Talk:Steatoda nobilis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 17lchang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misleading claims of toxicity

The source linked to the toxicity of the bites is an investigation into the composition of the venom, not the actual toxicity or lethality of the SN bites themselves. The way the source is quoted here makes it sound like SN is potentially lethal and has led to some deaths when the article makes no such claims, only that spiders with similar venom composition have been known to cause fatalities. The conclusion of the article only suggests that SN should be considered medically important. I believe this wiki should be updated to highlight the fact that this spider is not known to be dangerous, as far as I can tell at least. --Abrickwall (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Student Suggestions

Hello! I really enjoyed this article, the prose is summative, the article is well-formatted, and I appreciated the formatting titles and use of bullet points. I added links to the Venoms and predators section to help define some biochemical jargon and link to the spider pages for the predators of S. nobilis. The article is well-referenced too! I noticed that some of the references section where reference 22 and 29 had red warnings from Wiki for missing sections so I would suggest fixing that. Akwan826 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! This article was well done overall with lots of relevant and interesting information. I liked how you divided and described the venom's effects on prey and humans. I noticed in your description of the spider a way to make the information flow a bit better, so I changed around the order of your sentences to aid in that. In the original section where you talk about the invasiveness of the spider and how it is a threat to native species, you do not go into detail as to why. If you can, I would recommend adding that in. Shaynarosenbloom (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I thought you did a great job on your article and found it very informative. I have a couple suggestions. In the section on Bites to Humans and Animals, I think you could combine some of your smaller subsections, such as Venom Mechanism and Venom Function. If there is more information to add to your section on Enemies, I think that would be a good idea as well. Mlschoening (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Alleged incidents section

This edit was reverted because the tabloid source it uses has sensational coverage of the issue (vicious spiders running amok etc). Also, the text which accompanies the disturbing image does not make clear that this is probably the result of an infection arising from the bite, rather than the bite itself.

There is a news story from Devon today about a man who was apparently bitten by a false widow. Interestingly, it says that six people have attended Torbay Hospital in the past week with similar bites. Per WP:TRIVIA, this article does not need to list every incident of this kind, eg there is a similar incident in Devon here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The incident in Romford has set a new standard for sensational reporting of false widow bites. Headlines such as False widow spider ATE my leg and Flesh-eating spiders coming to a house near you! are wildly inaccurate and recall the classic "Freddie Starr ate my hamster". The keywords in the Romford incident are antibiotics and pus. This shows that the wound became infected, which is a complication resulting from the bite, rather than the bite itself. Unfortunately, "Man develops serious leg infection after spider bite" is not as exciting a tabloid headline as "False widow spider ATE my leg". The possibility of an infection following a spider bite is real, and the Brown recluse spider has been reported to produce necrotic wounds, although these claims have been challenged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

While much tabloid coverage is undoubtedly sensationalist and downright silly, the bite of this spider does appear to be very unpleasant. The article doesn't reflect this at present, implying that any concerns are just an hysterical fuss about nothing. I certainly wouldn't like to be bitten by one. --146.90.206.39 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why so much weasling in the "ALLEGED" "SENSATIONALIST" incidents, eh? Has this article been written by some arachnophiliac apologist shills? Whither WP:NEUTRAL?? --feline1 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sensationalist is a fair description of some of the coverage, particularly when it involves getting basic facts wrong (eg no person in the UK has ever died from a spider bite, despite the "killer spiders" headlines in the tabloids). As for the "alleged" part, there is an article on BBC News which makes similar points: "According to the British Arachnological Society, false widows might occasionally be the subjects of mistaken identity. "It is difficult to obtain accurate evidence as those complaining of bites often do not see the spider but assume they are the culprit because of the absence of a bee or wasp," said the society. "Alternatively, they only get a brief glimpse. Rarely is the spider captured so that an accurate identification can be carried out." In many of the reported incidents, the creature was not caught or the species definitively identified. This has also happened with brown recluse spiders in the USA, and some experts believe that there is an excessive tendency to blame spiders for this type of incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you can find biased sources to support your weaseling. I don't think you quite get the concept of WP:NEUTRAL:) --feline1 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The standard view of arachnologists is that many alleged spider bites are the result of misdiagnosis.[1] Arachnologists have tried to explain this to the media during the current furore, but it is an uphill struggle. When antivenom is required, it is essential to know the species of spider involved (eg in 2005 a man in Somerset took a photo of the spider that bit him which confirmed that it was a Brazilian wandering spider).[2] Experts are often shown photographs thought to be false widows which are not.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Since when were arachnologists a NEUTRAL party in all this? They are spider-fans who rely on the horrible crawly biting beasts for their livelihood. They have a vested interest in stopping us all killing the these loathsome arachnoids!--feline1 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good article, it reads well and is succinct and neutral. I also enjoyed reading the TALK page about growing media interest and mis-reporting. Fortunately the article page seems balanced in my view. 194.176.105.153 (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Male/female bites

Re this edit: Here the Natural History Museum says that only the female bites, while here the NHM says "Males bite more frequently than females because the males leave their webs when mature in search of mates". Meanwhile here John Tweddle of the NHM says "adult female false widow spiders are certainly capable of biting humans if handled without due care – the smaller males are not known to cause bites." So the NHM is inconsistent on this issue. This leads to a problem with how to source the likelihood of being bitten by a male or female Steatoda nobilis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Seaham incident

Re this edit: the incident in Seaham has received a good deal of media coverage, but as usual, things are not as clear cut as they first appear. The Sunderland Echo says "Andrea did not even see the spider – thought to be a false widow – which bit her while she was playing in a field with her two young sons. Assuming she had been bitten by a midgie, she was shocked when the bite doubled in size within hours, getting worse overnight."[4] Seaham is in the far north east of England, and attempts to show that Steatoda nobilis is common in northern England have been unsuccessful, as the distribution map from the British Arachnological Society shows.[5] This is a wound which became infected with necrotizing fasciitis, which resulted in the amputation of the finger. The media has jumped to the conclusion that a false widow spider bite was the cause, despite a lack of evidence and the fact that Steatoda nobilis is not common in northern England.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Further coverage here in the ChronicleLive: "Andrea said she didn’t even see the spider which bit her - but fears it may have been a venomous false widow. She said: “I’ve read about these false widow spiders and that it can be pretty nasty when they can bite you. But the doctors have told me they don’t really know what kind of spider it might have been.”[6] Given that this incident happened in a field, there are many spider species which might have caused this incident. False widows are not typical field spiders and prefer to be holed up in a crevice next to their scaffold webs during the daytime.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a core Wikipedia policy and your own viewpoint ie POV. What goes into Wikipedia does not have to be the "truth" only what is verifiable. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH for clarification. If BBC NEWS reports it to be a false widow, then irrespective of what you think - it's verifiable as a statement of fact for all intents and purposes for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.205.131 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a pity that the BBC News story here says that the incident was caused by a false widow spider, when other sources have used wording such as "thought to be" or "believed to be". Without seeing, catching or taking a photograph of the creature involved, no spider expert would say what the cause was. This is the latest in a long line of alleged incidents which do not really stand up to close scrutiny, and the local newspaper accounts give a better picture than the national news accounts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland incident

And they're back, according to this news article. The problem is that as usual the evidence that it actually was a Steatoda nobilis is less than compelling. I don't support adding this to the article as there are already several stories about infected wounds which may or may not have been caused by SN.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Steatoda nobilis in Chile

In the past day or so, the Chilean news media has been reporting the discovery of Steatoda nobilis in the country. All of the reports seem to draw on this piece of research which was an article in The Canadian Entomologist in January 2016. Regarding this edit about a bite reported in Chile, it would be helpful to have a web page or PDF link with some more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The research paper about the first recorded bite in Chile is here (in Spanish). It says that a 37-year-old man was bitten on the cheek while sleeping and that the spider was captured and identified as a male Steatoda nobilis, shown in Figure 2 of the cite. Meanwhile in the UK, the flow of alleged incidents continues unabated. In this BBC News story, a Steatoda nobilis bite is given as a possible (but not certain) cause of the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Lister hospital incident

Re this edit: The spider shown next to the coin in the photograph in this news story is a female Araneus diadematus, a common orb weaver spider similar to the one pictured here on Commons. There are many photographs of these on Wikimedia Commons. They have cross shaped markings on their backs, not skull shaped markings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steatoda nobilis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930212134/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ray.hamblett1/nature/spiders.steatoda.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ray.hamblett1/nature/spiders.steatoda.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Leicestershire incident

This is in the news and involves a man from Huncote whose leg was amputated after it became infected. The article says "We still don’t know what it actually was but they guessed it was a False Widow. They have a reputation as biters even though their bites are not normally very harmful. I think I might have kicked its home in the long grass, it’s got the hump and given me a bite." Steatoda nobilis would build a hammock web and not spend most of the daytime in grass, so this isn't very plausible. It's not impossible, but as usual a Steatoda nobilis has been given the blame in a news story despite the absence of firm evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Revert: reputation in England vs the UK

Hi, I was reverted here as the false widow isn't widespread outside England - though I do appear to have them in my kitchen in South Wales. I would argue that while the spider may not be widespread, the reputation of the spider certainly is - we mostly get the same tabloids, for instance. Vashti (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As the map shows, there are reports from Wales but they are not common in Scotland or northern England. I wasn't trying to say that there are no Steatoda nobilis in Wales, but the wording needs to make clear that there are parts of the UK where they are not known to be well established.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Southampton incident

This is another example of an incident where the facts don't quite add up. There is more detailed coverage in a local newspaper, and one of the photo captions says that [the boy] "Freddie has several bites but it is unknown whether they are from spiders".[7] So I've removed the part from national newspaper stories saying that the boy was also bitten by spiders. As usual with the bite to the man, it is hard to prove with certainty that the bite was caused by a Steatoda nobilis. The photo shows an infected wound, although the news story here says that it is an allergic reaction. The local news story says "He said he has suffered severe pain since he was first bitten in July, despite saying he has asked the council to remove the insects." Spiders are not insects, they are animals (clue: nearly all insects have six legs). It is a possible Steatoda nobilis bite, but the experts would express caution without confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Student Suggestions

Hello!I am just commenting on the edits I made, overall I think your article is formatted very well and written nicely! I made very few grammatical/ wording corrections, and if you need any clarifications let me know! I rearranged a bit of the information specifically under the "medical significance" section, I moved your information discussing symptoms and placed them within their own category "Signs and Symptoms." I also moved some information from that same category and integrated it into the paragraph under "bites to humans and animals", I just felt it flowed better there. I also moved the section "predators" a little higher so that it matched the "Enemies" placement in the article format given. I just had 2 questions when reading your article :

1) you mentioned that these spiders have been known to eat protected reptile species, did you have any examples of these that you could hyperlink to?

2)You mention near the end of mating that the males are able to produce stridulation during courtship, I was just wondering if this source mentioned the reasoning behind this, is there any benefit to it?

If you have any questions let me know !

Katherine.handley (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I have some concerns around the reliability of some of the news articles cited, particularly in the Media reaction section. Many of the articles cited are from tabloid papers, greatly exaggerate the danger posed by the species' bite, or have glaring issues such as calling spiders "insects". Also many of the reported bites seem to be unconfirmed and dubious, such as one article describing a man being bitten in his sleep (something which can't be confirmed as an S. Nobilis bite, and is pretty unlikely in the first place). I understand that the subheading specifies "alleged" incidents, but I don't think we should be including unconfirmed, dubious or exaggerated reporting.

The particular examples I'm concerned with are:

• In 2013 a man in Sidcup, Kent was allegedly bitten in his sleep, reporting that his hand had turned black and yellow. His hand remained swollen for five weeks until doctors gave him a course of antibiotics. - spider bites while sleeping are dubious, and it seems like the spider was not caught or identified. While looking for more information on the example I found another article where he thought what was clearly an orbweaver was Steatoda nobilis, which also makes me doubt the validity.
• *In 2014, a woman from County Durham had her left index finger amputated after contracting the flesh-eating bug necrotising fasciitis following a claimed bite from a false widow spider. - Article cited seems to indicate the spider wasn't even seen, and the identity was just assumed.
• In September 2019, it was reported that a man in Southampton was bitten while he slept, and left in pain, unable to work, and "barely able to walk" due to an allergic reaction to the venom. - This also seems like an example of someone assuming they were bitten in their sleep, despite how unlikely this is.

I'm also a little concerned with the inclusion of the section in the first place. While, yes, there is context relating to the exaggeration and scaremongering in the media just above it. It still feels like it boils down to a list of a list of bites. Would we include a list of people who had allergic reactions to a bee sting in an article on bees? If the intent is to show the extent of the media exaggeration I think that should be more clear, and if this is not the intent then I think it should be removed.

I'd make the edits myself now, but it seems the article has been the subject of some edit-warring and I wanted to get some input on what could be a controversial edit. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This is why the section is called "alleged incidents". In some cases people went to the newspapers and said that they were bitten by a SN, even though on close inspection the evidence was far from conclusive. What is needed in these cases is input from a spider expert or doctor to avoid this type of problem. The recent edits saying that SN bites are not medically significant are wrong, because there are some reliably recorded cases where a person in the UK had to go to hospital after a SN bite or the infection resulting from it. The article should not engage in scaremongering, but nor should it say that SN bites are completely safe. If in doubt, a person should seek medical advice from a qualified person. There is a good BBC News source here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A list of dubious examples of bites, whether the section is called "alleged incidents" or not, is still just a list of dubious examples.

Even if each example were verified, I still don't see the reason to include the section. I think the article should just discuss the medical effects of the bite as a whole, not individual examples. That seems to be standard for medically significant species such as Latrodectus mactans. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think that the alleged incidents should be taken with a pinch of salt unless they contain a comment from a spider expert or medical expert saying that it is likely that the incident was caused by a SN bite. This is difficult without seeing, catching or taking a photo of the spider. Quite a few incidents were removed from this section (some are discussed above) because they didn't confirm with any certainty that the incident was a SN bite. My favourite one is the Lister incident where the spider obviously isn't SN. What is interesting is the amount of media coverage, with the tabloids in particular running lurid stories that were designed to scare people about SN bites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's one of the main reasons I have an issue with the section. Dubious content which needs to be taken with a grain of salt, even if disclosed, isn't appropriate for a wiki article. Would you have any objections to removing the Alleged incidents section and expanding the section Bites to humans and animals to include information about the range of symptoms? - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It might be a bit drastic to axe the entire section but I agree that it has problems with WP:NOTNEWS, particularly when some of the incidents are a bit dubious anyway. There could be some drastic trimming to perhaps one or two examples, such as here where doctors did say that the cause was a spider bite.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that seems reasonable. If we're trimming it down to just a couple of examples, I might remove the section itself and include the examples in an expansion of the bites section. Then the media reaction section can include a more nuanced discussion of the media reporting of bites. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I support the idea of losing the list, and keeping a discussion of the media reaction which could include examples. Naturenet | Talk 21:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly arrived to San Francisco also

Got one in my shower 😂 2601:646:401:59D0:CC0:21D4:ABFF:502A (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but you should try to catch or photograph one, then get an opinion from an expert.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pygmy shrew

Re this edit: it contains a cite to the Daily Mail which is deprecated although it is mainly for showing the video. I was a bit doubtful about this at first, although the text cite [8] is adamant that a Steatoda nobilis did this. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)