Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN THIS SERIES, TheJournal.ie takes a look at an urban myth, old wives’ tale, or something that your mammy told you years ago to see if there’s any truth in it.
The spread of a poisonous spider across the British Isles has grabbed the interest of many in recent weeks.
The False Widow has been found in many locations across England, and has recently popped up more often in Ireland. Its bite has effects similar to that of a wasp sting.
However, are we already living in peace with the deadliest spider in the world, the Daddy Longlegs? And are we in fact surrounded by all sorts of venomous spiders without realising it?
Evolutionary quirk
An old wives tales has led many to believe that the Daddy Longlegs is the most, or one of the most, venomous spiders in the world, but due to an evolutionary quirk they don’t have the fangs necessary to bite.
A variation on this says that they have the fangs, but they’re just not quite strong enough to pierce human skin.
Firstly, it’s important to note what we’re talking about here, as a few creepy-crawlies are called Daddy Longlegs. The one in question is generally not a Crane Fly or Harvestman spider, but a cellar spider (Pholcus phalangioides), pictured below.
(Image Credit: Stefan F. Wirth/YouTube)
The Crane Fly can be instantly dismissed from this as the adult of species does not eat; they exist only to mate. The Harvestman is not technically a spider and doesn’t have fangs, although they do have the ability to produce a very weak “defensive secretion”.
But the cellar spider? Arachnid expert Myles Nolan said the idea that they are the most venomous spider in the world is a complete myth — although they do have fangs and venom glands.
“A spider without fangs would actually not be a spider,” Myles told TheJournal.ie, “their jaw structure, which includes the fang, is one of the primary characteristics that defines a spider.”
Little poison
What little poison they do have is probably only enough to cause an itching sensation, although they are more interested in woodlice than humans. While their jaw and fangs are quite small, Myles said they still need to be “needle sharp to guarantee them their dinner”.
He also noted that very potent venom is often the subject of intensive scientific studies, something which Daddy Longlegs have not.
Not only does the cellar spider have venom and fangs, but Myles says that most in Ireland are the same:
“All but one species of spider in Ireland have venom.”
“None of them have an actual interest in biting humans; the few bites that do occur are usually the result of a human accidentally putting the spider under stress, for example by lying on it unwittingly, and the spider bites in self defense”.
He said that the ones with the worst bites, such as false widows and the woodlouse spider, live in built-up areas, so “when the occasional bite is recorded, it tends to be given disproportionate attention”
Myles puts the spread of this myth down to how common the spider is. Most people will recognise it, and so assume they “know” about it, despite their only piece of knowledge being a myth.
Is there a myth you’d like debunked? Email nicky@thejournal.ie
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“This is why Snapchat fully deserves a €16 billion valuation” And yet the article doesn’t explain why Snapchat deserves a €16 billion valuation. Sure, I understand its potential revenue raising abilities. I understand its appeal to advertisers. I understand that it hosts a lot of personal information which would be invaluable to potential investors and advertisers. But why, exactly, is it €16 billion? Why not €15 billion? Or €1000 trillion? How did they arrive at a figure of €16 billion?
I think the headline means, “Snapchat has recently been valued at $16bn. Here’s why it’s so popular/unique”.
Yeah, but we know why it’s so popular and unique. We see articles about it every second day. If, at this stage, you don’t know about Snapchat’s popularity and uniqueness then the likelihood is you just don’t care, in which case you wouldn’t be reading this anyway. We have still to see how exactly the 16 billion figure was calculated, which I what the headline alludes to.
What I was saying above is that Snapchat has three major features that could be massive money spinners for them, and how it’s effectively become a multimedia platform as well, they’re the most quantifiable ones unless you’re privy to their future plans then fire away.
As for how a company is valued, that takes into a number of factors into consideration which would include money raised (so far, it’s raised $648m in 6 different funding rounds), current popularity, the potential for growth in both revenue and users, (which links to the last one but anyway), the value of the industry (instant messaging would be the obvious one, but it’s now become a media entity and has video on its side so that’s two, three if you include Snapchat Stories and its potential for widespread event), assets (both digital and physical), is it public or private, and so on.
Determining the exact reasons why it settled on $19/€16 billion to the point of a formula isn’t possible since you don’t know what factors they’re prioritising ahead of others. Also, when you’re dealing with a private company as unlike Facebook, Apple, Twitter or any other public company, they’ve no obligation to share details about their plans or forecasts to anyone.
In Snapchat’s case, it’s potential in three areas as I mentioned above: events, multimedia (it trying to become a Netflix-style entity for articles, music and TV), and payments/ecommerce as they’re the ones that have a massive influence on this valuation. Also the core psychological element of Snapchat of limitation (which is oddly overlooked and was the main reason I wrote this in the first place) is such a massive factor and that seeps into all of its features. If Snapchat was just about self-destructing photos/videos on its own, then it would have been overshadowed by Facebook Poke back in 2012 or accepted Facebook’s $3 offer back in 2013.
The discussions I’ve seen on the subject (on Twitter and other sites) only mention Discover as if that was the sole reasons behind such a high valuation. The main point above is that it’s rarely one factor that leads to that, (especially when it’s well-known), and it’s weird how other features are forgotten about just because they’re not as new or shiny as the latest thing (or the tired ‘sexting’ angle that’s peddled out regularly).
Give it 3 yrs and youll see all such companies worth a fraction of todays value, times they are a changin
I get all that. The fact still remains that the headline suggests that the accompanying article will explain exactly how the figure of 16 billion was reached. I was curious to know how they got that figure. And yet, I’m still none the wiser. Should it have a large valuation? Obviously the answer is yes, and you have explained that both in the article and your comment. But we’re still no closer to understanding the 16 billion valuation. Sorry, but I’m a stickler for this kind of thing. If you know how, then say it and let the headline reflect it. If you don’t, then don’t mislead the reader into thinking you do, only to leave the reader empty handed.
If everyone on snap chat had a super sweet party = 16 x the amount of willie photos ever sent = 16billion
On Sesame Street their number of the day is 16 x 1billion. Tomorrow it will be $43 Billion
I’d say the long term bet is when an analyst bets a pension fund on this.
I’d be nervous.
It could only ever be a trade sale to Google or the like …. Its a very limited product. If a pension fund manager bought snapchat, they should be sacked.
Nothing on this Earth deserves to be valued at €16 billion
So what’s your idea of a max cap value so Andy?
You haven’t seen my willy.
If I owned it I would sell now
Fapchat
It deserves about a 16 CENT valuation. It’s ridiculous, and hopefully a fad that will die quickly. If the world is lucky, some evil company will pay 16B, then go out of business when people realise how stupid Snapchat is.
Never seen such anger directed at a mobile phone application before! Got dumped via Snapchat did you? :-)
have your say