Are Australian Ts OW or NW?

[Remigius]

Then you should also sell P. irminia as 'Old World' using the same logic.

If I understand correctly - most of the Aussie Ts are terrestrials/burrowers with bad bite, and high aggressiveness. That's OW for me, and I would expect such characteristics, if I were going to get an OW spider. Psalmos don't fit it... somehow...

...to h*** with it. You're right guys.

 

[Fender Bender]

Haha, people think they can actually give an interpretation to this...

Sure, their behavior has more to do with OW T's, but that's just that. They're New World T's. You can't mess with science, facts are facts.

/end thread

 

[clam1991]

they are old world t's and for those of you who think ts are old r new wolrd becuz of where they live... ur thinking way to hard:wall:

 

[crpy]

they are old world t's and for those of you who think ts are old r new wolrd becuz of where they live... ur thinking way to hard:wall:

.............What?

 

[Ricki123]

By the way I found this pic. Green is OW.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/OldNewWorld_v3.png

Damn i wish you did find OW T's in the UK..... why cant it be warmer here!!!!

 

[ShadowBlade]

The whole 'new world/old world' thing has no basis in behavior, urticating hairs, venom potency, etc.. Its a generalization brought about by the respective spider's native origins.

Aussie T's are Old world.

-Sean

 

[dydek]

You ppl completely dont understand New World and Old World terms...

"The Old World consists of those parts of Earth known to Europeans, Asians, and Africans in the 15th century before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia, and Africa (collectively known as Afro-Eurasia), plus surrounding islands."

"The New World is one of the names used for the non-Eurasian/non-African parts of the Earth, specifically the Americas and Australia. When the term originated in the late 15th century, the Americas were new to the Europeans, who previously thought of the world as consisting only of Europe, Asia, and Africa (collectively, the Old World). The term "New World" should not be confused with "modern world"; the latter generally refers to a historical period, not a landmass."

They are New World and their strong venom or/and lack of urticating hairs have nothing to do with it.

 

[seanbond]

with so much info on this site and others, how could you not have found that answer..

 

[*Self_DeFenCe*]

I agree with Dydek,
plus you guys forgot that behavior goes with climate they live in and the way they evolve. So it has nothing to do with behavior in my opinion.
Anyways...

 

[WRXspecR1]

It has nothing to do with spiders...

The right question should be: Is australia OW or NW?

and the answer is NW.

 

[Fender Bender]

You ppl completely dont understand New World and Old World terms...

"The Old World consists of those parts of Earth known to Europeans, Asians, and Africans in the 15th century before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia, and Africa (collectively known as Afro-Eurasia), plus surrounding islands."

"The New World is one of the names used for the non-Eurasian/non-African parts of the Earth, specifically the Americas and Australia. When the term originated in the late 15th century, the Americas were new to the Europeans, who previously thought of the world as consisting only of Europe, Asia, and Africa (collectively, the Old World). The term "New World" should not be confused with "modern world"; the latter generally refers to a historical period, not a landmass."

They are New World and their strong venom or/and lack of urticating hairs have nothing to do with it.

FINALLY. Djeez Louise, some kids in here should have stayed in school a little longer.

 

[dannax]

I think we've finally come to the conclusion that OW is Europe, Asia and Africa and NW is Austrailia and North/South America.

After all these years, we're the ones who did it!

Seriously, those arguing the fact... come on!

 

[ErgoProxy]

Most think Australia and New Zealand would be "Old World" due to their geographical location, but they do fall into the "New World".

Personally, when talking about Animals I think it is so much better and clearer to refer not to OW and NW but to the 6 Biogeographical/Zoogeographical Regions Wallace defined:

1.Nearctic (Most of North America)
2.Neotropical (Central and South America)
3.Palearctic (Europe, Siberia, China, Middle East and Arid Parts of Northern Africa)
4.Oriental (India, Asia)
5.Australian (Australia, New Zealand, New Guinear, Java)

Or a more Modern Approach to this which breaks up the Zoogeographic/Biogeographic Realms from the WWF

1.Nearctic (including most of North America)
2.Palearctic (including the bulk of Eurasia and North Africa)
3.Afrotropic (including Sub-Saharan Africa)
4.Indomalaya (including Afghanistan and Pakistan, the South Asian subcontinent and Southeast Asia)
5.Australasia (including Australia, New Guinea, and neighbouring islands). The northern boundary of this zone is known as the Wallace line.
6.Neotropic 19.0 mil. km² (including South America and the Caribbean)
7.Oceania 1.0 mil. km² (including Polynesia, Fiji and Micronesia)
8.Antarctic 0.3 mil. km² (including Antarctica).

And the further division into Bioregions:

1.Afrotropic
2.Antarctic
3.Australasia
a.Wallacea
b.New Guinea and Melanesia
4.Indomalaya
a.Indian subcontinent
b.Indochina
c.Sunda Shelf and Philippines
5.Nearctic
a.Canadian Shield
b.Eastern North America
c.Northern Mexico
d.Western North America
6.Neotropical
a.Amazonia
b.Caribbean
c.Central America
d.Central Andes
e.Eastern South America
f.Northern Andes
g.Orinoco
h.Southern South America
7.Oceania
8.Palearctic


Though I think the main categories, above the Bioregions or even Wallace's definition is enough to suffice. I usually use Wallace's during presentations to the public to define a region of the world from which the "T's" on display originate.

Link to Wallace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

Link to the WWF info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecozone

 

[Tobarnis]

They are OW.

 

[D-back]

They are OW.

Did you read the previous posts? .........They are NW with attributes like an OW....

 

[Fender Bender]

They are OW.

:wall: Did you intentionally NOT read the above posts??

 

[ThomasH]

Lol what?

West or east from where?....

Are you kidding me? On a global map Australia is always on the right along with the old world. I honestly don't care if they are new world or old world. The point is OW are the behavioral characteristics of the NW spider, just leave it at that. I think the whole classification thing of NW/OW is worthless when it comes to animals. It doesn't matter or define their characteristics if Colombus set out a voyage one day and found "X" continent with "X" animal. I and many others still refer them to OW because they are most similar to OW's. Not scientificly correct but I've been known not to go by the "magical T rule book" all the time.

 

[Kid Dragon]

Are you kidding me? On a global map Australia is always on the right along with the old world. I honestly don't care if they are new world or old world. The point is OW are the behavioral characteristics of the NW spider, just leave it at that. I think the whole classification thing of NW/OW is worthless when it comes to animals. It doesn't matter or define their characteristics if Colombus set out a voyage one day and found "X" continent with "X" animal. I and many others still refer them to OW because they are most similar to OW's. Not scientificly correct but I've been known not to go by the "magical T rule book" all the time.

A global map isn't the best way to state your case since the Earth isn't flat. NW and OW are only semi-useful for location, not for behavior. The fact that Australia is New World is in the Magical T Rule Book, I looked it up. On page 18 it clearly states that you must go with the rule book all the time.