id please
- Thread starter leiurus
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Messages
- 104
Hello,
it´s a brown spider from Peru with a legspread (?) of 18cm.
You can´t identify a tarantula from a picture!
it´s a brown spider from Peru with a legspread (?) of 18cm.
You can´t identify a tarantula from a picture!
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 811
yeah, why not?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- Messages
- 2,316
yeah....um....why not?
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2003
- Messages
- 404
Sure you can, just not from THIS picture since all it establishes is that there are 8 legsKris said:
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Messages
- 864
Hi,
I love this topic! =;-p
In general overall colouration has no importance in taxonomy even some species are described only by colour differences, but in most cases this has been done by "layman taxonomists". Colour is a poor indicator of anything 'cause it is a very variable issue – especially on a computer screen as well as in print as there are so many factors that influence the colours on a pix: the condition of the spider (premolt or postmolt or subadult male or juvenile or adult or etc etc (see e.g. the thread "What difference a moult makes" >>click here<<), the conditions under which one keeps them (cold/hot, humid/dry), the ligth intensity while shooting, the colour temperature of the light or the flash, the sensibility of the film, the quality of the image enhancement (dependent on both program and user), the quality and degree of the compression of pictures to web use, and lastly the settings and quality of your own monitor and graphic card. Plus a lot more I probably have forgotten rigth now...
And in most cases on the photo you can't see the taxonomic relevant characters like placement and arrangement of the stridulating organ, shape and structure of spermathecae and palpal bulb, spination, leg length relations, scopulation, type of urticating hairs and in lesser degree clypeus and ocular arrangement. All these characters and some others more specific to some specimens has to bee seen in relation to each other and have to be compared with the type material and a good array of congeners if not all congeners to be of any real value.
This is why a certain positive ID in most cases cannot be made from a picture alone. One can rule out some genera or even species (e.g. patch of urticating hairs => can't be an old world species and some new world genera which lack urticating hairs) but not make a valid ID.
I know, it is hard to believe/swallow respectively something the average hobbyist does not like to hear, especially when he is used to see a lot of "please ID" threads and a lot more people who post their "IDs" (maybe one better should call it guesses or lottery) on those threads. Years ago when someone gave me a photo and asked me what species it is, I said it is species XY. But in the last years I have red and discussed a lot about theraphosid taxonomy and I think I have learned some basics (see e.g. above) + at "Taxonomy Teaching Days" (see >>click here<<) I have seen too many species which have been sold as species "XY" change their name to species "ZW" (e.g. a spider which has been sold as Brachypelma has been exposed to be an Aphonopelma species, another one which has been sold as T. blondi and which looked on the first glance like a T. blondi has beend IDed as Pamphobeteus sp., etc.) => all this made me to change my view on photo IDs (see above).
just my two cents!
Martin
I love this topic! =;-p
In general overall colouration has no importance in taxonomy even some species are described only by colour differences, but in most cases this has been done by "layman taxonomists". Colour is a poor indicator of anything 'cause it is a very variable issue – especially on a computer screen as well as in print as there are so many factors that influence the colours on a pix: the condition of the spider (premolt or postmolt or subadult male or juvenile or adult or etc etc (see e.g. the thread "What difference a moult makes" >>click here<<), the conditions under which one keeps them (cold/hot, humid/dry), the ligth intensity while shooting, the colour temperature of the light or the flash, the sensibility of the film, the quality of the image enhancement (dependent on both program and user), the quality and degree of the compression of pictures to web use, and lastly the settings and quality of your own monitor and graphic card. Plus a lot more I probably have forgotten rigth now...
And in most cases on the photo you can't see the taxonomic relevant characters like placement and arrangement of the stridulating organ, shape and structure of spermathecae and palpal bulb, spination, leg length relations, scopulation, type of urticating hairs and in lesser degree clypeus and ocular arrangement. All these characters and some others more specific to some specimens has to bee seen in relation to each other and have to be compared with the type material and a good array of congeners if not all congeners to be of any real value.
This is why a certain positive ID in most cases cannot be made from a picture alone. One can rule out some genera or even species (e.g. patch of urticating hairs => can't be an old world species and some new world genera which lack urticating hairs) but not make a valid ID.
I know, it is hard to believe/swallow respectively something the average hobbyist does not like to hear, especially when he is used to see a lot of "please ID" threads and a lot more people who post their "IDs" (maybe one better should call it guesses or lottery) on those threads. Years ago when someone gave me a photo and asked me what species it is, I said it is species XY. But in the last years I have red and discussed a lot about theraphosid taxonomy and I think I have learned some basics (see e.g. above) + at "Taxonomy Teaching Days" (see >>click here<<) I have seen too many species which have been sold as species "XY" change their name to species "ZW" (e.g. a spider which has been sold as Brachypelma has been exposed to be an Aphonopelma species, another one which has been sold as T. blondi and which looked on the first glance like a T. blondi has beend IDed as Pamphobeteus sp., etc.) => all this made me to change my view on photo IDs (see above).
just my two cents!
Martin
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Messages
- 864
Hi,
all the best,
Martin
I think you are a perfect candidate to participate on this thread: >>click here<< =;-)jesses said:
all the best,
Martin