Namea
Namea is a genus of spiders in the family Anamidae. It was first described in 1984 by Raven. As of 2017, it contains 15 species, all from Queensland and New South Wales.[1]
| Namea | |
|---|---|
Scientific classification  | |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Subphylum: | Chelicerata |
| Class: | Arachnida |
| Order: | Araneae |
| Infraorder: | Mygalomorphae |
| Family: | Anamidae |
| Genus: | Namea Raven[1] |
| Type species | |
| Namea capricornia | |
| Species | |
|
15, see text | |
Species
Namea comprises the following species:[1]
- Namea brisbanensis Raven, 1984
- Namea bunya Raven, 1984
- Namea calcaria Raven, 1984
- Namea callemonda Raven, 1984
- Namea capricornia Raven, 1984
- Namea cucurbita Raven, 1984
- Namea dahmsi Raven, 1984
- Namea dicalcaria Raven, 1984
- Namea excavans Raven, 1984
- Namea flavomaculata (Rainbow & Pulleine, 1918)
- Namea jimna Raven, 1984
- Namea nebulosa Raven, 1984
- Namea olympus Raven, 1984
- Namea salanitri Raven, 1984
- Namea saundersi Raven, 1984
gollark: I guess maybe in politics/economics/sociology the alternative is something like "lean on human intuition" or "make the correct behaviour magically resolve from self-interest". Not sure how well those actually work.
gollark: - the replication crisis does exist, but it's not like *every paper* has a 50% chance of being wrong - it's mostly in some fields and you can generally estimate which things won't replicate fairly well without much specialized knowledge- science™ agrees on lots of things, just not some highly politicized things- you *can* do RCTs and correlation studies and such, which they seem to be ignoring- some objectivity is better than none- sure, much of pop science is not great, but that doesn't invalidate... all science- they complain about running things based on "trial and error and guesswork", but then don't offer any alternative
gollark: The alternative to basing things on science, I mean. The obvious alternative seems to basically just be guessing?
gollark: What's the alternative? Science is at least *slightly* empirical and right. Also, the video is wrong.
gollark: Fast video encoding is less space-efficient and/or worse quality.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.