Talk:Opiliones

Who did name you?

Who did name daddy long legs? How does daddy long legs make a life? This is not like grasshopping... I don't like daddy long legs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.141.240 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I like them a lot. But this is not a discussion forum. David Spector (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Find a source that can put two and two together?

The article states in the Etymology section: "The Swedish naturalist, Karl Sundevall, first used the term Opiliones in 1833, and derived from the Latin 'opilio', meaning 'sheep-master' or 'shepherd', although the sense of the allusion is unclear." (Harvestmen - Glauco Machado, Gonzalo Giribet).

While it is useful to know the Latin derivation, the inclusion of the statement "although the sense of the allusion is unclear" shows that the author(s) of that statement have never taken the time to observe a true shepherd in action (one with only a staff and no work dogs to assist), else the allusion would be obvious.

I suggest either removal of the "although the sense of the allusion is unclear" statement, or an additional quote from some source that has better insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.45.234 (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

ID error in photo

The photo labeled "Leiobunum politum" is actually Hadrobunus grandis. Note that femur I is much shorter than the length of the body, which is diagnostic for the genus. The unlabeled figure is a male Phalangium opilio.

Location

What would be really helpful is if it mentioned somewhere where on earth these things are found...

I live in northeast Florida and the longlegs used to be very common. During the summer there were numerous individuals or small groups clustered on shady walls.They never seemed to be doing anything at all. This was 20-25 years ago and I cannot recollect the last time I encountered one, but I saw no mention of this geographical area in the "Endangered" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Failed

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Tarret 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Singular?

What is the singular of Opiliones? Is it Opilione? Or Opiliones?

Is the name Opilionid valid? IronChris | (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. The singular should be Opilion. In English it is very common to read "opilionid", but it is just because of the unused form Opilionida. This appeared in an attempt to standardize the ordinal names in the 1940s. But the official name recognized by ISA is Opiliones. --Vae victis 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the singular of harvestmen? Is it Harvestman? Billlion 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never read "Opilion" in the literature... it seems that "Opilione" is preferred to refer to a single individual or single species. "Opiliones" can refer to the order or several individuals. "Opilionid" is used more in older texts.

I would suggest that all three are acceptible as they all appear routinely in published works. Older authors refer to "Phalangids" which is also technically appropriate to refer to the Palpatores + Laniatores (contained within the grouping "Phalangia"), especially the British species.

Megabunus (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find any of these Opilion~ forms in the AHD or in my OED (1985). A Google ngram search yields one single Opilion and no occurrence of Opilione. Eric ^talk 17:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In Latin, opiliones is the nominative plural of opilio, so in that language, the singular is opilio. What should be used in English is another matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Correctrix: FYI, see above. Eric ^talk 12:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't care, as long as you don't use "Opiliones" as a singular. Correctrix (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm no bug science expert, but I think English employs the term as both singular and plural, depending on context. Opiliones is an order, not are. I would change the first sentence to read "Opiliones...is an order of arachnids...", but I sometimes have trouble convincing other Wikipedians that reference works should put entry terms in the singular. Eric ^talk 13:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Eric: sure, but that's a different issue. When "Opiliones" is used as the name of the order then it can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on the context. Some sources write "Opiliones is an order", some "The Opiliones are an order" – both are found in the literature and neither is right or wrong. But we were discussing the word to use for one or more animals, not the order. So where you might write "The picture shows a harvestman/two harvestmen", if you wanted to use a more 'technical', less ENGVAR-specific term, would you write "an opilionid/two opilionids" or "an opilione/two opiliones"? I find the second very odd, but it is definitely in use if you do a Google search. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Peter- I take your point, though I take the argumentum ad googlum portion with a grain of salt. I never saw the s at the end of Opiliones as indicating a plural until I read your above post last year. I have yet to encounter the need to come up with a singular in English, but if I did, I'd go with the singular you provided last October. For some reason, I would tend to avoid the construction "...are an..." in our intro sentence. It looks a bit awkward to me, and I would think replacing the are with comprise or make up would make it read better. Eric ^talk 21:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the standard opening in our articles about taxa whose Latin names are plural in Latin appears to be either of the forms I suggested, i.e. "X is a RANK" or "The X are a RANK" (note the inclusion of "the"). A quick survey suggests to me that for animals the first is somewhat more common (e.g. Solifugae, Schizomida, Thelyphonida, Branchiopoda, Remipedia) although there are many with the second (e.g. Entognatha, Dicondylia, Pterygota). I haven't yet found any with "comprise(s)". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mythbusters

The myth mentioned was actually tested by the MythBusters of the Discovery Channel. They found that the venom of daddy long legs is not more lethal than that of a Black Widow spider. Second, the fangs are long enough to pierce the skin. Third, actual intentional infliction of multiple bites caused no significant side effects for a human.

BBC has an interesting article on & photo of one of these in amber. Appartently, it will be pretty important to science.

Actually, the MythBusters tested the Daddy Longlegs spider, not the Harvestmen. 68.48.174.136 04:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I should add a note here in the hope that people may read it before adding any references to the Mythbusters TV show yet again. The episode in which the Daddy Long Legs's poisonous bite was tested used cellar spiders, not harvestmen and so there is no need to mention it in this article. --WaterWolf (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar & Details

Regarding:

Because they are a ubiquitous order, but species are often restricted to small regions due to their low dispersal rate,[citation needed] they are good models for biogeographic studies.[dubious – discuss]

I can guess at what the person who wrote this meant to say, but am putting this in discussion to make sure.

My guess is: "This order exists in all environments on the planet, but in isolated populations. Therefore, they are good models for biogeographical studies."

Given that someone put up the citation and dubious tags, I'm not even sure that's all true. I'm not an expert on these arachnids. Someone who is may want to either update the wording to make sense in a fashion similar to my example or remove that statement all together. Mjatucla (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting the statement into two phrases. For example:

"Common and Ubiquitous, the Opiliones occur in all major continents with the exception of the Antarctic (Curtis and Machado 2007)."

"Due to their high endemism and low vagility (Pinto-da-Rocha and Silva 2005; Mestre and Pinto-da-Rocha 2004) the harvestmen make ideal model organisms in biogeographic studies".

References:

Curtis D J and Machado G. (2007). Ecology. In Pinto-da-Rocha, Machado and Giribet (2005). eds. Harvestmen: the biology of opiliones. Harvard University Press. London.

Mestre L A M and Pinto-da-Rocha R. (2004). Population dynamics of an isolated population of the Harvestmen Ilhaia cuspidate (Opiliones, Gonyleptidae), in Araucaria Forest (Curitiba, Parená, Brazil). The Journal of Arachnology 32: 208-220.

Pinto-da-Rocha R and Bernardino da Silva M. (2005). Faunistic similarity and historic biogeography of the harvestmen of southern and southeastern Atlantic rain forest of Brazil. The Journal of Arachnology. 33:290-299.

Megabunus (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity when ingested

Would someone kindly discuss the toxicity of harvestmen when ingested by humans or animals? Thank you. 71.87.170.182 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming since they have no venom they're quite non-toxic besides any parasites that may be living inside of them. 71.243.45.34 (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I beseech you on behalf of all humanity. Please never raise this question again. 80.42.221.50 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

number of legs

anyone else notice that they seem to always have seven legs, not the normal 8? Githyan (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed it, and I'm surprised it is not included. Sometimes six. I suspect that they can lose their legs easily, such as if one gets caught in a wall crack. I don't really know. Do the legs regenerate? Don't know that either. No experts around here, I guess. David Spector (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Opiliones undergo autotomy, which is a very common defense mechanism in many Arthropods and other animals such as lizards (that when stress lose their tail), starfish and spiders very commonly lose their legs when they molt. They are voluntarily amputating an appendage. However, not all species of Opiliones practice this mechanism. Sadly, unlike spiders that regenerate their legs with time, Opiliones do not. Which makes it very interesting how their locomotion and sensorial behavior adapts to that condition. Paecilaema (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

anatomy separated?

Anyone care to tell me why the anatomy section merits its own wikisite as opposed to being described right here in the middle of the article on the critter? Aderksen (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

POV Disambiguation Issues

Regarding this statement:

"In some places, harvestmen are known by the name "daddy longlegs" or "granddaddy longlegs", but this name is also used for two other unrelated arthropods: the crane fly (Tipulidae) and the cellar spider (Pholcidae)."

It is NOT the policy of Wikipedia to decide that, since the term "daddy long legs" has more than one meaning, this article should default to the position of using "harvestman" as the common term.

Rather, it is Wikipolicy to follow what reliable, mainstream sources in general say about the subject. Actually, a majority of the English-speaking world likely uses the term "daddy long legs" to refer to the "harvestman". As such, this "common" usage should be used, not deprecated, in the article as a major colloquial name. Let's not forget that the name "harvestman" is also "colloquial".

http://spiders.ucr.edu/daddylonglegs.html

69.15.219.71 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Anybody want to move the article? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Opiliones → Harvestman

– Harvestmen is the much more common name, and should probably use the common name like other arachnid orders such as spiders, scorpions, pseudoscorpions, mites and ticks. Yes Man75 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This is a huge group of well-known creatures, so a common name is appropriate. Niudla (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes Man75 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose There is no "probably" about it. The technically definitive name of any taxon or associated group of taxons should always be preferred as the title for any article dealing with that topic. This always permits as many people as choose to do so, people with preferred or eccentric common names in as many languages, regions, time periods, fashions, majorities, minorities, academic schools, nationalities, religious denominations or ethnic persuasions as there might be, to redirect from their own favourite name(s), using as many formal redirections, disambiguations or tributary articles as desired, to refer to the substantive article as they please for as long as they please without edit wars, justifications, or mutual recriminations. Read the Common name article if you are in doubt about my point. Relative popularity as perceived by anyone concerned has nothing to do with it. Redirection is neither a significant burden to the system, nor to the user who neither knows, understands, nor cares about the "scientific" name, and has no reason to care. You think that "Diptera" or "Culicidae" are confusing? Wait till you have tried to explain "bug", "fly", etc to a layman! And as for why a tiny, troglobitic species should be called a harvestman(!) for example... IMO we should instead be establishing a project to rename (move etc) every article such as "fly" or "mosquito" to the taxon name, converting the popular names to redirs, if necessary with suitable recognition or explanation in the primary article. We could add disambigs and redirs by the ream for all anyone might care, and the more the better, as long as they are accurate and appropriate. Spiders, scorpions, pseudoscorpions, mites and ticks would be excellent places to start and I happily volunteer to do it if nominated. And what is so special about the Arachnida anyway? What about Crane fly? The current situation is an unencyclopedic, inefficient, illogical, unsystematic, pointless disgrace and overdue for correction. Should I elaborate? The fact that it is physically possible to support an inverted mess by redirecting taxon entries to temporarily partly matching topics is no justification, either logically or aesthetically. If we call Opiliones daddy-long-legs, I insist that we include Tipulids and Pholcids in the same article, and if we use the name harvestmen, then we must logically split the topic to exclude those taxa that are not called harvestmen (ie most of them). You doubt it? Try asking 100 non-biologists taken at random, to look at 100 pictures of suitably selected organisms, and pick out the "harvestmen", "Opiliones" and "daddy long legs". Drinks on me if your diagnoses are consistent or have any connection to harvest time. JonRichfield (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, mites are a paraphyletic group, not represented by a single taxon, so that will always need to be at a common-name title. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for accidental removal of other material; no idea how I managed that. Thanks for replacing itJonRichfield (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to Niudla's comment: The size of the group does not mean that a common name achieves anything for anyone; people can still use any common name they like and get directly to the material they want. Common names should only be used as a primary article name, if at all, when they are universally used; this one is not. Secondly, the common name in question is not appropriate to the whole group. Remember why mainly one particular species was called "harvestmen", in one country, in one language, in which they also more widely known as daddy long legs, because not all of them appeared in the grainfields and not all Englishmen knew that species because not all English were rural. Such reasons are precisely why one uses taxon names wherever possible. It is easier, more reliable, and less confusing. JonRichfield (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, daddy long-legs and other common names are just as popular elsewhere. Moving to one common name in preference over others just as widely used will just open the way for back-and-forth move wars. In such cases, retaining the page at the neutral scientific name is a far better option to prevent future headaches. Redirects will take care of the rest.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• oppose per Obsidian de Bivort 22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Biogeography

Much research has been done on harvestmen biogeography, to the point that many claim the order as a model 'system' of sorts for biogeographical studies. Thus, a section on this topic is highly warranted (and really should be in here regardless of how much their biogeography is studied). The biogeography chapter in "Harvestmen: The Biology of Opiliones" (Pinto-da-Rocha, Machado, and Giribet 2007) would be a good place to start for anyone willing to write this, although many important papers have been published in the last 6 years that should be taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lophiomys (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Clustering

I have seen harvestmen cluster together in groups of thousands (at least). It is extremely creepy, and will make an arachnophobe faint. Can someone say this in the "Behavior" section, and maybe add an image? TIA, Charizardmewtwo (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There are many reasons to why this is. I can include them and the references for it. 165.134.214.135 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Harvestmen

Never heard of this term. If this is just a US name, the article should say so. I suspect this is another example of the common "all the world's America" WP attitude. --Ef80 (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's American or not, but it's the English name I've used all my life and I'm English, brought up in East Anglia. It may be regional in the UK. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

After investigation I think you're right. It's certainly not simply a US term. I stand corrected. --Ef80 (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Article is unclear

The way some of the sentences are worded has me confused as to if harvestmen are or are not spiders. 67.212.45.191 (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC) jdc843 (I didn't log in)

Where in the articles are there sentences that ambiguously refer to harvestmen as spiders? That, and you are aware that "arachnid" is not synonymous with "spider," right?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

However, it seems to be a common misconception that they are either spiders or closely related, so I've added a sentence to the lead section. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jdc843: The last few sentences of the first paragraph should now make it clear. Eric ^talk 19:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding refs

The article is missing citations on many of the facts being presented. In addition, the article lacks much of the known information on harvestmen mating behavior and predatory avoidance which are very interesting facets of their biology. Wshoenberger (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add referenced information, but please read a little about Wikipedia:Citation templates to better understand how to format the actual refs; that first attempt broke the entire References section. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I will add some additional information and references on their anti-predator behavior. Paecilaema (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I will be adding a section in the Opiliones wiki article focused on their Anti-predator mechanisms. The Behavior section, has behavioral information grouped together in small paragraphs (diet, reproduction, their activity patterns, sociality and defense mechanisms). However, there is a plethora of published studies on their multiple anti-predation mechanisms; all of which I am using as scientific resources for my thesis framework. I will also be editing most of the information in this section, due to incorrect terminology, generalizations (when there some species-specific behaviors), lack of reference throughout the whole article (citations) and lack a lot of published/correct information. There are also many assumptions and no references to back up the arguments. In addition, within this section I will include two section: Primary and Secondary Defenses.

The wiki structure after my editions:

Anti-predator defenses

In this section, I will be talking about the general defenses they use and the known predators. Their mechanisms are mainly classified as primary and secondary defenses by Gnaspini and Hara, 2007.

It looks very good. I like how it is divided into primary and secondary defenses. What are diel habits? Maybe explain the definition. In the Bobbing section I would move the comma from after 'species' to after 'escape' in the first sentence. The second sentence in Retaliation is missing a subject (I think it's meant to say 'Laniatores'). In the Chemical section, the sentence after citation 58 starts with a lower case 'but', so maybe the first half of the sentence got deleted? Since the section about chemical defenses has the most information maybe it should be described first. メガヒロ (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Defenses

In this section, I will mention and explain the classified primary defenses which are pre-predator encounter (mostly to avoid potential predator) such as crypsis, aposematism and mimicry. I will add the references to multiple studies and their findings.

Secondary Defenses

In this section, I will mention and explain the classified secondary defenses which are the mechanisms used when directly or indirectly encountered with a predator to ensure survival such as thanatosis (retraction of legs – what they might refer in the wiki article as “playing dead” –, fleeing, freezing, retaliation, stridulation, autotomy and chemical secretion. I will also include the references to multiple studies and their findings.

Paecilaema (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the list of sources I am planning to use:

1. Albín A, Toscano-Gadea CA. Predation among armored arachnids: Bothriurus bonariensis (Scorpions, Bothriuridae) versus four species of harvestmen (Harvestmen, Gonyleptidae). Behavioural Processes 2015; 121:1 – 7. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2015.10.003

2. Benson TJ, Chartier NA. Harvestmen as predators of bird nestlings. Journal of Arachnology 2010; 38:374 – 376. doi: 10.1636/hi09-106.1

3. Chelini M-C, Willemart RH, Hebets EA. Costs and benefits of freezing behaviour in the harvestman Eumesosoma roeweri (Arachnida, Opiliones). Behavioural Processes. 2009;82(2):153–159.

4. Cook DR, Smith AT, Proud DN, Víquez C, Townsend VR. Defensive Responses of Neotropical Harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones) to Generalist Invertebrate Predators. Caribbean Journal of Science. 2013;47(2-3):325–334.

5. Dias BC, Willemart RH. The effectiveness of post-contact defenses in a prey with no pre-contact detection. Zoology. 2013;116(3):168–174.

6. Eisner T. Chemical defense of an opilionid (Acanthopachylus aculeatus). Journal of Experimental Biology. 2004; 207:1313–1321. doi: 10.1242/jeb.00849

7. Escalante I, Albín A, Aisenberg A. Lacking sensory (rather than locomotive) legs affects locomotion but not food detection in the harvestman Holmbergiana weyenberghi. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2013;91(10):726–731.

8. Gnaspini, P & Cavalheiro, A. Chemical and Behavioral Defenses of a Neotropical Cavernicolous Harvestman: Goniosoma spelaeum (Opiliones, Laniatores, Gonyleptidae). The Journal of Arachnology, 1998; 26(1), 81-90. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3705453

9. Gnaspini, P, Hara, MR. Defense mechanisms. In: Pinto-da-Rocha, R., Machado, G., Giribet, G. (Eds.), Harvestmen: The Biology of Opiliones. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 2007; pp. 374e399.

10. Gonzalez A, Rossini C, Eisner T. Mimicry: imitative depiction of discharged defensive secretion on carapace of an opilionid. Chemoecology 2004; 14:5–7. doi: 10.1007/s00049-003-0252-2

11. Guffey C. Costs associated with leg autotomy in the harvestmen Leiobunum nigripes and Leiobunum vittatum (Arachnida: Opiliones). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1999;77(5):824–830.

12. Hara MR, Gnaspini P. Comparative study of the defensive behavior and morphology of the gland opening area among harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones, Gonyleptidae) under a phylogenetic perspective. Arthropod Structure & Development. 2003;32(2-3):257–275.

13. Machado G, Carrera PC, Pomini AM, Marsaioli AJ. Chemical Defense in Harvestmen (Arachnida, Opiliones): Do Benzoquinone Secretions Deter Invertebrate and Vertebrate Predators? Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2005;31(11):2519–2539.

14. Machado G, Pomini AM. Chemical and behavioral defenses of the Neotropical harvestman Camarana flavipalpi (Arachnida: Opiliones). Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2008;36(5-6):369–376

15. Machado G, Raimundo RLG, Oliveira PS. Daily activity schedule, gregariousness, and defensive behaviour in the Neotropical harvestman Goniosoma longipes(Opiliones: Gonyleptidae). Journal of Natural History 2000; 34:587–596. doi: 10.1080/002229300299453

16. Nazareth TM, Machado G. Egg Production Constrains Chemical Defenses in a Neotropical Arachnid. Plos One. 2015 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134908

17. Pomini AM, Machado G, Pinto-Da-Rocha R, Macías-Ordóñez R, Marsaioli AJ. Lines of defense in the harvestman Hoplobunus mexicanus (Arachnida: Opiliones): Aposematism, stridulation, thanatosis, and irritant chemicals. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology. 2010;38(3):300–308.

18. Segalerba A, Toscano-Gadea CA Description of the Defensive Behaviour of Four Neotropical Harvestmen (Laniatores: Gonyleptidae) Against a Synchronic and Sympatric Wolf Spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Arachnology 2016; 17:52–58. doi: 10.13156/arac.2006.17.1.52

19. Segovia JMG, Willemart RH, Del-Claro K. Defences of a Neotropical harvestman against different levels of threat by the recluse spider. Behaviour. 2015;152(6):757–773.

20. Willemart R, Gnaspini P. Spatial distribution, mobility, gregariousness, and defensive behaviour in a Brazilian cave harvestman Goniosoma albiscriptum (Arachnida, Opiliones, Gonyleptidae). Animal Biology 2004; 54:221–235. doi: 10.1163/1570756042484674

21. Willemart RH, Pellegatti-Franco F. The Spider Enoploctenus Cyclothorax (Araneae, Ctenidae) Avoids Preying on the Harvestman Mischonyx Cuspidatus (Opiliones, Gonyleptidae). Journal of Arachnology 2006; 34:649 – 652. doi: 10.1636/s05-70.1 Paecilaema (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Harvestman Mouth.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Name change Harvestman anatomy to Opiliones anatomy

FYI. I changed the article name Harvestman anatomy to Opiliones anatomy, to stay consistent this main articles name of Opiliones rather than Harvestman. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)