.

 

[Ungoliant]

That is a harmless orb weaver of some sort. Orb weavers are beneficial predators that devour insects. They are not dangerous to people. I can't tell you from just a ventral shot which species it is, but see, for example, this one: http://bugguide.net/node/view/864598

You picked the right genus with that example. It's a species of Neoscona.

These spiders are generally out at night and often take down their webs in the morning, building a new web at dusk. They eat flying insects and are harmless to people.

 

[spotropaicsav]

OP, keep this one around for pest control!

 

[Ghost56]

I'm a troll because I want help identifying a spider blocking my door so I can't take out the trash but at the same time helping cut back the moth issue and if it cannot hurt people I want to keep it but I don't know so I posted here for help?

You, sir Ghost56, are a massive A**. I take back the thanks in advance since you don't deserve any thanks at all and your remark is the only trolling here.

I put the troll face because I posted a troll post not because of your post smarty pants.

Not sure why some people are getting their panties in a bunch over a simple, obvious, goofy post. A quick Google Search would've told you the only spiders in the US that have a significant bite are the brown recluse and black widow.

 

[Jason Arthur Taylor]

I put the troll face because I posted a troll post not because of your post smarty pants.

Not sure why some people are getting their panties in a bunch over a simple, obvious, goofy post. A quick Google Search would've told you the only spiders in the US that have a significant bite are the brown recluse and black widow.

I think, theoretically speaking, despite my extreme ignorance of insects, that, due to evolution and the natural tendency of it to allow species to fill up each even seemingly insignificant energy crevices, that there should be a continuum of threat to humans from on one end, lethal, down to, on the other end, not capable of even causing a bite. Moreover, I would assume that even within a species, some specific spiders are more of a threat then others, via differences in sex, size, etc. Thus, I would question the binary nature of your views Ghost56 (in which there are exactly only two threatening species and in which all other species are totally harmless in all cases). From this perspective of mine, right or wrong, actually showing the spider that me and my housemates were debating killing, and now, due to help we got from Spotropaicsav, Ungoliant, The Snark, RTTB, chanda, have decided to help, not only as a way to appreciate nature but also because it will help protect my suits (I had to throw away a $300 suit due to a moth hole), and getting a specific analysis from people clearly more knowledgeable than me, far surpasses the likely outcome of what should be expected with a google search. More specifically, there is a very light woman I live with who is might not handle a bite as easily as a heavy set person, so the intermediate spider threats are what I needed to know about before pleading for us to not kill it.

As an aside, I think this notion that google is the arbitrator of truth and can tell us the information we need is a huge part of what is wrong with this world. Without getting into all the details of why I know what I'm talking about, I think it is capable of being manipulated to give the exactly wrong answer. And, absolutely, there is no way I'd have the required peace of mind in living with a spider that doesn't kill people but might cause a nasty non-lethal bite. In this respect, my title wasn't ideal, and for that I apologize generally, but this situation in which someone responds on a forum in a disrespectful fashion without answering a question is all too common on virtually all forums on the internet, and it is a wonderful thing to see any sort of push back against the mods ruining the inherent beauty of our innate desire to help each other, hive intelligence, and general friendships with others we all need and want.

 

[Ghost56]

I think, theoretically speaking, despite my extreme ignorance of insects, that, due to evolution and the natural tendency of it to allow species to fill up each even seemingly insignificant energy crevices, that there should be a continuum of threat to humans from on one end, lethal, down to, on the other end, not capable of even causing a bite. Moreover, I would assume that even within a species, some specific spiders are more of a threat then others, via differences in sex, size, etc. Thus, I would question the binary nature of your views Ghost56 (in which there are exactly only two threatening species and in which all other species are totally harmless in all cases). From this perspective of mine, right or wrong, actually showing the spider that me and my housemates were debating killing, and now, due to help we got from Spotropaicsav, Ungoliant, The Snark, RTTB, chanda, have decided to help, not only as a way to appreciate nature but also because it will help protect my suits (I had to throw away a $300 suit due to a moth hole), and getting a specific analysis from people clearly more knowledgeable than me, far surpasses the likely outcome of what should be expected with a google search. More specifically, there is a very light woman I live with who is might not handle a bite as easily as a heavy set person, so the intermediate spider threats are what I needed to know about before pleading for us to not kill it.

As an aside, I think this notion that google is the arbitrator of truth and can tell us the information we need is a huge part of what is wrong with this world. Without getting into all the details of why I know what I'm talking about, I think it is capable of being manipulated to give the exactly wrong answer. And, absolutely, there is no way I'd have the required peace of mind in living with a spider that doesn't kill people but might cause a nasty non-lethal bite. In this respect, my title wasn't ideal, and for that I apologize generally, but this situation in which someone responds on a forum in a disrespectful fashion without answering a question is all too common on virtually all forums on the internet, and it is a wonderful thing to see any sort of push back against the mods ruining the inherent beauty of our innate desire to help each other, hive intelligence, and general friendships with others we all need and want.

I never said all others are harmless.. I simply said that those are the only two with significant bites in the US. Which is true. Your thread title asked if it killed people. The only spiders in the US remotely capable of possibly causing death are the two I named. And that isn't a common outcome at all. That is putting aside any type of allergic reactions as that doesn't have much to do with the spiders themselves.

As far as google's credibility goes. That's on the person using it. It's up to you to find the credible info.

 

[Ratmosphere]

Harmless. Nice find too!

 

[RTTB]

I contend that one of the crucial functions of this forum is education. We should welcome all questions and members. Why Google when you have a collection of experts and enthusiasts with real experience that can help.

 

[The Snark]

@Jason Arthur Taylor The fears of spider bites are mostly unwarranted regardless of the person being bitten's condition. As for nasty non lethal bites, aside from necrosis from Loxosceles venom which rarely happens and systemic toxemia from both Loxo and Latrodectus, the greatest hazards from spider bites in the US are anaphylaxis and bacterial infections. To put it in context, bees and wasps cause more serious injuries or complications and deaths each year than all spider bites on record world over. Next on the hazard list is MRSA infections and on down the ladder. Being struck by lightning is three to five times more likely than a life threatening spider bite.

 

[Jason Arthur Taylor]

I never said all others are harmless.. I simply said that those are the only two with significant bites in the US. Which is true. Your thread title asked if it killed people. The only spiders in the US remotely capable of possibly causing death are the two I named. And that isn't a common outcome at all. That is putting aside any type of allergic reactions as that doesn't have much to do with the spiders themselves.

I'm happy to learn we agree.

As far as google's credibility goes. That's on the person using it. It's up to you to find the credible info.

I know you want to protect your reputation. That's natural, but I'd be careful of digging your own grave here Ghost56. It is only because of the collaboration between experts here allowing Ungoliant to identify the genera was I able to come to http://animals.mom.me/spotted-western-orb-weaver-spiders-poisonous-humans-6072.html which states,

Colorful, Not Dangerous​

Although their bite can sting, there's no reason to worry about spider bites from these guys. They're not poisonous. Technically speaking, they're venomous -- poison involves ingestion or absorption, venom involves injection -- but their venom isn't strong enough to seriously injure, let alone kill, a healthy human. They're not, for instance, included on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's list of "Spiders of Medical Importance," which even includes the largely harmless parson spider. One list, from the pest website Termite.com, includes "orb-weaving spiders" at large, but lists them as a low-risk, non-aggressive species. Still, all spiders can and will bite if provoked. Spotted western orb weavers can be quite beautiful, but use care when observing them.
​

I respectfully disagree with your implication that a more skilled user of google than I (!!!) I could have easily come to this sort of paragraph without human help unless there is a software-based automatic spider identification website out there I don't know about. It should exist IMO. It is such a trivial recognition problem compared to, for instance, face recognition. But, this isn't a perfect world, so I'm especially grateful for the members of this website besides yourself allowing us to help each other.

 

[Ghost56]

I know you want to protect your reputation. That's natural, but I'd be careful of digging your own grave here Ghost56. It is only because of the collaboration between experts here allowing Ungoliant to identify the genera was I able to come to http://animals.mom.me/spotted-western-orb-weaver-spiders-poisonous-humans-6072.html which states,

Colorful, Not Dangerous​

Although their bite can sting, there's no reason to worry about spider bites from these guys. They're not poisonous. Technically speaking, they're venomous -- poison involves ingestion or absorption, venom involves injection -- but their venom isn't strong enough to seriously injure, let alone kill, a healthy human. They're not, for instance, included on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's list of "Spiders of Medical Importance," which even includes the largely harmless parson spider. One list, from the pest website Termite.com, includes "orb-weaving spiders" at large, but lists them as a low-risk, non-aggressive species. Still, all spiders can and will bite if provoked. Spotted western orb weavers can be quite beautiful, but use care when observing them.
​

I respectfully disagree with your implication that a more skilled user of google than I (!!!) I could have easily come to this sort of paragraph without human help unless there is a software-based automatic spider identification website out there I don't know about. It should exist IMO. It is such a trivial recognition problem compared to, for instance, face recognition. But, this isn't a perfect world, so I'm especially grateful for the members of this website besides yourself allowing us to help each other.

You've officially lost me here.

 

[Eva]

Yes. Much death. Such bad.

wow

 

[Little Grey Spider]

Google is so full of misinformation ESPECIALLY when it comes to "Is this spider dangerous or poisonous" kind of searches because much of it is written by people who a. have no idea what they're talking about or b. are trying to sell a service (e.g. spider traps or pest control). If the poster didn't even know it was an orb weaver (no offense op) how are they supposed to know what to look for on Google? Google is great for recipes.... not so much for spider ID. A quick example would be to Google brown recluse. Yes, many of the results are Loxosceles, but others are Huntsman or Wolf spiders and well... Since the pics are in Google images for Brown recluse, the eight eyed large tan spider sitting in front of me MUST be a brown recluse, no?


Anyway..... OP.... I completely agree with Ungoliant (as usual lol). This looks to be one of the Neoscona sp. A beautiful, beneficial, NOT medically significant (i.e. no much death... unless you're a cricket or fly) orb weaver. Thank you for not killing her.

 

[The Snark]

Google is so full of misinformation ESPECIALLY when it comes to "Is this spider dangerous or poisonous" kind of searches because much of it is written by people who a. have no idea what they're talking about or b. are trying to sell a service (e.g. spider traps or pest control).

Pest exterminator companies being an authority on identifying dangerous spiders = ammunition manufacturers writing the book on how to identify terrorists. = or Proper Sentence Structure and Grammatically Correct Composition by Donald Trump and Sarah Palin.

Just guessing here. It appears that the OP, @Jason Arthur Taylor is highly educated and one of the (sadly) very rare individuals that wanted to get to the truth of the matter without getting diverted by the million pound ****hammer of media misinformation and sensationalist noise. Hats off!!