The two versions of A. geniculata and A. brocklehursti

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

Hello! I feel that that this needs to be put as a separate thread. The specimens so far that I have gathered it seems that there are two versions of Acanthoscurria geniculata and two versions of the formerly know Acanthoscurria brocklehursti. I cant say wether some of this are technically "hybrids" but that all four maybe be in fact from either different locality of maybe different species all together. First I will post the two versions of the Acanthoscurria geniculata starting with my 2009 photo of my female cause I really dig this photo. The rest of the photos were just taken today. Now some of this spiders are in need of a molt but still good coloration.

Here are the two A. geniculata I will call one of the photos "Version I" and "Version II", so there is not a mixed up. The "Version I", is what I have always known since the late 90's to be the Acanthoscurria geniculata. The "Version II", the first time that I have ever seen this version of the Acanthoscurria geniculata was late last year. It still could be Acanthoscurria geniculata but since there are two versions I just dont know anymore. I am just as confused as everyone else is. Please take a close look at the black marking patterns on the patella.

Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2009

Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2014

Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Side View - 2014

Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Side View - 2014

Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Front View - 2014

Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Front View - 2014

On "Version I", is the Acanthoscurria brocklehursti that I have known since the early 2000 I got a description from an old friend of mine John Hoke's from e- spiderworld back in the day. The "Version II" is also being consider Acanthoscurria brocklehursti and it maybe but since there are two versions I just dont know anymore. I am just as confused as everyone else is. Here are the two versions of the formerly know Acanthoscurria brocklehursti. Please take a close look of the black marking patterns are a bit longer on "Version I" than Version "Version II" and also the coloration on the patella.

Version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014

Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014

Version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Side View - 2014

Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Side View - 2014

Version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Front View - 2014

Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Front View - 2014

From the four different looking specimens that I have, I know understand the confusion that everyone else has. To me there seems to be four in the hobby that are different. If your intention is to breed this species, my suggestion is get a close look at wether the immature male has the same black marking patterns as your female. As what I can see on all four specimens the black marking patterns are differently in length as well with a difference in the coloration on some of them on the patella especially with the formerly known brocklehursti. Also cause of the length of the black markings the white bandings are either longer or shorter.


Jose

 

[Hydrazine]

The "brocklehursti v1 side view" is really pretty. I dig the scarf too.

 

[KcFerry]

I think the "Version 1" A. brocklehursti is becoming less common. I see more and more of the ones with the brighter white (often mistaken for geniculata ), but the darker, thinner banbed ones that I believe to be the original A. brocklehursti are becoming rare....Why?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

My opinion is that all of them are color variations of Acanthoscurria geniculata. Based on Paula, et. al. 2014, mature males exhibit variations in the leg striping much like the pictures of the females you pictured. The article doesn't state variations in the leg striping in adult females however. I wouldn't be surprised that the two color/ pattern forms have been interbred to produce even more artificial variations as a result of the pet trade. Only an examination of the morphology of all four forms would confirm whether or not they are variants of the same species or distinct enough to consider them different species. The aforementioned article states the taxonomically relevant characters to define A. geniculata if anyone wants to take on that task. If variation in the leg striping has been confirmed in mature males of A. geniculata, than it's very plausible that it would exist in females too.

Let's go ahead and stop calling any of them Acanthoscurria brocklehursti because in the same paper (Paula, et. al. 2014), the female holotype of that species has been examined and found to be a junior synonym of Acanthoscurria theraphosoides. A. theraphosoides and A. geniculata can very easily be distinguished from each other. Calling any of these supposed forms of A. geniculata "A. brocklehursti" is just going to confuse the identity of two species even more to hobbyists when or if they appear on dealers' price lists. Not to mention, flat out wrong considering recent research on the species.

Here is the full citation of the article referenced here and a link to view it.

Paula, F. dos S., Gabriel, R., Indicatti, R. P., Brescovit, A. D. & Lucas, S. M. (2014). On the Brazilian Amazonian species of Acanthoscurria (Araneae: Theraphosidae). Zoologia (Curitiba) 31(1): 63-80

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scr...1984-46702014000100008&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

My opinion is that all of them are color variations of Acanthoscurria geniculata. Based on Paula, et. al. 2014, mature males exhibit variations in the leg striping much like the pictures of the females you pictured. The article doesn't state variations in the leg striping in adult females however. I wouldn't be surprised that the two color/ pattern forms have been interbred to produce even more artificial variations as a result of the pet trade. Only an examination of the morphology of all four forms would confirm whether or not they are variants of the same species or distinct enough to consider them different species. The aforementioned article states the taxonomically relevant characters to define A. geniculata if anyone wants to take on that task. If variation in the leg striping has been confirmed in mature males of A. geniculata, than it's very plausible that it would exist in females too.

Let's go ahead and stop calling any of them Acanthoscurria brocklehursti because in the same paper (Paula, et. al. 2014), the female holotype of that species has been examined and found to be a junior synonym of Acanthoscurria theraphosoides. A. theraphosoides and A. geniculata can very easily be distinguished from each other. Calling any of these supposed forms of A. geniculata "A. brocklehursti" is just going to confuse the identity of two species even more to hobbyists when or if they appear on dealers' price lists. Not to mention, flat out wrong considering recent research on the species.

Here is the full citation of the article referenced here and a link to view it.

Paula, F. dos S., Gabriel, R., Indicatti, R. P., Brescovit, A. D. & Lucas, S. M. (2014). On the Brazilian Amazonian species of Acanthoscurria (Araneae: Theraphosidae). Zoologia (Curitiba) 31(1): 63-80

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scr...1984-46702014000100008&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

I understand what you are saying but the problem that I have is. On the papers it shows of a mature male that was formally known as brocklehursti that has the black stripe markings on the patella that is now geniculata. The brocklehursti mature males that have the black stripe markings on the patella I have had in the past years also was the same description as on those papers, my mature males formally know brocklehursti would not breed with any of my females geniculata.
So right know it does not make any sense to me why my mature males geniculata that have the white stripe markings on the patella will breed with geniculata and not the other form that is on the papers from Paula. I know from first hand of this, cause I have tried three times and all three times geniculata female will not breed with the formally know brocklehursti. The female geniculata has always backed off and will not engage of a fight all three females would walk away from the males.


Jose

---------- Post added 04-06-2015 at 04:13 PM ----------

Once again here are the two mature males 1st and 2nd photos are of the geniculata and 3rd and 4rth the brocklehursti. The brocklehursti is the one that is on Paula papers. This is where I am confused?
This are the only two types of mature males that I have only come across I have not seen any other different ones like I have with the females.

Acanthoscurria geniculata Mature Male Top View - 2009

Acanthoscurria geniculata Mature Male Front View - 2009

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Top View Mature Male - 2009

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Front View Mature Male - 2009

Jose

 

[Hydrazine]

Aw, man, you fixed the scarf pic!

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

Aw, man, you fixed the scarf pic!

I know I did. Seriously what do you make of all this?


Jose

---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 09:57 AM ----------

I look at this way, why not could some new specimens be different species, but yet needs to be identify or it has been identify and if it has the question remains what species some of this are. Is no different than the fact that we have B. angustum, B. vagans, B. epicureanum, B. sabolusum all of this are consider different species. The photo I posted of the geniculata "Version II" I have never seen one until late last year around December. Who knows some of them might be hybrids and if they are why are all four differently from each other?


Jose

---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 09:58 AM ----------

I think the "Version 1" A. brocklehursti is becoming less common. I see more and more of the ones with the brighter white (often mistaken for geniculata ), but the darker, thinner banbed ones that I believe to be the original A. brocklehursti are becoming rare....Why?

I'm there with you.......Why?




Jose

 

[ManlyMan7]

I was thinking the same thing about Mexican Red-rumps. I actually have an angustum and a vagans. I firmly believe it is very possible they are all one species of different locales/ morphs. Of course, the definition of species is ever under debate as well. Not trying to confuse the issues any more, but it is.

Another thought crossed my mind, if they are two separate species that refuse to breed together (as has been your experience), would it be safe to put a pair together, and if they pair, good, if not, they must not be the same species?

(Ducks for cover).

 

[ManlyMan7]

I should clarify that my question is genuine. I recognize it approaches a hot topic, but let's face it, this subject does.

We need to sort through some of these issues (civilly of course), so we can know better how to handle better a confusing issue here (Acantho breeding).

So please understand I am not trying to throw a trolling bomb in here with my question, but I DO have a situation that such a question directly relates to at the moment.

 

[klawfran3]

What's the difference in the spermathecae in the two spiders? I know that's how a lot of closely related species are told apart (eg. in lycosids.) If they're identical, I would believe that the two spiders are just natural color variations/ local variations in the species.

And who's not to say that the spiders you have haven't been hybridized some time in the past few generations? Unless you can trace their heritage you can't be 100% sure... Could the questionable looking spiders just be hybrids that are throwing everyone off?

 

[ManlyMan7]

The spermathecae question is legit. I have seen it discussed on another forum where I posted pics of my 8" girl's spermathecae. That picture confused some there. I will post it here eventually.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

A

I was thinking the same thing about Mexican Red-rumps. I actually have an angustum and a vagans. I firmly believe it is very possible they are all one species of different locales/ morphs. Of course, the definition of species is ever under debate as well. Not trying to confuse the issues any more, but it is.

Another thought crossed my mind, if they are two separate species that refuse to breed together (as has been your experience), would it be safe to put a pair together, and if they pair, good, if not, they must not be the same species?

(Ducks for cover).

I can only tell you from my experience that the Acanthoscurria geniculata female and Acanthoscurria brocklehursti mature male will not breed. I tried once by accident and a couple of other times to see if they would. Could the geniculata and brocklehursti be the same species, hybrids or different species, who knows? All I know going by the markings and their different description they have, I would keep them separately. That also includes the other two versions of spiders that I posted photos of. To me it would not be wise to over look information that has been posted. However everyone will be making their own decision on how to approach the situation.


Jose

 

[sjl197]

Firstly, those photos by Jose are beautiful. Well done of some great photos of some beautiful animals.


However, Here's what i see for those females photographed.

(1) Very banded - legs with very thick white annular bands distally, very thick white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2009"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with very thick banding)

(2) Rather well banded - legs with rather thick white annular bands distally, rather white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with rather thick banding)

(3) Moderately banded - legs with moderate white annular bands distally, moderate white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with moderate banding)

(4) Thin banded - legs with thin white annular bands distally, thin white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with thin banding)

Right, I'm very glad AphonopelmaTX highlighted the Paula et al. paper, because it IS the paper people need to be reading on this topic.

Jose you say "I can only tell you from my experience that the Acanthoscurria geniculata female and Acanthoscurria brocklehursti mature male will not breed." But here you're firstly failing to appreciate that A.brocklehursti is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing. Please please for the love of spiders, drop the hobby usage of A. brocklehursti. None of your spiders are A. brocklehursti, and never have been (even before that real species was synonymised with A. theraphosoides). You're using a misapplied pet-trade name, based only on dealers not bothering to ask about the real species, and now that's cleared up, continued usage now only adds confusion.

So jose - i think you're trying to insist you think the thin-banded ones are a different species from the thick banded ones ... yet you've above presented/labeled four different variants ... so why not instead argue for four different species? ... each with a different thickness of leg banding - very thick, rather thick, moderate, thin banded. Where exactly is the division between the "rather thick" (your Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata) and the "moderate" (Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti).

Jose you said above "why not could some new specimens be different species". Well, i can assure you such ideas were indeed considered during the course of writing the Paula et al paper.. But, given all evidence, it suggests the answer is that there isn't any such robust division or divisions. It's a wide-ranging species with regional variation in banding thickness. This is the answer given by Paula et al. 2004, and it seems robust. It can also be a clinal variation over the massive distances along the amazon, e.g. downstream the thinner banding forms dominate. In Fig.1 they showed 1 male from Belem - downstream on the map - pretty thin banded - the hobby would have called that "Acanthoscurria brocklehursti" until recently. In Fig.2 they show 1 female from Belterra (near Santarem), the hobby would have (maybe) called that "Acanthoscurria geniculata" but i expect there would have been debate on the female as it's not VERY THICKLY banded! My point however is there is about 700 km between these localities! Simply, for evolution, distance often means divergence.

What does it mean for defining the species if in captivity a thin banded male won't mate or wont form a fertile egg-sac with a thick banded female or females.
Probably precisely nothing.
Let me give you an example. I've had a female 'Brachypelma smithi' for 20 years or so. Over that time, i've paired her with 5 different mature males. I've also done genetic comparisons on that species and several other tarantulas. What i know for a fact is 3 of those males matched perfectly genetically to the female (the other 2 i didn't test). 1 of the males consistently refused to mate. Another was really pathetic, consistently. From these 5 males (4 of which mated successfully) i've had precisely ZERO eggsacs from that female. Once the female got fat, put down a thick mat of silk, and promptly moulted. 6 months before she was 'due' to moult - on an annual moulting cycle.
What does all this mean for the species. Nothing. It can mean any of several things - perhaps my captive setup of male or female was probably not ideal for breeding, i didn't condition the female well enough, i didn't let mating occur at the right time for the female, etc etc. And Fyi - Other females I've had were fine, mated and bred successfully - and repeatedly.

But jose, above i think you were saying the male wont MATE with the female (which encourages you to think them different). Does it mean they're different species, no. Does it give a single case study in an artificial setting, yes it does. Perhaps as a counter example, I need to find the Youtube video where i saw some idiot pairing a male 'vagans' mating with a female 'Chilean rosehair' (Grammostola sp). Those despite being VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS and naturally from very different climates on different continent really didn't seem to care much, they came together quite peacefully, and mating fumbles went on for quite some time. Again single example in a captive setting, does it mean redrumps and Chile rosehairs are the same species? No.

Let's further address concerns
Jose said "The photo I posted of the geniculata "Version II" I have never seen one until late last year around December. Who knows some of them might be hybrids and if they are why are all four differently from each other?"
So, let's for a thought exercise say the thickest banded types are one species, the thinnest banded another. You're suggesting the moderately banded ones (here specifically 'geniculata "Version II' could be hobby hybrids. They could. Indeed. But that moderate form also occurs in nature in the lower amazon.
Here's a female from Belem,Para. It would essentially match with the male locality in the Paula et al. 2014 paper, fig1. That Jose says looks like hobby 'brocklehursti'
https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712
Just to see, here's another male from nearly the same location Benevides, just outside Belem,Para.
https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187339310866114&oid=112485960936211277712

Then you all go into talking about redrumps. For the record, i love natural forms of redrumps, and i greatly dislike the hobby mess.
ManlyMan7 said "I was thinking the same thing about Mexican Red-rumps. I actually have an angustum and a vagans. I firmly believe it is very possible they are all one species of different locales/ morphs."
First, no you don't have angustum. Never did. Those are hybrid mixes, often hobby albopilosum x some sort of redrump. If you firmly believe all one species, then how to test that, or just sit back in armchair and leave at that? I'm also not too satisfied with "the definition of species is ever under debate as well." It's not really being debated anymore, but agree was quite a lot, and never well resolved. That latter point i totally agree with. What you're saying is often it's very elusive and confusing about where to draw the line between regional variants (subspecies etc) and distinct species. Totally agree. Getting back to these Acanthoscurria, a vast amount of preserved specimens were looked at morphologically, all with collecting data. From all those, it seemed to the authors of the Paula et al. 2014 paper that the most reasonable explanation of their specimens at hand was REGIONAL VARIATION (banding pattern, bulb morphology etc). Now lets imagine they'd instead just cherry picked say two very distant locations, some from one location where individuals had thick leg banding, the rest from another location where spiders had thin leg bandings. Then the decision might have been two different species, just with remarkably similar morphology (banding pattern, bulb morphology etc). Such cherry picking from just a couple of distant locations is exactly what hobby collectors did for the hobbystock of these years ago, and what many continue to do for many other types of tarantula (Pamphobeteus and Xenethis spring instantly to mind). A similar cherry-picking is what museum collectors also did in the distant past, for example with redrumps many many years previously (B. vagans [somewhere in Yucatan], B. epicureanum [far north Yucatan], B. sabolusum [North Guatemala). And for the redrumps that needs resolving with modern methods using a broad geographic sampling of many intermediate locations, not just a few very distant cherry picked locations ....

Anyway, please look again at the Paula et al. 2004, and understand why the usage of "A.brocklehursti" is entirely inappropriate for any of these beautiful spiders above, and please try to appreciate the broad geographic spread of specimens used in the paper for deciding the species boundaries. Decisions were not made lightly and were not made on just a few distant cherry picked locations!

Greetings.
stuart

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

Firstly, those photos by Jose are beautiful. Well done of some great photos of some beautiful animals.


However, Here's what i see for those females photographed.

(1) Very banded - legs with very thick white annular bands distally, very thick white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2009"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with very thick banding)

(2) Rather well banded - legs with rather thick white annular bands distally, rather white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with rather thick banding)

(3) Moderately banded - legs with moderate white annular bands distally, moderate white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with moderate banding)

(4) Thin banded - legs with thin white annular bands distally, thin white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with thin banding)

Right, I'm very glad AphonopelmaTX highlighted the Paula et al. paper, because it IS the paper people need to be reading on this topic.

Jose you say "I can only tell you from my experience that the Acanthoscurria geniculata female and Acanthoscurria brocklehursti mature male will not breed." But here you're firstly failing to appreciate that A.brocklehursti is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing. Please please for the love of spiders, drop the hobby usage of A. brocklehursti. None of your spiders are A. brocklehursti, and never have been (even before that real species was synonymised with A. theraphosoides). You're using a misapplied pet-trade name, based only on dealers not bothering to ask about the real species, and now that's cleared up, continued usage now only adds confusion.

So jose - i think you're trying to insist you think the thin-banded ones are a different species from the thick banded ones ... yet you've above presented/labeled four different variants ... so why not instead argue for four different species? ... each with a different thickness of leg banding - very thick, rather thick, moderate, thin banded. Where exactly is the division between the "rather thick" (your Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata) and the "moderate" (Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti).

Jose you said above "why not could some new specimens be different species". Well, i can assure you such ideas were indeed considered during the course of writing the Paula et al paper.. But, given all evidence, it suggests the answer is that there isn't any such robust division or divisions. It's a wide-ranging species with regional variation in banding thickness. This is the answer given by Paula et al. 2004, and it seems robust. It can also be a clinal variation over the massive distances along the amazon, e.g. downstream the thinner banding forms dominate. In Fig.1 they showed 1 male from Belem - downstream on the map - pretty thin banded - the hobby would have called that "Acanthoscurria brocklehursti" until recently. In Fig.2 they show 1 female from Belterra (near Santarem), the hobby would have (maybe) called that "Acanthoscurria geniculata" but i expect there would have been debate on the female as it's not VERY THICKLY banded! My point however is there is about 700 km between these localities! Simply, for evolution, distance often means divergence.

What does it mean for defining the species if in captivity a thin banded male won't mate or wont form a fertile egg-sac with a thick banded female or females.
Probably precisely nothing.
Let me give you an example. I've had a female 'Brachypelma smithi' for 20 years or so. Over that time, i've paired her with 5 different mature males. I've also done genetic comparisons on that species and several other tarantulas. What i know for a fact is 3 of those males matched perfectly genetically to the female (the other 2 i didn't test). 1 of the males consistently refused to mate. Another was really pathetic, consistently. From these 5 males (4 of which mated successfully) i've had precisely ZERO eggsacs from that female. Once the female got fat, put down a thick mat of silk, and promptly moulted. 6 months before she was 'due' to moult - on an annual moulting cycle.
What does all this mean for the species. Nothing. It can mean any of several things - perhaps my captive setup of male or female was probably not ideal for breeding, i didn't condition the female well enough, i didn't let mating occur at the right time for the female, etc etc. And Fyi - Other females I've had were fine, mated and bred successfully - and repeatedly.

But jose, above i think you were saying the male wont MATE with the female (which encourages you to think them different). Does it mean they're different species, no. Does it give a single case study in an artificial setting, yes it does. Perhaps as a counter example, I need to find the Youtube video where i saw some idiot pairing a male 'vagans' mating with a female 'Chilean rosehair' (Grammostola sp). Those despite being VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS and naturally from very different climates on different continent really didn't seem to care much, they came together quite peacefully, and mating fumbles went on for quite some time. Again single example in a captive setting, does it mean redrumps and Chile rosehairs are the same species? No.

Let's further address concerns
Jose said "The photo I posted of the geniculata "Version II" I have never seen one until late last year around December. Who knows some of them might be hybrids and if they are why are all four differently from each other?"
So, let's for a thought exercise say the thickest banded types are one species, the thinnest banded another. You're suggesting the moderately banded ones (here specifically 'geniculata "Version II' could be hobby hybrids. They could. Indeed. But that moderate form also occurs in nature in the lower amazon.
Here's a female from Belem,Para. It would essentially match with the male locality in the Paula et al. 2014 paper, fig1. That Jose says looks like hobby 'brocklehursti'
https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712
Just to see, here's another male from nearly the same location Benevides, just outside Belem,Para.
https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187339310866114&oid=112485960936211277712

Then you all go into talking about redrumps. For the record, i love natural forms of redrumps, and i greatly dislike the hobby mess.
ManlyMan7 said "I was thinking the same thing about Mexican Red-rumps. I actually have an angustum and a vagans. I firmly believe it is very possible they are all one species of different locales/ morphs."
First, no you don't have angustum. Never did. Those are hybrid mixes, often hobby albopilosum x some sort of redrump. If you firmly believe all one species, then how to test that, or just sit back in armchair and leave at that? I'm also not too satisfied with "the definition of species is ever under debate as well." It's not really being debated anymore, but agree was quite a lot, and never well resolved. That latter point i totally agree with. What you're saying is often it's very elusive and confusing about where to draw the line between regional variants (subspecies etc) and distinct species. Totally agree. Getting back to these Acanthoscurria, a vast amount of preserved specimens were looked at morphologically, all with collecting data. From all those, it seemed to the authors of the Paula et al. 2014 paper that the most reasonable explanation of their specimens at hand was REGIONAL VARIATION (banding pattern, bulb morphology etc). Now lets imagine they'd instead just cherry picked say two very distant locations, some from one location where individuals had thick leg banding, the rest from another location where spiders had thin leg bandings. Then the decision might have been two different species, just with remarkably similar morphology (banding pattern, bulb morphology etc). Such cherry picking from just a couple of distant locations is exactly what hobby collectors did for the hobbystock of these years ago, and what many continue to do for many other types of tarantula (Pamphobeteus and Xenethis spring instantly to mind). A similar cherry-picking is what museum collectors also did in the distant past, for example with redrumps many many years previously (B. vagans [somewhere in Yucatan], B. epicureanum [far north Yucatan], B. sabolusum [North Guatemala). And for the redrumps that needs resolving with modern methods using a broad geographic sampling of many intermediate locations, not just a few very distant cherry picked locations ....

Anyway, please look again at the Paula et al. 2004, and understand why the usage of "A.brocklehursti" is entirely inappropriate for any of these beautiful spiders above, and please try to appreciate the broad geographic spread of specimens used in the paper for deciding the species boundaries. Decisions were not made lightly and were not made on just a few distant cherry picked locations!

Greetings.
stuart

Hi Stuart, thanks for the nice remarks of my photos.
First according to your link https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712 this is the former A. brocklehursti that we have in our hobby. According to Paula it was mistakingly called brocklehursti and that it is in fact A. geniculata. At this point from what I'm gathering is, that it is safe for me to give the proper name of my version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti http://i62.tinypic.com/rrjx20.jpg change to Acanthoscurria geniculata. Is this correct Stuart? And I understand that the name brocklehursti may not exist/does not exist.
I do have a slight problem with this that I'm a bit confused. The photo of the female that is on this link http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf does not resemble the specimen that you provided on your link https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712 as you can see the white banding are inaccurate of the two females. The photos of the mature males on both link that is the former brocklehursti do match.

Stuart, in 2009 I bred both species former brocklehursti and geniculata. In the pet trade this is the original Acanthoscurria brocklehursti http://i62.tinypic.com/idg94y.jpg mature male, by accident I put the male with the version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/huj974.jpg female the female did not try to kill the male or breed. Since the former known brocklehursti male was not able to breed with the geniculata female, I decided to pair my 4" inch female former known brocklehursti with the former known mature male brocklehursti. The mature male was in my hands and I was going towards the females cage, once I got real close to her cage the female drummed heavily for the male. Both bred instantly with no problems.

A few days later I had purchased the Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i59.tinypic.com/2j14f0n.jpg mature male. I put this male in the enclosure of the female version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/huj974.jpg the female drummed for the male. So I ask you why the opposite male did not breed with the female geniculata? To me at that time and to this day I feel/felt that they are two separate species. I will say this again, at this point I rather breed a female and male that looks identical to each other, obviously in some cases the male when it matures will have a different look to them. Would we/should try to breed B. annitha with B. smithi?

Now the original version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/huj974.jpg that was brought in the pet trade back in the 90's could well be in fact a species unknown. Are we on the same page Stuart?

With version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/iz8geu.jpg to me resembles female that is on this photo of this link http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf I may be wrong, but this is my opinion. And again I'm a bit confused.

With the version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata I'm having backlash cause of the issue that I'm having with the Acanthoscurria fracta. My two specimens are now Acanthoscurria sp. Fracta, Acanthoscurria theraphosoides or it is described but under what name? That's what I'm gathering here the original geniculata could be described under a different name? Is this correct Stuart?

I have no problem calling Acanthoscurria brocklehursti "theraphosoides" but what spider are we calling this? Where is a photo of this spider? Or the name brocklehursti should have never existed?

Sorry if my English is a bit off. Stuart no matter what I appreciate your input as well as AphonopelmaTX. I'm just simply letting members on Arachnoboards of what and why the confusion of the two or four for all I know.

It seems to me the majority of spiders in the world need special attention by doing DNA testing, to get the correct identification.

The World Spider Catalog still have brocklehursti listed.





Jose

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I have no problem calling Acanthoscurria brocklehursti "theraphosoides" but what spider are we calling this? Where is a photo of this spider? Or the name brocklehursti should have never existed?

The World Spider Catalog still have brocklehursti listed.

Jose

The picture of Acanthoscurria theraphosoides is on page 71 of the Paula et. al. (2014) paper you yourself linked to. The World Spider Catalog is up-to-date with the nomenclature changes as a result of said paper. It lists A. brocklehursti as a junior synonym of A. theraphosoides.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

The picture of Acanthoscurria theraphosoides is on page 71 of the Paula et. al. (2014) paper you yourself linked to. The World Spider Catalog is up-to-date with the nomenclature changes as a result of said paper. It lists A. brocklehursti as a junior synonym of A. theraphosoides.

The photos on page 71 I see a specimens that may have never been in the hobby. And is what I figure that is A. theraphosoides. I asked to be crystal clear of this. One of my question was answer. Thanks.




Jose

---------- Post added 04-19-2015 at 06:48 AM ----------

Firstly, those photos by Jose are beautiful. Well done of some great photos of some beautiful animals.


However, Here's what i see for those females photographed.

(1) Very banded - legs with very thick white annular bands distally, very thick white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2009"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with very thick banding)

(2) Rather well banded - legs with rather thick white annular bands distally, rather white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with rather thick banding)

(3) Moderately banded - legs with moderate white annular bands distally, moderate white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with moderate banding)

(4) Thin banded - legs with thin white annular bands distally, thin white stripes on patella
Labeled: "Version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - Top View - 2014"
For me: Acanthoscurria geniculata (with thin banding)

Right, I'm very glad AphonopelmaTX highlighted the Paula et al. paper, because it IS the paper people need to be reading on this topic.

Jose you say "I can only tell you from my experience that the Acanthoscurria geniculata female and Acanthoscurria brocklehursti mature male will not breed." But here you're firstly failing to appreciate that A.brocklehursti is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT thing. Please please for the love of spiders, drop the hobby usage of A. brocklehursti. None of your spiders are A. brocklehursti, and never have been (even before that real species was synonymised with A. theraphosoides). You're using a misapplied pet-trade name, based only on dealers not bothering to ask about the real species, and now that's cleared up, continued usage now only adds confusion.

So jose - i think you're trying to insist you think the thin-banded ones are a different species from the thick banded ones ... yet you've above presented/labeled four different variants ... so why not instead argue for four different species? ... each with a different thickness of leg banding - very thick, rather thick, moderate, thin banded. Where exactly is the division between the "rather thick" (your Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata) and the "moderate" (Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti).

Jose you said above "why not could some new specimens be different species". Well, i can assure you such ideas were indeed considered during the course of writing the Paula et al paper.. But, given all evidence, it suggests the answer is that there isn't any such robust division or divisions. It's a wide-ranging species with regional variation in banding thickness. This is the answer given by Paula et al. 2004, and it seems robust. It can also be a clinal variation over the massive distances along the amazon, e.g. downstream the thinner banding forms dominate. In Fig.1 they showed 1 male from Belem - downstream on the map - pretty thin banded - the hobby would have called that "Acanthoscurria brocklehursti" until recently. In Fig.2 they show 1 female from Belterra (near Santarem), the hobby would have (maybe) called that "Acanthoscurria geniculata" but i expect there would have been debate on the female as it's not VERY THICKLY banded! My point however is there is about 700 km between these localities! Simply, for evolution, distance often means divergence.

What does it mean for defining the species if in captivity a thin banded male won't mate or wont form a fertile egg-sac with a thick banded female or females.
Probably precisely nothing.
Let me give you an example. I've had a female 'Brachypelma smithi' for 20 years or so. Over that time, i've paired her with 5 different mature males. I've also done genetic comparisons on that species and several other tarantulas. What i know for a fact is 3 of those males matched perfectly genetically to the female (the other 2 i didn't test). 1 of the males consistently refused to mate. Another was really pathetic, consistently. From these 5 males (4 of which mated successfully) i've had precisely ZERO eggsacs from that female. Once the female got fat, put down a thick mat of silk, and promptly moulted. 6 months before she was 'due' to moult - on an annual moulting cycle.
What does all this mean for the species. Nothing. It can mean any of several things - perhaps my captive setup of male or female was probably not ideal for breeding, i didn't condition the female well enough, i didn't let mating occur at the right time for the female, etc etc. And Fyi - Other females I've had were fine, mated and bred successfully - and repeatedly.

But jose, above i think you were saying the male wont MATE with the female (which encourages you to think them different). Does it mean they're different species, no. Does it give a single case study in an artificial setting, yes it does. Perhaps as a counter example, I need to find the Youtube video where i saw some idiot pairing a male 'vagans' mating with a female 'Chilean rosehair' (Grammostola sp). Those despite being VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS and naturally from very different climates on different continent really didn't seem to care much, they came together quite peacefully, and mating fumbles went on for quite some time. Again single example in a captive setting, does it mean redrumps and Chile rosehairs are the same species? No.

Let's further address concerns
Jose said "The photo I posted of the geniculata "Version II" I have never seen one until late last year around December. Who knows some of them might be hybrids and if they are why are all four differently from each other?"
So, let's for a thought exercise say the thickest banded types are one species, the thinnest banded another. You're suggesting the moderately banded ones (here specifically 'geniculata "Version II' could be hobby hybrids. They could. Indeed. But that moderate form also occurs in nature in the lower amazon.
Here's a female from Belem,Para. It would essentially match with the male locality in the Paula et al. 2014 paper, fig1. That Jose says looks like hobby 'brocklehursti'
https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712
Just to see, here's another male from nearly the same location Benevides, just outside Belem,Para.
https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187339310866114&oid=112485960936211277712

Then you all go into talking about redrumps. For the record, i love natural forms of redrumps, and i greatly dislike the hobby mess.
ManlyMan7 said "I was thinking the same thing about Mexican Red-rumps. I actually have an angustum and a vagans. I firmly believe it is very possible they are all one species of different locales/ morphs."
First, no you don't have angustum. Never did. Those are hybrid mixes, often hobby albopilosum x some sort of redrump. If you firmly believe all one species, then how to test that, or just sit back in armchair and leave at that? I'm also not too satisfied with "the definition of species is ever under debate as well." It's not really being debated anymore, but agree was quite a lot, and never well resolved. That latter point i totally agree with. What you're saying is often it's very elusive and confusing about where to draw the line between regional variants (subspecies etc) and distinct species. Totally agree. Getting back to these Acanthoscurria, a vast amount of preserved specimens were looked at morphologically, all with collecting data. From all those, it seemed to the authors of the Paula et al. 2014 paper that the most reasonable explanation of their specimens at hand was REGIONAL VARIATION (banding pattern, bulb morphology etc). Now lets imagine they'd instead just cherry picked say two very distant locations, some from one location where individuals had thick leg banding, the rest from another location where spiders had thin leg bandings. Then the decision might have been two different species, just with remarkably similar morphology (banding pattern, bulb morphology etc). Such cherry picking from just a couple of distant locations is exactly what hobby collectors did for the hobbystock of these years ago, and what many continue to do for many other types of tarantula (Pamphobeteus and Xenethis spring instantly to mind). A similar cherry-picking is what museum collectors also did in the distant past, for example with redrumps many many years previously (B. vagans [somewhere in Yucatan], B. epicureanum [far north Yucatan], B. sabolusum [North Guatemala). And for the redrumps that needs resolving with modern methods using a broad geographic sampling of many intermediate locations, not just a few very distant cherry picked locations ....

Anyway, please look again at the Paula et al. 2004, and understand why the usage of "A.brocklehursti" is entirely inappropriate for any of these beautiful spiders above, and please try to appreciate the broad geographic spread of specimens used in the paper for deciding the species boundaries. Decisions were not made lightly and were not made on just a few distant cherry picked locations!

Greetings.
stuart

Stuart, when taxonomists start a job by dissecting the spiders taxonomists should finish the job by doing DNA testing. This would stop the confusion in general. To me just dissecting the spiders is not enough research. It makes me wonder who will be the next taxonomists that will have bigger funds and do a name change for example P. pederseni now "vittata". The name "vittata" was its original name in the first place.

When I posted the photos of the female and male specimen of the Acanthoscurria brocklehursti is to inform hobbiest that this are the specimens that are been/have been called A. brocklehursti.
Stuart you say: Please please for the love of spiders, drop the hobby usage of Acanthoscurria brocklehursti, I say the same for taxonomists please please for the love of spiders finish the job that you have created/started. By doing DNA testing on this specimens you will have stablished solid/concrete research to the public. Somehow have the fundings available.

It is obvious for many years dissecting this spiders is not enough research to go by. Another example: Brachypelma boehmei and B. baumgarteni is another issue that needs to be resolve as well as any Avicularia sp.


Jose

 

[sjl197]

Hi Stuart, thanks for the nice remarks of my photos.

The photos are fabulous and very helpful to discussing the issues. Ok, final time long reply, sorry to all for length. Please consider to take time to read, short "instant answers" as modern media are not always the best answers.

First according to your link https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712 this is the former A. brocklehursti that we have in our hobby. According to Paula it was mistakingly called brocklehursti and that it is in fact A. geniculata.

Indeed - yes, following Paula et al. (2014) those are now classified as A.geniculata, that was to show a female matching from the Belem locality, which you'd suggested as some form of those sold as 'brocklehursti'. I honestly don't see much difference between females of "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female" and "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti"

At this point from what I'm gathering is, that it is safe for me to give the proper name of my version I - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti http://i62.tinypic.com/rrjx20.jpg change to Acanthoscurria geniculata. Is this correct Stuart? And I understand that the name brocklehursti may not exist/does not exist.

According to Paula et al. (2014) those would indeed be A.geniculata, and the name brocklehursti is wrong for them. (Actually the name does exist, it is a redundant - junior synonym of another very different looking species, in Paula et al. (2014) called A.theraphosoides.

I do have a slight problem with this that I'm a bit confused. The photo of the female that is on this link http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf does not resemble the specimen that you provided on your link https://plus.google.com/11248596093...6139187423374097154&oid=112485960936211277712 as you can see the white banding are inaccurate of the two females. The photos of the mature males on both link that is the former brocklehursti do match.

Do you mean 'that link' (=Fig.2 female from Belterra photographed in Paula et al. 2014), versus the female in my link (= Female from Benevides/Belem)? How does it not resemble it? For me, i think the white banding is slightly thicker on the Belterra female in the Paula et al. 2014 paper than on my preseved female from Belem. I agree these females are a little different, the Belerra one being about 700 km upstream along the amazon from Belem ones. Distance = divergence.
What i think you are saying is the male (Fig1.in Paula et al. 2014), is thin banded and would match one of these former hobby 'brocklehursti', whilst the female is thicker banded (and would MAYBE match a hobby A.geniculata). I'd say following Paula et al. (2014) they'd all be A.geniculata, just downstream by Belem they're thin banded. Paula et al. examined both the preserved specimens in my linked photos - and were compared to their preserved female with moderate banding from Belterra, and many others! A female from Belterra (and others) was compared morphologically against the female i showed with the thinner bands from Belem. My photos were taken in the Instituto Butantan lab (of specimens on loan from Museo Goeldi) with Felipe dos S.Paula there also ....

Yes, the two males (Fig.1 Belem in Paula et al. 2014) versus the one in my link indeed should be same, both are from in or around Belem.

Stuart, in 2009 I bred both species former brocklehursti and geniculata. In the pet trade this is the original Acanthoscurria brocklehursti http://i62.tinypic.com/idg94y.jpg mature male, by accident I put the male with the version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/huj974.jpg female the female did not try to kill the male or breed. Since the former known brocklehursti male was not able to breed with the geniculata female, I decided to pair my 4" inch female former known brocklehursti with the former known mature male brocklehursti. The mature male was in my hands and I was going towards the females cage, once I got real close to her cage the female drummed heavily for the male. Both bred instantly with no problems.

So glad you are managing to captive breed, and very glad you're now carefully thinking about which animals to pair together. You say "Since the former known brocklehursti male was not able to breed with the geniculata female". Here i would suggest you simply had two animals unwilling to mate/breed. Myself and i expect many others can give long lists of different tarantulas that we've tried to breed, but for whatever reason they don't mate or the female doesn't give a fertile eggsac. You need to be carful with the wording - and quite undertandable Jose as seems you're not a native english speaker, you say "Both bred instantly". They did not breed/were not bred. They mated. Breeding implies a fertile eggsac was laid and live offspring hatched. They simply mated. (However, the female may indeed have given an eggsac that hatched live, so indeed may have bred - please clarify. But still, you're saying one pair of spiders didnt mate, versus the male with another female mated (and maybe bred). My point was even when sure the pair are both the same species, sometimes the male wont mate, sometimes female wont mate, sometimes mating but no egg-sac, sometimes egg-sac that goes rotten etc etc etc.

A few days later I had purchased the Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i59.tinypic.com/2j14f0n.jpg mature male. I put this male in the enclosure of the female version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/huj974.jpg the female drummed for the male. So I ask you why the opposite male did not breed with the female geniculata? To me at that time and to this day I feel/felt that they are two separate species. I will say this again, at this point I rather breed a female and male that looks identical to each other, obviously in some cases the male when it matures will have a different look to them. Would we/should try to breed B. annitha with B. smithi?

The story is one male not mating with a slightly different looking female, then mating with another you think the same. Then a second male mating with the first 'reluctant' female. Sometimes any pair of spiders don't mate, sometimes any pair the female will not drum etc etc. When i have any pair of spiders (regardless of species) i try to mate the same pair repeatedly, at least 3 times. I never check if the male made a sperm web recently - although if he does i mate quickly. The first pairing i'll generally treat as a 'warming up', the male knowing there is a good female nearby, (and if i don't know him made a sperm web) it hopefully encourages him to make one - then i mate quickly after if i see that. I'm also hopefully that initial pairing/ or at least sensing each others pheromones/silk might for example cue the female that there is a male/males around, hopefully helping kick in her hormones to increase egg mass. Further matings ensure that there is a decent transfer of ideally fresh sperm.

"So I ask you why the opposite male did not breed with the female geniculata? " I don't know. Yes you are right to consider them as different species - that is one option, the males mating vibrations might not have been right, so didnt get the female in the mood. But equally, if the male was inexperienced (e.g. his first encounter with a female) or the female was inexperienced, could that mean that one or both were just unwilling because they were inexperienced/naive? There are countless alternative explainations why a given pair won't mate. The male might not have made a sperm web at all by that stage, the female was resting and didn't want to be disturbed at that moment, etc etc etc.

Anyway, RE 'smithi'/'annitha'. No we shouldn't breed them together. I think you're seeing maybe same scenario - some thicker banded, some thinner. But, just (for me at least) because here evidence is suggesting A.geniculata is variable in its banding DOESNT MEAN that idea applies to all other tarantulas with leg banding. For example I would NOT interbreed hobby weakly banded 'smithi' with strongly banded 'annitha', nor strongly banded A.seemanni with weakly banded A.sp.Guatemala, but i would for consider it for G.pulchripes (strongly banded former G.'aureostriata' with 'narrow form').. Some species don't have variation in banding and should be distinct, others have wide- variation.But, we can probably agree it can be best to keep breeding the 'forms' apart - i.e. any narrow banded with narrow banded, strongly banded with strongly banded. Such differences can be geographic forms, or even distinct species indeed. But for A.geniculata - the answer seems regional variants. We'll hopefully have the discussion about 'smithi' and 'annitha' once some big new data come up on that, but there are deep divergences not just one variable species .... everyones hobbystock names in for a major shakeup there too, that's going to be a roller coaster ride, i promise.

With version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata http://i62.tinypic.com/iz8geu.jpg to me resembles female that is on this photo of this link http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf I may be wrong, but this is my opinion. And again I'm a bit confused.

You're saying your "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female" matches the paper's female from Belterra. Could be. I don't see much difference from that Belterra female your "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti". They've all got somewhat intermediate banding.

With the version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata I'm having backlash cause of the issue that I'm having with the Acanthoscurria fracta. My two specimens are now Acanthoscurria sp. Fracta, Acanthoscurria theraphosoides or it is described but under what name? That's what I'm gathering here the original geniculata could be described under a different name? Is this correct Stuart?

I'm not sure what hobbystock you've got traded as A.fracta. I'd guess it have slight banding on the knees like photos i can find through web-searches. But Lucas et al. (2011) show A.fracta is the same as A.natalensis, which is pretty much the brownest dull spider anyone could ever hope for. No, i'm not clear what was sold as A.fracta (and i imagine probably multiple different species were over the years), you'd have to look at the morphology - checking spermathecae shape would be a valuable start.
However, i expect your hobby A.fracta is neither A.natalensis, nor A.theraphosoides. You'll have to check the characters! The original A.geniculata IS the original A.geniculata, and any suggested link to A.brocklehursti should be forgotten.

I have no problem calling Acanthoscurria brocklehursti "theraphosoides" but what spider are we calling this? Where is a photo of this spider? Or the name brocklehursti should have never existed?

Here's where again i think confusion is. The species sold in the hobby is now treated as a regional variant of A.geniculata. The paper is saying the very thick banded ones are also A.geniculata. The things sold in the hobby as A.brocklehursti were NEVER A.brocklehursti and never will be.
The photos of A.brocklehursti are given in the Paula et al. (2004) paper as A.theraphosoides, as AphonopelmaTX says, p.71, figs29-30. That's a completely different spider, and similar have entered the hobby under names such as A.ferina or one of the several wannabe 'Cyclosternum schmardae' etc. Please do not rename your hobby former "A.brocklehursti" as anything to do with 'theraphosoides'. The thin banded ones you show in the start would currently be best A.geniculata "thin band" or something similar. What i think you didn't get was the Paula et al (20014) paper are saying is the very thick banded species (Jose's "Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female") IS the same species - just thickly banded. If you want to try to keep the differently banded forms separate as different bloodlines then fine, i think that's a good idea, but in current taxonomy all are A.geniculata.

Sorry if my English is a bit off. Stuart no matter what I appreciate your input as well as AphonopelmaTX. I'm just simply letting members on Arachnoboards of what and why the confusion of the two or four for all I know.

It seems to me the majority of spiders in the world need special attention by doing DNA testing, to get the correct identification.

Then i am glad you write so well in english, and thankyou for continued discussion.

The World Spider Catalog still have brocklehursti listed.

As AphonopelmaTX says. But not as a valid species. It is listed as a non-valid junior synonym of A.theraphosoides, a completely different spider to the ones in all your beautiful photographs.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

The photos are fabulous and very helpful to discussing the issues. Ok, final time long reply, sorry to all for length. Please consider to take time to read, short "instant answers" as modern media are not always the best answers.



Indeed - yes, following Paula et al. (2014) those are now classified as A.geniculata, that was to show a female matching from the Belem locality, which you'd suggested as some form of those sold as 'brocklehursti'. I honestly don't see much difference between females of "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female" and "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti"



According to Paula et al. (2014) those would indeed be A.geniculata, and the name brocklehursti is wrong for them. (Actually the name does exist, it is a redundant - junior synonym of another very different looking species, in Paula et al. (2014) called A.theraphosoides.



Do you mean 'that link' (=Fig.2 female from Belterra photographed in Paula et al. 2014), versus the female in my link (= Female from Benevides/Belem)? How does it not resemble it? For me, i think the white banding is slightly thicker on the Belterra female in the Paula et al. 2014 paper than on my preseved female from Belem. I agree these females are a little different, the Belerra one being about 700 km upstream along the amazon from Belem ones. Distance = divergence.
What i think you are saying is the male (Fig1.in Paula et al. 2014), is thin banded and would match one of these former hobby 'brocklehursti', whilst the female is thicker banded (and would MAYBE match a hobby A.geniculata). I'd say following Paula et al. (2014) they'd all be A.geniculata, just downstream by Belem they're thin banded. Paula et al. examined both the preserved specimens in my linked photos - and were compared to their preserved female with moderate banding from Belterra, and many others! A female from Belterra (and others) was compared morphologically against the female i showed with the thinner bands from Belem. My photos were taken in the Instituto Butantan lab (of specimens on loan from Museo Goeldi) with Felipe dos S.Paula there also ....

Yes, the two males (Fig.1 Belem in Paula et al. 2014) versus the one in my link indeed should be same, both are from in or around Belem.



So glad you are managing to captive breed, and very glad you're now carefully thinking about which animals to pair together. You say "Since the former known brocklehursti male was not able to breed with the geniculata female". Here i would suggest you simply had two animals unwilling to mate/breed. Myself and i expect many others can give long lists of different tarantulas that we've tried to breed, but for whatever reason they don't mate or the female doesn't give a fertile eggsac. You need to be carful with the wording - and quite undertandable Jose as seems you're not a native english speaker, you say "Both bred instantly". They did not breed/were not bred. They mated. Breeding implies a fertile eggsac was laid and live offspring hatched. They simply mated. (However, the female may indeed have given an eggsac that hatched live, so indeed may have bred - please clarify. But still, you're saying one pair of spiders didnt mate, versus the male with another female mated (and maybe bred). My point was even when sure the pair are both the same species, sometimes the male wont mate, sometimes female wont mate, sometimes mating but no egg-sac, sometimes egg-sac that goes rotten etc etc etc.



The story is one male not mating with a slightly different looking female, then mating with another you think the same. Then a second male mating with the first 'reluctant' female. Sometimes any pair of spiders don't mate, sometimes any pair the female will not drum etc etc. When i have any pair of spiders (regardless of species) i try to mate the same pair repeatedly, at least 3 times. I never check if the male made a sperm web recently - although if he does i mate quickly. The first pairing i'll generally treat as a 'warming up', the male knowing there is a good female nearby, (and if i don't know him made a sperm web) it hopefully encourages him to make one - then i mate quickly after if i see that. I'm also hopefully that initial pairing/ or at least sensing each others pheromones/silk might for example cue the female that there is a male/males around, hopefully helping kick in her hormones to increase egg mass. Further matings ensure that there is a decent transfer of ideally fresh sperm.

"So I ask you why the opposite male did not breed with the female geniculata? " I don't know. Yes you are right to consider them as different species - that is one option, the males mating vibrations might not have been right, so didnt get the female in the mood. But equally, if the male was inexperienced (e.g. his first encounter with a female) or the female was inexperienced, could that mean that one or both were just unwilling because they were inexperienced/naive? There are countless alternative explainations why a given pair won't mate. The male might not have made a sperm web at all by that stage, the female was resting and didn't want to be disturbed at that moment, etc etc etc.

Anyway, RE 'smithi'/'annitha'. No we shouldn't breed them together. I think you're seeing maybe same scenario - some thicker banded, some thinner. But, just (for me at least) because here evidence is suggesting A.geniculata is variable in its banding DOESNT MEAN that idea applies to all other tarantulas with leg banding. For example I would NOT interbreed hobby weakly banded 'smithi' with strongly banded 'annitha', nor strongly banded A.seemanni with weakly banded A.sp.Guatemala, but i would for consider it for G.pulchripes (strongly banded former G.'aureostriata' with 'narrow form').. Some species don't have variation in banding and should be distinct, others have wide- variation.But, we can probably agree it can be best to keep breeding the 'forms' apart - i.e. any narrow banded with narrow banded, strongly banded with strongly banded. Such differences can be geographic forms, or even distinct species indeed. But for A.geniculata - the answer seems regional variants. We'll hopefully have the discussion about 'smithi' and 'annitha' once some big new data come up on that, but there are deep divergences not just one variable species .... everyones hobbystock names in for a major shakeup there too, that's going to be a roller coaster ride, i promise.


You're saying your "Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female" matches the paper's female from Belterra. Could be. I don't see much difference from that Belterra female your "Version II - Acanthoscurria brocklehursti". They've all got somewhat intermediate banding.


I'm not sure what hobbystock you've got traded as A.fracta. I'd guess it have slight banding on the knees like photos i can find through web-searches. But Lucas et al. (2011) show A.fracta is the same as A.natalensis, which is pretty much the brownest dull spider anyone could ever hope for. No, i'm not clear what was sold as A.fracta (and i imagine probably multiple different species were over the years), you'd have to look at the morphology - checking spermathecae shape would be a valuable start.
However, i expect your hobby A.fracta is neither A.natalensis, nor A.theraphosoides. You'll have to check the characters! The original A.geniculata IS the original A.geniculata, and any suggested link to A.brocklehursti should be forgotten.



Here's where again i think confusion is. The species sold in the hobby is now treated as a regional variant of A.geniculata. The paper is saying the very thick banded ones are also A.geniculata. The things sold in the hobby as A.brocklehursti were NEVER A.brocklehursti and never will be.
The photos of A.brocklehursti are given in the Paula et al. (2004) paper as A.theraphosoides, as AphonopelmaTX says, p.71, figs29-30. That's a completely different spider, and similar have entered the hobby under names such as A.ferina or one of the several wannabe 'Cyclosternum schmardae' etc. Please do not rename your hobby former "A.brocklehursti" as anything to do with 'theraphosoides'. The thin banded ones you show in the start would currently be best A.geniculata "thin band" or something similar. What i think you didn't get was the Paula et al (20014) paper are saying is the very thick banded species (Jose's "Version I - Acanthoscurria geniculata Female") IS the same species - just thickly banded. If you want to try to keep the differently banded forms separate as different bloodlines then fine, i think that's a good idea, but in current taxonomy all are A.geniculata.



Then i am glad you write so well in english, and thankyou for continued discussion.




As AphonopelmaTX says. But not as a valid species. It is listed as a non-valid junior synonym of A.theraphosoides, a completely different spider to the ones in all your beautiful photographs.

Stuart,
In 2009 these are the two Acanthoscurria geniculata female and mature male that I paired, mated and bred whatever term of words you or others would like to use.

Acanthoscurria geniculata Female - 2009

Acanthoscurria geniculata Mature Male - 2009

Results:
1200+ babies were born

Acanthoscurria geniculata Eggs with Legs - 2009

In 2009 these are the two Acanthoscurria brocklehursti female 4" inches and mature male 6" inches that I paired, mated and bred.

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Female - 2009

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti Mature Male - 2009

Results:

Female Acanthoscurria brocklehursti produced a sac of 07/26/2009. And an old customer of mine that bought one of my babies sold me back the offspring.

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti with egg sac - 07/26/2009

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti offspring from 2009 now 2015

Note:
The Acanthoscurria brocklehursti were bred first, the geniculata were bred days later. Female brocklehursti produced an egg sac very quickly after the pairing , mating, breeding took place. I suppose it was cause she was only 4" inches and not 6.5" inches. She had 600 eggs but do to myself pulling the sac away from her to quickly I believe it was only 20 days, only 300 or so made it. Once the babies were born I gave Paul Becker (Pet Center USA) his half for the loan of the mature male. There were some that I sold to Kelly Swift (Swifts Invertebrates). The rest were sold to Joey Mugleston.
So this is where the term "breed" is what you are talking about?

Anyways what type of research can you or Paula can give us that the mature male that I posted a photo of Acanthoscurria geniculata white line markings on the patella, is the same as the photo that I posted as the Acanthoscurria broklehursti with the two black line markings on the patella be the same species? Is the geniculata mature male with the "WHITE" patella have the same body parts as the black patella brocklehursti? If it is true that they have the same organs, body parts etc. than the three attempts that I have tried to mate, pair or breed the female Acanthoscurria geniculata with the mature male brocklehursti should have been succesful.
The three attempts were from three different years with different females geniculata and three different mature males brocklehursti. This is why I believe and would like to think that they are separate species. As you stated that it is probably best to mate, pair or breed the same appearance looking tarantulas that I posted of version I, version II, geniculata keep them separate as well as the version I, version II, formerly known as brocklehursti.

What can you tell me about DNA testing?
If taxonomists are in need of the funds to do DNA testings of the spiders they ought to use this forums to raise the funds. I'm more than happy to do what I can to support the fundings for spiders.

By the way here is the Acanthoscurria brocklehursti female after having babies and molted. Not sure when she exactly molted.

Acanthoscurria brocklehursti female - 2009, 2010

Jose

 

[sjl197]

Ok, this time i try to be more brief! - I'm sorry jose i missed one of your reply as i had a break writing my last epic - you seem to have posted whilst i paused composing!

The photos on page 71 I see a specimens that may have never been in the hobby. And is what I figure that is A. theraphosoides. I asked to be crystal clear of this. One of my question was answer. Thanks.

I just want to further confirm they've indeed been in the hobby. However few mid-sized brownish terrestrial tarantulas get exported from Brazil, as keeping and trading in Brazilian wildlife is illegal. Yet, somehow pretty arboreal species and bright blue ones seem to come from brazil to the hobby with regularity.
Anyway, here's an adult female that i have here in UK which i just quickly photographed for you in dorsal view. Imported as A.ferina from Peru a few years back
https://plus.google.com/u/0/1124859...6140303431321340050&oid=112485960936211277712
and lateral view
https://plus.google.com/u/0/1124859...6140303775575172594&oid=112485960936211277712
And here's a male, also from a Peruvian export the year before that - as Cyclosternum schmardae.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/1124859...6140304104439051282&oid=112485960936211277712

Let's further clear it up. This image includes museum specimen/s from Lower Amazon collected by FOPickard-Cambridge and described by him as A. brocklehursti. [ignore the larger one in the lower left if i remember correctly]
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...577-no/BMNH+dried+collection+drawer+1+(1).jpg
And some males
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...577-no/BMNH+dried+collection+drawer+2+(1).jpg
P.s. I'm going to delete these photos/links in a couple of days ....

Stuart, when taxonomists start a job by dissecting the spiders taxonomists should finish the job by doing DNA testing. This would stop the confusion in general. To me just dissecting the spiders is not enough research. It makes me wonder who will be the next taxonomists that will have bigger funds and do a name change for example P. pederseni now "vittata". The name "vittata" was its original name in the first place.

Wouldn't that be wonderful. However, DNA data is still seen as a very expensive added luxury in biodiversity studies, still pretty much mainly in USA/Europe. For a grant being considered once the cost of subsistence for a student/s time is added to cost of field-trips plus loan of museum specimens etc, its often costly enough for any funder, without DNA costs. Absolutely i'd welcome a genetic study added in, could be super-valuable - but often doesn't get done due to time/expense/training-needed and could also just give same results as the much cheaper morphology - suggesting one variable species. So what's the value to fund that extra - to work out 1 species or 2? Should we do that for all 45,000 species of spider alone?
And with taxonomy, the oldest name almost exclusively takes precedence. The vittata=pederseni issue was nothing to do with bigger funding, it was simply a later study giving evidence that P.vitiata was actually the older and therefore most appropriate name for that species.

When I posted the photos of the female and male specimen of the Acanthoscurria brocklehursti is to inform hobbyists that this are the specimens that are been/have been called A. brocklehursti. Stuart you say: "Please please for the love of spiders, drop the hobby usage of Acanthoscurria brocklehursti", I say the same for taxonomists please please for the love of spiders finish the job that you have created/started. By doing DNA testing on this specimens you will have stablished solid/concrete research to the public. Somehow have the fundings available.

And your questions are very valuable, and photos excellent to show the current state of things (i.e. the hobby has spiders with different banding, and some like yourself are concerned about inter-fertility). But, i'd love to hear about when and how 'taxonomy' ever can get finished! I see for taxonomy pretty much every approached question simply raises more questions! You're seeing DNA testing with some 'rose-tinted glasses', as a 'magic bullet' or 'panacea'. Trust me from someone jaded by real DNA data, it's not. DNA data can in many cases be useful additional data, but for most taxonomic purposes only when linked to morphological and ecological data - e.g. just comparing DNA sequences from pettrade material with no knowledge of history (stock breeding 'purity', or geographic origins) and worse not keeping/evaluating voucher specimens for morphology to put into the taxonomic framework is worse that the unfinished job you're disliking!

It is obvious for many years dissecting this spiders is not enough research to go by. Another example: Brachypelma boehmei and B. baumgarteni is another issue that needs to be resolve as well as any Avicularia sp.

So you'll be glad to hear that several studies have been ongoing for several years with both morphology and genetics (and hopefully other aspects like ecology/behaviour) for those Brachypelma, and that lots of study has also been ongoing with Avicularia .... (just sadly not including genetics yet sadly for Avicularia, to the best of my knowledge)

---
Then to the reply above
--

So this is where the term "breed" is what you are talking about?

YES! Thank-you for the details. These are great data on wonderful breedings! I simply wanted you to understand it is important to differentiate 'mating' from 'breeding', each term is very specific.

Anyways what type of research can you or Paula can give us that the mature male that I posted a photo of Acanthoscurria geniculata white line markings on the patella, is the same as the photo that I posted as the Acanthoscurria broklehursti with the two black line markings on the patella be the same species? Is the geniculata mature male with the "WHITE" patella have the same body parts as the black patella brocklehursti? If it is true that they have the same organs, body parts etc. than the three attempts that I have tried to mate, pair or breed the female Acanthoscurria geniculata with the mature male brocklehursti should have been successful.

Paula et al. (2014) gives you the whole content of pages 64-66 on that. What i think you're perhaps not seeing is those data also DO INCLUDE the very thick banded forms - you here say with white patella (e.g. Acanthoscurria geniculata I - Female - 2009), as well as the thinnest banded ones! They show in Figs10-13 some variation in bulb keels, but like their data suggest one polymorphic species where banding pattern varies from very thick to thin, the bulb varies from having no apical keel to a very pronounced keel.

The three attempts were from three different years with different females geniculata and three different mature males brocklehursti. This is why I believe and would like to think that they are separate species. As you stated that it is probably best to mate, pair or breed the same appearance looking tarantulas that I posted of version I, version II, geniculata keep them separate as well as the version I, version II, formerly known as brocklehursti.

And as said, i totally applaud and support your desire to keep variations separate, i.e. thin with thin. Yet some failed matings/breedings (however many) do not make them different species - simply - it raises suspicion of some incompatibility. Take a look for example at biological ring species - those at ends of a 'ring' cannot interbreed, yet intermediates exist and can breed with nearby ones - together these are treated as single (often wide ranging) polymorphic species. We could have the same in many such spiders - here thin banded ones from lower amazon cannot interbreed with thick banded ones from wherever distant site those are from (which can never contact in the wild, but can when brought into captivity). But naturally and artificially both extremes can interbreed with intermediates. And that's where i have the problem to argue with you that the hobby has two species. The presence of intermediates - how exactly are you seeing Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata as being so different from you Version II Acanthoscurria 'brocklehursti' ??!?!? (p.s. the ones i called "Rather well banded" and "Moderately banded")

What can you tell me about DNA testing? If taxonomists are in need of the funds to do DNA testings of the spiders they ought to use this forums to raise the funds. I'm more than happy to do what I can to support the fundings for spiders.

Hopefully i could say much of interest on DNA testing. I'd say that a reasonable genetic survey of this question can be done for $3000-$5000, and about $1000 to get the baseline data to see whether worth further funding. But that would only pay for the data, wouldn't pay for person-power for data-generation costs, or analysis. Genetic studies also needs relatively fresh samples, and hence such projects are often tied to new collections from expensive fieldwork (several hundred/thousand $ per trip). I'd greatly welcome hobbyists all chipping in some cash to help such projects, especially to ensure DNA data gets added to morphology studies, yet with attempted crowd-funding of such i've seen previously, people seem keen to congratulate and cheer, but especially unwilling to dip hands in pockets. I'D ENJOY TO DISCUSS RESOLVING THAT PROBLEM, and p.s. I ACCEPT CHEQUES/CREDIT CARDS ETC

Wow, sorry - long again.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

Ok, this time i try to be more brief! - I'm sorry jose i missed one of your reply as i had a break writing my last epic - you seem to have posted whilst i paused composing!



I just want to further confirm they've indeed been in the hobby. However few mid-sized brownish terrestrial tarantulas get exported from Brazil, as keeping and trading in Brazilian wildlife is illegal. Yet, somehow pretty arboreal species and bright blue ones seem to come from brazil to the hobby with regularity.
Anyway, here's an adult female that i have here in UK which i just quickly photographed for you in dorsal view. Imported as A.ferina from Peru a few years back
https://plus.google.com/u/0/1124859...6140303431321340050&oid=112485960936211277712
and lateral view
https://plus.google.com/u/0/1124859...6140303775575172594&oid=112485960936211277712
And here's a male, also from a Peruvian export the year before that - as Cyclosternum schmardae.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/1124859...6140304104439051282&oid=112485960936211277712

Let's further clear it up. This image includes museum specimen/s from Lower Amazon collected by FOPickard-Cambridge and described by him as A. brocklehursti. [ignore the larger one in the lower left if i remember correctly]
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...577-no/BMNH+dried+collection+drawer+1+(1).jpg
And some males
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-...577-no/BMNH+dried+collection+drawer+2+(1).jpg
P.s. I'm going to delete these photos/links in a couple of days ....



Wouldn't that be wonderful. However, DNA data is still seen as a very expensive added luxury in biodiversity studies, still pretty much mainly in USA/Europe. For a grant being considered once the cost of subsistence for a student/s time is added to cost of field-trips plus loan of museum specimens etc, its often costly enough for any funder, without DNA costs. Absolutely i'd welcome a genetic study added in, could be super-valuable - but often doesn't get done due to time/expense/training-needed and could also just give same results as the much cheaper morphology - suggesting one variable species. So what's the value to fund that extra - to work out 1 species or 2? Should we do that for all 45,000 species of spider alone?
And with taxonomy, the oldest name almost exclusively takes precedence. The vittata=pederseni issue was nothing to do with bigger funding, it was simply a later study giving evidence that P.vitiata was actually the older and therefore most appropriate name for that species.



And your questions are very valuable, and photos excellent to show the current state of things (i.e. the hobby has spiders with different banding, and some like yourself are concerned about inter-fertility). But, i'd love to hear about when and how 'taxonomy' ever can get finished! I see for taxonomy pretty much every approached question simply raises more questions! You're seeing DNA testing with some 'rose-tinted glasses', as a 'magic bullet' or 'panacea'. Trust me from someone jaded by real DNA data, it's not. DNA data can in many cases be useful additional data, but for most taxonomic purposes only when linked to morphological and ecological data - e.g. just comparing DNA sequences from pettrade material with no knowledge of history (stock breeding 'purity', or geographic origins) and worse not keeping/evaluating voucher specimens for morphology to put into the taxonomic framework is worse that the unfinished job you're disliking!


So you'll be glad to hear that several studies have been ongoing for several years with both morphology and genetics (and hopefully other aspects like ecology/behaviour) for those Brachypelma, and that lots of study has also been ongoing with Avicularia .... (just sadly not including genetics yet sadly for Avicularia, to the best of my knowledge)

---
Then to the reply above
--



YES! Thank-you for the details. These are great data on wonderful breedings! I simply wanted you to understand it is important to differentiate 'mating' from 'breeding', each term is very specific.



Paula et al. (2014) gives you the whole content of pages 64-66 on that. What i think you're perhaps not seeing is those data also DO INCLUDE the very thick banded forms - you here say with white patella (e.g. Acanthoscurria geniculata I - Female - 2009), as well as the thinnest banded ones! They show in Figs10-13 some variation in bulb keels, but like their data suggest one polymorphic species where banding pattern varies from very thick to thin, the bulb varies from having no apical keel to a very pronounced keel.



And as said, i totally applaud and support your desire to keep variations separate, i.e. thin with thin. Yet some failed matings/breedings (however many) do not make them different species - simply - it raises suspicion of some incompatibility. Take a look for example at biological ring species - those at ends of a 'ring' cannot interbreed, yet intermediates exist and can breed with nearby ones - together these are treated as single (often wide ranging) polymorphic species. We could have the same in many such spiders - here thin banded ones from lower amazon cannot interbreed with thick banded ones from wherever distant site those are from (which can never contact in the wild, but can when brought into captivity). But naturally and artificially both extremes can interbreed with intermediates. And that's where i have the problem to argue with you that the hobby has two species. The presence of intermediates - how exactly are you seeing Version II - Acanthoscurria geniculata as being so different from you Version II Acanthoscurria 'brocklehursti' ??!?!? (p.s. the ones i called "Rather well banded" and "Moderately banded")



Hopefully i could say much of interest on DNA testing. I'd say that a reasonable genetic survey of this question can be done for $3000-$5000, and about $1000 to get the baseline data to see whether worth further funding. But that would only pay for the data, wouldn't pay for person-power for data-generation costs, or analysis. Genetic studies also needs relatively fresh samples, and hence such projects are often tied to new collections from expensive fieldwork (several hundred/thousand $ per trip). I'd greatly welcome hobbyists all chipping in some cash to help such projects, especially to ensure DNA data gets added to morphology studies, yet with attempted crowd-funding of such i've seen previously, people seem keen to congratulate and cheer, but especially unwilling to dip hands in pockets. I'D ENJOY TO DISCUSS RESOLVING THAT PROBLEM, and p.s. I ACCEPT CHEQUES/CREDIT CARDS ETC

Wow, sorry - long again.

Like I said before I will keep each one separate, in my opinion it would be wise for everyone else to do the same but I understand that everyone has their own opinion. With version II geniculata and version II brocklehursti they are different to doubt about it. Maybe my friend Travis can post if he ever gets off his butt to post. He could explain a bit better than I would of what he sees between the two. Travis lives a few miles away from me and he has personally seen all the specimens.

I do have one last question, I got a hold of Rick West late last year about my Acanthoscurria fracta. During our conversation regarding on now the fracta is a whole different spider than the one that I have as fracta, we both agree for me to send him the molts of the two females once called fracta. Once Rick West had the molts he was suppose to send photos of the molts and spermathecae to Dr. Rogerio Bertani for further studies to determine what species it could possibly be. Do you by any chance have any contact with Dr. Rogerio Bertani? My younger female once called fracta molted again and I would like to send the molt to someone that would be interested in examining the molt for further studies. Of course I can send the molt as Non Commercial Scientific Studies. Would this be possible?

I know is a long shot but I really looking for answers on this one. Here are a couple of photos of the mature male and one of my females before her molt, after her molt and a photo of the spermathecae.


Acanthoscurria fracta Mature Male

Acanthoscurria fracta Female

Acanthoscurria fracta Female

Acanthoscurria fracta Female

Acanthoscurria fracta spermathecae

Jose