Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spider internal anatomy

Spider internal anatomy[edit]

Reason: Very high EV, one of the best illustrations on Wikipedia.
Articles this image appears in: Spider anatomy
Creator: Pbroks13 after John Henry Comstock

~~Support as nominator~~ --Kaldari (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Still needs some work: the white space between terms and the underline is not consistent (eg. compare digestive tubule with spineret). Where's the pedipalp? Why use "poison fang" instead of "Chelicera"? Why is silk glands in plural (it's only pointing to one). Sasata (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The pedipalp and chelicera are external anatomy, not internal. The fang could also be argued to be external, although the inside of it is part of the venom system which is being illustrated. Silk glands is plural to emphasize that there are several different types of silk glands, but I guess this is inconsistant with the other labels. The line spacing seems like a minor issue, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. Spinneret incorrectly spelled. No coxal gland? What are the radiating lines above the sucking stomach? Sasata (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed the spelling of spinneret. We could include the coxal gland, but that area of the diagram is pretty crowded as it is. Since the spider anatomy article doesn't even mention the coxal gland, I don't think it's essential to have in the diagram. The lines above the stomach are the stomach muscles (responsible for the sucking). Some consider them a part of the stomach. Do you think those should be removed? Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Odd that the coxal gland is not mentioned in the article, that seems to be a glaring omission. I'll add it in later. IMO the lines should be removed, as they aren't explained and its not obvious what they are.
        Fixed "silk gland" to be consistant. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also fixed the spacing between the labels and the underlines. Kaldari (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Why not just lose the underlines completely? Using underlines like that is pretty unusual, and their thickness seems to vary. I'm also not convinced about the use of 'poison fang' (would perhaps Cheliceral fang be a better compromise?), but distinction between internal and external seems to be getting a bit blurred. Anus is another case in point - I would really regard that as external too, and probably the same with the eye (I guess what part of the eye...). --jjron (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The underlines may appear to be different sizes, but they aren't. It's due to the SVG thumbnailing. Regarding what has labels and what doesn't: The main purpose of the diagram is to illustrate the various systems that comprise the internal anatomy of the spider. Some of those systems are connected to the exterior. For example, the anus is part of the digestive system, the eyes are part of the nervous system, the fang is part of the venom system, and the spinnerets are part of the silk production system. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Had opened it 'fullsize' before commenting and still the underlines varied, and regardless can't see why they're there. Yes, I know various systems are connected to the outside, but that's where the inconsistencies come in - for example why would you label the anus but not the mouth? Both have the same relationship between being internal and external... See the labelling on something like this for a comparison that probably has better labelling on a similar diagram (click the 'Digestive tract' link if it doesn't go straight there). --jjron (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still keeping oppose for now, because of the missing internal structures coxal gland, and trachea. Also (not sure about this), since this is a female spider, is it not more accurate to have oviduct rather than gonopore? Shouldn't the aorta be labeled? The label lines are now better, but still not perfect, eg. compare "simple eye" with "book lung": in one the underline starts before the word, in the other it starts after the word. Note how the upward label line butts up against the end of the word "receptacle". The end of "stomach" is hanging over the edge of the label line. I agree these latter points are rather trivial, but it should also be a rather trivial thing to make perfect, which would make the end product look more professional. Sasata (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all spiders have trachea so I'm not sure it needs to be included in the diagram. You are correct that oviduct would be more specific than gonopore. I'll see about changing it and correcting the label lines. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Striking my oppose, as several improvements have been made, but can not switch to support without the diagram having the aorta labeled, the position of the coxal glands indicated, and the slightly sloppy label lines. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support Thanks for making those changes ZooFari. Full support if you can remove 22 underlines beneath the labels and instead have the end of the label line point to the same relative position on either the right or left side of the word. It would clean up the image somewhat, and also it would look better at thumbnail size, imo. (p.s. I personally think my sweat glands are _very_ important, but YMMV) Sasata (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Done but there are objections to the gland below. I don't know who to listen to so maybe you and Kaldari can work something out. Zoo Fari 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did that spider eat a bunch of grapes? (just thought I would inject some childish humor. Lattefever (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]

It also ate some celery leaves ;-) Zoo Fari 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can't interpolation be used in the book lung lines and above the sucking stomach, to be more consistant? Zoo Fari 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interpolation? Kaldari (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pbroks probably knows. The lines aren't aligned and can be easily fixed with a tool called interpolation. Zoo Fari 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good call. I have never actually used the interpolate tool, I was using the bend and stitching subpaths toolb ut interpolation works a lot easier! Look better? --Pbroks13^talk? 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yup, and support. SVG looks good to me ;-) Zoo Fari 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The stomach muscle lines just look like a moiré pattern to me now (even at nominal resolution). I would suggest either reverting the stomach muscle lines or removing them altogether (as suggested above). Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Or, Pbroks can set a lower number of interpolation steps for fewer lines like the book lungs. Zoo Fari 18:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Even the book lungs look moired at lower resolutions and I don't think the muscle lines should be less dense than the book lung plates. Having the book lung plates be perfectly parallel makes sense, but I don't see the need for it with the stomach muscles, indeed, I think it makes them look less muscle-like. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an inexperienced wikipedian who knows nothing of spider anatomy, I found it interesting. Propbably could be further improved, but it is a great start and I want to encourage the creator.Lattefever (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
Comment I've taken the liberty of resetting this one in the queue - some good progress seems to be happening on improvements to the SVG, it would seem a shame to cut that short, when it's rapidly improving during its time here. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support As long as all the issues that Sasata brought up are dealt with, I'll support this for its huge EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support per Makeemlighter. Sasata, would you mind commenting again on this to put to rest any doubts? Just to be certain. Thanks. wadester 16 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made I took Sasata's consideration and added the Coxal gland. It is located behind the front leg, so I had no choice but to make it transparent. I also made the book lungs more realistic as it was a concern above. As for Sasata's concern about the labels, it is probably worser due to the fact that I had to move some in order to fit the Coxal glands. Other than that, does it meet your desires to support? Zoo Fari 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The coxal gland is just not that important. It's basically the equivalent of a sweat gland in humans. In all the spider anatomy diagrams in all of my books, including Biology of Spiders, The Spider Book, and Invertebrate Zoology (all of which are scholarly works with countless diagrams), the coxal gland is not illustrated once. I really don't think it's worth removing a leg (and associated parts) to show it. Also, I'm afraid the changes to the book lungs did not make them look more realistic. I'll try to scan a sectional photograph of the book lungs tomorrow. If you made them match the book lungs in the original raster diagram, it would be an improvement, specifically, there needs to be an opening to the outside of the body and more open space on the right-hand side above the opening. Also the plates don't extend that far up the lungs. Kaldari (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A more accurate depiction of the book lungs (based on the photos I've seen) would be something closer to [1] or [2] or [3], although in real life there are more like 100 plates instead of 7 or 8. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made the book lungs based on your sources, so hopefully that's better. I removed the underlines as suggested by Sasata and aligned them to certain formats. I'm not sure whether to keep the gland or not, as Sasata seems okay with it. Please work this out so we can close this nomination soon. Zoo Fari 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A minor correction is needed. Right now, the intestine overlaps the lung, but it should be the other way around, as there are two lungs on either side of the intestine. See the original diagram for reference. I would fix it myself, but I don't know how to without messing up the laying of all the other parts. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I have to say that I object to substantially altering the diagram from the original. This is supposed to be a vector version of Comstock's diagram. Comstock, who is probably the most cited archnologist of all time, was aware of the coxal gland and the trachae, as both are discussed in the same book as this diagram, but he chose not to include them in the diagram, probably because neither organ is universal to all spiders. Rather than second-guessing Comstock's decisions, I think we should remain faithful to the original diagram. Kaldari (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An image is not supposed to resemble only one source. It's like an article not relying on only one reference. Zoo Fari 04:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument seems spurious. By implication then, Comstock's diagram suggests that all spiders have poison glands, which is of course false (see spider family Uloboridae). Also, I doubt that science was advanced enough for John Henry Comstock (1849-1931) to even realize the true physiological significance of the coxal glands. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In most spiders, the coxal gland has very little, if any, phsyiological significance. It is apparently important in primitive spiders, but vestigial in others. "Glands which open in the coxal segment of the third pair of legs in tarantulas and in some true spiders have been observed; these are termed coxal glands." (Comstock) "In primitive spiders, two pairs of coxal glands open onto the posterior side of the first and third coxae. The Labidognatha [true spiders] have retained only the anterior pair, and even these show gradual stages of regression in the various families. The original type of coxal gland consists of four parts: a saccule, a collecting duct, a labyrinth, and an excretory duct. This type becomes substantially reduced in orb-web spiders, in which a collecting duct is lacking and the labyrinth apparently no longer has an excretory function." (Biology of Spiders, 1996) I would also like to point out that Biology of Spiders includes two diagrams similar to the one above. One shows the entire spider and one shows only the chephalothorax (front half). In neither diagram is the coxal gland shown. As I said before, I've never seen it illustrated in any book, ever, so even if we didn't limit ourselves to Comstock's diagram, I don't know of any other verifiable source that would be referenced in this case. Indeed, how do we even know what the coxal gland looks like? Kaldari (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW, I would be more open to adding trachae to the diagram, as at least they are legitimately important to a large percentage of spiders (although not all). Additionally they are illustrated in one of the Biology of Spiders diagrams (one showing just the abdomen), so we would have a verifiable source as well. Kaldari (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too controversial image. Let's make another (safe) selection as FP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 21:56, August 23, 2009 (UTC)
- I have to object to the above !vote counting in the final decision. The criteria are not considered at all. wadester 16 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 09:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]