New "true" Pamphobeteus nigricolor

[Steve123]

So folks, I recently heard the P. nigricolor that has been in the hobby for the past 20 or so years is not the "real" P. nigricolor. A photo of the sling of the "real" P. nigricolor is in the genus Pamphobeteus thread, recently posted by AB member Fritz. Interestingly, the sling doesn't have the reddish Christmas tree pattern on the rump, which Tom's sharp eyes caught right away. I haven't seen photos of adults yet and am waiting for documentation before signing up to bring them in. They are due to hit N. American shores by the end of October/beginning of November.

Anyone with further information on this subject? Any suggestions as to what the old P. nigricolor should be called to avoid confusion, and ever dreaded hybridization?

 

[korg]

Could you post a link to this sling photo? I made a cursory search through the pampho picture thread and genus gallery and don't think I found what you're talking about.

Frankly, I am a little leery whenever someone claims to have the "true" version of whatever species unless they are a scientist... though at the same time, tarantula taxonomy is such a mess that nothing would really surprise me. If there's truth to this, then I humbly propose Pamphobeteus sp. "korgi" for the old nigricolors.

 

[cold blood]

Could you post a link to this sling photo? I made a cursory search through the pampho picture thread and genus gallery and don't think I found what you're talking about.

+1 I went to that thread and back 6 months, didn't even see a single post by "Fritz", or the slings without the classic rump.

 

[dredrickt]

Do you have a link where we can read about this? And are they expecting the current variation of a Nigricolor to be a hybrid (of which pamphos) or a different species altogether?

 

[cold blood]

He wasn't theorizing they were hybrids, he mentioned avoiding hybrids by breeding "hobby" nigricolors with the supposed "true" nigricolors once they do get into the hands of hobbyists.

 

[awiec]

I believe I saw a picture of such a sling posted on the AB facebook page if that's the one he's talking about. It's very district from other pamph slings. It's the same thing with antinous. People just call the one that is common here "hobby form" and the other one "true". It has to deal with the fact that people go to the actual collection spot where the describing specimen was collected and collect it. Once they compare that one with the one in the hobby then we get these discussions about the "true" and "hobby form". I could be messing this all up as it's a bit late for me but that's how I understand it.

 

[advan]

Could you post a link to this sling photo? I made a cursory search through the pampho picture thread and genus gallery and don't think I found what you're talking about.

Frankly, I am a little leery whenever someone claims to have the "true" version of whatever species unless they are a scientist... though at the same time, tarantula taxonomy is such a mess that nothing would really surprise me. If there's truth to this, then I humbly propose Pamphobeteus sp. "korgi" for the old nigricolors.

+1 I went to that thread and back 6 months, didn't even see a single post by "Fritz", or the slings without the classic rump.

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/sho...Pamphobeteus&p=2114097&viewfull=1#post2114097

 

[dredrickt]

He wasn't theorizing they were hybrids, he mentioned avoiding hybrids by breeding "hobby" nigricolors with the supposed "true" nigricolors once they do get into the hands of hobbyists.

Ah, I see, I had to read that twice. My brain has been fried this week. Plus I'm a bit surprised that my Nigricolors may not be Nigricolors, lol.

So this could bring us to the same predicament the A. Brocklehursti is in then, yes? According to Lee Beck, the renamed Brocklehursti (now theraphosoides) looks nothing like the "hobby form" Brocklehursti. If a similar situation is found with the Nigricolor, I imagine they would just rename the "true" Nigricolor.

 

[Steve123]

Ah, I see, I had to read that twice. My brain has been fried this week. Plus I'm a bit surprised that my Nigricolors may not be Nigricolors, lol.
So this could bring us to the same predicament the A. Brocklehursti is in then, yes? According to Lee Beck, the renamed Brocklehursti (now theraphosoides) looks nothing like the "hobby form" Brocklehursti. If a similar situation is found with the Nigricolor, I imagine they would just rename the "true" Nigricolor.

Sorry I was up late with that one and then couldn't stay awake. Thanks again Advan for the link. We sure would like documentation, such as a manuscript or statement, but so far all I know is it is the work of the Stuttgart group, guys with 30+ years of experience some of them, who researched just as awiec described above.

Part n parcel of introducing a "true form" of anything in the hobby should be tying up loose ends for the "old form," in this case a valid species after all, beloved in the hobby. It would be a complete work if along with introducing the true form, the old form was described and given a new name (e.g. Pamphobeteus korgi, ^^) to validate it as a collectable in it's own right.

 

[Philth]

Should make a nice confusing mess when the new ones make it to the U.S.

Later, Tom

 

[korg]

Should make a nice confusing mess when the new ones make it to the U.S.

Heh, seriously. Sometimes it seems like there are ten taxonomy/ID developments in the hobby that increase ambiguity for every one that increases clarity (among the commonly kept species).

 

[c.h.esteban]

Hello,

first of all you should read the the following link (it´s from B. BISCHOFF);
http://www.arachnophilia.de/forum/pamphobeteus/12364-p-spec-sued-equador-machalla-5.html#post194338

And please note this part particularly;

"Hierbei handelt es sich um die Tiere die Tinter 93/94 als Pamphobeteus nigricolor hatte, als es sicher war, das es sich bei dieser Art nicht um nigricolor handelte, wurde ein neuer Name gegeben. [...]
Für all die, die P. nigricolor und oder P. spec. goliath haben, es ist das selbe Tier!"

It means, in 1993/94 a Pamphobeteus (from Ecuador) came into the hobby and was wrong labeled as P. nigricolor. when the fault was obvious they was labeld as P. spec GOLIATH.
So we have one species under two names.

Later another species was found near the nigricolor-typlocality. they fits in the descriptions from AUSSERER, POCOCK, BERTANI and also the drawings of GERSCHMAN & SCHIAPELLI, especially in details of the bulb-morphology.
First CB was sold 2013 as P. nigricolor. Other specimens from a different locality, which are very similar, was labeled as P. aff. nigricolor.

The juveniles of P. nigricolor and P. aff. nigricolor have no pattern on the dorsal abdomen (like other species from Colomia and Peru) but white marks on femur and carapace fringe.

Unfortunately, there is already another third species that was sold as “nigricolor” in the hobby.

All three show clear differences in the shape of the embolus.
From left to right; P. sp. “NIGRICOLOR” / P. sp. GOLIATH / P. nigricolor
http://imageshack.us/a/img834/5543/vgl1p.jpg

bye

 

[Philth]

It means, in 1993/94 a Pamphobeteus (from Ecuador) came into the hobby and was wrong labeled as P. nigricolor. when the fault was obvious they was labeld as P. spec GOLIATH.
So we have one species under two names.

So is P. sp. "Goliath" the same thing as P. sp "San Domingo Goliath", and P. sp."Santo Domingo" ? Are all three labels the same as the old P. nigricolor ?

Later, Tom

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

So is P. sp. "Goliath" the same thing as P. sp "San Domingo Goliath", and P. sp."Santo Domingo" ? Are all three labels the same as the old P. nigricolor ?

Later, Tom

Got example of pics? true P. nigricolor vs San Domingo Goliath

 

[c.h.esteban]

Hi Tom,

yes, it “should” be originally the same.
but over the years with all the picture-ID and everybody used a little bit different spelling, i dont trust these names.

that's why I mentioned the third “nigricolor”.

And do not forget there is also the P. sp. SANTO DOMINGO-SMALL (Variant). this is a own species and not a smaller "variant" of the P. sp SANTO DOMINGO GOLIATH. they has a different embolus and slings also without abdominal pattern.


bye

PS. some pictures you can find here http://www.aracmania-forum.com/index.php?page=Board&boardID=91

 

[Philth]

Hi Tom,

yes, it “should” be originally the same.
but over the years with all the picture-ID and everybody used a little bit different spelling, i dont trust these names.

that's why I mentioned the third “nigricolor”.

I'm sure the people in the U.S. that payed double the price for "San Domingo Goliath" will be happy to hear that they "should" have a regular common ole cheap P. nigricolor, oh but not even the real nigricolor, an imposter lol.

They look different to me in pictures , but like you say, with all the photo ID, who knows what anything is anymore. A genus like Pamphobeteus that has many brown similar looking adults , are bound to get mixed up

Later, Tom

 

[Koshkin]

That's interesting discussion. I have "hobby nigricolor"(not "true one") and, looking attentively through photos of sp.Goliath, couldn't find any difference. But what made me surprised, if nigricolor is usually considered as smth common, sp. Goliath is considered like smth harder-to-find and "one of the biggest species of pamphobeteus"(with no evidences of the last).
A question to people, who have seen and kept both adults of "hobby nigricolor" and Goliath, did you notice any valuable differences between them? I'm sure it's one species, but are they absolutely the same or two very similar local forms? If first, people really pay twice the price just for good commercial name?

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

I'm sure the people in the U.S. that payed double the price for "San Domingo Goliath" will be happy to hear that they "should" have a regular common ole cheap P. nigricolor, oh but not even the real nigricolor, an imposter lol.

They look different to me in pictures , but like you say, with all the photo ID, who knows what anything is anymore. A genus like Pamphobeteus that has many brown similar looking adults , are bound to get mixed up

Later, Tom

Well "San Domingo Goliath" looks pretty cool are fake P. nigricolor still sold as it?? Id like to have some cheap if I keep an eye out on sellers.

This is my second favorite genus so far, Pokies probably first since no hairs!!!.

 

[Philth]

Well "San Domingo Goliath" looks pretty cool are fake P. nigricolor still sold as it?? Id like to have some cheap if I keep an eye out on sellers.

Your best bet is to keep them labeled as the dealer has sold them to you. Keep track of the year, and month you got yours, with the dealer info and price. Make your dealer aware that there is several species being sold as P. nigricolor, and ask them about the background and history of the ones they are selling. I would not encourage buying cheap nigricolor and start calling them P. sp."San Domingo Goliath". Re-branding, just adds to the mess that we already have at hand.

Later, Tom

 

[Susej]

Hello,

first of all you should read the the following link (it´s from B. BISCHOFF);
http://www.arachnophilia.de/forum/pamphobeteus/12364-p-spec-sued-equador-machalla-5.html#post194338

And please note this part particularly;

"Hierbei handelt es sich um die Tiere die Tinter 93/94 als Pamphobeteus nigricolor hatte, als es sicher war, das es sich bei dieser Art nicht um nigricolor handelte, wurde ein neuer Name gegeben. [...]
Für all die, die P. nigricolor und oder P. spec. goliath haben, es ist das selbe Tier!"

It means, in 1993/94 a Pamphobeteus (from Ecuador) came into the hobby and was wrong labeled as P. nigricolor. when the fault was obvious they was labeld as P. spec GOLIATH.
So we have one species under two names.

Later another species was found near the nigricolor-typlocality. they fits in the descriptions from AUSSERER, POCOCK, BERTANI and also the drawings of GERSCHMAN & SCHIAPELLI, especially in details of the bulb-morphology.
First CB was sold 2013 as P. nigricolor. Other specimens from a different locality, which are very similar, was labeled as P. aff. nigricolor.

The juveniles of P. nigricolor and P. aff. nigricolor have no pattern on the dorsal abdomen (like other species from Colomia and Peru) but white marks on femur and carapace fringe.

Unfortunately, there is already another third species that was sold as “nigricolor” in the hobby.

All three show clear differences in the shape of the embolus.
From left to right; P. sp. “NIGRICOLOR” / P. sp. GOLIATH / P. nigricolor
http://imageshack.us/a/img834/5543/vgl1p.jpg

bye

Hi! Can you re upload picture?! Thanks!!