# "Aren't tarantulas like, super poisonous?"



## JayDangerVL (Nov 9, 2013)

This was the question posed to me by a friend of mine at lunch the other day.  I just stared at him, mouth agape for a second--it just blew my mind because this friend is usually so knowledgeable and doesn't ever make judgments without a proper source.  

I was like, "Where did you get that from?  Arachnophobic Phil?"

It's precisely these sorts of misconceptions that are the reasons why I can't keep a tarantula in a house with other people.  I had to sit down with this boy and give him proper links to proper websites so he could determine with sorts of spiders are ACTUALLY dangerous, and which ones are less dangerous than keeping common household pets.  He was surprised to find that for the most part, smaller varieties of spiders tend to be more venomous than bigger spiders.  Is that at least, a conclusion we can agree on?  That's a fact that seems to surprise most of my friends, actually.  Even Australia's tiny Atrax robustus is far more aggressive and dangerous than their larger and more commonly intimidating Huntsman spiders.


----------



## Stefan2209 (Nov 9, 2013)

JayDangerVL said:


> Even Australia's tiny Atrax robustus is far more aggressive and dangerous than their larger and more commonly intimidating Huntsman spiders.


Hi,

something in between...

There are just 5 genera known to be able to inflict potentially life-threatening symptoms in healthy adult humans with a bite:

1. Sicarius
2. Latrodectus
3. Loxosceles

4. Atrax/Hadronyche
5. Phoneutria

While your idea of "small spiders being the most toxic" may seem to fit for the first three mentioned genera, i'm personally rather reluctant to call some species of the latter "small".
While A. robustus is the most infamous species within the family Hexathelidae, its not the most venomous one and especially not the largest. If you dig into information about some of the even more toxic "tree funnel web spiders" from the genus Hadronyche, you will find that those are not only more toxic, but also quite larger.
Phoneutria can in some species (including the infamous and very venomous) attain body-sizes of 2" and leg-spans of something like 6-7" - don't know about your perception, but personally i wouldn't consider this "small" by any objective means.

Things may look different though, if you compare any mentioned genus / species to, for example, T. blondi as a reference - so its really mostly a matter of perception and what you or the person you're speaking to is considering to be "large".

Take care,

Stefan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Beary Strange (Nov 9, 2013)

Stefan2209 said:


> Hi,
> 
> something in between...
> 
> ...


+1

See, by saying " smaller spiders are more dangerous" you're essentially adding fuel to the fire that is nonsensical spider myths. I had a co-worket today (who is charmingly fascinated by my little ones) ask "Aren't jumpers really poisonous and huge?". I explained that no, they generally don't bite and if they did the bite would be insignificant, and showed her using my thumbnail as a rough estimate of their size. She seemed very surprised.
I always make a point to explain to people who come up to me to ask questions that there are very few spiders capable of causing them any harm and that most of those don't even reside in the US.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 9, 2013)

Stefan2209 said:


> Hi,
> 
> something in between...
> 
> ...





azphyxiate said:


> +1
> 
> See, by saying " smaller spiders are more dangerous" you're essentially adding fuel to the fire that is nonsensical spider myths. I had a co-worket today (who is charmingly fascinated by my little ones) ask "Aren't jumpers really poisonous and huge?". I explained that no, they generally don't bite and if they did the bite would be insignificant, and showed her using my thumbnail as a rough estimate of their size. She seemed very surprised.
> I always make a point to explain to people who come up to me to ask questions that there are very few spiders capable of causing them any harm and that most of those don't even reside in the US.



This is exactly the sort of insight I was looking for from this website.  I hope you don't mind if I print this off and give it to my friend for his information.

For discussion's sake, though, would you say that Phoneutria and Atrax/Hadronyche are considered "small" in comparison to the other spiders found in the area?  And for the jumpers, would you say that jumpers are larger in comparison to the other spiders found in the immediate area?  Of course grass spiders can get larger than jumpers, but their bites aren't terribly fatal either.


----------



## Beary Strange (Nov 9, 2013)

JayDangerVL said:


> This is exactly the sort of insight I was looking for from this website.  I hope you don't mind if I print this off and give it to my friend for his information.
> 
> For discussion's sake, though, would you say that Phoneutria and Atrax/Hadronyche are considered "small" in comparison to the other spiders found in the area?  And for the jumpers, would you say that jumpers are larger in comparison to the other spiders found in the immediate area?  Of course grass spiders can get larger than jumpers, but their bites aren't terribly fatal either.


I can't answer from experience with Atrax or Phoneutria, as I have not kept either. I can tell you that I have often heard that Phoneutria are commonly mistaken for Theraphosids, and if Stefan's post above is anything to go by, at 6-7" DLS I can see why. And you can probably agree that 6-7" DLS is nothing to scoff at.
As far as jumpers go, there are a variety of species and some are quite teeny, but the common ones the average person will ever come across in the US are larger than the average house spider yes, and thus when a normal person sees one they think this "huge" spider must be super venomous and want their soul. Of course, as anyone with experience with them knows, this is absolute nonsense. 
You could try referring your friend to this website:
http://www.burkemuseum.org/spidermyth/index.html
It also makes for an interesting read. I never had any idea some people think things like "All spiders are male". People are bizarre. o.o


----------



## The Snark (Nov 9, 2013)

Atrax: 1 to 5 cm body length, leg span up to 15 cm. Small, compared to your average horse.


----------



## Smokehound714 (Nov 9, 2013)

Actually, that's pretty impressive for a non theraphosid myg.  Most do not reach a 5 cm body length, even the generally larger species like bothriocyrtum, aptostichus, and ummidia, 5 cm is quite large- a two inch body length.  I had no idea atrax got so huge.  I want one really bad now.


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 9, 2013)

azphyxiate said:


> I can't answer from experience with Atrax or Phoneutria, as I have not kept either. I can tell you that I have often heard that Phoneutria are commonly mistaken for Theraphosids, and if Stefan's post above is anything to go by, at 6-7" DLS I can see why. And you can probably agree that 6-7" DLS is nothing to scoff at.
> As far as jumpers go, there are a variety of species and some are quite teeny, but the common ones the average person will ever come across in the US are larger than the average house spider yes, and thus when a normal person sees one they think this "huge" spider must be super venomous and want their soul. Of course, as anyone with experience with them knows, this is absolute nonsense.
> You could try referring your friend to this website:
> http://www.burkemuseum.org/spidermyth/index.html
> It also makes for an interesting read. I never had any idea some people think things like "All spiders are male". People are bizarre. o.o





The Snark said:


> Atrax: 1 to 5 cm body length, leg span up to 15 cm. Small, compared to your average horse.


Horses are pretty venomous, I hear.

Actually I did just do some reading up on Phoneutria just now, and yeah, it looks like those bad boys can get pretty large!  About the size of my hand!  I would by no means, call that small.  Touche and many thanks, Mister Stefan.  I shall inform my friend immediately.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 10, 2013)

OP, it sounds like somewhere along the line the venom toxicity got mixed up with delivery mechanism a little bit. Anyway, size has no bearing on potency of the venom but it does aid in delivering it. There are basically three common factors when it comes to humans getting bit and suffering significant illness. Venom potency, ability to deliver it, and proximity to humans. All three must be taken into account. The widow presents a significant hazard with a very powerful venom and they are commonly found in human habitations. But their delivery mechanism is pretty sucky and they can't be accused of being a bold fearless predator. Phoneutria. the cause of the vast majority of illness from spider bites, has the venom and delivery mechanism down pat and they range over wide areas which often include human habitation. Atrax is similar to Phoneutria with the limitation they usually only come in contact with humans when the males get to feeling romantic and go out for a stroll. As for the rest of the significant spider bites, they are very rare and almost always accidental. All the factors just happened to jive when human put it's anatomy in just the wrong place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Nov 10, 2013)

JayDangerVL said:


> And for the jumpers, would you say that jumpers are larger in comparison to the other spiders found in the immediate area?  Of course grass spiders can get larger than jumpers, but their bites aren't terribly fatal either.


IMO, jumping spiders are actually quite small particularly when you include legspan as part of one's definition of "large/small" in comparison to other spiders. In fact, while jumpers are my favorite spiders, they often go overlooked because they are hard to see. However, if you google something like Largest Jumping Spider, there's a cool video on YouTube of someone having one on their wrist or arm. Anyway, it's REALLY large for a jumper!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 10, 2013)

The Snark said:


> OP, it sounds like somewhere along the line the venom toxicity got mixed up with delivery mechanism a little bit. Anyway, size has no bearing on potency of the venom but it does aid in delivering it. There are basically three common factors when it comes to humans getting bit and suffering significant illness. Venom potency, ability to deliver it, and proximity to humans. All three must be taken into account. The widow presents a significant hazard with a very powerful venom and they are commonly found in human habitations. But their delivery mechanism is pretty sucky and they can't be accused of being a bold fearless predator. Phoneutria. the cause of the vast majority of illness from spider bites, has the venom and delivery mechanism down pat and they range over wide areas which often include human habitation. Atrax is similar to Phoneutria with the limitation they usually only come in contact with humans when the males get to feeling romantic and go out for a stroll. As for the rest of the significant spider bites, they are very rare and almost always accidental. All the factors just happened to jive when human put it's anatomy in just the wrong place.


This is a really helpful explanation, which explains some of the thought behind my original theory, but also debunks some of it and offers better reasoning.  Thank you.  About the Black Widow a bit though--I don't know a whole lot about that species and all I have to go on that one is what I've heard.  When you say their delivery mechanism is sucky, what do you mean?  Like, the fangs can't pierce the skin?  Or what?  But that can't be right... otherwise there wouldn't be reports of fatal incidents.  ARE there even reports of fatal incidents?  What am I hearing wrong here?



viper69 said:


> IMO, jumping spiders are actually quite small particularly when you include legspan as part of one's definition of "large/small" in comparison to other spiders. In fact, while jumpers are my favorite spiders, they often go overlooked because they are hard to see. However, if you google something like Largest Jumping Spider, there's a cool video on YouTube of someone having one on their wrist or arm. Anyway, it's REALLY large for a jumper!


Jumpers are my favorites too.  I'm so sad it's cold out now, because I can't find any anymore.    Legspan DOES make a difference... maybe I should be looking at variety of spider (funnel-weavers, ground spiders, cobweb spiders, jumpers) instead of size?  Is there a simple pattern to this toxicity thing?  Or is it all relative?

I'll have to check out that video of largest jumper.  

---------- Post added 11-10-2013 at 10:59 AM ----------




azphyxiate said:


> I can't answer from experience with Atrax or Phoneutria, as I have not kept either. I can tell you that I have often heard that Phoneutria are commonly mistaken for Theraphosids, and if Stefan's post above is anything to go by, at 6-7" DLS I can see why. And you can probably agree that 6-7" DLS is nothing to scoff at.
> As far as jumpers go, there are a variety of species and some are quite teeny, but the common ones the average person will ever come across in the US are larger than the average house spider yes, and thus when a normal person sees one they think this "huge" spider must be super venomous and want their soul. Of course, as anyone with experience with them knows, this is absolute nonsense.
> You could try referring your friend to this website:
> http://www.burkemuseum.org/spidermyth/index.html
> It also makes for an interesting read. I never had any idea some people think things like "All spiders are male". People are bizarre. o.o


Hey this website is great!  XD  Thanks for sharing it!  I'm going to be reading it all day!  (And yeah, I bet my friend will get a kick out of it too--thanks again!)


----------



## viper69 (Nov 10, 2013)

JayDangerVL said:


> Like, the fangs can't pierce the skin?  Or what?  But that can't be right... otherwise there wouldn't be reports of fatal incidents.  ARE there even reports of fatal incidents?  What am I hearing wrong here?


Jay I think your curiosity is cool, but I also think you need you read up before saying the above haha. It isn't that you aren't hearing, I think you aren't calling your friends at google and finding out some answers to the very simply question you asked here hahah. I mean c'mon man, if their fangs couldn't pierce how could people die because of them??? Black Widows have a 5% mortality rate. They venom is ~15 times more potent than a rattlesnakes if I recall correctly. If you have a real interest in venom, then you need to look up the term LD50.

Regarding size of animal and venom, where do you come up with these crazy ideas hahaha. There is absolutely ZERO correlation to size of animal and venom toxicity. If you take all of the poisonous animals in the world, the most toxic animal is also the smallest, (yes it KILLS, before you ask). I've talked to scientists that research this animal, and they have only theories as to why its so poisonous, but the truth is they have absolutely no idea as the scientist told me.

When it comes to toxins, what does exist, is that certain toxins produced by a variety of different animals are often related, not just related by their function (eg neurotoxin), but also related by the protein's physical structure too (eg ICK knot toxins)


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 10, 2013)

Never understood the fear of widows to be honest.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 10, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> Never understood the fear of widows to be honest.


Really why is that? You don't think a 5% mortality rate is something that generates fear or concern for most people, what's not to understand? haha

I know the species in N. America is relatively shy actually. And I had 2 "living" with me. One in a closet (that lasted 2 days), and one really pesky one at the doorstep. Craziest looking web I've seen, every time I tried to get her, right down between the house and the doorstep apt slab. I could never get her. I will say they sure appear to be clumsy walkers when they aren't in their web, unlike some other spiders.


----------



## akarikuragi (Nov 10, 2013)

I can understand the fear of widows but I don't think it's necessarily warranted. Car accidents kill thousands of people every year but few people think twice about getting into their cars. And, from my understanding of it, the odds of a healthy adult dying from a widow bite is much less than that of a child or elderly person. 

As to the original topic, I think people see big spiders and they automatically think dangerous, but that is often not the case. And while speaking in absolutes often leads to false information, isn't is safe to say that most large spiders aren't dangerous to the point of life threatening? And by large I mean average tarantula size and up. Just because there are more dangerous spiders on the small side than the large side doesn't mean that all small spiders are dangerous. I think what the OP was trying to communicate with their friend is that big =/= dangerous, and that there are lots of dangerous small spiders as well.


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 10, 2013)

viper69 said:


> Jay I think your curiosity is cool, but I also think you need you read up before saying the above haha. It isn't that you aren't hearing, I think you aren't calling your friends at google and finding out some answers to the very simply question you asked here hahah. I mean c'mon man, if their fangs couldn't pierce how could people die because of them??? Black Widows have a 5% mortality rate. They venom is ~15 times more potent than a rattlesnakes if I recall correctly. If you have a real interest in venom, then you need to look up the term LD50.


This is precisely what I'm saying and why I'm here--I keep hearing different things from different sources.  The problem isn't that I'm not reading up, the problem is that I'm getting inconsistent information, I'm confused, and I'm not understanding some of the things that are being said to me.  Are you criticizing me for asking questions?  Because I have zero facts here--only inquiries and disproved hypotheses.  If black widows have a 5% mortality rate, then obviously they can kill.  And yet I'm told their mechanism for delivering the venom is sub-par?  Well what does that mean?  That the venom can't penetrate the skin?  That can't be true, if people have died.  Unless people are straight up extracting the toxins and then drinking it out of a cup--but I find that unlikely.  Though perhaps that is another of my ill-formed assumptions.  So how exactly is the venom delivered, and what about it makes it ineffective as a delivery mechanism, especially if there IS a mortality rate?

And for the third time, I think it's pretty clear by now that my initial theory was inaccurate, and the size of the spider really has nothing to do with the potency of the venom.  That's good, because now I know, and I can make more informed statements in the future.  Now I also know that different kinds of venom can have different effects, so that's pretty cool to know too.

But unless anyone has any helpful links to venom studies or anything like that, I'm still at a partial loss here.  (Thanks for all your help, though... I know communicating such complex ideas to someone with no knowledge of the subject can be frustrating.)

---------- Post added 11-10-2013 at 05:13 PM ----------




akarikuragi said:


> I can understand the fear of widows but I don't think it's necessarily warranted. Car accidents kill thousands of people every year but few people think twice about getting into their cars. And, from my understanding of it, the odds of a healthy adult dying from a widow bite is much less than that of a child or elderly person.
> 
> As to the original topic, I think people see big spiders and they automatically think dangerous, but that is often not the case. And while speaking in absolutes often leads to false information, isn't is safe to say that most large spiders aren't dangerous to the point of life threatening? And by large I mean average tarantula size and up. Just because there are more dangerous spiders on the small side than the large side doesn't mean that all small spiders are dangerous. I think what the OP was trying to communicate with their friend is that big =/= dangerous, and that there are lots of dangerous small spiders as well.


Thank you--but the actual statement was indeed, "Smaller spiders tend to be more venomous, and larger spiders less so."  That on its own is a pretty unspecific statement, so I think most of the criticism here is rightfully earned--because I even knew that there were plenty of low/zero toxicity itty bitty spiders out there, depending on your definition of "itty bitty".  But yeah, I was mostly just appalled that he would even say such a thing without the proper research, and here I am doing the exact same thing!    Anyway, I'm glad I came to Arachnoboards to clear up my misunderstanding.  I try to look things up for myself, but let's face it!  I know very little on the subject and I can't seem to come across good sources.  I find the people here, who have had more experience, are a bit more helpful than a general Google search.

Thanks again!


----------



## viper69 (Nov 10, 2013)

akarikuragi said:


> I can understand the fear of widows but I don't think it's necessarily warranted. Car accidents kill thousands of people every year but few people think twice about getting into their cars. And, from my understanding of it, the odds of a healthy adult dying from a widow bite is much less than that of a child or elderly person.


True on both. More likely to die in a car, in fact I read once that driving is the most dangerous/lethal activity that people do. I think it comes down to needs and other human centric thoughts. Most people need to drive a car, or enter a car, plus they feel in control when driving, "it won't happen to me" etc etc.

But no one needs to have a Black Widow spider living in their house or in their immediate vicinity where they have the potential to be bitten.  It reminds me about people's fear of sharks...anyway............

---------- Post added 11-10-2013 at 02:50 PM ----------




JayDangerVL said:


> This is precisely what I'm saying and why I'm here--I keep hearing different things from different sources.  The problem isn't that I'm not reading up, the problem is that I'm getting inconsistent information, I'm confused, and I'm not understanding some of the things that are being said to me.  Are you criticizing me for asking questions?  Because I have zero facts here--only inquiries and disproved hypotheses.  If black widows have a 5% mortality rate, then obviously they can kill.  And yet I'm told their mechanism for delivering the venom is sub-par?  Well what does that mean?  That the venom can't penetrate the skin?  That can't be true, if people have died.  Unless people are straight up extracting the toxins and then drinking it out of a cup--but I find that unlikely.  Though perhaps that is another of my ill-formed assumptions.  So how exactly is the venom delivered, and what about it makes it ineffective as a delivery mechanism, especially if there IS a mortality rate?


Jay..I don't know what you are hearing at all. As for Black Widow, this doc took me all but 1 minute to find via Google https://secure.uuhsc.utah.edu/poison/healthpros/utox/Vol4_No3.pdf

And another 10 seconds for this one http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/spiders/

This is what I meant earlier that you are *quite* capable of finding your own links to many of the answers of your questions by calling your friends at Google. How *hard* is it to type "black widow mortality rates" into a google search box, hit enter, and look for reasonably good resource?? Finding reliable information isn't rocket science. Pretend you are writing a research paper and you, the writer, have to research it yourself using the available literature.


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 10, 2013)

viper69 said:


> Really why is that? You don't think a 5% mortality rate is something that generates fear or concern for most people, what's not to understand? haha
> 
> I know the species in N. America is relatively shy actually. And I had 2 "living" with me. One in a closet (that lasted 2 days), and one really pesky one at the doorstep. Craziest looking web I've seen, every time I tried to get her, right down between the house and the doorstep apt slab. I could never get her. I will say they sure appear to be clumsy walkers when they aren't in their web, unlike some other spiders.


I honestly would take any type of widow over any of the Australian funnel webs or the Brazilian wandering spider. Widows are like kittens compared to those spiders


----------



## The Snark (Nov 10, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_bite
Scroll down to the chart. It appears to be quite accurate with lots of references and citations.

Black widow bites had a 5% death rate prior to antivenin. It's really hard for a widow to compete with the big fast hunting and roaming spiders when they tend to run into a little hole and hide when their web gets bumped. Then their fangs are quite small so most of reported illness and deaths are from multiple bites where the animal got trapped against the skin.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 10, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> I honestly would take any type of widow over any of the Australian funnel webs or the Brazilian wandering spider. Widows are like kittens compared to those spiders


Hahah man, cmon Bob. Do you even THINK the average person in N. America has heard of either of those??? Some don't even know what a Brown Recluse is. It's all relative Bob =P

Speaking of Black Widow's there a pharma company that has clinical trial going on right now for a new antivenom against BW's venom, it's supposedly much better than the current antivenom.


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 10, 2013)

The Snark said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_bite
> Scroll down to the chart. It appears to be quite accurate with lots of references and citations.
> 
> Black widow bites had a 5% death rate prior to antivenin. It's really hard for a widow to compete with the big fast hunting and roaming spiders when they tend to run into a little hole and hide when their web gets bumped. Then their fangs are quite small so most of reported illness and deaths are from multiple bites where the animal got trapped against the skin.


Thank you very much.  That makes a lot of sense, and the extra references and citations are helpful.



viper69 said:


> Hahah man, cmon Bob. Do you even THINK the average person in N. America has heard of either of those??? Some don't even know what a Brown Recluse is. It's all relative Bob =P


I see no reason why spiders from EVERY region shouldn't be relevant.  I also see no reason, if it is apparently so stupidly easy for me to put more elbow grease into proper research, why it shouldn't be just as easy for another person to clarify an explanation when initially asked.  Or even more so, why it shouldn't be easy for a person to simply read a thread and understand just what the topic is anyhow.  Regardless, my apologies.  Next time I'll be certain to do some "actual" research before asking second opinions from a forum that specializes in arachnids.  I'll be sure not to trouble some of you with ignorant discussion again.

Thank you again, everyone, for your helpful references and information.  It's been an enlightening thread.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 10, 2013)

Just try to keep things in perspective and avoid the hysteria crowd. (Everyone who gets their news from only 1 source, just for a start). As mentioned here and elsewhere, there are far more deaths and maimings on any given day from motor vehicles than spiders have caused in their entire history on the planet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 10, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Just try to keep things in perspective and avoid the hysteria crowd. (Everyone who gets their news from only 1 source, just for a start). As mentioned here and elsewhere, there are far more deaths and maimings on any given day from motor vehicles than spiders have caused in their entire history on the planet.


Dogs kill more people than spiders do. I've told people this before, but most people don't like to listen :/


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 10, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> Dogs kill more people than spiders do. I've told people this before, but most people don't like to listen :/


I try to tell people that dogs can be more dangerous than spiders, but usually they're like, "Yeah, I know, whatever."  I think it's because the general idea of a "dog" is something happy and fuzzy.  Personally, I happen to think the very same thing about many spiders, but people hear the term "venomous" and panic.  It's a lot of mob psychology, I think.  To use the words of Mister Snark, the "hysteria" of the "crowd" tends to overpower the reasoning of the individual.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm not surprised, I showed a doctor a big centipede one time and he said, "Which end is the head?"  If people aren't interested, they just don't look into it.  We get a little biased over time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Nov 11, 2013)

JayDangerVL said:


> I see no reason why spiders from EVERY region shouldn't be relevant.......Or even more so, why it shouldn't be easy for a person to simply read a thread and understand just what the topic is anyhow.


Re: my comment to Bob, and your "every region" comment to me.

Jay, I don't think you are wrong re: other regions if one is comparing globally. Bob was, I wasn't. In his initial comment it wasn't made apparent he was thinking globally, hence my further line of questioning.

Bob said "I honestly would take any type of widow over any of the Australian funnel webs or the Brazilian wandering spider. Widows are like kittens compared to those spiders" and I was surprised that he didn't understand people's concern/fear about Black Widows. So what I wrote to Bob, which you quoted in your previous post was in the context of most people living in N. America don't have a clue of about the species in other countries (nor do they care for many reasons, some practical), and many don't even know what a Brown Recluse is (found in N. America). SO, my rationale was, if they don't even know that, why would they even know or care (ie be afraid, have fear etc) about species that don't even live in their region.

It's SORTA like me telling someone this fact: Of all animals in Africa, hippos kill more people per year than any other.  And the average USA citizen listening to me thinks/says "Oh really I didn't know that...well who cares I don't live in Africa".  I don't expect people to care or know about dangerous animals outside of their own country especially when they don't even know or care about some of their own! hahaha  That was the context I was speaking in, a regional knowledge base, when lacking by someone, doesn't give me high hopes that the person knows or cares about much beyond their borders or immediate daily life. Particularly the average person who doesn't know much about spiders or Ts.

Second, re: simply read a thread

If you were referencing me, that's how they read to me at least....well, I did read the entire thread, otherwise I wouldn't have responded.


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 13, 2013)

I was just meaning to say it could be a lot worse, and we should be thankful we don't have to deal with spiders that are very venomous as well as very defensive.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 13, 2013)

Hippos are the deadliest animal in the world, actually. 

BobGrill. "...be thankful we don't have to 'DEAL with spiders..." That is really the true heart of the matter, isn't it? We deal with our problems. In the case of spiders that usually means extermination. But the real solution is that we deal with ourselves. It is our lack of knowledge of the world around us, and, pardon me for sounding cynical here, our demanding that we can walk heedlessly barefoot through any environment on the planet and it's the fault of the animals if we get zapped.

We need to learn we are sharing this planet. We can only be oblivious of our environment for so long before a new strain of malaria or bacteria, or some hitherto benign critter turns a slice of our little heavens into a living hell. Ma nature bats last, and she's wielding a much larger bat.


----------



## BobGrill (Nov 13, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Hippos are the deadliest animal in the world, actually.
> 
> BobGrill. "...be thankful we don't have to 'DEAL with spiders..." That is really the true heart of the matter, isn't it? We deal with our problems. In the case of spiders that usually means extermination. But the real solution is that we deal with ourselves. It is our lack of knowledge of the world around us, and, pardon me for sounding cynical here, our demanding that we can walk heedlessly barefoot through any environment on the planet and it's the fault of the animals if we get zapped.
> 
> We need to learn we are sharing this planet. We can only be oblivious of our environment for so long before a new strain of malaria or bacteria, or some hitherto benign critter turns a slice of our little heavens into a living hell. Ma nature bats last, and she's wielding a much larger bat.


Whoah whoah what the heck? First off, you misquoted me there. Go back and read my entire post. "we should be thankful we don't have to deal with spiders that are very venomous as well as very defensive." That is what I said. 

Secondly, please stop lecturing me like this. I'm one of those people who is very nature-oriented and I already know everything that you're saying. I hate seeing people kill spiders (or any animal for that matter) when it steps onto their property, as if the animal is supposed to know.


----------



## viper69 (Nov 13, 2013)

BobGrill said:


> I was just meaning to say it could be a lot worse, and we should be thankful we don't have to deal with spiders that are very venomous as well as very defensive.


Yah I know Bob, no quarrel with you man haha. I didn't understand your perspective however from your very first statement as I mentioned above in my other post..no worries man!

---------- Post added 11-13-2013 at 10:59 AM ----------




BobGrill said:


> when it steps onto their property, as if the animal is supposed to know.


You mean other animals don't know when they are setting up inside in a house?? No WAY! For sure I thought that Black Widow was trying to skip out on paying me rent! :biggrin:


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 13, 2013)

The Snark said:


> It is our lack of knowledge of the world around us...


I just had a co-worker try tell me that wolf spiders actually eat human flesh.  

...

Like, that's legitimately what she believes.  I'm doing my best not to make conclusive statements without doing proper research first, but... I'm... pretty sure that's not true.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 13, 2013)

-Human- flesh? It would be interesting tracing that hoax back to it's origin. You could ask what kind of teeth the wolfy has to chew with but it would be best to be restrained and polite. Or you could tell them the truth which is much more fun. After the spider has incapacitated the prey with venom, it penetrates the body of it's victim with it's chlicerae then vomits into the wound. The vomitus dissolves the soft tissues of the victim which the spider then sucks up. It keeps doing this until there is almost nothing left. Barf slurp, barf slurp. The vomitus contains digestive chemicals and, I think, enzymes, which does the job our mouths do, since the spider has no teeth and in the case of old world spiders, no moving mouth parts. Much more interesting than peoples fantasies.


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 13, 2013)

The Snark said:


> -Human- flesh? It would be interesting tracing that hoax back to it's origin. You could ask what kind of teeth the wolfy has to chew with but it would be best to be restrained and polite. Or you could tell them the truth which is much more fun. After the spider has incapacitated the prey with venom, it penetrates the body of it's victim with it's chlicerae then vomits into the wound. The vomitus dissolves the soft tissues of the victim which the spider then sucks up. It keeps doing this until there is almost nothing left. Barf slurp, barf slurp. The vomitus contains digestive chemicals and, I think, enzymes, which does the job our mouths do, since the spider has no teeth and in the case of old world spiders, no moving mouth parts. Much more interesting than peoples fantasies.


I love this website.

Well, without overstepping any boundaries, I DID try to tell her that wasn't a thing that wolf spiders did, and that wolf spiders really aren't a spider that a person might need to even worry about, but she insisted that because she 'heard it on TV, it must be true.'  *sigh*  Which was nothing at all compared to ANOTHER co-worker that tried to tell me he sees two inch wolf spiders on a daily basis--then proceeded to show me a Googled photograph of what had clearly been labeled underneath as a fisher spider, saying that was one of them.  AND THEN he told me that all 'daddy-long leg' spiders are the most venomous spider on the planet, and that people nightly swallow two to three spiders in their sleep.  

I gave him a couple of websites that were recommended to me here on Arachnoboards to try and debunk some of his 'facts', but he refused to look at them, because he 'knew he was right'.

I need more friends that actually study arachnids, I think.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 13, 2013)

Well give the person a slight degree of credit. Dolomedes does look like Lycosids. It would be rather nice to have a fisher you could watch every day. And yes, daddy long legs could be the most venomous spider on the planet. What planet I have no clue but since there are an infinite number of them, it is possible there is one where pholcids are the dominant predator. Maybe check with your co-worker and add to your cosmological data base?

Actually that hoax got started because it appeared pholcids had a number of victim spiders in their webs. The fact of the matter is they are pretty good combatants on their own turf when it comes to coping with invading spiders.

Re: pholcids, aka daddy long legs. You could toss a couple of facts back. Their webs don't have any sticky threads. They capture prey entirely by their adroitness at tangling up the victim. Their venom is very marginally effective and if you observe them their victims usually manage to escape after a while. The spider tries to ball it's victims up, taking very fast nips as it does this to attempt to envenom and slow the victim down. But with flying insects this isn't very effective. Mosquitoes usually escape without difficulty.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 13, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Well give the person a slight degree of credit. Dolomedes does look like Lycosids. It would be rather nice to have a fisher you could watch every day. And yes, daddy long legs could be the most venomous spider on the planet. What planet I have no clue but since there are an infinite number of them, it is possible there is one where pholcids are the dominant predator. Maybe check with your co-worker and add to your cosmological data base?
> 
> Actually that hoax got started because it appeared pholcids had a number of victim spiders in their webs. The fact of the matter is they are pretty good combatants on their own turf when it comes to coping with invading spiders.


Well and I think that wolf spiders can look a lot like grass spiders and nursery web spiders too--but I don't think there's much excuse for a person looking at a labeled picture.  Unless of course, they genuinely can't read, so maybe that's insensitive of me.

I didn't know that about Pholcids.  I find that I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of things I don't know about spiders--so I'm looking into buying a textbook or two on them.  Any specific recommendations?


----------



## The Snark (Nov 13, 2013)

The comments people make about spiders are actually very comical. Spiders are popular, mostly in a negative sense. People use the popularity to make wild claims about them. But in reality, the study of spiders is a very exacting science. A rareified branch of entomology that takes several years to become at expert at. The comedy comes in when lay people get to blowing noise about arachnology. Now, take an equivalent science. Say astrophysics. If a person was to start blowing hot air about quantum equations, well other ignorant people would probably listen, but to the actual trained person they sound utterly ridiculous.

So my suggestion is, when a person shoves a spider hoax at you, ask them about quantum physics and then mention that the knowledge of the real workings of spiders is just as an exacting science as it is and do they really want to keep tossing out their noise?

Can you explain how to measure the distance between two stars in a relative position to each other? The spinnerets of the spider or the hydraulics of the salticids?


----------



## JayDangerVL (Nov 13, 2013)

Usually my responses start with, "Where did you even hear that from?" Just to give them a chance to defend themselves, since I'm hardly an expert either.  But usually, their defenses are: "My childhood friend told me when we were kids."

...Yeah.  Ok.  Sounds legit.


----------



## The Snark (Nov 13, 2013)

JayDangerVL said:


> Usually my responses start with, "Where did you even hear that from?" Just to give them a chance to defend themselves, since I'm hardly an expert either.  But usually, their defenses are: "My childhood friend told me when we were kids."
> 
> ...Yeah.  Ok.  Sounds legit.


Snerk snerk. That one only flies so far, doesn't it. Pull that one in a college class and the professor might just toss you the chalk as he says, "Prove it."

The ultimate definition of screwed is when your prof waves to the podium or blackboard then takes a seat, maybe your seat, with a nasty smile. If you listen carefully at that moment your can hear a screeching and flapping sound. That's your GPA sliding into the toilet, and your hopes for a scholarship or two, or converting a loan to a grant, flying out the window.


----------



## jigalojey (Dec 7, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Atrax: 1 to 5 cm body length, leg span up to 15 cm. Small, compared to your average horse.


Sorry but you're way of the mark with Funnel web measurements. Depending on the Species they average 5-10 cm's (10 being the absolute max) in leg span and the ONLY species of Funnel Web that have the chance to hit that size are Hadronyche formidabilis or more commonly known as The Northern Tree Dwelling Funnel Web. I own some Funnel Webs myself and my Northern tree Dwelling Funnel web was 7cm's last molt (decent size) The largest Funnel Web EVER recorded was 103mm and it of course was a Northern Tree Dwelling Funnel Web.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Dec 7, 2013)

jigalojey said:


> Sorry but you're way of the mark with Funnel web measurements. Depending on the Species they average 5-10 cm's (10 being the absolute max) in leg span and the ONLY species of Funnel Web that have the chance to hit that size are Hadronyche formidabilis or more commonly known as The Northern Tree Dwelling Funnel Web. I own some Funnel Webs myself and my Northern tree Dwelling Funnel web was 7cm's last molt (decent size) The largest Funnel Web EVER recorded was 103mm and it of course was a Northern Tree Dwelling Funnel Web.


I happily stand corrected though I am confused. If you measure the various images as at http://australianmuseum.net.au/Funnel-web-Spiders-group/ the corner to corner leg span is just under 3 times the body length and they state 1-5 cm. body length.  Would it be possible for you to supply photographs?
That would be a spiffy bonus for AB; correcting the recognized authority of the critters!


----------



## jigalojey (Dec 7, 2013)

I





The Snark said:


> I happily stand corrected though I am confused. If you measure the various images as at http://australianmuseum.net.au/Funnel-web-Spiders-group/ the corner to corner leg span is just under 3 times the body length and they state 1-5 cm. body length.  Would it be possible for you to supply photographs?
> That would be a spiffy bonus for AB; correcting the recognized authority of the critters!


 Ill be honest I think they're full of it. Just keep in mind these are the guys that think the largest Aussie Tarantula are only capable of 15 Cm's and this has been proven wrong by a mile so many times it isn't even funny. Just by looking at that photo I can tell you that funnel web is small (4-5 Cm's) I don't have any photo's of mine because they're a highly strung species and I don't like them freaking out but Steve nunn has a massive one (98mm) I think with photos.


----------



## The Snark (Dec 7, 2013)

jigalojey said:


> I Ill be honest I think they're full of it. Just keep in mind these are the guys that think the largest Aussie Tarantula are only capable of 15 Cm's and this has been proven wrong by a mile so many times it isn't even funny. Just by looking at that photo I can tell you that funnel web is small (4-5 Cm's) I don't have any photo's of mine because they're a highly strung species and I don't like them freaking out but Steve nunn has a massive one (98mm) I think with photos.


Nunn's site and a couple of others mentions a Selenotypus at 5 inch leg span. (~13 cm). The museum lists the Selenotypus at up to 16 cm (~6 3/8ths inch). 98mm is around ~4 inches.
A 5 cm body, 2 inches, is not usually considered a small spider.
I don't quite see your point. We've got a 31 cm leg span spider here. 18 cm is not all that unusual with Nephila. Even H venetoria cranks out 14+ cm on occasion. And Aus has 15+ cm Ts. Okay.


----------



## jigalojey (Dec 7, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Nunn's site and a couple of others mentions a Selenotypus at 5 inch leg span. (~13 cm). The museum lists the Selenotypus at up to 16 cm (~6 3/8ths inch). 98mm is around ~4 inches.
> A 5 cm body, 2 inches, is not usually considered a small spider.
> I don't quite see your point. We've got a 31 cm leg span spider here. 18 cm is not all that unusual with Nephila. Even H venetoria cranks out 14+ cm on occasion. And Aus has 15+ cm Ts. Okay.


 I mean the other way, many museums still list the max size of Australian Tarantulas at 15cm's where there are so many people in the Australian hobby now with way bigger specimens then 15cm's (including me) that those sizes are WAY out of date and are in a long need for a revamp. Basically I'm saying that I really wouldn't trust Australian museum source that much. 5cm body for a funnel web would require the specimen to have like 2.5cm legs because the biggest Funnel Web EVER recorded is (103mm) feel free to ask Steve Nunn about Funnel Web sizes if you don't agree with me.


----------



## The Snark (Dec 7, 2013)

Well, I think it safe to assume that if someone was to submit proper photographs accurately documenting spider size (using grid and overhead camera) they would update their site. Of course they use normal sci procedures where the largest and smallest 10% are left out so a sufficient number would have to be submitted. The museums aren't out to delude people or make false claims.


----------



## jigalojey (Dec 7, 2013)

The Snark said:


> Well, I think it safe to assume that if someone was to submit proper photographs accurately documenting spider size (using grid and overhead camera) they would update their site. Of course they use normal sci procedures where the largest and smallest 10% are left out so a sufficient number would have to be submitted. The museums aren't out to delude people or make false claims.


 Nah but there info is clearly wrong, so don't pay any attention to it. I can't stress enough Funnel Webs are not 15cm's, I don't feel this cinvo needs to continue because I have said what needed to be said.


----------

