Planet Four Talk

Spider Classification Scheme (SCS)

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Having been told that there was, as yet, no organised and agreed system of spider classifications, I present here my model of such a scheme in the hope that it may prove of some value to the science team, and the Planet Four community at large. I appreciate that my scheme is based on a very small number of the images available, but even so it is impossible to escape the fact that many spiders can easily be identified as individual ‘species’ of this most aptly named phenomena.

    My aim has been to provide a concise, but at the same time comprehensive model, which would appeal (and hopefully be useful) to scientist of all ages and abilities. I suggest that nine species of spider be placed into two Classes.

    My basic structure is:

    SPIDERS

    Class 1: TRUE Spiders

    	1a- Embryonic
    
    	1b - Classic
    
    	1c - Bug
    
    	1d - Dendritic
    
    	1e - Family (of 1a-1e)
    

    Class 2: WEB Spiders (can’t have spiders and no webs!)

    	2a - Chain
    
    	2b - Mesh
    
    	2c - Lace
    
    	2d - Lattice 
    

    My characterisation of these classes would be;

    Class 1: TRUE Spiders

    1a Embryonic – Often referred to as ‘baby’, ‘proto’, etc, they strongly suggest ‘new birth’. Small.

    1b Classic – Well-defined body and legs. Looks like a spider! All sizes.

    1c Bug – Much larger, fatter bodies than the Classic, often with short legs. More lice or bug-like. All sizes.

    1d Dendritic – Body tiny, even non-existent, with long thin often branched legs.

    1e Family – Two or more of the above True spiders ‘holding hands’, in groups but not in straight lines.

    • Classic Family: Well-defined individuals holding hands or well connected.

    • Bug Family: Well defined bugs holding hands or well connected.

    • Dendritic Family: May be open and widespread, or complex giving appearance of ripples or stipling. With extreme complexity, can be easily confused with complex Web spiders.

    Class 2: WEB Spiders (scale of structure in images important here).

    2a Chain – Many small spiders, often cross shaped, forming long heavy chains of spiders. Chain spiders often form large ‘squares’ that fill the image. (Polygon may be better?)

    2b Mesh - Lightweight chains of many (dozen-ish?) ‘squares’ over the whole image.

    2c Lace - Most delicate of the Web spiders forming very many tight ‘squares’.

    2d Lattice – Often appear like layers of chains, nets and lace, giving a more bland, smoother image.

    Lattice, and Families (when very dense), are perhaps the most difficult, at this stage, to classify – they are easily confused (speaking from ‘experience’). They may deserve their own category and, because of their similarity (visually) perhaps a ‘Lattice/Family’ category would be useful.

    There would be an ‘Unidentified’ category, for obvious reasons.

    On the assumption that an SCS will be compiled and agreed at some stage along the line, even if it has nothing to do with my model, I would hope that images of a ‘generic spider’ for each category would be readily available. A one page collection of ‘generics’ (especially if printable) would be most useful. I could supply my interpretation of what I would see as ‘generic’ from my image collections (biased of course).

    If you’ve made it this far then I congratulate you. Thank You.

    Posted

  • Portyankina by Portyankina scientist

    Wow! Great thinking, good job! I like it. I'll share it with the team and I hope they agree with me to take it on a spin for the spider classification project.
    Just a small thing: I am afraid 1e (network) and category 2 are clashing. I myself see your logic behind it, but is it clear enough for fresh-men who come to help us with classification? We surely need examples to each of the categories.

    Anya

    Anya

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Oops. I'd thought about that and forgot in my edit. I've now got Family (cause they're 'holding hands'. Better?

    On second thoughts we could lose the Bugs. They will happily go in with Embryonic when they are small, or Classics when they are fat, bulgy bodied spiders. I can't find a generic bug that would be unhappy in those categories (so far) so may be best move.. Tried to delete Bugs from scheme above, but the type in the dark boxes isn't editable. I've copied from Word and pasted here. The boxes just appeared. Formatting problem I suppose.

    Also, with bugs removed and renumbered, should read; Family (of 1a to 1c).

    Pleased you like the model. Hope you'll keep me in the loop.

    Posted

  • Paul_Johnson by Paul_Johnson

    You're the man, Kith!

    I love this classification project, and I'm looking forward to some fresh new pics next week? That will be cool!

    Give me a shout if you need any evidence gathering pics.....

    Cheers buddy.

    Posted

  • Wounded_Knee by Wounded_Knee

    Nice work, I see youve changed Cat to Class what about changing 1e to 1a-e as youve sort of already done in brackets

    Posted

  • jellyhead by jellyhead in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Oh, I like 'bug', leave it in! I knew exactly what images you were referring to (which is surely the sign of a good classification system). There is also the possibility that bugs might be the end of the cycle rather than the beginning - unlikely I know but the bugs in some images do look as if they are eroding back into the terrain.

    I could picture all of the spiders in class 1 from the description and think I can with class 2 (web = inspired!) but some best example images would def be useful. Good job!

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Paul: Thanks a lot. Hope you're 'shouldering' your responsibilities ok. Yes, I'm shouting for pics ... more later.

    Wounded Knee: Yes, I hear what you say and it's a good point. Not being sure exactly how 'deep' the scientists want to go with sub-class, sub-sub-class levels I haven't paid an undue amount of attention to those details. But your point is well made.

    On reflection, my preference now would be to change Class 1 & 2 into Class A & B. Sub-class becomes A1, A2, B1, B2...., and sub-sub-class would be A1a, A1b, B1a, B1b..... leaving room for sub-sub-sub-classes A1a(i), A1a(ii), B1a(iii), B3b(iv) etc. As my model only goes (for now) down to A1a, B3c, A3b,,,,,, at most, it's neater and perhaps even more straightforward. Maybe the scientists should make the final call - what else they got to do? 😉

    Jellyhead: I know, I know - I like Bugs too, but they're becoming a bit of a problem. It's a rarity thing. Now that I'm looking at spiders more closely than ever (with regard to classes) all sorts of minor issues are popping up. Nothing dramatic, but they definately focus the mind. I agree with you, once you've seen a Bug spider there ain't no forgetting it. But then when you go looking for useable examples, the little bu.... blighters have all gone (under the boulders perhaps!).

    Interestingly, it is at this point when your 'Is this the start, is this the end of a process?' question becomes relevant to my Bug scarcity and their inclusion/exclusion for the scheme. I've collected a few images together for myself as 'Origins or Endings of Spiders' - we're obviously interested in asking the same question. But leaving that aside for elsewhere, my Bug problem is this: I've not found any Family Bugs at all, not a trio or even a duo in sight (doesn't mean there aren't any). I've a fine example of a monster Bug, but some (most?, all?) of it falls out the edges of the image, so not sure what the whole thing is, so can it be included. Mini / embryonic Bugs are more plentiful, but could easily be fobbed-off as baby True spiders waiting to stretch their legs (if we want to keep things simplistic).

    Perhaps, because there are now at least two people with the bug-hunting itch, we should treat Bugs as a special case and see if we can produce enough evidence (and support) to warrent inclusion as a Class of their own. I NEED BUGS - PAUL ARE LISTENING? BUGS....

    I'm confident that I'll be able to post an image (some images) for each of the Classes - except Bugs, where currently I have a limited number to choose from (3 or 4). If you think you've got images to suit any of the classes, please hold them for now and let me put my 'generics' forward (including my Bug spiders) and I think we shouldn't be too far away from having something organised.

    (If we're allowed and you can be bothered, might it be an idea for y'all to send me what you think Bugs look like, according to my criteria in the scheme above, as and when you find them? ( Send them to astromuse@btinternet.com ) If we're not allowed to do that then don't tell anyone and use the same address.

    Quick word if I may about my visual inspections / impressions in relation to the scale of the images. Whatever the scale of an image, however large the area in view, I suppose I've used that as a sort of 'unit', and this unit is, to a certain extent, what helps me decide what I'm looking at. That's very vague I know, but hopefully in my next? post I'll make a number of things a bit clearer as I go through the generics in images.

    Many thanks for your encouragement and kind words so far - It is a good project isn't it? (no reply needed). Speak soon.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Breaking News - Just in !! From one of Planet Four's most infamous Bug hunters: BUGS ARE DEFINATELY BACK IN.

    Many thanks to Jellyhead who (although he/she doesn't know it yet) has saved the day. In short Jellyhead, I've been and ransacked your Bug collection (So that's where they went - not under the boulders at all).

    More later, with a revised, concise, SCS (MkII) scheme - including: A3 BUG Spiders; A3a Embryonic & A3b Adult (/monsterrrrrss).

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Model for SCS (Mk.II) - Characteristics of each are the same as in Mk.1 model

    A: TRUE Spiders

    A1 - Embryonic

    A2 - Classic

    A3 - Bug

    A3a - embryonic bug

    A3b - adult bug

    A4 - Dendritic

    A5 - Family

    A5a - classic families

    A5b - bug families

    A5c - dendritic families

    B: WEB Spiders

    B1 - Chain

    B2 - Mesh

    B3 - Lace

    B4 - Lattice

    X (crossover) - Family/Lattice (many)

    U - Unidentified

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Breaking News - Just in !! From one of Planet Four's most infamous Bug
    hunters: BUGS ARE DEFINATELY BACK IN.

    Any chance of amending bugs to space weevils? (Red Dwarf) 😃

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Brilliant!

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Cheers JellyMonster.

    Thanks Ian. That's something else for the science team to consider. Perhaps not 'space weevils', but weevil might be an option. It's certainly a term I'd like to use in a characterisation of Bug Spider (if Bugs it be) - 'often resembling lice, or weevils' - and its one term I hadn't thought about. Good man Ian.

    Having an environmental bent (mine leans to the left) my vocabulary, as well as my thought processes, are often inspired by ecology/earth science terminology. On Earth I would instinctively follow convention (if I've remembered it correctly) and put weevils & lice, and ladybirds, and.... under Bugs. This is not, I think, a bad thing because 'Bugs' is such a catch-all phrase used by just about everyone for 'buggy things'. Although I have no idea, it's not unreasonable to assume that there are many youngsters, even children, who are working hard here on Planet Four. Is it because they heard that they can study, say, 'ice-induced channel structures' or because they've heard that 'there are Spiders on Mars'. I rest my spider!

    You might have noticed that I've tried to introduce a 'style' into my scheme, by capitalising (or not) my classes/sub-classes and making use of bold/italic type. Obviously there is an element of 'show' here, but for more formal presentation it's perhaps worth taking onboard.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Apologies for delay with the generics, but weather conditions and laptop drop-outs and glitches are proving to be a real pain today. Hopefully things will improve as the day progresses (although I must sleep at some point and eating something might be useful – perhaps a grust sandwich will do for now).

    A few points I’d like to make before the ‘generic’ image show begins. What follows is very much ‘thinking aloud’.

    Re Image Scale. I think I was trying to say that I’m aware of at least one restriction that is placed on our viewings; the limited and fixed area of each image. Let’s say for the moment (and accuracy is not vital here) that each image covers an area of one square Km. To a certain extent therefore, we can only visually id spider structures up to this ‘restriction’ limit. It is highly likely that many spider structures are far in excess of this 1km limit. This means that even if the SCS is successful at this limit, it will only (in the first instance) be reliable up to that limit. On the grander scale the SCS may not be at all representative of the population(s) of spiders.

    Having said that, there is a definite upside to the situation; It may turn out, way done the line, that the SCS is very reliable for all spiders at all scales. That would be very cool indeed – as Martian spiders tend to be.

    This leads perhaps to another restriction which should be self-imposed. “If you don’t see Spiders – Move on”. Many images appear to be little more than an image of a blank sheet of paper. Instinctively, and I would suggest rightly, these blank sheets of paper (and other more colourful types of paper sheet) should be passed over. This is because the question of ‘where do complex Lattice Spiders end and paper sheets begin’ is not at all straightforward. (Also, I am not afraid to admit that even now I am often unsure abut what I'm looking at; ice, spider land, or something more 'concrete', glacial, or 'rocky terrain'). Yes, there are difficulties with all the boundaries between classes, but the complex-lattice/paper boundary is undoubtedly the most difficult of all. Having said that, when we get to that boundary, a whole new world of spider-and- web investigation and intrigue awaits you. (Some of you may be there already). More later.

    The SCS, even in model form, is already proving its worth to me. It has been inspirational to me and a whole raft of ideas and lines of investigation have appeared before me as I ‘play’ with the SCS. It is fast becoming a resource I would hate to lose even at this early stage. It quickly becomes comfortable and seems easily memorable.

    Fingers crossed for a glitch-free session soon. Will hopefully post generic images and commentary in the next 24 hours(ish).

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    ‘GENERIC ‘Spiders (maybe).

    It would be most helpful to me if you would help test my ‘instant reaction theory’ (IRT) which says: “The more instant the reaction; the more generic the species. The longer the reaction time; the closer to the species-crossover boundary this individual will be”.

    We will all, I am sure, remember our first encounters with spiders. When confronted with an image of a spider structure our instant (if silent) reaction was ‘Spider!’ - This is the reaction I’m looking for with each of my generic images.

    (The classes below vary slightly from the SCS MkII. More later.)

    Class A: TRUE Spiders.

    A1: Embryonic – Often referred to as ‘baby’, ‘proto’, etc, they strongly suggest ‘new birth’ of any/all true spider species.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e743e45e2ed211dc003121.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73b8f5e2ed211dc000531.jpg

    A2: Classic – Well-defined body and legs. Looks like a spider! All sizes.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e747b95e2ed211dc00448a.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e745245e2ed212400053fd.jpg

    A3: Bug – Much larger, fatter bodies than the Classic, often with short legs. Often weevil or lice-like. Can be very large.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e235e2ed211dc001302.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e3c5e2ed211dc001377.jpg

    A4: Dendritic – Body tiny, even non-existent, with long thin often branched legs.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73d675e2ed2124000129c.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e655e2ed211dc00143b.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73e695e2ed211dc00144f.jpg

    A5: Family – Two or more of the above True spiders ‘holding hands’, in groups but not in straight lines.

    (This being a bigger job than imagined, I'll leave you to visualise A5a and A5b for yourself.)

    A5a: classic family: Well-defined individuals holding hands or well connected.

    A5b: bug family: Well defined bugs holding hands or well connected.

    A5c: dendritic family: May be open and widespread, or complex giving appearance of ripples or stipling. With extreme complexity they are easily confused with complex Web spiders.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e742275e2ed211dc0027b0.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73f795e2ed21240002459.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e743695e2ed212400045aa.jpg

    Class B: WEB Spiders.

    B1: Chain – Many small spiders, often cross shaped, forming long heavy chains of spiders. Chain spiders often form large ‘squares’ that fill the image. (Polygon may be better?)

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e741385e2ed212400032b6.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e7410c5e2ed212400030d4.jpg

    B2: Mesh - Lightweight chains of many (dozen-ish?) ‘squares’ over the whole image.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e741585e2ed21240003445.jpg

    B3: Lace - Most delicate of the Web spiders forming very many tight ‘squares’.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e741055e2ed2124000308b.jpg

    B4: Lattice – Often appear like layers of chains, mesh, and lace, giving a more bland, smoother image.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e742b85e2ed211dc002aad.jpg

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e742c05e2ed212400040b4.jpg

    Classes X and U can be discussed separately.

    The class of ‘complex-lattice/complex-family’ spiders need special attention.

    I eagerly await your reply. Thank You.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Fascinating article.

    I looked through all the examples but didn't come across this one. It seems to have lost its body... a mutant maybe?

    ![Mutant] (http://www.mediafire.com/conv/99b3f0216ada0a89a3f7ccce194dfa178a6f643899e959d091fed309ac87abe66g.jpg)

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles

    would it not be simpler. very small, small, medium, large, very large or vs,s, m, l, xl.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    JellyMonster. Love your 'mutant' idea. I've got my own ideas about this sort of spider, but they're better off posted elsewhere. (It's all to do with 'dinasaurs'!!) Possible pre/part mutant in lower right corner of this image http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e747b95e2ed211dc00448a.jpg

    Eagiles. That's a very cute idea - good thinking. I hope you'll agree that because spiders can look wildly different from each other its not a bad idea to try and put them into separate classes. We could apply your system to each class for 'added information' value, but then we're losing 'simplicity'. My main concern is that we don't know what 'small' means. We might look at an image and mark a spider as xl, or even xxl, but when we get to have a look at much larger areas of martian 'spiderland', we may find that even our xxxl spider turns out to be an 'extra small'! Still a good idea that may come in handy - thanks for sharing.

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    At risk of rocking the boat have a look at this one APF0000s0u juvenile spiders but all exhibiting a degree of common linearity?

    Posted

  • Portyankina by Portyankina scientist in response to Kitharode's comment.

    First, the comment from the team: they like your classification, they want me to fuse it with what is already in literature though. And the team dislikes names "embryonic" and "bags" - and after some consideration I agree with them, both are a bit tacky for a scientific term. We need something more neutral here. BTW I totally think that "spiders" are also not the best term, but it came to life before anybody thought this will be a complete field of study. I guess, I was not there 😃

    Second, I think your A1 category pics are not really first stages of spider development, they do fit to your A2 category more. For A1 I rather had in mind some more like here. When there is a depression with a leg or two, not when they have developed legs.

    Anya

    Posted

  • SEJones by SEJones

    may i suggest something? i always thought these spiders actually look like plant roots! if you prefer not to use root becuase of biological connotation, maybe it's simpler to use term fracture? so for different morphology you can describe them as linear or radial fractures? and for newly forming fracture, how about term neo-fracture?

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator in response to Portyankina's comment.

    For my money even your examples are fully developed Anya, just not full grown I'd go for something like these as truly embryonic, just a couple of channels APF000097p. And for my money the body of the spider is consequence of the connected 'legs' rather than a cause - see my thoughts (for what they are worth) in the "spiders" thread.

    And I think that the classification should stick to grouping by morphology without overly deciding/or overtly implying any causal relationship between types at this stage. So "small" might be a better term and would cover any thing that's not very big. That or put a limit on the number of legs for this class.

    I don't think you should drop "Spiders". The Spiders from Mars has a resonance and the reference does the science no harm .

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Wassock: I don't own a boat and I'm not building one. If you've found a boat, please rock it to your hearts content (perhaps rocket would be more appropriate here). Your image is related, I think, to this...

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e743535e2ed211dc002dfd.jpg

    With 'your' image, (I'm guessing here) I'd expect to find many of these being put in with the Embryonics. I would if I was a newcomer to this game. But I'd also expect that as people became more familiar, they might feel it's more of an 'extreme' Lace Web, which is what I see now. (I'm looking more closely at the background of the image)

    With 'my' image (again guessing) Embryonic would/should be the first choice, but again more 'experienced' viewers may see an 'extreme' Lattice Web, as I do. (Looking more closely at the background)

    If images like these all ended up with the Embryonic, good. At least we know what most people see. If they all end up together elsewhere, ditto. Speaking personally, I'd like to see a good number of this type of image in both of these 'book-end' classes, if only because it would add weight to some of my, and others' working hypotheses. Collectively, they may need to be put together as a class and this may prove to be the case. They may represent the 'closing of the circle' class if there is any truth in the idea of 'birth/death' in spiders and webs. (But keep a chicken and egg handy)

    What would this next image mean? Embryonic, yes. But embryo's born of an 'extreme' Lace web works for me.

    http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e745455e2ed211dc00388a.jpg

    Many thanks for joining in, wassock. To all who pass through here, please don't get the impression that I'm any sort of expert - I'm literally making all this up as I go along. Cheers.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Anya: I'm thrilled and delighted. Please thank the team for taking time to look at my ideas. I'm totally happy just to be 'allowed' to join in and maybe even be of assistance. I'm also having a lot of fun!! Cheers.

    Everybody: I agree with just about everything you all say and think. I'm glad I don't have to come up with the definitive scheme (you've already seen what a tough job it can be). But I'm delighted at the response to the thread and, whatever the outcome, it would appear from Anya's earlier post that our input and effort was worthwhile. Cheers. (SEJones - plant roots; gorgeous idea)

    Posted

  • SEJones by SEJones

    thnx. 😃 m my inital impession was plant roots. then 2nd impression blood vessels (most looked like bulging blood vessels which in fact would be symptomatic of malfunctioning valves!) anyway all these have biological connotations hence i went for neutral terminology.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to SEJones's comment.

    Both Anya and your good self would prefer neutral terminology. I agree, that's the way to go, and I can look back and see for myself now that my SCS lacks that quality.

    I can also see, in retrospect, why the 'shape' of my model is the way it is. This thread (as you may already know) got started because I wanted to do some work on my 'Landscape and Spider Morphology' 'theories' and an existing SCS would have been really useful. Such SCS not being available, and being offered the challenge by the scientists, well, here we are. An existing SCS, coming out of someone else's head, could not be accused of being biased in favour of my ideas - from the off, however, I've always been aware that mine could indeed be biased towards my 'mindset' (Oh look, they all fit just like he said...) although I always tried to avoid that bias.

    Whatever. If nothing else it's nice to know that it's not just me that finds this sort of stuff interesting. I've already said elsewhere that this exercise has been a great learning experience and a lot of fun. I've also met some very nice, friendly, interesting and innovative persons on here - You would be a perfect example of such a person.

    On the off-chance you've not been to my landscape/morphology thread, the opening page or so veers off/on the main topic (all good stuff though) but is now back on track with a couple of (rather lengthy) new offerings about my ideas. Be great to see you there http://talk.planetfour.org/#/boards/BPF0000002/discussions/DPF00008p8

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to SEJones's comment.

    The thing you have to remember, is that 'plant roots' ,'blood vessels, 'veins' or whatever, are in actual fact, channels. You have to try and work out the lighting in your head or alternatively, invert or negate the image to see the real deal. Go here to see what I mean... http://the-orangery.weebly.com/mars-1.html and http://the-orangery.weebly.com/mars-2.html

    Posted

  • SEJones by SEJones

    thnx JM for inverted images 😃 helpful. it's sometimes hard to shake off initial impessions becuase after all we are human and we interpret exactly what we see. so even though i was describing my initial impressions, i did offer other terminology.

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    JM,
    Really interesting. Your example (minus the color) is a broader shot of Kith's example image http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e747b95e2ed211dc00448a.jpg

    Side by side, you can see your "bodyless" spider is exactly the one in the lower right of Kiths example. Also the one just above and left of that one is also the same spider.

    I know you said you "didn't come across this one. It seems to have lost its body"......but take a second look. You've nailed it!

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Good job, man!

    Seriously,(regardless of whatever the professional science community might think) fwiw, I personally want to say "thanks", for what seems to be a pretty straight-forward and intuitive classification system for these critters.I finally got a chance to go through all your examples, and almost without exception, was easily able to jump from one class to another without hesitation.

    While I understand the intellectual need for neutral naming of these things, as a human being, it's impossible to deny the "things biologique" connection, wheter they are a part of our hard-wiring or not, you can't help tripping all over them in these images. Who hasn't thought "brains" "neurons" "veins", "arteries", "bacteria"/"colonies"......or is it just me?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Hey - That's seriously kind of you AUricle, thanks very much. I think 'hard' scientists need a 'hard' classification scheme (I like one if I'm doing my plants and bugs thing semi seriously) but I think the model SCS is a good tool for us citizen scientists 'cause we can take anything that suits us from it and then put in our own flavours to make it work best for us. Been a lot of fun too, Thanks again.

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to wassock's comment.

    I'd like your opinion here.Trying to establish an 'order of development', I though that your image was similar to one I had collected, minus the yardangs and fan.

    What I did was this. I took my image, and using it as a 'fullsized' backdrop, I overlaid it with a downsized version of your image, so that your image appeared as an opaque 'floating' image, inside of mine. Then I took a screen shot of the whole thing and sent it to Dropbox. Here it is......
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/s9xbgk0j351ru7i/MarsWassKataCapture.JPG Here is my complete image, before tinkering.... http://www.planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e740575e2ed211dc001dab.jpg

    I found the similarities striking (minus the tramlines and fan) and thought perhaps it was just an earlier stage of development of the same type of eventual terrain.....NOT the exact geographic area of course, but I think you get what I mean here. So what do you think? Am I all wet here?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to AUricle's comment.

    Yo, AUricle. 'Scuse me for butting in but that "opaque 'floating' image" trick is magical - I'm truly impressed (I'm not much past pen and paper myself). Outstanding. You asked wassock if he thought you were 'all wet' with this. On the contrary is my response; for what it's worth I think you're on fire!

    Ideas about development, progressions, 'life-cycles', and all that stuff is exactly my cup of grust and I'm convinced there's loads of it going on here. My focus is on landscape and true spider morphology in the place I call Spiderland (as opposed to the web spiders who I think live in Ice Land) and for now at least I've not given any thought to the more 'rigid' tramlines and yardangs. (There's a joke in their somewhere!)

    Again for what it's worth, I think you should follow up your hunches and pick away at the idea of development in these yardangs and such because I (and others) are having the same kind of hunches, just in different areas. If you wanna run with your ideas in yardang type territory we might get a nice symbiosis going that'll help both camps.

    That's what I think - Over to you Mr Magician 😉

    PS: In case you've not dropped in recently, at bottom of page 3 (long post) on landscape/morphology thread you'll find my fantasy world and basic ideas beginning to develop.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to AUricle's comment.

    Side by side, you can see your "bodyless" spider is exactly the one in the lower right of Kiths example. Also the one just above and left of that one is also the same spider.

    Just checked them... You're absolutely right! Good spot Auricle. So might this mean that other images, are part duplicated or overlap (I know of at least one other).

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    Hi JM. There's a bit of info on your overlapping image query somewhere on site. Just been to where I thought it was so I could copy it here, but of course now I can't remember where I've seen it. But in short, yes there are images that overlap - don't know how many, or by how much though. 😦

    PS. How did you get an avatar photo up? I've tried several which seem to upload ok, but then it never shows up.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Assuming you have got to the Zooniverse page and logged in - click on avatar - choose file - update. I must admit it was a bit hit and miss... maybe I just got lucky? Try a smaller file or change it to a 'jpg' (if it isn't already).

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Zooniverse page, not P4 page. Ta. So have I got an impossible telescope? Here's hoping...YarDANG !!

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    In regards to overlaps,
    No doubt about it,.....I've never seen an exact duplicate, but several partials.

    Say JM, if you get some time, would you mind weighing in on my response to wassock in this same thread?
    I don't think there is any chance of a duplicate image there, but there may be a tendency for the same terrain development over time......another 'morphology' of sorts

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Butt away, friend! Two heads are always better than one. (At least, that's what they tell me!)

    You're too kind. When you said "I'm not much past pen and paper myself" you pretty much pidgeon-holed ME!
    Believe me, when I finished that 'magic', my ears were smokin'. I was somewhat dumbfounded by the result (and the 'fete' itself! 😉.....In fact, such was my joy that I immediately sought out several fingers of an old Kentucky bourbon to celebrate! Ahhh.......sweet success! Cheers!

    ++Please never feel the need to ask permission to enter or respond to me. If I wasn't looking for feedback, I'd keep it between my ears. You just might keep me from making a fool of myself!!

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Did someone say recently that images with the same letter before the end number were in the same area? So for example images xxxg0001, xxxg0002 and xxxg0003 would all be near each other. (Not confirmed)

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to AUricle's comment.

    I heard "Two heads are better than one, even if one's a sheep". Mind you, where I live..... Are you going to get into this 'comparative' techno image stuff? My heads full of expectation cause I can imagine all sorts of interesting stuff being brought out. But I can't get into anything else myself right now, so do please keep us up to date if you are. I'm off chasing boulders.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to AUricle's comment.

    I had a look at wassock's overlaid image on top of yours. I admit, there is a similarity although the surface angles differ somewhat. However, like you say, it's still a possibility that that they are related in some way (over time). I think you are better than me, when it comes to working out stuff and allowing for seasonal changes.

    Anyway, I thought this post was meant to be about spider classification?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    Spider classification has probably run its course here, Science team will take what they need / like from our input and we await the results. (I think they like the way we ran with it, even if they don't use any of it). Still open for ideas/chitchat on the subject, but anything goes now I reckon. If AUricle gets on to anything solid, might be worth a new thread...

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles in response to Kitharode's comment.

    sorry the plain english society would disagree with this classification as long winded and complicated

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to eagiles's comment.

    If that is the case, then scientists will love it 😃.

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason

    Is this for the nurses SCIENTISTS side of things, because I don't think my mental state will cope with it being so complicated tbh. 😦

    Here have a crawling spider.

    Spider

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to Ian Mason's comment.

    The SCS here is purely for discussion between anybody who likes that sort of thing (like me). We know there's going to be a sub project on spider cassification, but we don't know what the scientists are going to come up with. It might be something far simpler, or it might be more complex.

    But I think all the comments here will be useful, if only as a measure as to what users here might find easy/hard or what they like/dislike. If our input helps in any way, that's good enough for me.

    (Great spider. You're getting good at this being silly routine, aren't you?)

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles

    is this not complicated for sake of complication i believe if you start classifying to much you will have one thing with three classification as has happened,

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Is there a place in the SCS for these guys? APF0000e8d

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to wassock's comment.

    Probably not 😉

    Nearest I got was; 2a Chain – Many small spiders, often cross shaped, forming long heavy chains of spiders. In the image, I agree, they appear more rope-like and continuous, rather than many linked up spiders in a chain, so that makes it purely a guess to suit my eye, I suppose. Have you seen some/many/loads of this type of structure?

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Chain spiders sounds pretty good or, as you mentioned rope-like, perhaps 'tug of war'?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    Your ropes are obviously related to http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e743ab5e2ed2124000481d.jpg

    They might both relate to http://planetfour.org/subjects/standard/50e73f645e2ed21240002398.jpg

    which might perhaps be a forerunner to both, or the end product of both - or none of the above 😉

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Have a look at this - there are 2 levels in this image which suggests that there are 2 types of surface and the channels that form on each are markedly different in appearance. See also "how old are these spiders" and "And another thing"

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Sounds intriguing... what image?

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Dhhoooooh! enter image description here

    Posted