Phormingochilus revision with notes on Lampropelma, Haplopelma, and Cyriopagopus

[Biollantefan54]

"Smith, A.M. & M.A. Jacobi. 2015. Revision of the genus Phormingochilus (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Ornithoctoninae) with the description of three new species from Sulawesi and Sarawak and notes on the placement of the genera Cyriopagopus, Lampropelma and Omothymus. Journal of the British Tarantula Society 30(3): 26-51.
Abstract
Three new arboreal theraphosid spiders of the genus Phormingochilus Pocock, 1895 are here described from Sulawesi and Sarawak, Borneo: Phormingochilus carpenteri sp. nov., P. kirki sp. nov., and P. pennelhewletti sp. nov. The genus has been revised and historical species redescribed. The authors have also discussed the placement of the Ornithoctoninae genera Cyriopagopus Simon, 1887, Lampropelma Simon, 1892 and Omothymus Thorell, 1891 and, after an examination of the type material, concluded that Cyriopagopus is a senior synonym of the genus Haplopelma Simon, 1892 and that the genus Omothymus needs to be restored to house the arboreal Malaysian mainland species schioedtei (Thorell, 1891) and thorelli (Simon, 1901), which were formerly asssigned to the genus Cyriopagopus but have now been restored to their original placement. We have also concluded, on examination of the type material that the female of Lampropelma violaceopes Abraham, 1924 from Southern Malaysia should be removed from the genus Lampropelma (whose distibution at present, we believe to be limited to Lampropelma nigerrimum from Sangihe (Sangir) Island) and placed in the genus Omothymus, whereas the male, from Penang, is deemed to be a misidentified specimen of Cyriopagopus (Omothymus) schioedtei."
TL;DR VERSION:
Omothymus schioedtei, Omothymus violaceopes, and all Haplopelma are Cyriopagopus....."

 

[Scorpendra]

I heard P. carpenteri is what was called C. sp. "Sulawesi Black". Anyone know if kirki and pennelhewletti are ones we already know too?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Interesting. I can't wait for the latest issue to arrive in my mailbox. Does anyone remember when a species was sold on the pet trade as Cryiopagopus paganus? We now call it Haplopelma sp. "Vietnam" or Haplopelma vonwirthi, but I guess it really was a Cyriopagopus sp. after all.

 

[Poec54]

Interesting. I can't wait for the latest issue to arrive in my mailbox. Does anyone remember when a species was sold on the pet trade as Cryiopagopus paganus? We now call it Haplopelma sp. "Vietnam" or Haplopelma vonwirthi, but I guess it really was a Cyriopagopus sp. after all.

It was only a fluke that that trade name actually turned out to be right. That species also got several other names by dealers/importers.

 

[micheldied]

And Lampropelma violaceopes sounded so much better than Ornothymus violaceopes too.

 

[Mako16]

And Lampropelma violaceopes sounded so much better than Ornothymus violaceopes too.

Correction .. It's Omothymus , nor Ornothymus

 

[micheldied]

Correction .. It's Omothymus , nor Ornothymus

Whoops, it's early in the morning and my eyes aren't fully awake. Sounds even worse though.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I ready this article today and does anyone else find the paper to be incredibly weak? The taxonomic characters and methodology used are outdated and I was very disappointed in particular that the type of Cyriopagopus (C. paganus) was not illustrated and compared with other members of the genus Haplopelma. I tried to reserve judgement on the quality of this study given who authored this paper and what journal it was published in before reading it, but alas I was still disappointed.

Are the changes proposed in this paper being discussed somewhere else in detail? I can imagine this is a highly controversial paper and would like to know the opinion of those that study these taxa.

 

[AntikInsomniak]

The WSC has no mention of this change. I imagine it's still pending review, thus not "official".

I'm also speculative on this papers results, given there is no supporting paper on the subject and I can only guess at how many taxonomists might refute it.

 

[Thistles]

There has been a bit of... controversy, let's say, on some German forums. I haven't changed my labels yet. The methods used were a bit old and certain traits were ignored, as were other papers. I'll just wait to see what the WSC says. I'm certain the work is not done here.

 

[TsunamiSpike]

I'm a bit slow with this side of things but is that to say Haplopelma (eg Haplopelma Lividum ) are now known as Cyriopagopus?

 

[Angel Minkov]

I'm a bit slow with this side of things but is that to say Haplopelma (eg Haplopelma Lividum ) are now known as Cyriopagopus?

Yes, but probably not for long.

 

[Chris11]

Ohhh man, i hope i dont have to rip off these super sticky labels on my haplos enclosures.... :/

 

[awiec]

Ohhh man, i hope i dont have to rip off these super sticky labels on my haplos enclosures.... :/

I'd hold onto them, I'm no arachnologist but the paper was a little weird with what it used as its evidence.

 

[Garrick]

I'd hold onto them, I'm no arachnologist but the paper was a little weird with what it used as its evidence.

I've been somewhat out of the loop and just read this paper today.

I don't think that article reflects the usual quality of the BTS journal.

Anyway, it's a heck of a lot easier now than it used to be to look up the history of theraphosid phylogeny. You can read (or get, then translate) Thorell with a few clicks. Pocock at your fingertips. Museum collection databases are readily available. Form your own conclusions.

Suffice to say I didn't "change labels" on anything regarding this.

-Garrick