A. avicularia vs A. metallica

[Phases]

Hey all.

I have one of each of these, well, or do I? That's the question. They were sold as such but really I can't tell a daggum difference barely between the two.

I will be able to post pictures when I get home of them like, side by side or similiar pictures - but in the meantime what are some of the differences I can look for if they otherwise appear mostly the same, color, pattern, etc.

Actually, here..

This one was sold as A. a: https://www.instagram.com/p/BbUsBruhNAq/?taken-by=project_tarantula

This one as A. m: https://www.instagram.com/p/BcAWqUcBPWU/?taken-by=project_tarantula

Hard to see diffs in those but, you get the gist. They are very similar.

Any insight appreciated!

 

[KezyGLA]

They are both Avicularia avicularia but metallica is a different morphotype I think.

@CEC is your man for the facts

 

[cold blood]

metallica, or avic avic morph 6, wont have red hairs on its rump....the normal avic avic does.

 

[Moonohol]

metallica, or avic avic morph 6, wont have red hairs on its rump....the normal avic avic does.

I thought A. geroldi was Morphotype 6?

 

[14pokies]

I thought A. geroldi was Morphotype 6?

I believe they are as well but a different morhpotype 6 from different species. Not sure the latest revision is too much to keep straight.

 

[14pokies]

Hey all.

I have one of each of these, well, or do I? That's the question. They were sold as such but really I can't tell a daggum difference barely between the two.

I will be able to post pictures when I get home of them like, side by side or similiar pictures - but in the meantime what are some of the differences I can look for if they otherwise appear mostly the same, color, pattern, etc.

Actually, here..

This one was sold as A. a: https://www.instagram.com/p/BbUsBruhNAq/?taken-by=project_tarantula

This one as A. m: https://www.instagram.com/p/BcAWqUcBPWU/?taken-by=project_tarantula

Hard to see diffs in those but, you get the gist. They are very similar.

Any insight appreciated!

Second one looks like the former metallica. That's not saying much though..

Hard to Id this species through pictures.

 

[Vanessa]

Avicularia avicularia - https://www.instagram.com/p/BbFK83shRIC/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan
Avicularia avicularia - https://www.instagram.com/p/BZyc_XkhcR0/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan

Avicularia metallica - https://www.instagram.com/p/BcBdLWjB98Z/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan
Avicularia metallica - https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb4fTYmBvlk/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan

All these individuals are almost the same size and are all adults or sub-adults.

Your first photo looks like an Avicularia avicularia and the second photo is not clear enough, nor provides enough detail, to make a guess either way.

 

[CEC]

Hey all.

I have one of each of these, well, or do I? That's the question. They were sold as such but really I can't tell a daggum difference barely between the two.

I will be able to post pictures when I get home of them like, side by side or similiar pictures - but in the meantime what are some of the differences I can look for if they otherwise appear mostly the same, color, pattern, etc.

Actually, here..

This one was sold as A. a: https://www.instagram.com/p/BbUsBruhNAq/?taken-by=project_tarantula

This one as A. m: https://www.instagram.com/p/BcAWqUcBPWU/?taken-by=project_tarantula

Hard to see diffs in those but, you get the gist. They are very similar.

Any insight appreciated!

IMO they're are both Avicularia avicularia morphotype #6, or former metallica, especially the first one pictured since it's a clear shot which would explain your confusion because the differences should be noticeable side by side.
As mentioned before pet trade "metallica" have thick whitish brown abdominal setae and grizzly white tipped leg setae which is clearly shown in the first pic. These also reach 6+" DLS.
Avicularia avicularia morphotype #1 (pet trade Avicularia avicularia) have thin red abdominal setae,(especially fresh from molt), less grizzled without white tipped setae. These get about 4-5" DLS.

 

[viper69]

DNA DNA DNA

 

[Phases]

To me they look the same. Same colors, just that one might have thicker hair. No red.. Also I have one down for 4.5" and one down for 5+". One has barricaded herself in her web, she may be getting ready to fast for a while, so soon as I can, I will, and will tag you (guys). Thank you,

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

DNA DNA DNA

Well, lets start by educating people on how to follow dichotomous keys and using morphology to get in the ball park. DNA (whether mitochondrial or nuclear) is a good tool for delimiting species, but useless for the vast majority of people who just want a species identification.

I hear there is a good revision of Avicularia that was published recently that provides a good diagnosis of Avicularia avicularia and its variations. Using it, one can easily determine whether their pet trade Avicularia metallica keys to a form of A. avicularia. Given there can't be an identification with any certainty based on a picture, the next step is to follow the key to Avicularia species.

 

[viper69]

Well, lets start by educating people on how to follow dichotomous keys and using morphology to get in the ball park. DNA (whether mitochondrial or nuclear) is a good tool for delimiting species, but useless for the vast majority of people who just want a species identification.

I hear there is a good revision of Avicularia that was published recently that provides a good diagnosis of Avicularia avicularia and its variations. Using it, one can easily determine whether their pet trade Avicularia metallica keys to a form of A. avicularia. Given there can't be an identification with any certainty based on a picture, the next step is to follow the key to Avicularia species.

As I've said before cladistics is simply not enough.

The revision is good, I waited years for it, a good beginning. However it would have been strengthened significantly by DNA. It would be nice to know what A metallica really is. Morphotype (insert #) is not sufficient.

 

[CEC]

As I've said before cladistics is simply not enough.

The revision is good, I waited years for it, a good beginning. However it would have been strengthened significantly by DNA. It would be nice to know what A metallica really is. Morphotype (insert #) is not sufficient.

Not sufficient for hobbyists, sure... but sufficient to scientists apparently.

 

[viper69]

Not sufficient for hobbyists, sure... but sufficient to scientists apparently.

This is not entirely true. Yes the paper was accepted without DNA data. However, there are arachnologists and other scientists that feel DNA is quite useful, hence the Hamilton/Bond paper on Apho. revision!

 

[Phases]

Welp, this has flown right over my head lol. It's almost like scientific names have become common names for the extra-enthused! I can see why proper differentiation would be important though.

That said, we might have two A. metallicas here. Again still waiting for one to emerge though before I can post proper pictures. Course the way things are molting left and right around my parts it shouldn't be too long heh. Unless of course she goes the route of our A. chalcodes - in which case she may be in pre-molt until the end of time.

 

[CEC]

Well, lets start by educating people on how to follow dichotomous keys and using morphology to get in the ball park. DNA (whether mitochondrial or nuclear) is a good tool for delimiting species, but useless for the vast majority of people who just want a species identification.

I hear there is a good revision of Avicularia that was published recently that provides a good diagnosis of Avicularia avicularia and its variations. Using it, one can easily determine whether their pet trade Avicularia metallica keys to a form of A. avicularia. Given there can't be an identification with any certainty based on a picture, the next step is to follow the key to Avicularia species.

Well said.

As I've said before cladistics is simply not enough.

The revision is good, I waited years for it, a good beginning. However it would have been strengthened significantly by DNA. It would be nice to know what A metallica really is. Morphotype (insert #) is not sufficient.

What you got against Morphotypes, Chris? Lol Just another label to me. Whether separated by morphotypes or a species label, what's the difference to us hobbyists?
DNA is useful to scientists but not really useful to hobbyists, it makes identification even more complicated. DNA is nice for a solid classification but it means squat to hobbyist trying to ID without locality data or close examination, example Aphonopelma revision...
Unfortunately, DNA won't be useful in determining if your "metallica" is actually a real Avicularia metallica either, since there is not a type specimen to compare.

 

[CEC]

This is not entirely true.

Sarcasm.

 

[viper69]

What you got against Morphotypes

Nothing per se.

Just another label to me

To you, not to me. Just label your Avics like this, Moe, Larry and Curly

Whether separated by morphotypes or a species label, what's the difference to us hobbyists?

It can be significant actually. It could mean the difference between producing pure breds, or producing FrankenTs. I'd like to know if hobbyists are putting identical species together, and not various morphotypes. As many have asked since the revision, "if it's the same species, can't I just breed them?"

DNA is useful to scientists but not really useful to hobbyists

See above answer.

it makes identification even more complicated

DNA doesn't necessarily do that. It provides another piece of data to add with cladistics to make a more powerful determination of a species.

There are many examples of DNA being used to identify 2 animals as different species, or subspecies.

since there is not a type specimen to compare

Unfortunately true

 

[viper69]

Sarcasm.

Is not always conveyed by the written word.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

DNA doesn't necessarily do that. It provides another piece of data to add with cladistics to make a more powerful determination of a species.

The authors of the Avicularia revision acknowledge that the morphotypes of Avicularia avicularia could be a matter of cryptic species and that additional lines of evidence, including molecular data, are needed to make a more accurate determination on that matter. No one is arguing against the use of DNA as a valuable piece of evidence to delimit species and to identify a tarantula to species level. As you know, it has been used multiple times in spider taxonomy to great success.

The argument here is the lack of usefulness in using a gene sequence to average Joes like myself. Instead of arguing the point, I would like to hear from you how that would be possible. Hypothetically, lets say in some miraculous set of circumstances Avicularia metallica was no longer considered nomen dubium, was considered a valid species, and found to be morphologically indistinguishable from A. avicularia, but could be distinguished by a sequence of the CO1 gene which is published in GenBank. How would I, an every day tarantula collector, use that information to determine that the Avicularia metallica I bought was really that species?