Talk:Mongolarachne

A fact from Mongolarachne appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the discovery of the extinct golden silk orb-weaver species Nephila jurassica extended the fossil record of the genus by 130 million years?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/August.

Wikipedia

Spiders Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Size

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Earlier the size of the fossil was removed, although the discussion as to why did not take place here, the user who did so posted their reasoning in the final paragraph here. However, I have seen quite a few articles stating that they were about the same size as modern Nephilia. Just off the top of my head there's...

Unless most publications are getting this wrong and the spider really was bigger (I wouldn't be profoundly shocked by this sadly, but please provide proof if it's so), my suggestion is that we create a full section devoted to the animal's physiology, including a few sentences on it's size explaining that, while it wasn't much bigger than modern relatives, it is still the largest fossil. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here are the sizes listed in the paper (it gives sizes for each individual segment, so I added them together):

Body length (carapace + opisthosoma) = 24.67mm.
Body width (width of opisthosoma) = 9.5mm.
Leg span (anteroposterior, leg 1 + carapace + leg 4) = 56.32 + 9.31 + 17.78 (but missing mt and t segments) = over 83.41mm.
Leg span (lateral, leg 2 + carapace width + leg 2) = 77.86 + 6.83 = 84.69mm

So, body length about 2.5cm and leg span about 8.5cm.

MMartyniuk (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question about Taxonomic Placement

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If N. jurassica' placement within Nephilla/family is uncertain, then should we write it as "Nephila" jurassica?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is this renaming cited in the new paper? --Rextron (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kuntner et al. (2013) do not make any propositions regarding renaming the taxon, and simply continue to refer to it as Nephila jurassica.--Macrochelys (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

new species

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

could we maybe add a little section about the new species?--Paleofroggy (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Mongolarachne chaoyangensis.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic