Introducing Xenesthis sp. megaseta

[Comatose]

Interesting read putting aside all the childish insults. Beautiful tarantulas although I am a bit biased loving anything Xenesthis. It will be interesting to see what shakes out when they finally get around to a Xenesthis revision , which are regional variants and which are actual separate species.

I’m not familiar with any current efforts but I’d love to see something as basic as addressing animals that have been around for 15+ years. Species White is novel imo; I wouldn’t be surprised to see blue synonymized with immanis, or to see a bunch of subspecies applied to that species. As I said above, long and short hair are apparently the only taxonomically distinct ones, but there are so many regional variations I’d love to see addressed.

Realistically though, I’d love to see them address Pamphobeteus first. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that genus broken up a la Avicularia, and I’m curious about how the spectacular differences amongst Columbian, Ecuadorian, Peruvian and Bolivian animals shake out in observable science .

 

[Vanessa]

If people are going to import unidentified spiders and introduce them into the hobby, then they need to be prepared to be questioned about them. No, people are not just going to take someone's word for it - sight unseen and with absolutely no credentials. If you aren't prepared to be questioned, then don't post.
I wish a lot more questioning of species entering the hobby was done, by those in a qualified position to ask those questions, considering what a horrific mess things are.

 

[Comatose]

If people are going to import unidentified spiders and introduce them into the hobby, then they need to be prepared to be questioned about them. No, people are not just going to take someone's word for it - sight unseen and with absolutely no credentials. If you aren't prepared to be questioned, then don't post.
I wish a lot more questioning of species entering the hobby was done, by those in a qualified position to ask those questions, considering what a horrific mess things are.

I’ve done nothing but answer questions and offer data I have. I’m less interested in fielding baseless accusations from trolls and insults from thread<poopers>. I’m not sure what qualifications the person who accused me of defrauding people has because he posted anonymously, nor am I sure how calling me a snake oil salesman advances the hobby.

Fair point on not posting though; definitely not a mistake I’ll make again here.

 

[c.h.esteban]

I’ll get some close up pictures of legs III and IV on megaseta and intermedia and post them and you can let me know what you think.

we will do so.
at intermedia is the scopula on metatarsus IV, at the prolateral side, restricted only at the apical region. good visible also from a prolateral view.

 

[Chop Stik]

@ kolaf3183

i see what i see, say what i see and try to be fair.
if you dislike this, you maybe acting just like that person that you criticize.
but feel free, to explain me your assumption. which features are the same like in intermedia?

As a Pamphobeteus/Xenesthis/Theraphosa fanatic this is incredibly exciting - the pictures below are from the first successful breeding of this new species out of Germany. I’m posting these pictures with the breeders permission (buying the entire sac probably helped there lol).

What’s so special about this species? It’s pretty simple - they are the largest member of the genus currently known. This is a legitimately Goliath-sized beast with gorgeous Xenesthis coloration. They appear to be most similar to intermedia, and also share similarities with sp. megascopula.

This is a tropical Xenesthis species that do well with higher temps opposed to some of the higher altitude species. They hail from Columbia but are within two hours of the Venezuelan border.

I’ll post pics of the slings when they’re here - very excited!

I know this thread is old but any possible update on this species?

 

[Comatose]

I know this thread is old but any possible update on this species?

Yup - we do have pretty conclusive evidence that this is a distinct species, and at the very least is not X. intermedia. The scopula excludes this species as a possible ID. I'm sending a molt to a neutral third party of inspection, and he or I will post the findings.

 

[Paul Osullivan]

This is an interesting spider. I thought I would show how the meta-tarsus of 1&4 look to be very densely covered as you have mentioned, especially when compared to my N2 immanis. It would be interesting to see an N2 intermedia to compare too if this is the one it's most closely related too.

It may also be worth comparing to X. monstrosus as it's larger size and Andrew highlighting of 'scopulate metatarsus to base in all legs' in his description of monstrosus and is a clear feature of megaseta, although it could be the scopula pads he is highlighting..

https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/37992/Xenesthis_monstrosa

A nice sketch of the unique spermaticae can be found in "Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1979" as well as A. smiths description:

https://wsc.nmbe.ch/reference/6479

Page 152/165

I would recommend also 'theraposid research team' to take some excellent detailed pictures of the spiders features. Cheers,

 

[Comatose]

View attachment 416171 View attachment 416173

View attachment 416174
This is an interesting spider. I thought I would show how the meta-tarsus of 1&4 look to be very densely covered as you have mentioned, especially when compared to my N2 immanis. It would be interesting to see an N2 intermedia to compare too if this is the one it's most closely related too.

It may also be worth comparing to X. monstrosus as it's larger size and Andrew highlighting of 'scopulate metatarsus to base in all legs' in his description of monstrosus and is a clear feature of megaseta, although it could be the scopula pads he is highlighting..

https://wsc.nmbe.ch/species/37992/Xenesthis_monstrosa

A nice sketch of the unique spermaticae can be found in "Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1979" as well as A. smiths description:

https://wsc.nmbe.ch/reference/6479

Page 152/165

I would recommend also 'theraposid research team' to take some excellent detailed pictures of the spiders features. Cheers,

I have an adult molt I’ve been meaning to send to a friend in Europe for clearer evaluation… now that I’ve been reminded I’ll try to get that done soon. I also have some young intermedia I can post pictures of, but I suspect they’re past N2.

My understanding on monstrosa is that the type material and description aren’t terribly useful aside from concluding that sp. tenebris is a likely candidate. I haven’t personally seen any adults, but the juveniles I have look very distinct from the similar sized megaseta I have.

 

[Paul Osullivan]

I have an adult molt I’ve been meaning to send to a friend in Europe for clearer evaluation… now that I’ve been reminded I’ll try to get that done soon. I also have some young intermedia I can post pictures of, but I suspect they’re past N2.

My understanding on monstrosa is that the type material and description aren’t terribly useful aside from concluding that sp. tenebris is a likely candidate. I haven’t personally seen any adults, but the juveniles I have look very distinct from the similar sized megaseta I have.

That would be good. It does appear to be unlike the Immanis. Prehaps as the spider grows the setae don't appear to be such a feature. I could take some pictures of my friends Intermedia also, but I think it's bigger unfortunately too. Prehaps some fresh pictures of your megaseta would be good to see

Yea, I think the tenebris looks to have a similar body shape to Immanis possibly although it may be this or similar species to monstrosus. Monstrous has a larger body and it's highlighted as having shorter back legs in comparison to other species. The spermaticae is also a distinct shape from other species with quite a high middle section. But your right there is little to go on other than the body shape and spermatheca. I was thinking having raised sp. megascopula, with its larger carapace, distinct scopula and similar body shape to monstrous it could be a contender for this species or cousin. I will post the spermathicae next molt out of interest, and hope to see some Tenebris spermathicae feom a keeper.

Awsome, yea it would be good to see what your friend in europe finds about the megaseta..

 

[Chop Stik]

I have a decent sized tenebris female, she’s quite reclusive but I can try to get some pics. She also recently molted.

 

[Paul Osullivan]

I have a decent sized tenebris female, she’s quite reclusive but I can try to get some pics. She also recently molted.

ok, that's awsome! I look forward to seeing these!

 

[Chop Stik]

Not the best pics but here are some pics of my sub-adult female Xenesthis sp tenebris.

 

[Paul Osullivan]

View attachment 418983 View attachment 418984 View attachment 418985 View attachment 418986 View attachment 418987

Not the best pics but here are some pics of my sub-adult female Xenesthis sp tenebris.

Very cool

 

[curtisgiganteus]

Are these available in the states?

 

[matis2]

have any new information or basis about Megaseta?
(I'm not trying to criticize, It's very interesting : ) )

 

[Comatose]

Are these available in the states?

afaik only the lot we brought in; we have adult females and juv males so hopefully we can change

have any new information or basis about Megaseta?
(I'm not trying to criticize, It's very interesting : ) )

No worries; short answer no. I have a molt I meant to send to another member here for evaluation, but with a million things going on I just haven’t gotten to it. That’s obviously on me.

We’re snowed in today, so I’ll try to get some decent pictures posted later on today.

 

[Paul Osullivan]

Just thought to Sketch X. intermedia and X. monstrosus (as per the revised measurements) to show the difference in Leg 4 in relation to carapace length. X. monstrous is a smaller/ younger specimen and maybe in time it will show a similar ratio in the length of Leg 4 to the carapace length alike to X. intermedia (with its longer Leg 4). If not, it will have a shorter Leg 4 throughout its life and could be distinguished from other Xenethis, as written in the new Xenesthis paper. Prehaps X. tenebris which was labelled "Possible monstrosus" has a distinctly short Leg 4 ??

Theraphosid systematic and taxonomy | A complete review of Xenesthis | Facebook

A complete review of Xenesthis! Link: [https://doi.org/10.3390/taxonomy3040029](https://doi.org/10.3390/taxonomy3040029?fbclid=IwAR1owSP-n8BRAQiPHL8KgDsLSYFonNaTsxPidlo-zILLlcPZ-4EE1OTw42E)

www.facebook.com

 

[c.h.esteban]

X. monstrous is a smaller/ younger specimen and maybe in time it will show a similar ratio in the length of Leg 4 to the carapace length alike to X. intermedia (with its longer Leg 4).

The HT of X monstrosus have a Carapace length of 32.1 mm, thats quite big.
So why do you think "X. monstrous is a smaller/ younger specimen"?

 

[Paul Osullivan]

S.E. It just seems a lot smaller than the other species in terms of its leg span. But your right it has a sizable carapace for sure in relation to the leg span, alike to L. sriatus, P. ultramarinus or H. hercules. I guess it maybe a smaller, but a stockier species or something that looks different to the other Xenesthis. Would be interesting to see if Sp. tenebris has features of monstosus.. Maybe some nice top down shots of Sp. tenebris would be good to see from other members..

 

[c.h.esteban]

@Paul Osullivan as i wrote on fb...

Different species sometimes have different leg spans. That's why the leg span alone is not suitable to describe size.
And here we deal with a relation, not a single measure.
If you compare the given measurments of immanis, intermedia and monstrosus and thier relation (length leg IV / crapace length) you see what i mean.

Maybe some nice top down shots of Sp. tenebris would be good to see from other members

i would prefer proper measurements for further discussions.