West et al. - new genus Psednocnemis

[Zoltan]

West, R. C., S. C. Nunn & S. Hogg. 2012. A new tarantula genus, Psednocnemis, from West Malaysia (Araneae: Theraphosidae), with cladistic analyses and biogeography of Selenocosmiinae Simon 1889. Zootaxa 3299: 1–43.

Summary available from Zootaxa here: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/z03299p043f.pdf

 

[syndicate]

Psednocnemis:A new tarantula genus, Psednocnemis, from West Malaysia

Time to change some labels!

Psednocnemis
A new tarantula genus, Psednocnemis, from West Malaysia (Araneae: Theraphosidae), with cladistic analyses and biogeography of Selenocosmiinae Simon 1889

RICK C. WEST, STEVEN C. NUNN & STEPHEN HOGG

The selenocosmiine genus
Psednocnemis gen. nov. is described from the Sundaland region of South-east Asia. The type species Psednocnemis davidgohi sp. nov., which the male was incorrectly identified as Coremiocnemis hoggi West & Nunn 2010, is herein described.

Cladistic analyses of 46 morphological characters and 39 exemplar taxa from 12 genera were done.

The genera analysed were: Reichlingia Rudloff 2001; ingroup: Chilobrachys Karsch 1891; Coremiocnemis Simon 1892; Haplocosmia Schmidt & von Wirth 1996; Lyrognathus Pocock 1895; Orphnaecus Simon 1892; Phlogiellus Pocock 1897; Poecilotheria Simon 1885; Psednocnemis gen. nov.; Selenobrachys Schmidt 1999; Selenocosmia Ausserer 1871 (in part: Sundaland fauna only); Yamia Kishida 1920.

The results presented Psednocnemis gen. nov. as monophyletic based on presence of a distal embolic spiral curl in males and presence of a distodorsal spiniform brush on the retrolateral surfaces of coxa IV, as well as the reduction in density of hair type 4, located along the proximoventral abdomen of both sexes.

Two new tribes are described: Chilobrachini trib. nov. and Phlogiellini trib. nov., based upon basal nodes with strongest branch support that best reflected natural groups.

Selenocosmiini Simon 1889 and Poecilotheriini Simon 1889 are revised and redescribed.

Yamia Kishida 1920 is placed into junior synonymy of Phlogiellus (syn. nov.);

Chilocosmia Schmidt & von Wirth 1992 and Selenobrachys Schmidt 1999 are placed into junior synonymy of Orphnaecus (syn. nov.);

Selenocosmia xinping Zhu & Zhang 2008 is transferred to Phlogiellus, makng the new combination Phlogiellus xinping (Zhu & Zhang 2008) comb. nov.;

Selenocosmia dichromata (Schmidt & von Wirth 1992) is transferred to Orphnaecus, making the new combination Orphnaecus dichromata (Schmit & von Wirth 1992) comb. nov.;

Coremiocnemis brachyramosa West & Nunn 2010, Coremiocnemis gnathospina West & Nunn 2010, Coremiocnemis jeremyhuffi West & Nunn 2010 and Selenocosmia imbellis (Simon 1891) are transferred to Psednocnemis gen. et comb. nov.

Poecilotherinae (Schmidt 1995) is no longer considered a valid subfamily and is replaced into Selenocosmiinae as the tribe Poecilotheriini.

Chilocosmia barensteinerae Schmidt et al. 2010 is considered a Selenocosmiinae species incertae sedis.

Ischnocolella senffti Strand 1907 is considered a nomen dubium.

All other genera examined were retrieved as monophyletic in the first cladistic analyses exclusive to Selenocosmiinae genera (Australo-Papuan selenocosmiines are outside the scope of this work and are not considered).

Biogeography of all Selenocosmiinae is discussed; the group is a potential model North Gondwanan taxon. A key to Psednocnemis species is provided.

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/z03299p043f.pdf

Excellent work Rick,Steve and Stephen!!
-Chris

---------- Post added 05-03-2012 at 05:24 PM ----------

Ooops didn't realize this was already posted!Mods pls delete!

 

[jbm150]

So, my Selenocosmia dichromata is now Orphnaecus dichromata. But arndsti stays in Selenocosmia...?

Good stuff, thanks for posting Zoltan (and Chris )

 

[syndicate]

So, my Selenocosmia dichromata is now Orphnaecus dichromata. But arndsti stays in Selenocosmia...?

Good stuff, thanks for posting Zoltan (and Chris )

Yes that's correct!
-Chris

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi,
We've been waiting for this paper for a LONG time now, finally through the peer review and editing process!! If anyone cares to discuss any of the findings within the paper, fire away, I'm all ears and open to discussion There is a lot to take in, some are curious as to why Yamia is now a junior synonym of Phlogiellus, just as an example I'm absolutely certain some folk will disagree with some of our findings, it's only natural, but I am happy to explain our findings, if anyone wishes to know.

If any researchers/hobbyists are interested in a copy, send me a PM with your email address (the file is over 7MB, so make sure your address can accept emails of that size).

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Merfolk]

Pokies? Are the sp names still valid?

 

[Steve Nunn]

Pokies? Are the sp names still valid?

Yes they all remain valid. We did not touch the group in any way other than the generic revision of them, we leave the taxonomy of the species to Andrew Smith for now, who has specifically informed us not to touch them. An so we respected his strong urgings.

Steve

 

[gromgrom]

very cool. Changed my Coremiocnemis brachyramosa!

 

[SgtSparkles]

so that paper told me two things. 1. my brain can physically hurt. 2. you tell me what to call them and i'll label them as such and we'll leave it as that.

 

[Steve Nunn]

I guess the best way as a hobbyist to view the paper, is to look to the abstract and note those changes firstly, they are the critical nomenclatural changes within any paper (or they should be anyway). No more "Yamia", that genus is invalid and now all previously defined "Yamia" are now Phlogiellus. The specimens lacking lyra don't even sit closely related to each other within the genus, but are actually closer related to those found usually in the same geographic regions, WITH LYRA. Take P.watasei (the type species for Yamia, meaning this is the species that defines the genus, basically) for example, and also P.baeri, both considered to belong in Yamia. One would think if the genus was valid, they would be closer related to each other, than to any Phlogiellus with lyra. But that's not the case, the spermatheca of the type for P.baeri has uniquley lobed spermatheca, we found a Phlogiellus species with full lyra and the exact same spermatheca! Both P.baeri and this new Phlogeillus species with lyra are found in The Philippines. P.watasei from Lanyu, Taiwan and many mainland Chinese Phlogiellus (with lyra) have uniques strikers, compared to other Phlogiellus from other regions, they are much more needleform in morphology. These are additional traits that support our finding that Yamia is indeed an invalid genus.

It's a lot easier to look at it from a taxonomist perspective, which is exactly what Kishida (who first described Yamia), and Haupt and Schmidt did (who resurected the genus), they simply considered Selenocosmiinae without lyra could be diagnosed from all other Selenocosmiinae as a new genus, based upon the loss of the maxillary lyra. Systematics of the subfamily prove that statement invalid. It's when you look at character combinations and test those combinations via cladistics, does this become evident.

The same can be said of both Chilocosmia and Selenobrachys, which are junior synonyms of Orphnaecus. That said, we suggest within the paper that at this stage, only the type species for Chilobrachys (being C.dichromata) should be transfered to Orphnaecus, and that all other "Chilocosmia" remain to be treated as Selenocosmia, until we revise that genus (in prep).

Follow the rest of the abstract and you can't go wrong

The most common changes you would make would be:

Anything you once called Yamia, you now call Phlogiellus.

Both Selenobrachys philippinus and Selenocosmia dichromata now belong to Orphnaecus (now call them Orphnaecus dichromata and Orphnaecus philippinus).

Anything you once called Chilocosmia, is no longer valid, if it's not Orphnaecus dichromata, than it is Selenocosmia...........we have more changes involving this now synonymized genus, but those will come about in our upcoming Selenocosmia revision.

Coremiocnemis brachyramosa, C.jeremyhuffi, C.gnathospina and Selenocosmia imbellis now belong in our new genus, Psednocnemis (now call Psednocnemis brachyramosa etc....).

Hope this helps!
Steve

 

[creepa]

Verry interesting Steve!

Cant wait to read the next paper...

 

[jbm150]

I ...........we have more changes involving this now synonymized genus, but those will come about in our upcoming Selenocosmia revision.

It's interesting to me that dichromata was renamed into Orphnaecus but not arndsti and I'm curious as to the rationale. I'm not questioning it, just curious. I'm really looking forward to the Selenocosmia revision and what happens with Phlogius.

As an aside, is anyone working on Ornithoctoninae right now?

 

[Steve Nunn]

It's interesting to me that dichromata was renamed into Orphnaecus but not arndsti and I'm curious as to the rationale. I'm not questioning it, just curious.

No dramas, the answer is very simple, lyrate morphlogy of S.arndsti differs greatly to that seen in known Orphnaecus, which is either reniform as in the type species O.pellitus, or with many long bacillae shaped pointed at one end, and posteriorly truncate, as in O.philippinus (details are in the paper). Additionally, Rick and I know of another species (also from New Guinea) that is a sister species to S.arndsti, with identicle lyra, we believe this may be a new genus. But in our opinion, S.arndsti does not fit Orphnaecus. They may be related, reasonably closely, but not in the same genus. Rather than jump in and describe another monotypic genus, we will first describe the new species and test the new group to see if they are a true genus.

What the paper does show, is that we obviously will be moving several Selenocosmia spp. into Orphnaecus, but I can assure you S.arndsti won't be one of them Selenocosmia are the taxonomic 'dumping ground' for hard to place Selenocosmiinae, this paper clarifies the standing of many of those species. Our next paper will clear these topics up. One step at a time....

 

[syndicate]

Also worth noting that some of the Orphnaecus species found in the Philippines look very similar to dichromata!
Scroll down to JM's post here for some photos!
http://www.the-t-store.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10153&st=0&hl=dichromata
-Chris

 

[creepa]

What about Selenocosmia peerboomi?

This species imo. also looks alot like Orphnaecus dichromata and the other Orphnaecus species shown here
http://www.the-t-store.com/forum/ind...&hl=dichromata

 

[Steve Nunn]

What about Selenocosmia peerboomi?

Hi,
Unfortunately, you will have to wait for the paper, we are not going to publish results in a hobby forum, BEFORE the paper comes out. There are some really shifty characters in tarantula taxonomy that we do not wish to pass information over to, so you should wait for the published revison of Selenocosmia first, and our revision of Orphnaecus, which inlcudes Volker von Wirth as one of our co-authors.

Thanks,
Steve