Freshly molted L cristatus

One of the many new molts this past week.
Hope you like.

Atrax

I made her a little grouchy in this one.

Good looking tarantula. I'll put it on my list of must haves

woo hoo! lookin' good!

Cute! and beautiful

Looks like a threat posture!

lol

Thanks guys!

Yeah, she's definitely signaling for me to piss off in that second pic.


Atrax

Atrax, wow what a gorgeous beast !

This is one T that's been on my list for the past month. I must have one!

Leanne

great looking spider!

BTW, who has IDed the one on your photo as a member of the genus Lasiodora?

all the best,
Martin

Atrax, What a gorgeous spider. The L.Cristatus is my favorite. I have a sling, and I can't wait till she gets bigger. Pam

Originally posted by Martin H.
great looking spider!

BTW, who has IDed the one on your photo as a member of the genus Lasiodora?

all the best,
Martin

Click to expand...

Hmm? Does it not look like Lasiodora Cristata?

Originally posted by Martin H.
great looking spider!

BTW, who has IDed the one on your photo as a member of the genus Lasiodora?

Click to expand...

Hi Martin,
Has there been more work on this species since Bertani transfered it from Vitalius in 2001? Or do you think this spider isn't L. cristata?

Cheers,
Steve

Originally posted by Martin H.
BTW, who has IDed the one on your photo as a member of the genus Lasiodora?

Click to expand...

what's up, martin--
first, love your mohawk! very cool.
second, l. cristatus (or l. cristata) was first named Vitalius cristatus until some taxidermist(s) changed it to lasidora. when? i don't know. why? i haven't a clue--maybe they thought the hobby wasn't confusing enough. but i promise atrax didn't make it up! : )

Hello,

I have not much time at the moment to explain it in details why I asked this quesion. The short version: The "Vitalius cristatus" in the pet trade is NOT the same species Bertani transfered in the genus Lasiodora.

Here are some elder mails from Lelle, me and Rogerio Bertani from the arachnid_world mailing list about this topic – hope it's ok to copy and paste them here.


#########################################

At 23:27 16.10.02 +0000, you wrote:

Hi all,

> > Im a bit confused. Some info says L. cristatus (Platnicks page) and some
> > L.cristata.
> > So whats the correct name for now?
> >
> > a slightly confused
> > Lelle
>
>My bad. I had a older version of Platnicks downloaded on the hard drive. I
>see
>the name is changed. L. cristata it is

Are you talking about the species described by Mello-Leitão in 1923 or about the one in the pet trade?

What about the pet trade "Vitalius cristatus/Lasiodora cristata"?
Baumgarten described a male as "Vitalius cristatus" in 1998 which is very likely the same as the "Vitalius cristatus" in the pet trade (because he introduced a species under this name in the pet trade). Bertani (2001) is of the opinion, that the male described by Baumbarten (1998) is not the same species of which Mello-Leitão described a female in 1923 as
Acanthoscurria cristata (transfered to Pamphobeteus cristatus by Schiapelli & Gerschman in 1964; transfered to Vitalius cristatus by Schmidt in 1998) and which was now transfered from the genus Vitalius to the genus Lasiodora by Bertani in 2001.

see the World Spider Catalog:
Vitalius cristatus Baumgarten, 1998: 1, f. 1-3 (Dm, misidentified per Bertani, 2001: 285).
Vitalius cristatus Peters, 2000b: 131, f. 383-385 (f, presumably misidentified m).
L. c. Bertani, 2001: 285 (Tf from Vitalius).


Does anybody in the meanwhile know, what species or even the genus the pet
trade "Vitalius cristatus/Lasiodora cristata" is?

all the best,
Martin

www.spiderpix.com

#########################################

#########################################

At 13:38 17.10.02 +0000, you wrote:


Hi Lelle,

>Well as long as I dont see another name for the pet trade cristata I just c=
>all it L. cristata.
>It never end does it?... ;-)

but Lasiodora cristata = Vitalius cristatus in the sence of Mello-Leitão 1923 is a different species!
=> I still call them "Vitalius cristatus" or "Vitalius" cristatus, but written in quotation marks because then everybody would know which species I am refering to and that it is not the real Lasiodora cristata (Mello-Leitão 1923) which would be a wrong label for them.
...imagine which confusion will be, when you call it Lasiodora cristata and sometimes in the future, the real Lasiodora cristata will be available!

BTW, a friend of mine, who is working with the genus Pamphobeteus told me, that he thinks the "Vitalius cristatus" in the pet trade is a member of the genus Vitalius.

all the best,
Martin

#########################################

#########################################

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:13:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [arachnid_world] Re: so.. cristatus or cristata?
Reply-To: arachnid_world@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <E182xAo-0007wr-00@mxng15.kundenserver.de>

Hi Lelle and Martin

Actually, the type of "Acanhoscurria cristata Mello-Leitão, 1923", which I have examined, has stridulating setae on the prolateral coxa of leg I and doesn't have the stridulating setae on the retrolateral face of the palpal trochanter. Along with the morphology of the spermathecae, it can be clearly included in the genus Lasiodora where it is now as Lasiodora cristata (Mello-Leitão, 1923). Whether it will be a valid species or not, it depends on the analysis of all available types of Lasiodora. I am presently reviewing this genus and examined all the available types. However, two are indispensable for the revision, L. klugi and L. striatipes, but, unfortunatly, I didn`t get the loan of these types from the BMNH.

Baumgarten, 1998 described the male of "Vitalius cristatus" on the assumption that it was the male of the species previously described by Mello-Leitão in 1923 which is discussed above. How did he reaches that conclusion is a mistery for me. Mello-Leiao's descrition is too poor and Schiapelli & Gerschman de Pikelin's paper transferring the species to the genus Pamphobeteus based the transferrence on the presence of stridulating setae on the trochanter of palps and spermathecae morphology (which have a similar morphology with species of Lasiodora).
It looks to me that he needed a name to give to the spider he began to sell in Europe. Systematics seemed no to be a real question for him.

However, the question involving the position of this species is not so easy. It shares characters with Vitalius, Lasiodora and Nhandu. Only a analysis including all species of these genera will demonstrate where it should be included. Together with the revision of Lasiodora, I am working on this question. I hope shortly to give an answer.

All the best

Rogerio

#########################################



hope these mails explains, why I asked this question! =;-)

all the best,
Martin

Originally posted by Martin H.
hope these mails explains, why I asked this question! =;-)

Click to expand...

Thanks Martin, it certainly does explain. This would also explain why Rick West has this spider labelled tentatively as 'Lasiodora' cristata on his site. Has Rogerio come to any conclusions yet? Did he give you any ideas as to where it may go?

Another quesion for you while I think of it. Has anyone been able to confirm what the Xenesthis 'black' species of Baumgarten's is? (re: your photographs on arachnid_pix). I know Todd Gearhardt believes it's X. monstrosa (which to me is ridiculous given he's only seen the photos and not the specimen itself). Has this been confirmed by anyone? Either way it's a beautiful specimen.

Thanks,
Steve

Lovely Lovely. On my list of must have's too.
But then,,,, they all are....
Erk.... arachnoadict....

See what my twins did to me????

Originally posted by Atrax
One of the many new molts this past week.
Hope you like.

Atrax

Click to expand...

That is beautiful Gary!
MORE PICS!!


James

Wow the pics came out great Gary...one good looking little beasty.

John
];')

Hello Steve,

Originally posted by Steve Nunn

Thanks Martin, it certainly does explain. This would also explain why Rick West has this spider labelled tentatively as 'Lasiodora' cristata on his site. Has Rogerio come to any conclusions yet? Did he give you any ideas as to where it may go?

Click to expand...

nope, haven't heard anything new about it. I can't tell your more as in the mail above.

Another quesion for you while I think of it. Has anyone been able to confirm what the Xenesthis 'black' species of Baumgarten's is?

Click to expand...

It's the specimen of Klaus Baumgärtner not Marc Baumgarten – two different people!

(re: your photographs on arachnid_pix). I know Todd Gearhardt believes it's X. monstrosa (which to me is ridiculous given he's only seen the photos and not the specimen itself). Has this been confirmed by anyone? Either way it's a beautiful specimen.

Click to expand...

nope, not yet. One problem is nobody knows where it comes from. It was bought from another hobbyist as "Xenesthis immanis". Maybe it's only a very old X. immanis which lost its colour. Who knows...

all the best,
Martin

Originally posted by Martin H.
Hello Steve,

nope, haven't heard anything new about it. I can't tell your more as in the mail above.

Click to expand...

Thanks Martin, should be interesting to see where it goes.

nope, not yet. One problem is nobody knows where it comes from. It was bought from another hobbyist as "Xenesthis immanis".

Click to expand...

I see. Either way it's a beautiful specimen as all Xenesthis spp. are. And thankyou for the picture of this awesome spider!

Cheers,
Steve