Talk:Unicorn (spider)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Unicorn (spider)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 06:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Species of Unicorn range from 2.2 to 3.0 mm in body length (from tip of the cephalothorax to end of abdomen, excluding legs)" Which is the largest and which is the smallest?
  • Most species only have measurements for the type specimens, i.e. a single male and female at best (in four species one sex was unknown as of Platnick & Brescovit, 1995). The largest measurement I can find is the female holotype of U. sikus (2.95 mm, which I rounded to 3.0 for simplicity), but I am reluctant to infer generalities based on smallest and largest species based on such scant data, as even though reported body lengths for females are larger than respective males of the same species (when known), Izquierdo & Rubio 2011 state of the genus: "no sexual differences are observed in the body size". --Animalparty! (talk)
• "The cephalothorax or prosoma" These and other unfamiliar terms are left without explanation for the layman, could be in parenthesis.
  • I've linked for definition, and omitted prosoma as extraneous jargon.--Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it make more sense to have the sections on habitat and distribution closer to each other? Usually they're in the same section. Seems arbitrarily disjointed now.
  • I moved Species/distributions higher up, mainly to end the article on a broader note, moving from specific (or "generic", as it were) to general. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps Mello-Leitão, 1940 should be cited? Maybe it has some info that could be added?
  • It is in Spanish, and has a brief description of a single specimen, discussed in Platnick & Brescovit, 1995. The PDF I have lacks OCR so I can't easily copy and paste into Google Translate. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "that had previously been described as a species of Orchestina." So what was their rationale for considering them different?
  • I added an explanatory footnote. Platnick & Brescovit state "It lacks the expanded femora IV synapomorphic for Orchestina".
• "and often a pair of dark lines on the underside" Often as in between or within particular species?
  • In some species but not others. Clarified. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• What was the taxobox image based on? And why are there no legs (if self-made, could be nice with a full view)? To the general reader, the image is probably not recognisable as a spider.
  • I drew a composite spider using the female and male from figure 3 in Gonzales Reyes et al, 2010, aided by figures in Platnick & Brescovit, 1995. I didn't draw the legs because I've not found any full view of them for any species (described only as "uniformly yellow, long, slender, clothed with long setae"), although I may be able to approximate legs by using a related species and the measurements in Gonzales Reyes et al, 2010. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "the penultimate segment of the pedipalps—" So what are pedipals?
  • I've linked for definition, until/unless I can find an un-clunky way to define in context. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Why no behavioural info besides reproduction? What do they eat? Do they make webs? And are they endangered? Etc.
  • There's simply not much else known. Izquierdo, & Rubio simply state "Virtually nothing is known about the natural history of Unicorn. They are uncommon in collections and are difficult to find." As of today no species have been assessed by IUCN red list, would it be OR to state that? --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "The genus name (Latin for "one horn") refers to a characteristic pointed projection between the eyes and jaws, the clypeal horn, possessed by males." Not mentioned in article, the intro should have no unique information.
  • Added. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "occur predominantly in dry" Likewise, dryness is not specifically mentioned in the article.
  • Corrected to semi-desert. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "They are uncommon in museum collections, and almost nothing is known about their natural history." Is this really relevant under habitat? Would make more sense under classification or such?
  • I agree it's somewhat arbitrary, but I can't think of any place where this info better belongs: the museum rarity info stems from them being hard to find in their habitat, and aside from reproduction there is no other behavior to speak of. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "finding that Unicorn and other sulsulines diverged before almost all other oonopids" Any dates?
  • I've not yet found a study that places dates on divergence. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• "to more rapidly escape to avoid being cannibalized after mating" Clunky, perhaps say "to more rapidly escape and avoid being".
  • Thanks. clarified. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• All issues addressed appropriately, so will pass the article now. Hope it'll be possible to have a full body illustration at one point... FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• • A suggestion from a behavioral ecology student. Hello! I am a college student working on the WikiSpiders project for an assignment. From the WikiSpiders guideline, I suggest that a subsection on Reproduction be added to this article. Reproduction and life cycle would include information regarding fertilization, brood size, molting and life span. Reproduction specialties are shown in the lead when it mentions how male pedipalps have been found in females as a mode of sperm competition. This is a particularly unique and complex behavior and should have its own section. Understanding reproduction can help synthesize the survival choices of the spider to best utilize its resources. Akwan826 (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the suggestion, since this review is long over, it would probably be best to move this section to the regular talk page? FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)