# Are Spiders Bugs? Yes or No?



## Kathy

No, Spiders are not bugs. They're arachnids. Technically, spiders are not bugs since they are arachnids not insects. Technically only certain insects are bugs, belonging to the insect order Hemiptera. Therefore not all insects are bugs, either.


The answer is yes. Bugs are small arthropods by definition. Arthropods include insects, arachnids, and crustaceans. Spiders are arachnids, so they are arthropods. Therefore, spiders are bugs.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------

Oops, mods...I think I should have posted this in the "spider" section.  I'm sorry!


----------



## What

It depends upon the audience being talked to and the specific nature of the statements... Kinda one of those terms you should define when using though, i.e. "using bugs collectively to refer to X, X, X, and X" and such.


----------



## xhexdx

Spiders aren't bugs.  I don't know where you got your definition from.


----------



## JC

Yes spiders are bugs. The word 'bug' is actually a layman's word. 'Bug' refers to most arthropods, Crustacea does not count.

If it crawly,spineless, and a non-sea dweller, then it is a 'bug'.



xhexdx said:


> Spiders aren't bugs.  I don't know where you got your definition from.



I hope you are joking.


----------



## Scoolman

Formally speaking A bug is an insect of the order Hemiptera.
Informally speaking bugs include most arthropods, not including marine crustaceans:
 insect
 spiders
 scorpion
 mite
 tick
 centipede
 millipede
 woodlouse

So, technically the OPs original post is accurate. If one was to argue the point, then one must accept that "bug" does not refer to anything but Hemiptera, and therefore cannot be used in reference to any other arthropod.


----------



## JC

Well obviously spiders are not "true" bugs. I guess you can pick one of your two definitions on this one. But there is no real discussion here to be had. 

Here is your pick :

"True" bugs, you know exactly what they are.

Laymens "bug" still refers to most arthropods, not including Crustacea.


----------



## Kirk

JC said:


> Well obviously spiders are not "true" bugs. I guess you can pick one of your two definitions on this one. But there is no real discussion here to be had.
> 
> Here is your pick :
> 
> "True" bugs, you know exactly what they are.
> 
> Laymens "bug" still refers to most arthropods, not including Crustacea.


Kathy wrote,


> Bugs are small arthropods by definition. Arthropods include insects, arachnids, and crustaceans. Spiders are arachnids, so they are arthropods. Therefore, spiders are bugs.


The statement, "Bugs are small arthropods," implies that some, but not all, small arthropods are bugs. The conclusion that spiders are bugs can't be determined from that premise. But then whoever said laypersons always think logically?


----------



## JC

Kirk,

Yeah, the laymens term is basically crap. And people will use it as they please, even if it doesn't fit the definition correctly. 

But I think it is important to note that the laymens 'bug' it is the most widely is the most widely used term. 

They don't call him KenTheArthropodaGuy, and when someone says "I stepped on a bug", 99.999% of the time they are not specifically referring to the Hemiptera order.


----------



## Kirk

JC said:


> Kirk,
> 
> Yeah, the laymens term is basically crap. And people will use it as they please, even if it doesn't fit the definition correctly.
> 
> But I think it is important to note that the laymens 'bug' it is the most widely is the most widely used term.
> 
> They don't call him KenTheArthropodaGuy, and when someone says "I stepped on a bug", 99.999% of the time they are not specifically referring to the Hemiptera order.


I agree. I was only trying to point out why Kathy's quasi-syllogism falls apart.


----------



## Mojo Jojo

Scientifically they aren't bugs.  In plain speak, they are.


----------



## xhexdx

Imo, it's people misusing the word 'bug'.

It's like common names vs. binomial nomenclature.  I'll stick with what's correct.


----------



## Obelisk

When I hear the word bug, only insects come to mind really. But I understand that the average person refers to most terrestrial arthropods as bugs.


----------



## llamastick

I really wish that English had a one- or two-syllable term to refer to all land-based arthropods.


----------



## Michiel

body with three segments, antennae and six legs= insect, "bug"
body with two segments, no antennae and eight legs= arachnid (Scorpions, Amblypygids, Thelyphonida, Schizomida, Opiliones etc etc)....

Bug seems to be a non specialist term for anything "creepy crawly" and flying insects


----------



## loxoscelesfear

This thread _bugs_ me.:barf:


----------



## Kirk

Kathy said:


> Why are you making this personal?  Besides...go back and look.  I posted the question and presented two sides and opened it to discussion.  Where did I state which side I chose?  Proof that people only see what they want to see.


Nothing personal intended. It was generic, sort of like your generalization that people only see what they want to see. I was referring to the structure of the argument you presented.


----------



## Kathy

Kirk said:


> Nothing personal intended. It was generic, sort of like your generalization that people only see what they want to see. I was referring to the structure of the argument you presented.


Oh okay.  I was thinking I was a computer/marketing teacher...that doesn't exactly qualify me as knowing anything about spiders.  I see where you are coming from now.


----------



## signinsimple

fallacy of equivocation on the term "bug"


----------



## desertanimal

When I hear the word "bug," only bugs come to mind.  The ones with proboscises (is that the right plural? It's the only one spellcheck doesn't flag) for mouthparts.  

To me, calling anything else a bug is like calling a side-blotch lizard or an iguana a "gecko."


----------



## skar

I refer to spiders, insects etc . .   as I see them. 
Most general people or friends I know respond to spiders as AAAGGHHH OMG kill it get out of here !!! So I don't think most people think they are bugs either.
Lady bugs I consider bugs.


----------



## KenTheBugGuy

*English*

Well the dictionary has the below as one meaning....I chose to use Bug in my name because it can loosely be referred too as many things.  If I went with  insect, arachnid or even invert most of those did not sound great and roll off the tounge and most could not encompass what I mostly sell 


2. (loosely) any insect or insect like invertebrate


----------



## JC

xhexdx said:


> Imo, it's people misusing the word 'bug'.
> 
> It's like common names vs. binomial nomenclature.  I'll stick with what's correct.


You'll stick to what is correct, or rather you mean to is what accepted by the leaders in the particular field? 

Does this mean you will never use the word 'tarantula' to refer to a theraphosid?


----------



## buthus

Its all about context.  If I call my buds up and say.."hey, lets go _bug_ huntin' this weekend."  They know that means to go out and look for small creatures with the central goal being _invertebrates_. The context is a global one, encompassing all that the slang use of the term could define.  
But, when on the trail and a bud spots me catching something and asks.. "whatchya find?" and i respond.."not sure...some kind of weird _bug_."  He knows i found something that I dont think is a spider, beetle, ant, isopod, tick, pede, scorp, etc.  Its definitely an invertebrate, it most likely has six legs and im probably looking at its mouth parts to confirm whether its hemiptera or not.  The context has changed to something more specific. The word _bug_ now being used to define what it isnt and though its still being used as a "catch-all" term, the focus of the term is now towards the scientific use of it.


----------



## theconmacieist

...I do understand that some people call spiders bugs. Some people also call tarantulas poisonous, but that doesn't make them right. I just don't think things should be accepted just because a lot of people are misinformed.


----------



## buthus

theconmacieist said:


> ...I do understand that some people call spiders bugs. Some people also call tarantulas poisonous, but that doesn't make them right. I just don't think things should be accepted just because a lot of people are misinformed.


Ok ...but are beetles bugs?  how bout hobgoblins?
_Origin:
1615–25; 1885–90 for def. 4; 1910–15 for def. 5a; 1915–20 for def. 14; 1945–50 for def. 15;  earlier bugge  beetle, apparently alteration of Middle English budde, Old English -budda  beetle; sense “leave” obscurely related to other senses and perhaps of distinct orig. 
_

_Middle English bugge hobgoblin; probably akin to Low German bögge goblin
First Known Use: 14th century_

Obviously, what we currently consider the _informal_ use of the term "bug" long proceeded the scientific one. Hobgloblins were not named after "True Bugs" ( hemipterous insect).  Language evolves and many terms take on broad meanings, yet can still be reduced to a specific meaning.  Its not something we really have a lot of control over...its just the way it IS. We can however change or add to a term to focus its meaning. In this case people added "True". Some bugs are truly bugs and others are just bugs. None seem to be goblins anymore.


----------



## theconmacieist

In my opinion this is not language evolution but language retardation.


----------



## The Snark

Thank you buthus.

Come on, people!! Define your variables or terminologies. When in doubt, check your etymology. Regardless of common usage, if there is any dispute, debate, or ambiguity the origin of the word must be considered.

Always keep in mind, English is NOT A LANGUAGE. It is a polyglot. (Noun, first definition: a mixture or confusion of languages) Thus, the origin of the words is critical and paramount of one wishes to avoid inaccuracies or ambiguity.


----------



## Venom

The Snark said:


> Thank you buthus.
> 
> Come on, people!! Define your variables or terminologies. When in doubt, check your etymology. Regardless of common usage, if there is any dispute, debate, or ambiguity the origin of the word must be considered.
> 
> Always keep in mind, English is NOT A LANGUAGE. It is a polyglot. (Noun, first definition: a mixture or confusion of languages) Thus, the origin of the words is critical and paramount of one wishes to avoid inaccuracies or ambiguity.



While I agree that etymology is important...English is most certainly a language. It has an origin, and an evolution like any other language. It simply happens to be the language with the most worldwide contact with other cultures than that from which it originated, and so it has become extremely diverse, and developed many localized forms. But it's all still English...many dialects of a single language.

In my view, "bug" is not really a scientific term anyway. Something like "Hemipteran" would be the scientific term. No entomologist is going to run around saying species_x of Hemiptera is a "bug" or a "true bug," they're going to use the Latin genus or order designation. 

"Bug," then, in my opinion, is a word which is primarily a catch-all colloquialism for non-aquatic invertebrates. Spiders are bugs.


----------



## The Snark

Venom said:


> While I agree that etymology is important...English is most certainly a language. It has an origin, and an evolution like any other language. It simply happens to be the language with the most worldwide contact with other cultures than that from which it originated, and so it has become extremely diverse, and developed many localized forms. But it's all still English...many dialects of a single language.
> 
> In my view, "bug" is not really a scientific term anyway. Something like "Hemipteran" would be the scientific term. No entomologist is going to run around saying species_x of Hemiptera is a "bug" or a "true bug," they're going to use the Latin genus or order designation.
> 
> "Bug," then, in my opinion, is a word which is primarily a catch-all colloquialism for non-aquatic invertebrates. Spiders are bugs.


English is certainly recognized as a language. In fact, the most commonly used language in the world today. Acceptance of usage establishes the legitimacy of a language. Following the pattern that the English language exemplifies, American ghetto slang consisting of grunts, expletives pseudo words and word derivatives shall also become a recognized language.
Be that as it may, polyglots are seldom recognized for their accuracy and definitions usually refer to etymology of the source language(s) to wit, English cannot justify itself; it relies on citing other languages of which it is composed of. A perfect example is your very appropriate use of the word colloquial which is of course Latin.

For native English speaking people the concept that their language isn't a true language is hard to conceive. The concept is much more easily understood when you are versed in a language that stands upon it's own and self defines the majority of the words.

Most of the words used in English today are colloquials and reference to the source languages is usually required to avoid inaccuracies, ambiguities or ... bugs.


----------



## JC

Well then that leaves one question. What do you consider a "true" language?

 A language that has never adopted words or need to refer to other languages to defines it's words? Truly virgin and unique throughout history and without any 'ghetto derivations', oh I am sure there are many "real languages".


----------



## Michiel

JC said:


> Well then that leaves one question. What do you consider a "true" language?
> 
> A language that has never adopted words or need to refer to other languages to defines it's words? Truly virgin and unique throughout history and without any 'ghetto derivations', oh I am sure there are many "real languages".


LOL. yeah me too!


----------

