LASIODORA REVISION.

[Arachnophobphile]

Yep, anytime. As far as Aphonopelma goes, a lot of the work has already been done IMHO, but let me explain. The main problem as I see it with Aphonopelma is the type specimen, or first specimen in the genus, was A. seemanni in 1901, which is more of a tropical species hailing from southern Central America. The "Aphonopelma" spp native to the US and Mexican deserts that we commonly think of might be related, but not near enough to share the genus. What started happening recently and fairly quietly was the resurrection of Dugesiella spp, a genus that was previously synonomized with Aphonopelma. In 2022, Aphonopelma anitahoffmannae, Aphonopelma duplex, and Aphonopelma serratum were moved to Dugesiella and it's thought a lot of other desert species might start moving to Dugesiella from Aphonopelma in the near future as well.

Now, what makes me believe a lot of the work is already done is that the major 2016 US Aphonopelma revision included DNA work. All those species are already "mapped to each other" so to say. If they figure out how even one of these Dugesiella sp "maps" to even a single one of the US Aphonopelma, the remainder should all fall in line fairly quickly and that's a significant chunk of the 50 odd species in Aphonopelma.

Now Ornithoctoninae spp though.......

Aphonopelma is a mess and alot of vendors are selling a bunch of undescribed ones as sp 'locale' where they were found adding fuel to the fire.

Yeah lol, Ornithoctoninae spp think you'll be waiting a while.

 

[Mike Withrow]

I purposely waited for a day off work to read this. Yup,my head hurts now.

 

[Matt W]

Now, what makes me believe a lot of the work is already done is that the major 2016 US Aphonopelma revision included DNA work. All those species are already "mapped to each other" so to say.

I read that paper, though I think it only included U.S. spiders! It's interesting that the defining physical characteristic for many Aphonopelma species is geographic locale, and you can't really differentiate them otherwise except by DNA.

I think this is the paper, which you can get full text of if you sign up on the World Spider Catalog website (which is free.)

NMBE - World Spider Catalog

Detailed taxonomic information about the spider families

wsc.nmbe.ch

 

[l4nsky]

I read that paper, though I think it only included U.S. spiders! It's interesting that the defining physical characteristic for many Aphonopelma species is geographic locale, and you can't really differentiate them otherwise except by DNA.

I think this is the paper, which you can get full text of if you sign up on the World Spider Catalog website (which is free.)

NMBE - World Spider Catalog

Detailed taxonomic information about the spider families

wsc.nmbe.ch

Yep, but of the accepted 54 species of Aphonopelma in the WSC, the US species represent 29 of them . With all the dedicated work previously done by Hamilton et al in 2016, that's just one big domino waiting to fall when Aphonopelma gets reworked in it's entirety.

 

[Liquifin]

Lasiodora needed a clean up for sure because it was just so outdated and quite messy. Anyhow, it's one more step to identifying these beautiful spiders more accurately.

So that means Theraphosa has one more to their genus making it four instead of three. So my dream of owning all Theraphosa is yet to be completed.

 

[ladyratri]

Ahem.... it's a hell bright red bloom chilean atacama beauty birdeater thank you very much!

Thunder-cougar-falcon-bird(eater)

 

[l4nsky]

Thunder-cougar-falcon-bird(eater)

Soo many eagles...

 

[The Spider House]

And here's the link.

Taxonomic revision and cladistic analysis of Lasiodora C. L. Koch, 1850 (Araneae, Theraphosidae) with notes on related genera | Zootaxa

mapress.com

Enjoy.
(This is gonna be funny).

Ahead of their time! This was posted in 2010

Theraphosa Spinipes

arachnoboards.com

 

[The Spider House]

Lasiodora needed a clean up for sure because it was just so outdated and quite messy. Anyhow, it's one more step to identifying these beautiful spiders more accurately.

So that means Theraphosa has one more to their genus making it four instead of three. So my dream of owning all Theraphosa is yet to be completed.

Mine too now!

 

[The Spider House]

So there is about half a dozen pics from the same member in the gallery for Theraphosa spinipes. Probably the same spider but all pics of the specimen(s) go back in 2010, so a real trailblazer! In all the pics the spider(s) lack hair on the patella and the only real noticible difference from a stirmi, that I can see from the pics available, is that the spinipes seems to have a darker marking around the caput and eyes. Although this could purely be down to moult cycle and scrubbing of hairs etc.

I am really annoyed now that my 30+ individuals of Theraphosa is now lacking a new cousin! Even if the spinipes were regularly available (I don't evwr recall seeing them), the price will now rocket as there is a new Theraphosa in town! Unless some of the stirmi that have been out there foe a while are actually spinipes. Deffo can't be confused with blondi or apophysis if the pics in the genus gallery are correct.

Spiderling pictures of the spinipes would help as there are very distinct 'tells' with stirmi, blondi and apophysis when slings.

 

[The Spider House]

And the plot thickens! Seems like 2010 there was a whole hullabaloo about the spinipes being the 3rd Theraphosa to be added to the only 2 (apophysis and blondi) at that time and the spinipes can be distinguished mainly through absence of hairs on the knee joint (sound familair?).

So is spinipes what we actually accept as stirmi or a genuine 4th Theraphosa? Where was stirmi in 2010 as no mention at all in another thread in AB back in 2010

Theraphosa genus care in captivity

The Theraphosa genus (Thorell, 1870 ) encompass 2 known specie and a 3rd one under revision: Theraphosa blondi, Latreille, 1804 Theraphosa apophysis , Tinter, 1991 Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" soon to be "spinipes" , under revision by Brazilian taxonomists. The areas where the genus come...

arachnoboards.com

 

[Terrovax]

And the plot thickens! Seems like 2010 there was a whole hullabaloo about the spinipes being the 3rd Theraphosa to be added to the only 2 (apophysis and blondi) at that time and the spinipes can be distinguished mainly through absence of hairs on the knee joint (sound familair?).

So is spinipes what we actually accept as stirmi or a genuine 4th Theraphosa? Where was stirmi in 2010 as no mention at all in another thread in AB back in 2010

Theraphosa genus care in captivity

The Theraphosa genus (Thorell, 1870 ) encompass 2 known specie and a 3rd one under revision: Theraphosa blondi, Latreille, 1804 Theraphosa apophysis , Tinter, 1991 Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" soon to be "spinipes" , under revision by Brazilian taxonomists. The areas where the genus come...

arachnoboards.com

The author of this revision, Rogerio Bertani, does not provide a detailed analysis as to how Theraphosa spinipes differs from the other 3 Theraphosa species because that is not the focus of his paper.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

And the plot thickens! Seems like 2010 there was a whole hullabaloo about the spinipes being the 3rd Theraphosa to be added to the only 2 (apophysis and blondi) at that time and the spinipes can be distinguished mainly through absence of hairs on the knee joint (sound familair?).

So is spinipes what we actually accept as stirmi or a genuine 4th Theraphosa? Where was stirmi in 2010 as no mention at all in another thread in AB back in 2010

Theraphosa genus care in captivity

The Theraphosa genus (Thorell, 1870 ) encompass 2 known specie and a 3rd one under revision: Theraphosa blondi, Latreille, 1804 Theraphosa apophysis , Tinter, 1991 Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" soon to be "spinipes" , under revision by Brazilian taxonomists. The areas where the genus come...

arachnoboards.com

There is no thickening plot here, just another example of how some in the hobby like to label their tarantulas with a scientific name without any information. Here is the story based on the info I have...

Firstly, the revision of the genus Lasiodora by Rogerio Bertani was in progress for a very long time. Sometime around 2009 or 2010 a poster abstract written by Bertani was published for a meeting of the International Society of Arachnology which is very similar to the abstract for this revision. In that abstract, a mention of the transfer of Lasiodora spinipes to Theraphosa was made. Since this was done before the publication of the description of Theraphosa stirmi, some people in the hobby (I know who started it and won't name names) just assumed the species with bald knees was T. spinipes. After the publication of the species description of T. stirmi, everyone stopped talking about the species T. spinipes and we had T. stirmi in the hobby.

If we backup further in time, some in the hobby recognized that wild caught tarantulas being sold as Theraphosa blondi did not fit the T. blondi found in French Guiana or Suriname nor did it look like the T. blondi sold in years prior which were much harrier. This was the one that was very large, had peculiar spiderling/ juvenile coloration that resembled T. apophysis, and had bald knees. It wasn't until the publication of the description of T. stirmi that such speculation was shown to be true. Again though, no one knew what scientific name call this "burgundy goliath" so it was continually being traded as T. blondi until something better came along. Now we circle back to the above on T. spinipes.

So to sum up, the species we know today at T. stirmi used to be T. blondi, then it was briefly called T. spinipes, then finally T. stirmi.

If anyone wants a copy of Bertani's poster abstract from the International Society of Arachnology I can provide it. I will make that offer so you all know I'm not just making stuff up here. LOL

 

[The Spider House]

There is no thickening plot here, just another example of how some in the hobby like to label their tarantulas with a scientific name without any information. Here is the story based on the info I have...

Firstly, the revision of the genus Lasiodora by Rogerio Bertani was in progress for a very long time. Sometime around 2009 or 2010 a poster abstract written by Bertani was published for a meeting of the International Society of Arachnology which is very similar to the abstract for this revision. In that abstract, a mention of the transfer of Lasiodora spinipes to Theraphosa was made. Since this was done before the publication of the description of Theraphosa stirmi, some people in the hobby (I know who started it and won't name names) just assumed the species with bald knees was T. spinipes. After the publication of the species description of T. stirmi, everyone stopped talking about the species T. spinipes and we had T. stirmi in the hobby.

If we backup further in time, some in the hobby recognized that wild caught tarantulas being sold as Theraphosa blondi did not fit the T. blondi found in French Guiana or Suriname nor did it look like the T. blondi sold in years prior which were much harrier. This was the one that was very large, had peculiar spiderling/ juvenile coloration that resembled T. apophysis, and had bald knees. It wasn't until the publication of the description of T. stirmi that such speculation was shown to be true. Again though, no one knew what scientific name call this "burgundy goliath" so it was continually being traded as T. blondi until something better came along. Now we circle back to the above on T. spinipes.

So to sum up, the species we know today at T. stirmi used to be T. blondi, then it was briefly called T. spinipes, then finally T. stirmi.

If anyone wants a copy of Bertani's poster abstract from the International Society of Arachnology I can provide it. I will make that offer so you all know I'm not just making stuff up here. LOL

I would certainly like to see it and the timeline you describe fits with my less scientific rummaging around the interwebs and AB.
So in conclusion, unless I am wrong, regardless of rhe Lasiodora reclassification there is still 3 Theraphosa (stirmi/apophysis/blondi)?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I would certainly like to see it and the timeline you describe fits with my less scientific rummaging around the interwebs and AB.
So in conclusion, unless I am wrong, regardless of rhe Lasiodora reclassification there is still 3 Theraphosa (stirmi/apophysis/blondi)?

No, there are now 4 recognized species of Theraphosa: T. blondi, T. stirmi, T. apophysis, and T. spinipes.

The only two species that have adequate descriptions that can lead to an identification is T. stirmi and T. apophysis. The species T. blondi is ambiguous and as @Terrovax already stated, Bertani did not provide a diagnosis of T. spinipes based on a comparison with the other Theraphosa species so we don't know how to identify it at this time.

 

[The Spider House]

The author of this revision, Rogerio Bertani, does not provide a detailed analysis as to how Theraphosa spinipes differs from the other 3 Theraphosa species because that is not the focus of his paper.

I realise that but earlier posts within this reclassification stated Lasiodora spinipes is now Theraphosa spinipes, implying that this was a recent reclassification. Yet back in 2010 Theraphosa spinipes was suggested as being a "new" 3rd Theraphosa to apophysis and blondi.

TBH even though I have hundreds of Ts, the Lasiodora sp. Have never interested me, but I am a massive fan of Theraphosa so the whole "Theraphosa spinipes" mentioned in the paper, initially got me wondering if a genuine 4th Theraphosa existed or not

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

I realise that but earlier posts within this reclassification stated Lasiodora spinipes is now Theraphosa spinipes, implying that this was a recent reclassification. Yet back in 2010 Theraphosa spinipes was suggested as being a "new" 3rd Theraphosa to apophysis and blondi.

TBH even though I have hundreds of Ts, the Lasiodora sp. Have never interested me, but I am a massive fan of Theraphosa so the whole "Theraphosa spinipes" mentioned in the paper, initially got me wondering if a genuine 4th Theraphosa existed or not

What’s the closest thing you have to a Lasiodora?they are my favorites of what I keep Or when I have left.
Theraphosa are far bigger and very impressive. I don’t blame you for keeping a lot of them. I only had one lost it to a tumor the seller knew about. Never really had the money to afford more couldn’t find a job.
is Theraphosa spinipes even in the hobby??? I don’t recall seeing anyone’s post saying they had it. Even as a Lasiodora.

 

[The Spider House]

What’s the closest thing you have to a Lasiodora?they are my favorites of what I keep Or when I have left.
Theraphosa are far bigger and very impressive. I don’t blame you for keeping a lot of them. I only had one lost it to a tumor the seller knew about. Never really had the money to afford more couldn’t find a job.
is Theraphosa spinipes even in the hobby??? I don’t recall seeing anyone’s post saying they had it. Even as a Lasiodora.

I have many "large" species 30+ Pamphobeteus, half a dozen Xenthesis, the Theraphosa already mentioned and some big Acanthoscurria. For some reason, the same with Nhandu, they have just never really floated my boat.

Had a big LP when I first started about 30 years ago but that is the only Lasiodora I can recall keeping.

The only time I was aware of Theraphosa spinipes was when I read this Lasiodora classification post and did some digging in AB and Google. There is half a dozen pics back in 2010 in the Theraphosa gallery of spinipes, all from the same member and likely the same spider. A cursory glance of that spider, looks very similar to stirmi and lacks hairs on the knees. The only thing I spotted is that the spider pictured seemed to have a darker area around the caput and eye section but I cannot say with confidence that this is species specific vs. just unique to that particular individual spider.

I have never seen Theraphosa spinipes*, or indeed previously Lasiodora spinipes, listed anywhere in the hobby.

*Call me a cynical old f@rt but I suspect we will suddenly start seeing Theraphosa spinipes very soon! Let's be honest, a 4th Theraphosa to collectors will be like catnip! Ha ha.

 

[volcanopele]

Wow, okay, so happy to see this finally out! as Lasiodora is my favorite genus, the mess of this genus due to some outdated descriptions, and definitely some mislabeling of the specimens in the hobby is just an awful mess. So seeing it shrunk to just 7 species is great to see.

In my current collection, this seems affect Titania, my Lasiodora striatipes, which I guess I should label that Lasiodora sp. "striatipes", Visenya (now Vitalius chromatus), and Red (now Lasiodora benedeni from Lasiodora difficilis). And reading the description, my late great Wanda probably wasn't Lasiodora klugi and was probably subcanens.

 

[Wolfram1]

So if i interpret that right, until there is a formal description of T. blondi and T. spinipes in comparison to the others, we wont know if one of the now proposed 4 species is a synonym of one of the others....

TBH even though I have hundreds of Ts, the Lasiodora sp. Have never interested me, but I am a massive fan of Theraphosa so the whole "Theraphosa spinipes" mentioned in the paper, initially got me wondering if a genuine 4th Theraphosa existed or not

a shame really, but i anderstand we all have different tastes
sometimes a simple coincidence can decide which species we find fascinating or boring