Venomous spider identification retracted
The noble false widow was positively identified in Christchurch and Nelson last week after being spotted in Wellington last December.
Subsequently, a South Dunedin resident claimed they had spotted one of the potentially dangerous spiders in their backyard in February.
Pest Management Association of New Zealand (PMANZ) executive councillor Vicki Smith was sent a photo of it by the resident after they heard about the spider in the media.
Ms Smith sent the photo to PMANZ entomologist Dr Paul Craddock, who initially confirmed the spider was the noble false widow.
However, University of Otago department of botany PhD candidate James Crofts-Bennett yesterday said the spider in the photo was not the Canary Island native noble false widow, but rather the South African false katipō.
"I'm going to have to disagree [with Dr Craddock]"
"That little red spot on the back is the go-to for a false katipō."
He would have to dissect the spider to be absolutely sure, but the stripes of the white spots and a red patch on its lower back in the photo suggested it was a false katipō, Mr Crofts-Bennett said.
It was easy to confuse the two spiders because of their similarities.
University of Otago department of botany PhD candidate James Crofts-Bennett says the identification of a noble false widow spider in South Dunedin is incorrect. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY
The two spiders had similar inherent risks from bites, but neither posed a serious risk to humans, he said.
"These things are not that scary.
"You've been living with these for so long without knowing it."
The bigger issue was the spiders' impact on the environment.
"They're really hardy and well-adapted, so they do move into a lot of spaces where our native spiders like to inhabit and they sort of push them out."
Dr Craddock yesterday took back his initial identification.
He told the Otago Daily Times he trusted the opinion of Mr Crofts-Bennett because he had not had the opportunity to properly inspect the spider.
Ms Smith said if the false widow were to appear in Dunedin, it would start popping up a lot in springtime because it liked warmer weather.
"It likes to be outside, so I would recommend that people check their garden furniture."
Until then, it would hide away in the nooks and crannies of people's houses.
"Spiders during winter love to come inside to hibernate — they're like us: they like the creature comforts."
mark.john@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
14 hours ago
- Scoop
Cure Worse Than The Cause?
'We are going down a dangerous and totally unnecessary road using bromoform', said Jane Smith, leading North Otago farmer and environmentalist. Jane is a co-founder of the Methane Science Accord that questions the promotion of methane-reducing products containing tribromomethane (bromoform) — a chemical compound found in seaweed and chlorinated water — now set to be unleashed on pastoral farming. Bromoform is ozone-depleting, classified as a volatile organic compound (VOC), and in some jurisdictions like the USA, is banned from use in livestock destined for human consumption. Here in New Zealand, these products are restricted from use in breeding or dairy cattle. The Methane Science Accord has fears around food safety, questions about animal welfare, and doubts that such intensive, expensive interference in the natural biogenic rumination process is either necessary or justified. 'The mere fact it has been suggested these products be used only on prime stock destined for slaughter, and not on lactating or reproducing animals, is concerning in itself,' says Smith. A slow-release methane-reducing bolus developed by Ruminant BioTech and backed by AgriZero, (a joint taxpayer-industry venture) reportedly show methane reductions of up to 70 percent over 100 days. Ruminant BioTech's other investors include Rosrain Investments and NZ Green Investment Finance (a government-backed fund set to be shut down). One product, called Emitless, is designed for cattle weighing between 350 and 450 kilograms. A second product, Calm A Cattle Bolus, aims to reduce methane emissions for up to four months. These contain a halogenated methane analogue (three bromines replacing hydrogens on methane). It has strong anti-methanogenic properties and inhibits methane production by interfering with enzymes in methanogenic archaea in the rumen (particularly methyl-coenzyme M reductase). The Environmental Protection Authority said the active ingredient fits within existing veterinary standards and does not require individual approval under hazardous substance law, however the product still awaits sign-off under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. The Methane Science Accord states that not only is the cost of these is unknown but there is no measurable benefit to global climate temperatures and the return on investment is far outweighed by a myriad of risks. 'Having to round up stock every 120 days to force a bolus down their throat raises serious issues around safety for our farmers, particularly as there is absolutely no calculable gain to be achieved by this proposal', states Jane Smith. Methane Science Accord (MSA) co-founder Owen Jennings questions 'Why would we interfere with the natural biogenic process of rumination, why would we risk our naturally pasture-raised global status, why would we add further stress, risk and cost to our farmers and their livestock?' AgriZero CEO Wayne McNee admits 'farmers will need financial incentives to adopt them'. Smith suggests 'there are a lot people set to make a lot of money out of selling methane mitigation pills and potions into our sector, at the cost to the taxpayer, farmers and the risk to our naturally-raised livestock status. I'm assuming this is a knee-jerk reaction to justify the millions of taxpayer and ag sector dollars that have been squandered so far on these products.'. 'The lack of public transparency around safety, testing and environmental modeling is concerning not only for the farmers themselves but our sensitive global markets such as the EU don't even allow for grain-feeding. The cure is certainly worse than the cause'. A survey carried out by NZ Farming, The Methane Science Accord and Groundswell in May 2025 showed that 95% of the 1460 farmer responses would not use methane mitigation boluses, vaccines or feed additives in their livestock.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Analysing past pandemics to inform future responses
About 9000 people died in six weeks when the 1918 influenza pandemic swept through New Zealand, making it the largest natural disaster in the country's history. Now University of Otago researchers have joined forces with researchers at Durham University (United Kingdom) and the University of Tubingen (Germany) to complete the first digital analysis of the pandemic, in a bid to provide insights for managing future infectious disease emergencies. Also known as the Great Influenza Epidemic and the Spanish flu, the deadly global pandemic lasted from 1918-20, and was caused by the H1N1 subtype of the influenza A virus. The earliest documented case was in March 1918, in Kansas, United States, and a month later there were cases in France, Germany and the UK. It was quickly spread around the globe by troops during World War 1. Between 1918 and 1920, nearly a third of the global population (an estimated 500 million people) had been infected, and up to 50 million people are estimated to have died from the virus, making it the deadliest pandemic in history. Project co-leader and University of Otago Health Protection Aotearoa Research Centre director Prof Michael Baker said the pandemic was still the largest natural disaster in New Zealand's history, killing about 0.8% of the population — the equivalent of about 40,000 people today. "While the social history of this pandemic has been comprehensively described by historians, notably Prof Geoff Rice, there has not been a full epidemiological analysis using case data. "This project will fill that gap and provide insights into how a poorly controlled modern influenza pandemic could affect the country." The researchers now had a digital database that showed who got infected and when in 1918, and who died, which would allow them to see how the virus moved through New Zealand. "This is why influenza is actually quite worrying, because it has a very short incubation period, and it would sweep through the country very rapidly. "If we had a comparable influenza virus arriving in New Zealand tomorrow, it would probably infect most of the country within a few weeks, it would absolutely overwhelm the health system, and we would not be using an elimination approach at that stage — it would be a mitigation approach, where we just try to dampen it down. "It would put massive strain on our ability to manage people with ventilators and so on, so it could cause 40,000 deaths in that period of time if it behaved the same way." Project leader and Durham University bioarchaeologist Prof Rebecca Gowland said the project was the first step towards a more comprehensive programme aimed at better understanding past global pandemics, including the Black Death in 1348, the 6th century Justinian plague in Europe and the Tudor-era English Sweating Sickness. The aim was to better understand how social connections and differences influenced the spread of pandemics through the centuries, and how individuals and societies responded to the threat they pose.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
‘De-extinction' criticism sparks smear campaign
University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence holds a moa bone extracted from a site in Central Otago. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY An Otago paleogenetics researcher who has been critical of Colossal Biosciences' plan to "de-extinct" the giant moa has been targeted by online "smear" articles aimed at discrediting him. University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence has publicly said there was no such thing as de-extinction, and the American company's plan was "a pipe dream that will likely never take flight". "Once something is extinct, it is gone." He said Colossal would be creating a genetically engineered emu or some other genetically engineered ratite that may look like a moa, but was unlikely to function or sound like a moa. Colossal also claimed to have iwi engagement in the project, but Prof Rawlence said based on his experience working with Ngāi Tahu, there was no appetite for de-extinction among many of the individual rūnanga. Now, supporters of Colossal have launched a "smear campaign" on him and other top scientists around the globe who have publicly criticised the de-extinction project. He said there had been three AI-generated articles published in media around the world attacking his professional credibility. One called him a "hypocrite" because he also uses fragmentary ancient DNA to reconstruct lost ecosystems — the same technique Colossal will use to bring back the giant moa. The article said he could not criticise Colossal without criticising his own work. "That's complete rubbish because we're very conscious of the limitations of the data that we use, and we don't over-extrapolate and over-extend our conclusions. "Colossal are selling that they're de-extincting things when they're not. I'm not selling my work as de-extinction." The second "hit piece" accused Prof Rawlence of being more concerned about being a media fixture than actually doing research. "It said I should go focus on improving my mediocre publication record. "My publication record — well that speaks for itself." The third one that came out earlier this week said he was "misappropriating and misrepresenting the Maori voice" around the extinction. "All the engagement work I have done around sequencing moa genomes or looking at New Zealand's taonga species with iwi, hapu, runanga and trusts around the country, means we know the feelings of mana whenua and they are against de-extinction." Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm has told media the company had no involvement in the AI-generated articles. However, Prof Rawlence said it was clear the company did not like the critical commentary. He published a comment piece on The Conversation website about de-extinction, topped with a "tongue-in-cheek headline" saying: "First the dire wolf, now NZ's giant moa: why real 'de-extinction' is unlikely to fly". On July 12, Mr Lamm posted on X about the article, saying: "There are sometimes crazy, weird conspiracy articles about @colossal which make us laugh — But the dumbest headline of all time goes to this article whose author doesn't even know moas couldn't fly. "If the moas [sic] fly, we really up. LOL. I wish people did more research. DUMB — LOLOLOLOLOL." Prof Rawlence said there was also a YouTube video from Colossal about de-extinction science that called its detractors "armchair critics". "Colossal may not be behind the AI-generated smear campaign, but they definitely are wanting to smear and take down critical commentary." Prof Rawlence said he was not concerned about the campaign to discredit his work. "It's water off a moa's back for me. "Under the Education Act, universities have a critic and conscience role enshrined in the legislation, so we can speak out within our area of expertise — which is exactly what we have done. "We provided critical scientific commentary that we did not support de-extinction and that there were serious scientific, ethical, ecological and indigenous engagement concerns. "If the supporters of Colossal had any substantial critique to counter our scientific commentary, they would have used it. "Instead, they're resorting to this — low blows and personal attacks. So to me, it just means our messages are actually hitting home." He believed Colossal's actions were very "Trump-ish". "If a CEO or a director of a museum or the boss of a university put this tweet out, he would be called up in front of his board, reprimanded, or even worse. "But this is Trump's America, and everything is upside down. "So I wouldn't call it very inspiring behaviour at all."
