Ami sp. "Panama".... Ami bladesi?

[Anoplogaster]

Anyone have any good literature about these guys? A sling was sold to me under the name Theraphosidae sp. "Panama." Of course, you can't use a family in place of a genus, which prompted me to do a bit of digging. Found an AB thread on the genus Ami, which looks promising. Did a quick scholar search and found this article:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...alomorphae/links/00b7d51703498dcc78000000.pdf

So the only one they mention in this paper that comes from Panama is Ami bladesi. The key differences seem a little difficult for the standard hobbyist to readily identify without a pickled specimen under a scope. This might easily be another case of a species that is already known to science, but not well-known to the hobby. But hey, if there is a good way to obtain a positive ID for them, maybe we can call them something other than "sp. 'Panama'"

 

[KezyGLA]

They probably meant Theraphosinae sp. panama

 

[Anoplogaster]

They probably meant Theraphosinae sp. panama

I've seen it erroneously written both ways. Theraphosinae is simply a subfamily within the family Theraphosidae. It still isn't a genus

 

[KezyGLA]

Yeah but Ami sp. panama and Theraphosinae sp. panama are different species. The seller likely just made an error when labelling and labelled it Theraphosidae instead of Theraphosinae. Though slings of these sp. are easily ID. You got one?

 

[Anoplogaster]

Yeah but Ami sp. panama and Theraphosinae sp. panama are different species. The seller likely just made an error when labelling and labelled it Theraphosidae instead of Theraphosinae. Though slings of these sp. are easily ID. You got one?

Dang.... guess I'm no closer to a good ID then.... lol

Yeah, I picked one up at the Reptile Super Show over the weekend. Little 0.5" sling.

 

[KezyGLA]

That is Theraphosinae sp. panama

 

[Anoplogaster]

That is Theraphosinae sp. panama

But all that really tells me is it's "a tarantula from Panama." What characteristics make them distinct from members of the Ami genus? The only good characteristics that make Ami spp. distinct are modified Type I urticating setae and uniquely-shaped spermathecae. Definitely can't see those from this photo

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

But all that really tells me is it's "a tarantula from Panama." What characteristics make them distinct from members of the Ami genus? The only good characteristics that make Ami spp. distinct are modified Type I urticating setae and uniquely-shaped spermathecae. Definitely can't see those from this photo

Looks like you will have to wait until your little spider grows up so you can answer those questions yourself! Since the female of Ami bladesi is unknown, perhaps that is a good excuse to buy more of those Ami sp. Panama and hope you get a males and females and use a male to key the species. At least the genus and species diagnoses in the paper you linked to is good enough to determine what species it isn't.

 

[Anoplogaster]

Looks like you will have to wait until your little spider grows up so you can answer those questions yourself! Since the female of Ami bladesi is unknown, perhaps that is a good excuse to buy more of those Ami sp. Panama and hope you get a males and females and use a male to key the species. At least the genus and species diagnoses in the paper you linked to is good enough to determine what species it isn't.

I will definitely be trying, for sure Could be useful to the hobby to get a solid ID, at least to prevent possible hybridization. Such a beautiful group of spiders.

 

[spotropaicsav]

I will definitely be trying, for sure Could be useful to the hobby to get a solid ID, at least to prevent possible hybridization. Such a beautiful group of spiders.

Did you happen to get the contact info for your seller at the expo ? Maybe you could message them if it would help you to get closer to an ID for yours...

 

[c.h.esteban]

"What characteristics make them distinct from members of the Ami genus?"

the easiest way is the patch of urticating hairs.

1.) within the different genera this patch is similar in shape and location.

at the T. sp. PANAMA you see a small resticted area only dorsal in the middle of the abdomen.
at Ami spp. the patch is wider, not so good visible, on the dorsal, posterior area.

2.) at T. sp. PANAMA the patch have a metalic sheen. this sheen you found only in genera with urticating hair type III / IV (like Cyriocosmus, Davus, Euathlus...). but Ami has only type I.

with these two features, you can say without a big examination they are different from Ami.

furthermore at T. sp. PANAMA:
spermathecae without paired ventral receptacles (Ami with)
bulb with PS, PI, A (Ami PS, PI)

 

[Anoplogaster]

Did you happen to get the contact info for your seller at the expo ? Maybe you could message them if it would help you to get closer to an ID for yours...

I did. I buy lots of spiders from him

 

[Anoplogaster]

"What characteristics make them distinct from members of the Ami genus?"

the easiest way is the patch of urticating hairs.

1.) within the different genera this patch is similar in shape and location.

at the T. sp. PANAMA you see a small resticted area only dorsal in the middle of the abdomen.
at Ami spp. the patch is wider, not so good visible, on the dorsal, posterior area.

2.) at T. sp. PANAMA the patch have a metalic sheen. this sheen you found only in genera with urticating hair type III / IV (like Cyriocosmus, Davus, Euathlus...). but Ami has only type I.

with these two features, you can say without a big examination they are different from Ami.

furthermore at T. sp. PANAMA:
spermathecae without paired ventral receptacles (Ami with)
bulb with PS, PI, A (Ami PS, PI)

Thanks for the information This is a big help. My specimen is a little small at the moment. So it's still tough to see the hairs.

So do we know that Theraphosinae sp. "Panama" truly belongs to an undescribed genus?

 

[AracKnight]

So do we know that Theraphosinae sp. "Panama" truly belongs to an undescribed genus?

No we don't. Judged by the shape of spermatheca it appears to be closely related to Davus/Hapalopus. But since Hapalopus is poorly defined, it's hard to say anything without revising the whole complex.

 

[c.h.esteban]

in this case we can also kick out Hapalopus. based on the male.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

"What characteristics make them distinct from members of the Ami genus?"

the easiest way is the patch of urticating hairs.

1.) within the different genera this patch is similar in shape and location.

at the T. sp. PANAMA you see a small resticted area only dorsal in the middle of the abdomen.
at Ami spp. the patch is wider, not so good visible, on the dorsal, posterior area.

2.) at T. sp. PANAMA the patch have a metalic sheen. this sheen you found only in genera with urticating hair type III / IV (like Cyriocosmus, Davus, Euathlus...). but Ami has only type I.

with these two features, you can say without a big examination they are different from Ami.

furthermore at T. sp. PANAMA:
spermathecae without paired ventral receptacles (Ami with)
bulb with PS, PI, A (Ami PS, PI)

What distinguishes Ami sp. Panama from all other known species in the genus Ami?

 

[c.h.esteban]

hi lonnie,
do you ask me?
at the moment i have no idea. because this was never a question for me.

 

[AracKnight]

Well, I can only tell about female Ami sp. "Panama" because I don't have any preserved mature male to examine. Except for Ami obscura, Ami bladesi and Ami armihuriaensis of wich the females are unknown it differs from all other Ami spp. in the shape of spermatheca (see picture) having 2 ventral receptacles completely attached to a sclerotized back-plate as heigh and wider than the receptacles. Only other known spermatheca matching this description would be the one of Ami yupanquii wich has conical receptacles while those of Ami sp. "Panama" having a constant width throughout their whole length except for the circular apical lobes.

I think Ami sp. "Panama" could actually be Ami bladesi. The mature male photographed by Perez-Miles et al. looks similar to the ones in our hobby as far as possible to say by blurred pictures
But it would need a preserved male to examine and compare it anyways.

And just because it was discussed earlier, I also add a photo of the spermatheca of Theraphosinae sp. "Panama". The difference is easy to see. I also have a mature male of this species in alcohol. As soon as I have the time I will put it under the microscope, maybe we will know a bit more about in wich genus it could belong

 

[Anoplogaster]

Well, I can only tell about female Ami sp. "Panama" because I don't have any preserved mature male to examine. Except for Ami obscura, Ami bladesi and Ami armihuriaensis of wich the females are unknown it differs from all other Ami spp. in the shape of spermatheca (see picture) having 2 ventral receptacles completely attached to a sclerotized back-plate as heigh and wider than the receptacles. Only other known spermatheca matching this description would be the one of Ami yupanquii wich has conical receptacles while those of Ami sp. "Panama" having a constant width throughout their whole length except for the circular apical lobes.
View attachment 249342
I think Ami sp. "Panama" could actually be Ami bladesi. The mature male photographed by Perez-Miles et al. looks similar to the ones in our hobby as far as possible to say by blurred pictures
But it would need a preserved male to examine and compare it anyways.

And just because it was discussed earlier, I also add a photo of the spermatheca of Theraphosinae sp. "Panama". The difference is easy to see. I also have a mature male of this species in alcohol. As soon as I have the time I will put it under the microscope, maybe we will know a bit more about in wich genus it could belong
View attachment 249343

Thank you for the informative response Are your preserved specimens collected from the wild? What characteristics would you look for in the males?

So if the Theraphosinae sp. "Panama" is distinct from the Ami genus, then it appears we still don't know what genus it actually belongs in yet. If folks are breeding an undescribed species, is there a chance that people are actually hybridizing more than one species? How would we even know?

 

[AracKnight]

Thank you for the informative response Are your preserved specimens collected from the wild?

Yes they are. But I didn't obtain them from the actual importer, so I have no data of locality

What characteristics would you look for in the males?

In case of Ami sp. "Panama" I'd check it for the diagnostic characters provided by Perez-Miles et al.

Male differs from that of A. caxiuana by the orientation of the embolus (which ends almost perpendicularly to papal organ axis); from A. yupanquii by the shorter apical portion of the palpal organ and the prolateral inferior keel having a non-serrated edge (Figs19–20); from A. obscura by well-developed prolateral keels on the palpal organ; and from A. pijaos by having only two prolateral keels on the palpal organ.
Female unknown. Related to A. obscurus and the clade A. yupanqui +, in an unresolved polytomy (see Cladistics).

Pérez-Miles, F., Gabriel, R., Miglio, L., Bonaldo, A., Gallon, R., Jimenez, J. J. & Bertani, R. (2008). Ami, a new theraphosid genus from Central and South America, with the description of six new species (Araneae: Mygalomorphae). Zootaxa 1915: 54-68 p.59f
http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/reference/10868

If these characters are fitting I'd look at the tibial apophysis, spination, labial cuspules, ... until I either found a significant difference or examined the whole specimen, thus concluding they are conspecific. However, I have slight doubts it will be possible to give an ID without examining the holotype since the illustrations provided by Perez-Miles et al. aren't that great :/

In case of Theraphosinae sp. "Panama" I'd look especially for a retrolaterally twisted embolus confirming once more its close relationship to the Davus-complex. Presence or absence of retrolateral and apical keels should theoretically tell if it fits into one of the described genera. But like I already mentioned: this complex is weakly diagnosed and especially Hapalopus is in urgent need of a revision. So it is either possible that it belongs to one of the Davus-complex genera or to an yet undescribed, but related genus, maybe also housing some other species, that are placed in a wrong genus atm, like maybe some Hapalopus sp.
I'm afraid that it won't be possible to decide that by a "hobby examination" and that it will need a complete revision of this complex by someone who really knows what he does

So if the Theraphosinae sp. "Panama" is distinct from the Ami genus, then it appears we still don't know what genus it actually belongs in yet. If folks are breeding an undescribed species, is there a chance that people are actually hybridizing more than one species? How would we even know?

Of cause there is a chance. But that can also happen with 'described species' since many imported specimens aren't properly identified. Just because you buy a spider as 'Brachypelma vagans' it doesn't mean that it is in fact one.
I think that it is very likely that hybridization already happened several times in the hobby. Avicularia spp., Brachypelma spp., Poecilotheria sp. "Lowland" and P. subfusca, ...
How could we know? Most likely by scientists (genetically) examing hobby-specimens, like Dr. Krehenwinkel and Steven P. Turner et al. are doing atm.
Morphological examinations wouldn't really help here, since we have no/too less material to compare and no clue of what is intraspecific variation and what are hybrid characters