Talk:Australian funnel-web spider

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spiders Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Biota Mid‑importance Australian funnel-web spider is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I'm fairly 100% not sure the pictures at the bottom of this page are incorrect. They look to be of the Mouse Spider genus and are commonly misconstrued as Atrax Rubustus.

Does someone know how to negotiate with the copyright holder of the photo for the Sydney funnel-web spider? I looked at many images on the www and this was the only one I've found so far that is not a black blotch against a dark grey background. (Well, maybe that's a slight exaggeration.)

Try mailing Ento/CSIRO, perhaps? The photo might be already in the public domain, though I wouldn't know. Dysprosia 00:35 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the formatting of this page has changed? The first paragraph has been reduced to a strip about one inch wide.

Thanks.

Patrick0Moran 05:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Probably an issue with the software update, and could well be a browser specific thing (looks fine for me). --Robert Merkel 06:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re: the bibliography. "Apiders"??? And if these are separate books they should be on separate lines for legibility. Book titles should be italicized. P0M 02:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What is the range of this spider? Is it just in Australia (or is it even in Australia?)

---

I second that question; as with other articles on spiders in wikipedia, the authors oddly don't seem to think it important to tell us something as basic as where the animals live!! So ok, we're supposed to just infer that these creatures live in Australia, somewhere, presumably Sydney? - just from the name? I think a basic rule for zoology articles should be, first indicate range!

What does this mean? That the spider dies after injecting venom, or what? Loganberry (Talk) 00:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is free to edit -- especially nonsensical things like the example quoted above.

True, but I didn't edit since I know very little about this spider beyond about two sub-plots on Aussie soaps. Loganberry (Talk) 22:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These spiders must sometimes have given a human a fatal bite before ambling away to find a true mate. I chopped the offending sentence out and added a sketch map. "New South Wales and Southern Queensland" was not much to go on as a description of the range of these spiders, but I had a look at the climate of that part of Australia and made an educated guess that climate and temperature were more relevant than political subdivisions.

The article (and the main spider article) really should be fixed to account for the fact that Hadronyche is the deadlier of the genera. (75% of their bites are "serious" compared to 17% of Atrax bites.) The focus of the article should be on the two problem genera, not just on one species that is a frequent biter. P0M 21:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does this phrase mean: "may also cause fatal envomations"? - I cannot find any reference to 'envomations' anywhere. The text is spurious, as it says the spiders "may" cause this unknown term, but ends with the phrase "although none have been recorded". Jazy510 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sydney" is not the only geographical nickname for these spiders, and actually the so called Sydney funnel-web spider is only one of several deadly spiders (from P0M's edit summary). Uncle Ed 22:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment about the spider "envonomat[ing] enthusiastically" it was redundant (after "may bite repeteadly) and read like personification. Zanerock 21:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for the claim that they get about 40 cm long? --Yooden

I doubt there is. At 40 cm it would easily be the biggest spider in the world and no book I've ever seen references this species as the biggest. I'm quite sure it is a decimal point error and it should be 4.0 cm. Especially since it later on says that they are generally smaller than tarantulas. -- Matti Nuortio, Oulu, Finland

Sydney funnel-web spider
Female Sydney funnel-web spider
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Arthropoda
Class:	Arachnida
Order:	Araneae
Family:	Hexathelidae
Genus:	Atrax
Species:	A. robustus
Binomial name
Atrax robustus Pickard-Cambridge, 1877

This page should be combined with Australian venomous funnel-web spider - no purpose in having two pages for one spider.

The word venemous is superflous in the title. They are normally just called Funnel-web spider or Funnel web spider, but the word Australian may be necessary to distinguish them from certain other spiders from other countries.

btw - speaking as someone who has lived in Sydney most of my life, I have *never* heard them called tarantulas.

Singkong2005 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are funnel-web spiders (not in the same suborder) that are not dangerously venomous. I suppose that is why the "venomous" part came in here.

This article has the right taxonomy box. There are two genera that need to be accounted for. P0M 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're simply called "funnel-web spiders" in Australia. We really need not add more to the title than is sufficent to distinguish one funnel-web from the others. I suggest Australasian because, according to the article the occur in NZ (& Asia) too (though, of course, Australasia doesn't include Asia). Jimp 17Feb06

I agree with every single point above. El T 04:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)t[reply]

I too agree. There has been no argument against the merger in all these months. I'll merge them both to Australasian funnel-web spider. Jimp 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the articles. I've aslo done a bit of a rewrite/reorganisation. I've removed the taxobox from the old Australian venemous funnel-web spider page (it's here now: to the left). I've also removed the following.

Until the antivenom was produced in 1980, the bite of a male  
Sydney funnel-web spider was usually fatal to humans; 14 deaths had 
been recorded.

I did so because it seems to contradict what was on the old Australian venemous funnel-web spider page. Have I removed the right stuff? Jimp 18:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The araneomorph funnel-web spider not to be confused with the funnel-web tarantula and the venomous funnel-web tarantula, both of which are members of the suborder Mygalomorphae.

The venomous funnel-web tarantulas include the infamous Sydney funnel-web spider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araneomorph_funnel-web_spider

---

The highly venomous genus Atrax used to be placed in this family, but is now in the Hexathelidae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnel-web_tarantula

---

The Sydney funnel-web spider (also incorrectly called a funnel-web tarantula)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_funnel-web_spider

---

So is it a Tarantula or not?

I've never favored the "tarantula" designation. It is in the same sub-order with the Theraphosidae, but not everyone in the world calls those spiders "tarantulas" -- a misnomer to begin with because people confused them with Lycosa tarentula, called the "Tarantula spider." (Spelling difference comes from two similar names for the same city in Italy.)

The main thing that needs to be sorted out is the relative venomosity of the two genera. What appeared to me to be the most authoratative document said that Atrax bites more people but has somewhat less serious venom. Possibly we will need to account for both opinions, but the bottom line is that you don't want to get bitten by either kind. P0M 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses only on the two genera (Atrax and Hadronyche) known to be problem biters in Australia and nearby regions. But there are several other genera in Hexathelidae. One notable one is Macrothele, which contains some rather venomous (to man) spiders in Taiwan, Vietnam, and China; as well as a few far-less-harmful species in Europe. Perhaps these should be included, or else a separate article on the family as a whole should be written?

--EngineerScotty 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This was done a while back, see Hexathelidae. --EngineerScotty 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a claim that female Sydney funnel-webs are the "most deadly spiders in the world", or somesuch. For one thing, it is the male funnel-webs which are more dangerous to humans; they're bigger, and they go out wandering (placing them in more frequent contact with people). This is the opposite of the black widow, where it's the female that is dangerous.

For another, there isn't really a basis for proclaiming one spider the "most deadly"; fans of the Brazilian wandering spider or the Six-eyed sand spider might have reason to object; their bites can be as nasty as funnel-web bites. (And six-eyed sand spider bites have no antivenom). Of course, the various widow spiders, including the redback spider, still hold the record--by a longshot--for most people killed, even though their venom is less toxic than funnel-web venom. Within the genera Atrax and Hadronyche, there's ample evidence that several spiders in Hadronyche (such as H. infensa, the Fraser Island funnel-web) are at least as dangerous as A. robustus, if not more so. The various species of Hadronyche aren't found in a major metropolitan area like Sydney, however, and thus have less frequently bitten people.

--EngineerScotty 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney funnel web has a toxin fatal to all primates if not treated. Death takes some 1 to 2hrs after a bite. The spider is agressive and will stand its ground against intruders. The venom has little effect on other mammals such as dogs and cats. The further northwards in the country, the lower the toxicity. The north queensland funnel web is not regarded as venemous, although the bite is very painful. The last fatality I recall was in the Sydney area circa 1975 when a kid was bitten at a Scout jamboree. The spider was inside his sleeping bag, and several bites were inflicted.61.68.160.141 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there's been a lot of vandalism here - and currently, under the heading 'Range, habitat, and diet' there is a final sentence reading 'how about u suck my nuts ok'. I can't see how to remove this at all - it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the content. Someone with Admin privileges needs to deal with this. - Matt

It seems to be o.k. now. One of the problems has been that the cached data has been slow to update lately, so maybe it was already fixed, but the fix wasn't showing up. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. P0M 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heading says "Australasian funnel-web spider", but the article does not explain why they are called "Australasian". In fact it says they are found in Oz and some Pacific islands which seems to me to rule out Asia. Also, the term "funnel-web" isn't defined either. 222.153.233.112 02:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acidic or basic? Can't be both at the same time! Donal Fellows 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this spider has some how made its way to the U.S. do too me and a friend finding one in south alabama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.14.241 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian funnel-web spider → Australian funnel-web spider — Rather then moving the article and finding out someone may disagree I'm going to request a move rather then move it. I've found very little backing of the name "Australasian funnel-web spider" and sites that use that name are mirroring Wikipedia's content however I've found that "Australian funnel-web spider" is widely used on a number of sites[1] therefore the Common name should be used. — Bidgee (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Agree with Bidgee. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 06:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if there is no evidence of non-Australian funnel-webs or the current name, then change to proposed name. --Merbabu (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any additional comments:

Is there any non-Australia funnel-web in "Australasia"? --Merbabu (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found any. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check New Zealand swimming pools? --Merbabu (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked over the "ditch" but nothing found yet but may have to check out my pair of red back boots ;). Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a citation for species of Atrax being found in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the taxobox: the article refers to species in two genera sharing a common name. As pointed out above, the name does not refer to the family or one its subfamilies. cygnis insignis 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see such a detailed uncited list in the following statement:

Although extremely toxic to primates, the venom [of funnel-web spiders] appears to be fairly harmless to many other animals, including dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, bears, ostriches, peafowl, leopards, turtles, snakes, elephants, giraffes, ducks, moose, tigers, donkeys, walruses, seals, lions, kangaroos, koalas, iguanas, wolves, weasels, guinea-pigs, chickens and even cane toads.

Has this come from Taronga Zoo--the only place where European, American, African, Asian and Antarctic species are likely to be (very rarely) envenomated by an Australian funnel-web spider?! Is this information a piece of original research, or has there been appropriate experimentation and documentation of such conclusions? Until there are good answers to that question, I believe it is reasonable to replace the statement with something that can be cited, even if not with a proper scientific source, e.g.,

...mammals such as mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs and cats are relatively immune and often survive 100 times the human lethal dosage... Dr Graham Nicholson, a funnel-web expert from the University of Technology in Sydney, puts our unusual sensitivity to the toxin down to "simple bad luck". He says there's no question humans and funnel webs evolved independently and our susceptibility probably has something to do with the wiring of our highly-evolved primate brains...^[1]

Does anyone have any objections to this, or alternative suggestions? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what most people think of as "the funnel web" is actually a collection of about 35 different species of spiders, most of which are dangerous. The one that gets most publicity is the Sydney funnel web (Atrax robustus)

--Being the very point made at the top of our article. Bjenks (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This outlines the problem fairly well, the facts given in this piece are unspecified. Is it about Atrax robustus, or any spider that makes a funnel-like web. The RS for the taxa, and related articles like robustoxin, could provide facts to be included in Australian funnel-web spider. I don't think "For years scientists wondered whether funnel webs had some special grudge against people." will be verifiable :-) cygnis insignis 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, aye! That has to be left out! But the authority of Dr Graham might be worth investigating some more; or another more useful and 'scientific' citation can surely be found. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primate toxicity is based on human deaths. i Heard these claims back in the late 70s. Common knowlegde amonst Sydney ventinarians that houshold dogs and cats do not appear to be victims of the spider. Cats and dogs are frequently the victims of snake bite, though, particulalry of tigers and browns.61.68.160.141 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the "Australian funnel-web spiders"? Googling academic sources gives me members of the genus Atrax and Hadronyche, but the way the article discusses it, it sounds like it's describing any hexathelid that just happens to be in Australia? Some of which aren't even venomous.

So why exactly is this a separate article?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that somebody has been "moving" this article. Australian funnel web now redirects to Australian funnel web. Most of the text now refers to "Australian," but at one point the article says:

The primary range of the Australasian funnel-web spiders is the eastern coast of Australia, with specimens found in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and Queensland.[1][4] Reports that these spiders occur in New Guinea and other islands in the south Pacific have been shown to be false (Platnick, 2008).

The reader is unprepared at this point for some new spider called "Australasian," and then the reader is told that these spiders do not actually occur in places named outside of Australia.

Having two genera called by the same everyday English term is also rather unfortunate.P0M (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't care about the Australian/Australasian issue. What I care about is if this article refers to a specific kind of spiders or does it only mean hexathelids that happen to be in Australia? If the common name was based simply on geographical distribution, then it does not merit an article. It would be like creating an article for American wasp, British bird, or Chinese fish.

I have a strong suspicion that the current article title is the result of a misconception that "Australian funnel web spider" is a discrete common name and refers to a particular kind of spider. Googling for sources, it becomes apparent that most sources simply call them funnel web spiders (as is the common name for hexathelids and a few other families), the "Australian" bit is simply a separate adjective denoting funnel web spiders found in Australia (i.e. "Australian" + "funnel web spider"). In most cases it actually refers to Atrax robustus, which is technically an Australian funnel web spider, but not the Australian funnel web spider.

I'm finding little evidence of it used in the first sense, and reexamining scholarly sources indicate that their usage is also for the second sense.

Take for example the Daily Mail, which has this error-ridden article that talks about a "funnel web spider" that is "native to Australia" as if there was only one funnel-web spider species in existence. Not to mention that the article admits that it doesn't actually know if it even is a funnel web spider. *facepalm*

This error is repeated in this article. Take note of one of the sentences under the Medical significance section for instance: "Australian funnel-webs are one of the three most dangerous spiders in the world and are regarded by some to be the most dangerous" <- one? There are over 40 species of funnel webs in Australia, including three more genera not mentioned here (one of which also has medically significant venom). Only a few of their species have medically significant venom, and only one has been proven to be potentially lethal - Atrax robustus. So we can not blanket include Atrax and Hadronyche here either.

I'm inviting WP:WikiProject Spiders to comment and propose a merge if the second suspicion turns out to be true. To minimize confusion, the information in this article should either be in Hexathelidae or to the individual articles for the spiders being discussed, with this page being retained only as a disambiguation page.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The salient question here is does this article correspond to a particular taxon? For example, is there a subfamily that includes Atrax and Hadronyche, but not the other genera in Hexathelinae? If not, this article should be merged with Hexathelidae in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for summarizing what I have trouble conveying above, heh. I found mentions of Atracinae, but Platnick doesn't recognize it as valid. Too sleepy to follow that up at the moment though. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, Platnick doesn't enumerate subfamilia anyway. As luck would have it, there's a 2010 revision of the subfamily Atracinae with very detailed descriptions of a majority of the species. It also includes a new genus Illawarra. We can basically retain the article in most of its current form.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, I've added the information to the article. Should we move the article to "Atracinae" while we're at it (to minimize confusion)? Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely. If you can do it, please do so. I'm planning to, but have a lot of other articles on my queue at the moment. The above paper should be a very good resource for the move.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I oppose the move. Australian funnel-web spider(s) is the common name for the species, where as Atracinae is just the scientific name. Bidgee (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly the kind of problem that happens. You're already confused about what it actually is. Bidgee, "Australian funnel-web spider" is not a species. Neither does it correctly delineate the species it should include. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urm no I'm not. In Australia we use a group name for a species in which we have more then one native species (classic example is the Kangaroo). Yes, Australian funnel-web spider(s) isn't a species but it is the name (and common name) given to the Atracinae species and if we read my comment you'll note that I stated "Australian funnel-web spider(s) is the common name for the species", I never stated it was the species name. Bidgee (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "are the common names for the species", no? Or at least "Is the common name for the species in the subfamily". Either way, the assertion that it is the common name for the subfamily is still lacking support from reliable sources other than those which themselves use Wikipedia as a source.

The Australian Museum, CSIRO, and Museum Victoria, all correctly use "funnel-web spider" only, as is used for all hexathelids given that there are other hexathelids in Australia not part of Atracinae. Plesiothele, Paraembolides, Bymainiella, and Teranodes are not atracines, but are also funnel web spiders found in Australia. Furthermore Hexathelidae itself is not restricted to Australia at all. The use of "Australian" is a geographic delineator and not part of the common name.

The current state of the article talks about "Australian funnel-web spiders" as if it was a single species. Which is not the case. It waxes on about how venomous it is without actually identifying which species it's talking about.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Obsidian Soul, Bidgee, and Patrick0Moran: This issue was never resolved, as far as I can see. The article is about the Atracinae, a subfamily that may belong to the Hexathelidae but may not – the latest evidence continues to associate it with the Actinopodidae. There are good sources for Hexathelidae being called "funnel-web spiders". All the sources I've seen use the phrase "Australian funnel-web spiders" not as a common name for Atracinae but to mean "funnel-web spiders (i.e. hexathelids) found in Australia". Given that the subfamily probably doesn't belong in Hexathelidae, "Australian funnel-web spiders" is both not the common name and potentially inaccurate. The article should be moved to the only reliably sourced name, Atracinae. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This must have coincided with a hiatus as I failed to follow this up. The usage has spread to other articles we have and other wikis outside of Wikipedia at this point, sigh. I agree and still strongly assert that it is not a common name for the subfamily. It's continued usage here is misleading and potentially hazardous given the medical significance of the venom of its members and the importance of proper identification. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody called attention to this problem a while back. The article currently says:

Envenomation symptoms observed following bites by these spiders are very similar. The bite is initially very painful, due to the acidity of the venom.

It has been suggested that these animals may be resistant to the venom's effects due to the presence of IgG, and possibly cross-linked IgG and IgM inactivating factors in their blood plasma that bind to the toxins responsible and neutralise them, or it may involve a non-specific reaction due to the highly basic nature of the toxins.

I don't have time right now to do fact checking, but it's hard to see how both of these statements could be true.P0M (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through sources on line. It seems that the venom is neither particularly acidic nor particularly basic. I've seen mentions of salts in one place and "complex mixtures of neurotoxic peptides, proteins and low molecular mass organic molecules" in another.P0M (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found one source for the assertion that the venom is acidic:http://www.toxinology.com/generic_static_files/cslavh_antivenom_funweb.html I am not sure of the level of expertise of the people actually writing the summary articles that appear on this site. I do not have access to the cited article that supposedly asserts that the venom is a strong base.P0M (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with a colleague who is a chemist. Since the venom is a polypeptide it would have essentially neutral PH.P0M (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say that Sydney funnel-webs have killed 13 people in recorded cases [2] although Funnel-web spider bite: a systematic review of recorded clinical cases does not appear to back this up and lists the 13 deaths simply as funnel-web bites. The antivenom introduced in 1981 was developed specifically for bites from the Sydney funnel-web, and the Australian Reptile Park says that "The only known killer is the Sydney funnel-web spider."[3]. However, other sourcing, and the article here, says that the Northern tree funnel-web Hadronyche formidabilis has also caused at least one death.[4] The sourcing on this issue is confusing and contradictory, and the problem is that not all spider bites result in the species and genus being identified reliably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the problem I pointed out earlier. Most of the descriptions here properly belong to the Sydney funnel web spider article. Including the "most dangerous" claim. I'd honestly be alright with removing those sections in the meantime, until it can be clarified. The name "Australian funnel-web spider" can not even be attested, and is not used in academic sources. All mentions of "Australian funnel-web spider" I've found are talking (inexpertly I might add) about Atrax robustus as a species, rather than Atracinae as a subfamily.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media tends to use the term "funnel-web" when what it really means is "Sydney funnel-web". The request for the public to catch funnel-webs is a good example, as this story clarifies that the Australian Reptile Park milks male Sydney funnel-webs for their venom. The participating hospitals (Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong) are all in New South Wales.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian funnel-web spider. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.anaes.med.usyd.edu.au/venom/spiders.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050515232341/http://www.amonline.net.au:80/factsheets/funnelweb.htm to http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/funnelweb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the news today. May be worth adding.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to put something on Hadronyche infensa Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian funnel-web spider. 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/20031208183121/http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Araneae.html to http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Araneae.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415075002/http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Atrax.html to http://www.arachnology.org/Arachnology/Pages/Atrax.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/funnelweb.htm

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) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article says A number of the species produce venom which is dangerous to humans

Talk (#16 above 12Jul 2009) says about 35 different species of spiders, most of which are dangerous.

Anybody capable of stating (authoritatively) how many are dangerous... to humans? MBG02 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A number of the species produce venom which is dangerous to humans" is vague and the wording should be changed. For most practical purposes, only the Sydney funnel-web spider is considered to be very dangerous to humans.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

• Some care is needed in reading the literature because the English name "Australian funnel-web spider" isn't entirely unambiguous, and the family Atracidae has been split off from the Hexathelidae. Some of the older literature makes inferences about venom based on the inclusion of Atracidae in Hexathelidae (as the subfamily Atracinae).
• "dangerous" to humans is not the same as "very dangerous"; the claim that there are more species than Atrax robustus that are dangerous, in the sense of producing medically significant bites, is well supported by doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2003.11.009: e.g. A 38-year-old male bitten by Hadronyche cerberea had bradycardia, hypertension, miosis, generalised diaphoresis, hypersalivation, hyperlacrimation, oral paraesthesia and fasciculations. Sounds pretty dangerous to me!

Peter coxhead (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that "a number of" is vague wording and best avoided. When possible, numbers should be given rather than approximations, so I have altered the wording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that "some" is any less vague than "a number of", but it's shorter and snappier. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for “about 15” or “about 20”. Too high? MBG02 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MBG02: Part of the difficulty is finding reliable sources, part is deciding what is meant by "dangerous to humans" – a species could produce a dangerous venom, but live in habitats where it doesn't encounter humans to bite. I haven't found any information on the sole species in Illawarra, Illawarra wisharti, but the same toxins have been found in all the species of Atrax and Hadronyche that have been tested, so it's likely that all 34 Atrax and Hadronyche species could inflict dangerous bites, but there's no evidence I can find for many of them. The rather old source at doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62230-1, reported in the article, says that six species of Atracidae have caused "severe injuries to human victims", but that doesn't mean that others couldn't or haven't since 2011. So for now, I think what is there is the best we can do. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”unsourced”. But good enough for me! Ta. MBG02 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment information has many occurrences of "should", which seems to be against WP:NOTMANUAL. It needs re-writing to report advice, rather than give it. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and trimmed some of the material. A person who suspects that they have been bitten by a funnel-web spider should seek medical advice immediately, but the Wikipedia article is not a medical handbook.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting, not removing, just present the facts. The article jumps from a bite victim, a crepe bandage and a sit-down to antivenom appearing from somewhere if things go horribly wrong. Do I have to get out of my chair to get any source on spiders and medical emergencies, and what happens when the huge numbers of people ring Poisons information about a black spider bite? cygnis insignis 16:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is possible to describe recommended medical treatment(s), I agree. But the description must be a factual summary of one or more sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. WP:NOTMANUAL is a policy which was simply not being followed. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because it had clear WP:NOTGUIDE problems. If a person has a medical problem, Wikipedia is not a guidebook in these situations. It is enough to say that a person with a suspected funnel-web bite should seek medical advice immediately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree entirely with the initial removal; there were absolutely clear WP:NOTGUIDE problems. However, if you look at most articles about medical problems, whether diseases or injuries, they do describe recommended treatments. But this has to be done in a way that doesn't prescribe them. Anyway, it's better as it is, for sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phoneutria doesn't say anything about what to do if bitten by one. In line with the General disclaimer, Wikipedia isn't intended to provide professional advice. When John Gambrill was bitten by a funnel-web he became ill very quickly and had to go to hospital.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you found one of these things in your house how would you kill it? Somehow a can of Raid doesn't seem like it'd do the trick. The thing is big enough it looks like you'd need a gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you hit one with a rolled up newspaper it will grab the newspaper and hit you back. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This information is incorrect. An early 20’s man died within an hour of being bitten in about 2016 119.18.1.15 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it this case from April 2016? This involved a redback spider bite (ie a black widow). The news article says that this was "believed to be the country’s first fatality from a spider in almost 40 years" but it wasn't a funnel-web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]