@viper69 I agree it's subject to change in the future but so are all the orher Theraphosidae that weren't described by using DNA, therefore, majority of described genera/species labels are "place holders".
But one thing about the revision lumping these separate "species" into morphotypes of one species, it for surely makes photo IDing at a species level much easier.
@CEC I understand what you are saying, but I think that's an over simplification. There's value in cladistics, and DNA. Together classification is even stronger, as you know. However, cladistics is strong enough in many cases to be fine for IDing a T. So suggesting most T classification is merely a place holder is not accurate, and dilutes the value of cladistics.
@viper69 You're right, it's an over simplification... I'm merely applying your logic across the board in a ruse to understand why you consider these "place holders" and not the many other species.
What makes you question the sufficiency of the cladistics of this genus compared to others? What legitimizes cladistics (without DNA) as being good enough for proper classification?
Future DNA examination may have the same conclusion as this revision's cladistics (as DNA has shown before that some species have many variations). Therefore, debunking the "place holding" notion.
We really don't know until further published findings if any are actual "place holders" since it's only based on amateur speculation.
I'm not saying you're wrong about Avicularia avicularia morphotypes being "place holders" but I won't say you're right either.
I could be wrong of course, but I think many of these morphotypes are distinct species or subspecies. That's why I want the DNA. I find their different phenotypes enough evidence for ME to warrant further investigation, so I beat the DNA drum, that's all.
For example, I'd love to know if A sp metallica and A sp Kwitara River are indeed the same species but simply different localities.
When you think about it though, what level of genetic difference is sufficient to warrant a different species/subspecies? If those 2 Avics are identical in every way except in phenotype (color and size), would that warrant a subspecies? I'm not a taxonomist, so I don't know.
Boa constrictors are a good example where subtle differences are used to differentiate different animals. One of the features used is the number of scales, that's pretty cool to me. In reptiles, there are cases where DNA has been used to to split 2 snakes apart into subspecies, morphology wasn't sufficient. I think that's quite cool. I didn't read the primary lit. mind you.
Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
