In addition to being a biological enigma, Arachnea parapluviosis is also an epistemological problem. This is illustrated by the way the umbrella spider has been dismissed as a hoax by Wikipedia. Both the Dutch and English versions of a Wikipedia page explaining the umbrella spider were swiftly removed by vigilante watchdogs of scientific correctness.
By labeling Arachnea parapluviosis as a hoax, Wikipedia condemns it to scientific non-existence. Given that this obscure phylum is only known to a select few insiders, this might not seem problematic. But imagine if knowledge of Arachnea parapluviosis were to miraculously gain traction and suddenly come under scientific and popular scrutiny. Suppose one of the previously rigid watchdogs felt compelled to create a new wiki page for the umbrella spider—then, from the digital fog of the recent past, the accusation of “hoax” would resurface, and apologies would undoubtedly be in order. Otherwise, Wikipedia risks being accused of following only what is accepted by the majority or what has garnered sufficient popularity—neither of which are hallmarks of refined scientific methodology, especially when compared to the hours, days, and even weeks, months and years of research that have already gone into Arachnea parapluviosis.
It’s not just the watchdogs of scientific correctness (the “scico” with its English abbreviation) who struggle with Arachnea parapluviosis. In their crusade against the umbrella spider, they find an unexpected and unlikely ally in psychoanalytici, a group they would normally be quick to accuse of pseudo-science. They also have objections to the umbrella spider, but for entirely different reasons. The umbrella spider disrupts all conventional psychoanalytic -western- symbolism associated with spiders. Traditionally, the spider is a quintessentially female symbol, and its masculinization could undermine the foundations of psychoanalytic theory and even lead to schisms.
Even now, there is significant division over the symbolism of the umbrella spider tree. For some psychoanalysts, it is a source of great contention because they interpret it as representing a penis clavatus, or pinned penis—a notion that could destabilize the symbolic framework of the psychoanalytic world.
