Mexico Brachypelma distribution map

I redrew the attached map from the cited publication. Thought it might be of interest to any of the Brachy aficionados out there.

Even though you already sent it to me, Kirk, I have to say again, kudos to you for the effort and for sharing! :worship:

Very cool! Thanks for this!

Though the data is still unpublished, you will hopefully see some significant changes to that map at some point. A lot of field work has been done since then, both by foreign and Mexican researchers.

Not that this isn't helpful! I just want to make sure that readers here don't interpret the finite lines on that map as true species boundaries.

Ok, carry on Brachy lovers!

Eric

GoTerps said:

Though the data is still unpublished, you will hopefully see some significant changes to that map at some point. A lot of field work has been done since then, both by foreign and Mexican researchers.

Not that this isn't helpful! I just want to make sure that readers here don't interpret the finite lines on that map as true species boundaries.

Ok, carry on Brachy lovers!

Eric

Click to expand...

It goes without saying that distribution maps are almost always works in progress. I look forward to seeing future changes. Arachnology ain't my gig - I'm a marine invert systematist. So I'm limited to taking what I can find, and always happy to emend it.

Nicely done!

Dude that's such a valuable contribution! People are always asking about this distribution. If the map can be freely distributed, why not contribute it to wikipedia and it can be incorporated into

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachypelma

Awsome map! Very helpful.

So B. smithi appears to be split into 2 major populations? And the species do not overlap much if at all?

It'd be interesting to see what abiotic factors accounted for the current distribution...seems like Guerrero and Michoacan have the majority of the species.

Really cool thanks for sharing that with us...........:clap:

Very cool. Thanks for going to the trouble to share it with us.

Actually, what's the deal? Is there no overlap between any of the species?

gvfarns said:

Actually, what's the deal? Is there no overlap between any of the species?

Click to expand...

Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't compose the map; I only reproduced it. I can send you the original paper if you wish.

chone1 said:

Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't compose the map; I only reproduced it. I can send you the original paper if you wish.

Click to expand...

Gotcha. Didn't mean to be too critical. Just wondering. Great contribution, btw.

A very nice diagram, and i agree it would be a useful addition for the Wiki page on the genus. I don't know if you need permission for the original author (or from journal of arachnology) to reproduce this on the wiki page. If you do need these permissions, and do want to put the graphic on the webpage, just let me know and i will help.

But, there is another developing website for this kind of species information, which has authoritative review - hence information stands a good chance of being more factually accurate than the general wiki page.
See: Encyclopaedia of life: http://www.eol.org/

I just ask you to consider altering the distribution of the northern B.smithi population, to extend it frther north - as in the original Locht paper.
I also ask you to change the name B.pallidum to the current B.verdezi

How about putting a mark on the diagram for the original type sites (though few are public knowledge), or at least marking on the described type sites of more recent species, B.schroederi and B.kahlenbergi.

And yes, specifics of distributions will change slightly in the near future. For example, Locht has made an updated map in his 2007 thesis on Mexican tarantulas. I imagine this will become public knowledge in due course.

And yes, some species have areas of sympatry (ie their ranges overlap), but there are only a couple of cases where that seems to be the case. The map is largely correct, and remains suitable for useful information.

Best wishes to all
stuart

sjl197 said:

A very nice diagram, and i agree it would be a useful addition for the Wiki page on the genus. I don't know if you need permission for the original author (or from journal of arachnology) to reproduce this on the wiki page. If you do need these permissions, and do want to put the graphic on the webpage, just let me know and i will help.

Click to expand...

Thanks. There are no copyright issues, since I redrew the diagram rather than reproducing the original. I'm fine if someone on AB wants to post the file elsewhere. There's no intellectual property involved here.

sjl197 said:

But, there is another developing website for this kind of species information, which has authoritative review - hence information stands a good chance of being more factually accurate than the general wiki page.
See: Encyclopaedia of life: http://www.eol.org/

Click to expand...

Yes, I know of EOL. I work in a natural history museum. But again, entomological things are not my specialty. I'll leave EOL postings to those with relevant expertise.

sjl197 said:

I just ask you to consider altering the distribution of the northern B.smithi population, to extend it frther north - as in the original Locht paper.
I also ask you to change the name B.pallidum to the current B.verdezi

Click to expand...

I'll take a look at the distribution again. I was trying to draw boundaries as close as possible relative to the borders of states. B. pallidum isn't indicated as a junior synonym of B. verdezi in Platnick's Catalog. Is this a recent change?

sjl197 said:

How about putting a mark on the diagram for the original type sites (though few are public knowledge), or at least marking on the described type sites of more recent species, B.schroederi and B.kahlenbergi.

Click to expand...

I hope one of the Brachypelma systematists will post a more inclusive map some day.

Thankyou for allowing the community to use your diagram. I fixed up the wiki page for B.smithi recently, and have corrected the existing taxonomy information on the main genus page. A distribution map there would be informative. I would also like to use this map for future presentations, with your permission - its prettier than an equivalent one i made!!

I asked about EOL as i am a moderator there, but i rarely made annotations there yet - i just see the value of your diagram to that webpage also.

Now, RE: "I was trying to draw boundaries as close as possible relative to the borders of states".. I think you mean you were using the state boundaries as guides where to draw species boundaries? (i hope not try and draw species boundaries onto state boundaries - as species don't reognise state boundaries!). My point is that the original Locht paper shows that B.smithi extends its range into Colima state, which current information also agrees with . (for example a recent DVD by andrew smith)


Then RE: "B. pallidum isn't indicated as a junior synonym of B. verdezi in Platnick's Catalog. Is this a recent change?"
Its not in Platnick's catalog as its not an official taxonomy change, but the change did happen. Trust me on this information, that is B.verdezi now. Roughly, the problem is that this species 'B.pallidum' was sold in the european pettrade AS Brachypelma pallidum during the late 1990s/early 2000. This was before Schmidt 2003 described it as B. verdezi. It never officially had the name B.pallidum (that name was just incorrectly given by people who never did any real taxonomy, it was just like a pettrade name - so no need to officially change it - therefore no reference by Dr platnick).

On the map the 'B.palldum' corresponds to the real distribution of B.verdezi. 100% fact., and this species used to be sold in the trade as 'B.palldum' . The species Brachypelma pallidum never formally existed.
(Fyi, If you are re-checking platnick, you will see that pallidum is a valid species of Aphonopelma, and a junior synonym of Brachypelma albiceps, those are valid changes at the moment, and justifiably listed in Platnick. )

RE: "I hope one of the Brachypelma systematists will post a more inclusive map some day." I would love to know how to publish such a map and mark on the areas of sympatry so they are legible. The fear about producing such a map is that then it leaves the species open for renewed exploitation for the petrade - i hope people here can understand WHY such knowledge is not widely available. Locht may have put some of these species at risk again by publishing this data back in 1999, but thankfully exploitation remains minimal, mostly thanks to captive breeding in Europe/USA.

please change Brachypelma klassi in Brachypelma klaasi

Hahahaa!

Well spotted Eddy, i missed that one. !!

You remember that i only learn't to spell that species name a few years back after that talk infront of (you and) peter klaas in germany.... humiliating!

Correct, I was drawing distributions using state boundaries as guides. I've changed the northern B. smithi so it extends into Colima. I've replaced pallidum with verdezi, and I corrected my misspelling of klaasi.

While distribution data might not be widely available, type localities are public record. At least for Brachypelma, I'd hope that with the availability of captive bred specimens, distribution patterns can be made available for those who have an appreciation for such data. It might even help to emphasize why field collecting in this genus for hobby purposes is detrimental.

Anyone should feel free to PM me their email address and I'll send you the jpg.

Thanks to for the corrections.

sjl197 said:

Now, RE: "I was trying to draw boundaries as close as possible relative to the borders of states".. I think you mean you were using the state boundaries as guides where to draw species boundaries? (i hope not try and draw species boundaries onto state boundaries - as species don't reognise state boundaries!). My point is that the original Locht paper shows that B.smithi extends its range into Colima state, which current information also agrees with . (for example a recent DVD by andrew smith)

Then RE: "B. pallidum isn't indicated as a junior synonym of B. verdezi in Platnick's Catalog. Is this a recent change?"
Its not in Platnick's catalog as its not an official taxonomy change, but the change did happen. Trust me on this information, that is B.verdezi now. Roughly, the problem is that this species 'B.pallidum' was sold in the european pettrade AS Brachypelma pallidum during the late 1990s/early 2000. This was before Schmidt 2003 described it as B. verdezi. It never officially had the name B.pallidum (that name was just incorrectly given by people who never did any real taxonomy, it was just like a pettrade name - so no need to officially change it - therefore no reference by Dr platnick).

On the map the 'B.palldum' corresponds to the real distribution of B.verdezi. 100% fact., and this species used to be sold in the trade as 'B.palldum' . The species Brachypelma pallidum never formally existed.
(Fyi, If you are re-checking platnick, you will see that pallidum is a valid species of Aphonopelma, and a junior synonym of Brachypelma albiceps, those are valid changes at the moment, and justifiably listed in Platnick. )

RE: "I hope one of the Brachypelma systematists will post a more inclusive map some day." I would love to know how to publish such a map and mark on the areas of sympatry so they are legible. The fear about producing such a map is that then it leaves the species open for renewed exploitation for the petrade - i hope people here can understand WHY such knowledge is not widely available. Locht may have put some of these species at risk again by publishing this data back in 1999, but thankfully exploitation remains minimal, mostly thanks to captive breeding in Europe/USA.

Click to expand...