1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

[Article] Rudloff & Weinmann - Theraphosa stirmi new species!

Discussion in 'Tarantula Questions & Discussions' started by Zoltan, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. Zoltan

    Zoltan Cult Leader

    After reading this thread, I did a search and found a reference to an article:

    Rudloff J.-P. & D. Weinmann. 2010. A new giant tarantula from Guyana. Arthropoda Scientia 1 (1): 20-38.

    Apparently this article describes a new Theraphosa species called Theraphosa stirmi, and supposedly this is Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy."

    Edit: Martin H. informed me that this article (or rather, the journal issue) is hot off the printing machine and may technically not be published yet as it's in the process of being sent to the subscribers.

    Edit 2: Another person (author of the post in the link Draychen posted) told me this journal issue is available since Wednesday, so it looks like this is published information after all.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2010
  2. jbm150

    jbm150 Arachnoprince

    So this is replacing spinipes? Or is the sp. Burgundy about to get even more confusing with a new species....?
  3. BlackVenom

    BlackVenom Arachnopeon

    This is good to know can't wait to hear more on this.
  4. Falk

    Falk Arachnodemon

    Link to an article please:)
  5. Zoltan

    Zoltan Cult Leader

    Trying to find out more information myself. I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing."

    Correct. The combination "Theraphosa spinipes" so far hasn't been published as a new combination.

    I don't have a PDF yet.

    I'll update here when I'll know more.
  6. PrimalTaunt

    PrimalTaunt Arachnobaron

    Can't say I'm too surprised that it's not spinipes because, if I recall correctly, the last word was that nothing was finalized up to that point and that they still wanted hobbyists to use sp. burgundy.

    I look forward to reading the pdf once you post it, Zoltan.
  7. Falk

    Falk Arachnodemon

    Yes, and as you probably know spinipes was moved from Lasiodora
  8. Vespula

    Vespula Arachnodemon

    Can't wait to hear more about this!
  9. Glad to see this is clearing up. I'd like take a look and see what additional descriptive notes they've added or subtracted to what we keepers already have available/known for Theraphosa sp "burgundy". :)
  10. c.h.esteban

    c.h.esteban Arachnosquire

    L. spinipes was described with material from Sao Paulo (Ausserer, 1871) and from Santa Catarina (Mello-Leitao, 1921).

    Think about.

  11. CombiChrist

    CombiChrist Arachnopeon

    The link provided above by Draychen was the first mentioning of it I've seen also.
    It surprised me though, for I was told it was actually the same spider as described by Ausserer as "Lasiodora spinipes".
    And aren't the common rules of naming species that the oldest one always stays the valid one, so that by moving to another genus, the speciesname should have been kept the same ?

    But probably L.spinipes is not the smae spider as this new Theraphosa species :)
  12. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    I can send the paper to those interested. Not at the house now, so will be a couple hours.

  13. pato_chacoana

    pato_chacoana Arachnoangel

    I'm in for a copy... thanks

  14. Falk

    Falk Arachnodemon

    I would be very happy:razz:
  15. GoTerps

    GoTerps Arachnoking Old Timer

    Falk, can't send without your email.

  16. syndicate

    syndicate Arachnoemperor Old Timer

  17. Eric, Thanks again for the copy,

    I just popped my big female out of the freezer to try for a look at the spination on apical femur 4 but the front legs are curled so as to inhibit inspection- unless thawed.

    Of course I probably don't have a good enough camera (or the ability to use it) to show this well. If anyone gets pics of this feature then please post them. I'm sure all would like to see. Cheers,

  18. Spyder 1.0

    Spyder 1.0 Arachnoprince Old Timer

  19. AphonopelmaTX

    AphonopelmaTX Moderator Staff Member

    After reading the T. stirmi description, I find several things interesting. One, the types of T. apophysis and T. blondi were not examined thus the identification of those specimens used for comparison to T. stirmi must have been made by assumption. T. apophysis is easy enough to identify but T. stirmi and T. blondi adult males and females are very similar. Thus brings me to another point. Gerschman, et. al. (1966), Tinter (1991) and Rudloff & Weinmann (2010) state T. blondi does not have stridulating setae on coxa II BUT Bertani (2001) states T. blondi DOES have stridulating setae on coxa II. Also, none of those authors note that the types of T. blondi were studied. So what the heck was Bertani looking at when he found stridulating bristles on coxa II on T. blondi when the other authors didn't find them? Also, the drawing of the papal bulb belonging T. blondi in the Gerschman, et. al. (1966) paper, distinctly illustrate teeth on the keel extending to the distal tip, just like T. stirmi. The illustrations of the T. blondi papal bulb in the Bertani (2001) paper do not clearly illustrate teeth on any keel. Aside from the juvenile coloration/ patterns, and the presence or absence of setae on the patella of legs I - IV, and the spines on the apical femur IV, there seems to be no other distinctions between T. blondi and T. stirmi. I'm not even sure if those would be stable characters given the apparent confusion as to what T. blondi really is. I question it more when I go through my collection of spiders that were sold to me as T. blondi and a couple have long setae on the patella, one has short setae, and another has none. Fortunately we have a name for the Theraphosa sp. "burgundy" but it caused more confusion (at least for me) as to what a Theraphosa blondi is exactly. Anyone care to comment? :)

    - Lonnie