Talk:Kimura spider

References to back up this article

I've been searching google looking for more information about this spider (as the listed references don't appear to be available online). The claim of having not changed for 400 million years seems a bit far fetched, and nearly every google search kimura-gumo, Heptalhela kimurai and Kimura Arika references the wikipedia page! How about that for an article creating its own reality :)

In any case, some more hard info on this spider is definately needed!

--Fxer 18:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'll have another look at it. I did check on it a couple of years ago. I can probably still read enough Japanese to dig something out that way. I'm sure I've read the same general information in other places, although not for that genus and species. When the article says it has not changed for that long a time it is probably basing that assertion on comparisons with fossilized remains. Creatures that are very successfully adapted to a certain environment may not change much at all over the millenia. They've only recently retrieved some soft tissue from dinosaur bones and they hope to be able to retrieve some DNA, so it will be interesting to see how much of our genome we share with these ancient creatures.

One other thing, in Japanese sounds shift from g<->k depending on whether they are used in isolation or as part of a compound work. I think gumo is right. The ordinary word for spider is kumo, which is probably why the article gives both pronunciations.

Also, they may have these creatures in Taiwan. (They also seem to have a relative of the Sydney funnel-web spider there too. I hope to get the time to discover whether it is equally venomous.) P0M 03:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more articles, Google for Heptathela. P0M 05:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a slightly different way of doing the categories and subcategories.

I've corrected the info on the age. The article mistakenly gave the impression that this species is 400 million years old, when that number actually is for its sub-order. 212.10.93.196 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Binomial author / date

Going from the World Spider catalog data, it looks like a Kishida created the subspecies kimurai in 1920, but first spider in the species was renamed to Liphistius kimurai. The next spider on the list is the Heptathela kimurai also cataloged by Kishida but in 1923. Does this mean that Kimura Arika, didn't actually "discover" the species in 1920, but rather Kishida did effectively in 1923? I don't suppose Kimura Akira and Kishida could be the same person, just different spellings/pronunciations when their name gets translated to english?

Also is there still a site online that back up the 400 million year old claim? That just seems like a scientific fact we should back up with a reference for other people coming across the article. I'll keep searching for it too --Fxer 16:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting that web page. All the entries under each bold heading are synonyms of the species named in the heading. So it seems that what happened is that Kishida described the spider in 1920, giving it the name Liphistius kimurai. Then in 1923 he published another paper naming a new genus Heptathela and moving L. kimurai to that genus. So the full citation is "Heptathela kimurai (Kishida, 1920) Kishida, 1923" and the short form is Heptathela kimurai (Kishida, 1920). I fixed the article accordingly.

(Your scenario is not possible. If Kishida had named one species H. kimurai and it had been moved to Liphistius, he would not be allowed to name another species H. kimurai — the second name would be a junior homonym of the first.) Gdr 04:42:54, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

Regarding the age - see my comment further up this page. 212.10.93.196 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a brief Taxonomy section to the article which explains the authorship of the name. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]