# Selenocosmia/Phlogius crassipes KOCH 1874



## Steve Nunn (Jan 22, 2006)

Hi,
This is the genotype species for the _Phlogius_, once Raven resurrects the genus, in a change of heart (figured these may be appropriate, seeing they will be one of the central characters in Volker von Wirth's lecture at Arachnocon 2006), I've decided to export these this year, in the first shipment 

Australia's largest theraphosid, young female:



















Cheers,
Steve


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Jan 22, 2006)

Incredible spider. I am very much looking forward to rearing these. :clap: 

Cheers, Michael


----------



## GoTerps (Jan 22, 2006)

> I am very much looking forward to rearing these.


So am I!  I'm really looking forward to this one.


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jan 22, 2006)

Thanks guys,
Here's an image of the other _Phlogius sp._ heading your way  This one is sp. "Sarina" and is longer legged and generally a darker coloured spider again 







Cheers,
Steve


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Jan 22, 2006)

ooooooooh, yeah baby - that Sarina is beautiful, dark, and powerful just like tennis' Serena  

BTW, Steve has repeatedly hinted about these magnificent beasts from OZ heading our way and I have been surprised that there haven't been replies of "what!, how!, when!, yeah!, where!, really?!?". For the record, I will be importing them and this is a very special opportunity that Steve has worked extremely hard on. As many of you know, Australia has been closed to livestock exports forever and a day. No herps or birds or anything.... leave Australia. But Steve has arranged for the legal export of his tarantula offspring, a job that I am sure was a monumental affair. We will all owe a debt of gratitude to him :worship: :clap: 

Cheers, Michael


----------



## MindUtopia (Jan 22, 2006)

Awesome!  These are some beautiful species!  Thanks, Steve, for all your hard work!

Karen


----------



## xgrafcorex (Jan 22, 2006)

great looking ts!  heh you said the second species generally looks darker, but in those pics, id say the first look darker


----------



## kyle_de_aussie (Jan 23, 2006)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi,
> This is the genotype species for the _Phlogius_, once Raven resurrects the genus, in a change of heart (figured these may be appropriate, seeing they will be one of the central characters in Volker von Wirth's lecture at Arachnocon 2006), I've decided to export these this year, in the first shipment
> 
> Australia's largest theraphosid, young female:
> ...


The black mask on the carpace makes the t in your pic above look so much like eunice type from front on dont ya think steve?
My eunice type (web only looks purple from the black light i have, the pic's untampered with)






Not meaning to hijack


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jan 23, 2006)

Hi Kyle,
I believe that the "Eunice" form may be synonymous with _P.crassipes_. You're right the colour of the two are so similar, I'm very dubious that Eunice will in fact be something different. We see in the _P.crassipes_ form a third claw on leg IV, the only _Phlogius sp._ in Australia that has that. In the Eunice forms I've seen, they are all lacking the third claw, but only at a maximum size, interesting enough the teeth on the paired claws remain.

So I'm then left thinking, maybe the third claw is lost in some, but not all, very large specimens of _P.crassipes_. It's hard because I've seen the two at the same size when one will have and one won't have, this one is a tough call for now  To make it more difficult, in all _Phlogius spp._, the third claw is present, but vanishes at various instars within congenerics.

Cheers,
Steve


----------



## David_F (Jan 23, 2006)

S./P. crassipes and P. sp. "Sarina" are the two species I'm really looking forward to, Steve.  Such great looking animals.  Thanks for all the hard work breeding these. :worship: :clap:


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jan 23, 2006)

Thanks Dave, and everyone else for that matter  The Aussie _Phlogius_ are a fantastic spider, even though they need to be able to burrow, they are often content enough to sit right in the middle of an enclosure out in the open, making them a great OW spider!! I think it may be due to the large size they attain, it gives them sense of arrogance other old worlders lack sometimes. And as far as spiders that lay a lot of silk down, you won't find one that lays more then this genus!

On top of that, their "colourful" attitude makes for fun keeping 

Cheers,
Steve


----------



## kyle_de_aussie (Jan 23, 2006)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi Kyle,
> I believe that the "Eunice" form may be synonymous with _P.crassipes_. You're right the colour of the two are so similar, I'm very dubious that Eunice will in fact be something different. We see in the _P.crassipes_ form a third claw on leg IV, the only _Phlogius sp._ in Australia that has that. In the Eunice forms I've seen, they are all lacking the third claw, but only at a maximum size, interesting enough the teeth on the paired claws remain.
> 
> So I'm then left thinking, maybe the third claw is lost in some, but not all, very large specimens of _P.crassipes_. It's hard because I've seen the two at the same size when one will have and one won't have, this one is a tough call for now  To make it more difficult, in all _Phlogius spp._, the third claw is present, but vanishes at various instars within congenerics.
> ...


JEEEEEZ mate thats gotta make it tough to classify them, Dr raven must have his hands well and truly full
Thank's for clearing that up mate very informative indeed 

If they do end up being classified as the same thing this will mean that raven wont be using the claw for a difining feature for this sp anymore yeah?


----------



## Vys (Jan 23, 2006)

Interesting-seeming spider, and of course even more so because of where it's from.

Guess you had to sign a couple of papers or so to get this through, eh?


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jan 23, 2006)

kyle_de_aussie said:
			
		

> If they do end up being classified as the same thing this will mean that raven wont be using the claw for a difining feature for this sp anymore yeah?


Hi Kyle,
In fact it may be the loss of such a character in other closely related groups that interests Rob, I'll try to best explain why 
The presence of a third claw is an interesting thing. As a phylognetic character, it's of little to no use at generic levels, it's a plesiomorphic, or primitive character, which means the third claw was most likely seen in a common ancestor to the group. Because it's not an apomorphic, or derived character/one that was not present in the common ancestor, it really bares no relation on the development or evolution of this group (seeing that it was present in a common ancestor and therefore can give no real information on the evolution of the new group).

How can it be determined that the character, the third claw is plesiomorphic at that hierarchical level?? One commonly used way is outgroup comparison. Based on several characters examined, by looking and comparing those characters to the seemingly most closely related group, if that character is seen in both groups then chances are it was present in a primitive form in the common ancestor of both groups (and therefore, most likely a primitive/plesiomorphic character). If the character is present in only one group and not seen in the sister group (additionally, it helps if the apomorphic character is present in some, but not all members of the group), then the character may be apomorphic or recently derived in that group. Those are the sort of character that really help us to distingush what is what and is far more accurate then the old taxonomic methods used in the past. It does get a whole lot more complex then that, but this is the general idea of phylogenetics and cladistics as an approach to determining phylogeny/evolutionary relationships. This sort of work is cross referenced often with fossil research and another approach called ontogeny is also assessed (moreover in higher clades then generic levels though).

That said, identification is another story (rather then those methods used to describe new species) and the presence of such a character as the third claw (primitive or derived) can be informative if it is stable within the group, in this particular case, if the "Eunice" form and _P.crassipes_ are the one species, then perhaps the presence of the teeth on the paired tarsal claws may be an excellent identification tool and quite useable in an identification key, rather then the presence/absence of the third claw.

Clear as mud??

Steve


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jan 23, 2006)

Vys said:
			
		

> Guess you had to sign a couple of papers or so to get this through, eh?


A couple???, LOL, yeah, close to a couple  It's one hard road hey!!


----------



## kyle_de_aussie (Jan 23, 2006)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi Kyle,
> In fact it may be the loss of such a character in other closely related groups that interests Rob, I'll try to best explain why
> The presence of a third claw is an interesting thing. As a phylognetic character, it's of little to no use at generic levels, it's a plesiomorphic, or primitive character, which means the third claw was most likely seen in a common ancestor to the group. Because it's not an apomorphic, or derived character/one that was not present in the common ancestor, it really bares no relation on the development or evolution of this group (seeing that it was present in a common ancestor and therefore can give no real information on the evolution of the new group).
> 
> ...


Hey mate ,
Nah that was quite clear and understandable i got it mate   thanx for taking the time to explain why the third claw isnt really of much use at a generic level much appreciated mate. Its very complex stuff, but interesting as hell to me, (i have loads to learn). I plan to learn as much as i can about identification/classification in the years to come


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jan 23, 2006)

Hi Kyle,
Yeah, it's an interesting field. I think a first major issue to accept in modern taxonomy is that describing a tarantula goes far deeper then being merely able to identify one. That said, identification of theraphosids is a noble task at the best of times, leaving phylogeny totally out of the picture. I would say though, it's as good a place to get into it then any!

Steve


----------



## kyle_de_aussie (Jan 23, 2006)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi Kyle,
> Yeah, it's an interesting field. I think a first major issue to accept in modern taxonomy is that describing a tarantula goes far deeper then being merely able to identify one.
> Steve


LOL! yes indeed! i realise that now. Just  reading  what you wrote in the previous post  makes it clear to me that identifying and describing are two different things entirely,and describing to put it mildly seems way more complex than identification


----------



## Crimsonpanther (Jan 23, 2006)

That is a very purdy T , and looking forward to maybe seeing them FINALLY around my area , might take some time but im sure it will find its way here 
:worship: Big ups Steve ,  :clap: Thanks for all your hard work and dedication for making this happen , hopefully this will rub off on other members of the Trade.....:clap:


----------

