This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spiders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spiders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpidersWikipedia:WikiProject SpidersTemplate:WikiProject SpidersSpiders articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
The existance of the highly toxic Chilean recluse in Finland seems to be a misinformation. There's no occurence in Europe of this type of spider outside of terraria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.178.77.228 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A quick google revealed that since it can survive in harsh environments, it can be transported almost everywhere in the world and still thrive. "Researchers discovered that the entire first floor of a University of Helsinki building was infested with imported L laeta." Dr bab (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not misinformation. I live in Helsinki, and the existence of the spiders has been widely known for decades. A couple of years ago the building was renovated and it was feared they would find their way to other buildings and hoped they would go extinct. Apparently, neither thing happened. AFAIK the spiders have never bitten anyone.--2001:708:110:1820:7646:A0FF:FEA0:4B5B (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists both genera as synonyms in the taxabox, but looking for it a bit on the internet, apparently Scytoides (maybe specifically S. globula) is the natural predator of Loxosceles, perhaps both genera have species with the species name laeta, so it caused some confusion, along with the fact that both genera are included in a broader taxon, anyway. However, I'm not really sure of anything, I just noticed this possible flaw and I can't check it 100% rigth now, so just in case I forget, I'm mentioning already. --Extremophile (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the species was first described in 1849 as Scytodes laeta (not "Scytoides") by H. Nicolet. In 1902 it was described as Loxosceles longipalpis by N. Banks, who apparently did not realize it had already been described. In 1907, Eugène Simon placed the species in LoxoscelesasLoxosceles laeta. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
