# all these avics?



## grayzone (Jan 14, 2012)

ok so this is probably a dumb question, but are there really THIS MANY Avics out there?                                                                         Avicularia affinis
Avicularia ancylochira
Avicularia anthracina
Avicularia aymara
Avicularia borelli
Avicularia cuminami
Avicularia detrita
Avicularia doleschalli
Avicularia exilis
Avicularia amazonica (Amazon Giant Pinktoe)
Avicularia aurantiaca (Yellow banded pinktoe)
Avicularia avicularia (Guyana pinktoe)
Avicularia azuraklaasi (Peruvian Blue Powder Pink Toe)
Avicularia bicegoi (Brick Red Pink Toe) 
Avicularia bruanshauseni (Giant pinktoe)
Avicularia caesia 
Avicularia Diversipes 
Avicularia Geroldi (Brazilian Bluegreen pinktoe)
Avicularia Huriana (Ecuadorian Wooley)
Avicularia juruensis (Yellowbanded tarantula)
Avicularia laeta (Puertorican Pinktoe)
Avicularia metallica (White toe tarantula)
Avicularia minatrix (Venezuelan red stripe)
Avicularia nigrotaeniata 
Avicularia glauca
Avicularia gracilis
Avicularia hirschii
Avicularia hirsuta
Avicularia holmbergi
Avicularia leporina
Avicularia obscura
Avicularia ochracea
Avicularia palmicola
Avicularia panamensis
Avicularia parva
Avicularia plantaris
Avicularia rapax
Avicularia recifiensis
Avicularia rufa
Avicularia rutilans
Avicularia soratae
Avicularia subvulpina
Avicularia surinamensis
Avicularia taunayi
Avicularia tigrina
Avicularia violacea
Avicularia walckenaeri
Avicularia peruana 
Avicularia pulchra 
Avicularia purpurea (Ecuadorian purple tarantula)
Avicularia ulrichea 
Avicularia urticans (Peruvian pinktoe tarantula)
Avicularia variegata 
Avicularia velutina 
Avicularia versicolor (Antilles pinktoe tarantula)
Avicularia Sp. - Cuzka
Avicularia Sp. Guyana 
Avicularia Sp. Amazonas Purple (Amazon Purple Pinktoe)
Avicularia Sp."Rio Madre" (Bolivian Pink Toe) 
...........................sorry so much, i just copied and pasted....Are these all specie that are current or have some been renamed/re-identified  ive been fascinated with the looks of Avics lately and tryin to determine which one is the prettiest/largest or fair medium of both... pics of YOUR best looking Avic are welcomed if ya choose to post

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## matt82 (Jan 14, 2012)

That is a lot more than I thought.

What's the betting more than 50% are *VERY* similar!

Thanks for sharing.

---------- Post added 01-14-2012 at 07:40 PM ----------




grayzone said:


> pics of YOUR best looking Avic are welcomed if ya choose to post


*EDIT:  Missed this part of the original post, was too overwhelmed reading through the list of all of the different Avics  

A pic of _my_ best looking Avic; fan favourite  Avicularia _versicolor_

Avic. versicolor - probable female, apx. 90mm LS by inverta_shot, on Flickr


----------



## catfishrod69 (Jan 14, 2012)

there probably is that many species out there. but most of them probably arent in the hobby, and if they were, we wouldnt be able to ID them..i would post a pic of my best looking girl, but you already know what she looks like.


----------



## grayzone (Jan 14, 2012)

matt82 said:


> What's the betting more than 50% are *VERY* similar!


  yeah matt... thats what im thinking.. prob very similar or renamed to a variation of previously identified ones?    nice versi btw... i got 2 coming soon. i wanna start getting into avics finally. skipped straight to pokies when it came to arboreal.


----------



## kanito107 (Jan 14, 2012)

Here's a link to my video, I love versicolors but I have more pokies than Avics. I definately recommend them you never know what to expect from them


http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=F0hyn8aqhTU


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 14, 2012)

*my avics ^_^*

My female A.ulrichea, I have her co-habing with a male right now ^_^



Female A.azuriklaasi 



A.diversipes *-*



female A.versicolor


----------



## grayzone (Jan 14, 2012)

nice ulrichea and diversipes curtis...thanks for sharing

---------- Post added 01-14-2012 at 12:17 PM ----------

i really like the look of the fasciculata seen here... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yHEp1vnFg...AF4/LP-l-Va82vQ/s1600/other_fasciculata01.jpg     I gather this the same as the diversipes? just like an "in between" stage?  see syndicate's post here> http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?20103-Genus-Avicularia/page54 <

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 14, 2012)

My personal favorite is Avicularia sp Amazonica (has this been formally described yet?). They are gorgeous. Seriously, I recommend them to anyone. I also really like A. versicolor (got a few of those) and A. diversipes (although I heard rumors it might be reclassified to another genus in the future, don't take my word on it though).  I think the largest come down to A. metallica and A. braunshauseni, but that's based on second hand information. 

Are there really that many species? I don't know if anyone can answer that. Plus, a lot of it comes down to whether you are a lumper or a splitter when it comes to classification of species? Some people will describe any morphological variation as a separate species, so across the range of a single species with populations that are sharing genes to one taxonomist, might be called 5 different species by another taxonomist. Without knowing too much about Avicularia but knowing a lot about taxonomy in general, I'm guessing it's probably very complicated.


----------



## skar (Jan 14, 2012)

Whoa ! That's new to me. 
Nice


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 14, 2012)

A. fasciculata was re-described as A. diversipes a few years ago. I don't remember why though.


----------



## grayzone (Jan 14, 2012)

yeah jayefbe, i just re edited my post... i saw that diversipes is ex fasiculata.... beautiful as slings and throughout the developmental stages. thanks for both your posts. I like the amizonica as well. i just think my fav is ALL OF THEM at the moment lol. hard to choose just one ya know?


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 14, 2012)

No kidding. I really like A. bicegoi in addition to the others I mentioned, but I've heard stories about them having AWFUL urticating hairs. Talkenlate04 had some posts a few years ago talking about how bad they were. Otherwise, that species is absolutely gorgeous. Darn it, thinking about this is making my wish list get longer again...just when you think you're done...

Found a couple posts that I was referring to with A. bicegoi pics and urticating hair info...
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/sho...ture-Thread.&p=1352181&viewfull=1#post1352181
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/sho...ture-Thread.&p=1351911&viewfull=1#post1351911

So pretty...I think I'm gonna have to risk it. Hopefully, Talkenlate04's reaction was due to a personal allergy, or something along those lines.


----------



## catfishrod69 (Jan 14, 2012)

I think the diversipes look alot like those old time christmas tree bulbs. the ones that have all the thread wrapped around them...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## grayzone (Jan 14, 2012)

hey jayefbe which one is the metallic green one you have?    i remember looking at your pic of some Avic that was new to me

---------- Post added 01-14-2012 at 12:39 PM ----------




catfishrod69 said:


> I think the diversipes look alot like those old time christmas tree bulbs. the ones that have all the thread wrapped around them...


 +1 on that.... for some reason they remind me of like a shiny clown suit when they are young


----------



## catfishrod69 (Jan 14, 2012)

you must mean my A. urticans sp. peru purple.


----------



## matt82 (Jan 14, 2012)

jayefbe said:


> My personal favorite is Avicularia sp Amazonica (has this been formally described yet?).


If they haven't been, they should be.  Definitely a stand-alone sp in a convoluted genus!  sp. Amazonica, along with A. diversipies, A. versicolor, and A. minatrix, are my stand out favourites...  amongst a few others lol.


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 14, 2012)

grayzone said:


> hey jayefbe which one is the metallic green one you have?    i remember looking at your pic of some Avic that was new to me


They were sold as A. metallica sp. "green". From what I heard, it was a separate species (putatively) but had similar white-tipped setae as A. metallica. I haven't seen any mention of them recently, so have no idea what happened. Quite a few people had pairs and a few sacs were produced around the same time. I'm sure people have them, but I'm not sure if they are called something else now or if they've just gone under the radar. If anyone has any information, I'd love to know. I regret selling the ones I had and would love to pick up some more. 

Here's a post with some pictures of them. They are beautiful and get quite large. 
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?159404-Another-Sac!!&p=1458538&viewfull=1#post1458538


----------



## SkyeSpider (Jan 14, 2012)

Nice post. I'm starting my phd in a couple years, and this is my planned thesis. Going into systematics, I've always been annoyed at how poorly organized Avicularia looks to me. I'm planning on cleaning up the genus and dumping all the synonyms that have been sitting around in here for decades 

In other words: yeah, that seems like more named species than actually exist (in my educated opinion).





grayzone said:


> ok so this is probably a dumb question, but are there really THIS MANY Avics out there?                                                                         Avicularia affinis
> Avicularia ancylochira
> Avicularia anthracina
> Avicularia aymara
> ...


----------



## BrettG (Jan 14, 2012)

Now nicely gravid


----------



## matt82 (Jan 14, 2012)

*@BrettG* here comes a very clichéd forum comment, 'if you were nearer I would buy some of the hopeful slings', but in this instance its really true, I would love a couple of these unique Avics.  All the best with a good egg sac from this girl.


----------



## advan (Jan 14, 2012)

Gotta love _Avicularia_ sp. 

Where did you get this list grayzone?

Many in that list have been moved.......and more will be soon. 

I suggest you bookmark this for future reference  --->Click<-----

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 1hughjazzspider (Jan 14, 2012)

You forgot to mention Avicularia kwitara. 

http://www.andynewman.org/html/green_pink_toe.html


----------



## grayzone (Jan 15, 2012)

BrettG said:


> Now nicely gravid


hey brett .. which avic is this again...minitrax?

---------- Post added 01-15-2012 at 01:47 PM ----------

and thanks for your two links advan... i love all the photos of the avic's NATURAL habitats/homes.


----------



## advan (Jan 15, 2012)

grayzone said:


> hey brett .. which avic is this again...minitrax?
> 
> ---------- Post added 01-15-2012 at 01:47 PM ----------
> 
> and thanks for your two links advan... i love all the photos of the avic's NATURAL habitats/homes.


Anytime! 

Brett's pic is a _A. minatrix_. Note the spelling, I've seen this mispelled a lot recently.


----------



## grayzone (Jan 15, 2012)

advan said:


> Anytime!
> 
> Brett's pic is a _A. minatrix_. Note the spelling, I've seen this mispelled a lot recently.


    :fury: damn it .. lol... i swear i can spell almost ANY word in English... all these spider names/Latin words get a lil tricky.  thanks for pointing that out too... dont want people getting confused and thinking there's ANOTHER sp. of avic out there.


----------



## advan (Jan 15, 2012)

grayzone said:


> :fury: .. lol... i swear i can spell almost ANY word in English... all these spider names/Latin words get a lil tricky.  thanks for pointing that out too... dont want people getting confused and thinking there's ANOTHER sp. of avic out there.


No worries, copy and paste is an easy way to avoid misspelling.  Just make sure you have a good source.


----------



## grayzone (Jan 16, 2012)

1hughjazzspider said:


> You forgot to mention Avicularia kwitara.
> 
> http://www.andynewman.org/html/green_pink_toe.html


  i think this is the spider jayefbe and i were discussing


----------



## 1hughjazzspider (Jan 16, 2012)

grayzone said:


> i think this is the spider jayefbe and i were discussing



It's possible. I've seen other pictures of it before that showed a little bit greener carapace, but I couldn't seem to find them. I think I've seen where a few people in Europe have some, but I haven't seen anyone in the US that has one labeled as it.


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 16, 2012)

The A.metallica sp. "Green" ?


----------



## Ultum4Spiderz (Jan 16, 2012)

Who knows how many undiscovered avics that you could also add to the list..
A metallica SP green sounds awsome !


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 16, 2012)

Aparently its a green phase of A.met, i personaly feel it needs its own taxonomic placement lol


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 16, 2012)

curtisgiganteus said:


> Aparently its a green phase of A.met, i personaly feel it needs its own taxonomic placement lol


When it was more common, I believe the general consensus was that it was most likely a separate species from A. metallica and being called A. metallica sp green was merely due to their superficial resemblance. I think kwitara might actually be the same thing, they at least look similar. I'll check to see if I can find more info later today, I know there used to be some information about where they were likely collected before.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 16, 2012)

Avicularia as a genus has had a lot of changes over the years. In 1955 there were 30 species and 2 subspecies, which is quite a lot. Then, in 1985 the 20 species in Eurypelma, Ancylochirus (and possibly others, I don't know) were basically dumped into Avicularia as well. After the work of Schmidt (1993) and Smith (1995) most of those species were taken back out and placed in more appropriate places, like Aphonopelma, Brachypelma, and Iridopelma. More spiders were added from the mid 90's to the mid 00's, and some more again were taken out and put in genera like Eupalaestrus, Sericopelma, and Grammostola.

Recently, Caroline Fukushima has done a taxanomic reorganization of the genus, and I believe that reorganization is scheduled for publication in 2013. If that happens, a fairly large number of spiders will be removed from Avicularia (including A. versicolor) and the ones that remain (I believe 14 is the number proporsed) will actually be taxanomically closely related, which really isn't always the case now.


----------



## grayzone (Jan 16, 2012)

yeah jim, ive seen pics of Iridopelma before and they look like avics... i always thought maybe they were of the same genus as well... Avicularia as a genus is pretty chaotic ATM, cant wain to see the new taxonomic reorganization you are speaking of... should be even MORE CONFUSING , at least for a while.


----------



## BrettG (Jan 16, 2012)

grayzone said:


> yeah jim, ive seen pics of Iridopelma before and they look like avics... i always thought maybe they were of the same genus as well... Avicularia as a genus is pretty chaotic ATM, cant wain to see the new taxonomic reorganization you are speaking of... should be even MORE CONFUSING , at least for a while.


In person,Iridiopelma look and act nothing like Avicularia IMHO.A.diversipes  is more "Iridiopelma-like" than "Avicularia-like" as well.


----------



## advan (Jan 16, 2012)

grayzone said:


> yeah jim, ive seen pics of Iridopelma before and they look like avics... i always thought maybe they were of the same genus as well... Avicularia as a genus is pretty chaotic ATM, cant wain to see the new taxonomic reorganization you are speaking of... should be even MORE CONFUSING , at least for a while.


Teaser.


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 16, 2012)

advan said:


> Teaser.


Wow. That is a complete reworking of the genus. We'll no longer going to be able to say things "my favorite are Avicularia species".


----------



## catfishrod69 (Jan 16, 2012)

i dont understand any of the reorganization of any species. what are the factors to make them in different genera? wouldnt all Avics be the only ones that could be in Avicularia? why would say something like A. versicolor be put into a genus with say G. rosea?





advan said:


> Teaser.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 16, 2012)

grayzone said:


> yeah jim, ive seen pics of Iridopelma before and they look like avics... i always thought maybe they were of the same genus as well... Avicularia as a genus is pretty chaotic ATM, cant wain to see the new taxonomic reorganization you are speaking of... should be even MORE CONFUSING , at least for a while.





BrettG said:


> In person,Iridiopelma look and act nothing like Avicularia IMHO.A.diversipes  is more "Iridiopelma-like" than "Avicularia-like" as well.


I also think the Iridopelma spiders look like a lot of the Avicularia, but the Iridopelma males have the extra hook on the leg II tibia, and the females lack the lobules in the spermathecae. Those are taxanomic differences you can base a different genera on, and really what apparently has been lacking for so long in Avicularia. In addition, the Iridipelma species have longer leg IV's than leg I's, which is the opposite of what is normal in Avicularia. 

As for A. versicolor, it has type II urticating bristiles on the tarsi on leg IV (which it will use, as well), which none of the other Avicualria have. That's the proposed taxonomic reason (or among the proposed, I should say) for removing the versicolors from the Avicularia genus. 

Check the Fukushima paper, it's very interesting and enlightening 
http://www.mediafire.com/?snh664wxrfgxdx1

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## grayzone (Jan 17, 2012)

man , im about to give up trying... lol. i dont care to be a tarantula snob / genius. i just like the looks and a few traits most genus have to offer. i will just learn the NEW names for the avics i like when the time comes i guess... just when i thought i was getting the hang of all this lol...


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 17, 2012)

At least we can have a clearer and more accurate genus pool for avics. Isnt that what we've wanted for the hobby?


----------



## matt82 (Jan 17, 2012)

curtisgiganteus said:


> At least we can have a clearer and more accurate genus pool for avics. Isnt that what we've wanted for the hobby?


Agreed on that point 100%, what a nightmare of an undertaking it must be to overhaul and reassess such a murky genus!  The genus seems to be, as mentioned, a dumping ground in a way, for a lot of unsuitable species, some more noticeably unsuitable than others, so a definitive shake up is needed, I think.  Looking forward to finding out what we will be calling Avicularia versicolor after said reclassification is done; even someone with modest understanding of taxonomy in general can see that A. versicolor, A. diversipes, A. minatrix and A . purpurea are something a bit different form the more generic Avic/Pinktoe.  Just looking forward to seeing what ends up where, or will new genera be created to accommodate for some.  Time will tell!

Great thread, really interesting discussion IMO, and some good info in the links, *@Jim777*, thanks for the link to the Fukushima Paper PDF, I'm going to read that when I get a chance!


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 17, 2012)

I personaly think A.diversipes is going to Iridopelma, it something that has been overdue for quite a long time. I am curious as to where A.versicolor, minatrix, and purpurea end up. Also want A.ulrichea to be formally described as well


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 17, 2012)

curtisgiganteus said:


> I personaly think A.diversipes is going to Iridopelma, it something that has been overdue for quite a long time. I am curious as to where A.versicolor, minatrix, and purpurea end up. Also want A.ulrichea to be formally described as well


According to the link Advan posted, A. diversipes, A. versicolor, and A. minatrix are all going into separate, currently un-named genera. A. purpurea is staying in Avicularia and A. ulrichea will no longer be valid. I'm not sure if it's going to be re-classified as something else or if it's a junior synonym of a previously described species. From the looks of it, the WHOLE genus is being COMPLETELY re-done.


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 17, 2012)

So what do i sell my slings as hahaha


----------



## advan (Jan 17, 2012)

matt82 said:


> Agreed on that point 100%, what a nightmare of an undertaking it must be to overhaul and reassess such a murky genus!  The genus seems to be, as mentioned, a dumping ground in a way, for a lot of unsuitable species, some more noticeably unsuitable than others, so a definitive shake up is needed, I think.  Looking forward to finding out what we will be calling Avicularia versicolor after said reclassification is done; even someone with modest understanding of taxonomy in general can see that A. versicolor, A. diversipes, A. minatrix and A . purpurea are something a bit different form the more generic Avic/Pinktoe.  Just looking forward to seeing what ends up where, or will new genera be created to accommodate for some.  Time will tell! Great thread, really interesting discussion IMO, and some good info in the links, *@Jim777*, thanks for the link to the Fukushima Paper PDF, I'm going to read that when I get a chance!


As Jay said, _A. purpurea_ will be staying for now. That PDF is also in the link I posted, the thread starter just summarized it. I didn't think I needed to post a separate link. I thought I was killing two birds with one stone. 



curtisgiganteus said:


> I personaly think A.diversipes is going to Iridopelma, it something that has been overdue for quite a long time. I am curious as to where A.versicolor, minatrix, and purpurea end up. Also want A.ulrichea to be formally described as well


_A. diversipes_ mature males lack the second set of tibial spurs. 



jayefbe said:


> According to the link Advan posted, A. diversipes, A. versicolor, and A. minatrix are all going into separate, currently un-named genera. A. purpurea is staying in Avicularia and A. ulrichea will no longer be valid. I'm not sure if it's going to be re-classified as something else or if it's a junior synonym of a previously described species. From the looks of it, the WHOLE genus is being COMPLETELY re-done.


She can't tackle the whole genus in one shot, but it is a great start.



curtisgiganteus said:


> So what do i sell my slings as hahaha


Label them with the names they have now until the paper is officially released.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 17, 2012)

Personally, I wish Spring would come a little early this year so I could order a few more  I would love to get another 4 to 6 but with the temps going up and down like crazy (in New Jersey, anyway) I don't want to chance a heatpack accidentally cooking one of my slings.


----------



## advan (Jan 17, 2012)

jim777 said:


> Personally, I wish Spring would come a little early this year so I could order a few more  I would love to get another 4 to 6 but with the temps going up and down like crazy (in New Jersey, anyway) I don't want to chance a heatpack accidentally cooking one of my slings.


If packaged correctly you shouldn't have an issue. Just order from a reputable dealer/seller.


----------



## catfishrod69 (Jan 17, 2012)

maybe so, but that wont help telling the difference in them. especially with alot of species that look so much alike, that its impossible. 





curtisgiganteus said:


> At least we can have a clearer and more accurate genus pool for avics. Isnt that what we've wanted for the hobby?


----------



## grayzone (Jan 17, 2012)

curtisgiganteus said:


> So what do i sell my slings as hahaha


 what kinda slings you got? im really trying to get my hands on a few diversipes, and have been for like a year. they seem to pop up for a while (when im broke), then disappear (when i have money) again.  im attending an expo this saturday in Portland Or. and have my fingers crossed that i can snag one.


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 17, 2012)

I have an avicularia ulrichea sack incubating right now


----------



## grayzone (Jan 17, 2012)

nice... hope all goes well . i will be looking for your add in the fs/ft section

---------- Post added 01-17-2012 at 12:08 PM ----------




curtisgiganteus said:


> My female A.ulrichea, I have her co-habing with a male right now ^_^
> View attachment 98041
> 
> [/ATTACH]


 all i had to do was go back to page one ... sorry... beautiful avic. i WILL keep my eye open


----------



## advan (Jan 17, 2012)

curtisgiganteus said:


> I have an avicularia ulrichea sack incubating right now


Co-habitating a male to incubating a sac in three days?  I think a lot of us would like to know your secrets.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 17, 2012)

advan said:


> If packaged correctly you shouldn't have an issue. Just order from a reputable dealer/seller.


I had an LP cook in late November because the temp rose about 30 degrees for a week. It does happen.


----------



## jayefbe (Jan 17, 2012)

jim777 said:


> I had an LP cook in late November because the temp rose about 30 degrees for a week. It does happen.


This is getting off-topic, but it cooked while being shipped or in its enclosure? A properly packed shipment using the correct heat packs should not raise the temperature 30 degrees.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 17, 2012)

Sorry about the off topic. The spider (a 3" LP) was shipped with a 72 hour heat pack because it was about 40 degrees when and where it shipped. It arrived 2 days later into 70 degree weather, and the spider had cooked. I would guess it might have spent 36 or more hours in packing (a deli container, in a styrofoam box with a heat pack, in a cardboard box) in 70 degree weather. I absolutely do not blame the dealer/breeder for the LP's demise, but the combination of the cold weather heatpack and crazy weather for the post Thanksgiving NorthEast.  

All I meant to say originally is that I will be getting a few more Avics in the near future, but not while the weather is so unpredictable where I am. I was upset to lose the LP, but I would be VERY upset to lose an A. sp amazonica or an A. sp braunshauseni (both of which are on my short list). Maybe late Feb or early March will work for me if the weather agrees.


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 18, 2012)

She had been cohabitating for a while with him and dropped litteraly the night i posted that pic its not large though, my estimated guess 70 at most. Its about the size of a blowpop.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 18, 2012)

A. ulrichea was one of the Avics described by Tesmoingt in 1996, right? I thought I had also read somewhere that A. ulrichea was a variant of A. urticans. Do you have any recent pics?  And congrats on the sac!


----------



## curtisgiganteus (Jan 19, 2012)

jim777 said:


> A. ulrichea was one of the Avics described by Tesmoingt in 1996, right? I thought I had also read somewhere that A. ulrichea was a variant of A. urticans. Do you have any recent pics?  And congrats on the sac!






There is a better image of her on the first page of this thread.


----------



## advan (Jan 19, 2012)

jim777 said:


> A. ulrichea was one of the Avics described by Tesmoingt in 1996, right? I thought I had also read somewhere that A. ulrichea was a variant of A. urticans.


_A. ulrichea_ is from Brazil and _A. urticans_ is from Peru.


----------



## Shrike (Jan 19, 2012)

jayefbe said:


> This is getting off-topic, but it cooked while being shipped or in its enclosure? A properly packed shipment using the correct heat packs should not raise the temperature 30 degrees.


I think Jim was just referring to a 30 degree increase in the temperature outdoors.  That's how I read it anyway.  You're right, there's no way a heat pack should cause a 30 degree swing.


----------



## jim777 (Jan 19, 2012)

advan said:


> _A. ulrichea_ is from Brazil and _A. urticans_ is from Peru.


It's probably more correct to say the initial individuals used to describe the species were found in Brazil and Peru, than it is to say they are actually from one place or the other. Those two countries share a fairly large common border as well; a border the spiders wouldn't recognize  



Shrike said:


> I think Jim was just referring to a 30 degree increase in the temperature outdoors.  That's how I read it anyway.  You're right, there's no way a heat pack should cause a 30 degree swing.


Exactly right, and the large outdoor temp swings continue. My 10 year old played an outdoor hockey game Monday evening and it was 22 degrees outside at 7PM. Tuesday evening when we took out our trash it was 58 degrees out at 10PM. 36 degree change in 24 hours, and while that's a big swing it is representative of what we've been seeing since early November.


----------



## advan (Jan 19, 2012)

jim777 said:


> It's probably more correct to say the initial individuals used to describe the species were found in Brazil and Peru, than it is to say they are actually from one place or the other. Those two countries share a fairly large common border as well; a border the spiders wouldn't recognize


 I'm pretty sure the spiders bring passports when they cross the border.  Can you link me to the range or paper of _A. ulrichea_?


----------



## jim777 (Jan 20, 2012)

I don't have a range or paper for A. ulrichea, I have a map.  When I mentioned that I had seen on the Internet that ulrichea might actually be the same as urticans, being that the person who described ulrichea in the first place was not a taxonimist, you pointed to location origin as the difference between the species (which I assume is the generally accepted difference?). Now I know you have a lot of T's and a lot of knowledge about them, but location origin isn't a good reason to have a different taxonomic classification. I wasn't 'calling you out' here, I happen to have a lot of respect for your T knowledge. I was pointing out that a lot of the current Avicularia mess was brought about by overzealous 'professional amateurs'. That was what I thought was the point of the thread in the first place  Peru and Brazil share an 800 mile border that is far from striaght, with parts of Brazil extending nearly 200 miles into Peru. 

From the Fukushima paper abstract: "Since then, many new species were being added to the genus, almost all described by amateurs: *Avicularia urticans Schmidt 1994*, Avicularia aurantiaca Bauer 1996, Avicularia azuraklaasi Tesmoingt 1996, all from Peru (Schmidt, 1994; Bauer, 1996; Tesmoingt, 1996a); Avicularia recifensis Struchen & Brandle 1996, *Avicularia ulrichea Tesmoingt 1996,*" ....


----------



## advan (Jan 20, 2012)

jim777 said:


> I don't have a range or paper for A. ulrichea, I have a map.  When I mentioned that I had seen on the Internet that ulrichea might actually be the same as urticans, being that the person who described ulrichea in the first place was not a taxonimist, you pointed to location origin as the difference between the species (which I assume is the generally accepted difference?). Now I know you have a lot of T's and a lot of knowledge about them, but location origin isn't a good reason to have a different taxanomic classification. I wasn't 'calling you out' here, I happen to have a lot of respect for you T knowledge. I was pointing out that a lot of the current Avicularia mess was brought about by overzealous 'professional amateurs'. That was what I thought was the point of the thread in the first place  Peru and Brazil share an 800 mile border that is far from striaght, with parts of Brazil extending nearly 200 miles into Peru.
> 
> From the Fukushima paper: "Since then, many new species were being added to the genus, almost all described by amateurs: *Avicularia urticans Schmidt 1994*, Avicularia aurantiaca Bauer 1996, Avicularia azuraklaasi Tesmoingt 1996, all from Peru (Schmidt, 1994; Bauer, 1996; Tesmoingt, 1996a); Avicularia recifensis Struchen & Brandle 1996, *Avicularia ulrichea Tesmoingt 1996,*" ....


My first question is if _A. ulrichea_ was found in let's say Porto Alegra would you still think it could range into Peru? My second question is do you think _A. urticans_ and _A. ulrichea_ look anything alike? I believe location is very important piece of information when it comes to our spiders. I would much rather have an _Avicularia_ sp. "enter locale here" than _Avicularia "whatever the importer wanted to call it"_. Now, go over to the Hapalopus sp. thread and tell them they all have _Hapalopus triseratus_ because Venezuela and Columbia share a border.  

Don't you think it's a little funny that _A. diversipes_ was redescribed and _A. sooretama_ described by Fukushima in 2009 and now she will be moving them to a different genus? Should we call her an amauter because she goofed up? No, we should be grateful someone finally stepped up to take on the _Avicularia_ mess.

P.S. I don't know much, I'm just a hobbiest that wants to learn more. I was truly hoping you had a paper or some sort of reading assigment for me. 

P.S.S. Zoltan, if you are reading this, I would love some homework. :worship:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jim777 (Jan 20, 2012)

advan said:


> My first question is if _A. ulrichea_ was found in let's say Porto Alegra would you still think it could range into Peru? My second question is do you think _A. urticans_ and _A. ulrichea_ look anything alike? I believe location is very important piece of information when it comes to our spiders. I would much rather have an _Avicularia_ sp. "enter locale here" than _Avicularia "whatever the importer wanted to call it"_. Now, go over to the Hapalopus sp. thread and tell them they all have _Hapalopus triseratus_ because Venezuela and Columbia share a border.


Well, there are more ways than one for an animal to get from one place to another, and it needn't be simply walking as it were. The State of Florida has shown us that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1SqRUX05Us&feature=BFa&list=PLE463D8D0FD235392&lf=mh_lolz

And I don't know where in Brazil or Peru Tesmoignt found his specimens, or even if he found one of each or literally dozens and dozens. So in that sense, it's a rhetorical question.  And to a degree, some of the A. ulrichea look like the A. urticans, yeah. I've seen pairs of each where the males and females looked quite a bit different from each other as well. Certainly they look more like one species than the grey and red colorforms of G. rosea look (in my opinion).  



advan said:


> Don't you think it's a little funny that _A. diversipes_ was redescribed and _A. sooretama_ described by Fukushima in 2009 and now she will be moving them to a different genus? Should we call her an amauter because she goofed up? No, we should be grateful someone finally stepped up to take on the _Avicularia_ mess.


I do think that's funny actually, yeah. You never know how many examples they are working with, and whether its enough or whether some differences simply don't matter. But I would rather see people like Fukushima who is working in a University in Brazil doing research and refining that research than folks naming species without any peer review at all - simply publishing to magazines and having it stick in the trade. I've read some stories online about Tesmoignt's practices that I won't repeat here because they border on the libelous frankly. At least with Fukushima you know who she is and what her credentials are, and know where she's working and researching. I think for that alone you have to say she's not an amateur. Also, I'm not certain the ZOOTAXA article was actually peer reviewed before publication.

Have you seen the sub family Aviculariinae descriptions on eightlegs.org?




advan said:


> P.S. I don't know much, I'm just a hobbiest that wants to learn more. I was truly hoping you had a paper or some sort of reading assigment for me.


I'm in the same boat. I'd say this is the best thread I've been involved in during my short time here though, certrainly it's been the most fun for me  I really appreciate the continued look at the Avicularia 'issue' as I do have a soft spot for those spiders in both my heart and head. I wish I had access to a college library and all of those peer reviewed journals!



advan said:


> P.S.S. Zoltan, if you are reading this, I would love some homework. :worship:


+1000!


----------



## grayzone (Mar 17, 2012)

Wondering if anybody ever got any more info about the genus reorganization


----------



## grayzone (Mar 29, 2012)

anybody??? id like to know what i gotta start calling THESE lil guys/girls 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 101252
View attachment 101253


----------



## hamhock 74 (Mar 29, 2012)

Those are diverscipes right gray? I'd call them as such for now and relabel them if they get reclassified in the future.


----------



## advan (Mar 29, 2012)

_Avicularia diversipes_ and _Avicularia versicolor_ until sometime in 2013. Patience is a virtue.


----------



## grayzone (Mar 29, 2012)

yeah hamhock, diversipes and versi ...... and THANKS advan, patience is INDEED a virtue this hobby is teaching me.... sloooowly lol:wink:


----------



## hamhock 74 (Mar 29, 2012)

There was a versi... awww man how did I goof that up, time to book an appointment with the optometrist


----------



## grayzone (Mar 29, 2012)

yupp... the beauty of a versi SHOULDNT be something you miss.. :biggrin:


----------



## crawltech (Mar 29, 2012)

I think those to lil beautys should be called "Iridopelma sp. used to be avics", until they re-classify them...lol

ya I think once they figure it all out, the Iridopelma (or whatever they are/become) CEOs will be sittin there offices sayin "nice try Avicularia genus, you wish!"


----------



## grayzone (Mar 30, 2012)

yupp... these diversipes at least SURE LOOK like the I. hirstum/sp. recefe .... that is likely to be the genus they get moved to.....who knows... like you implied, only time will tell


----------



## advan (Mar 30, 2012)

grayzone said:


> yupp... these diversipes at least SURE LOOK like the I. hirstum/sp. recefe .... that is likely to be the genus they get moved to.....who knows... like you implied, only time will tell


Hi Steven, I highly doubt that _Avicularia diversipes_ will be moved to _Iridopelma_. _Iridopelma_ mature males have a second set of tibial spurs. Now that said, one would think _Iridopelma seladonium_ should eventually be moved out of that genus for that very reason. If you read the link provided earlier in this thread it says _Avicularia diversipes_, _Avicularia sooretama_ and _Avicularia gamba_ will be moved to a new still to be named genus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Zoltan (Mar 30, 2012)

advan said:


> Hi Steven, I highly doubt that _Avicularia diversipes_ will be moved to _Iridopelma_. _Iridopelma_ mature males have a second set of tibial spurs. Now that said, one would think _Iridopelma seladonium_ should eventually be moved out of that genus for that very reason. If you read the link provided earlier in this thread it says _Avicularia diversipes_, _Avicularia sooretama_ and _Avicularia gamba_ will be moved to a new still to be named genus.


That is correct, I have also posted about this before in some detail. _I. seladonium_ will be moved to a genus that seems to be forgotten by most. Good taxonomy is not a fast science, and does not happen overnight.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## advan (Mar 30, 2012)

Zoltan said:


> I have also posted about this before in some detail


 This brings up an excellent point. Many people on this forum believe that starting a thread and asking a question is going to yield them the best answers. Majority of the experienced keepers and respectable spider lovers aren't posting on the forums much, if anymore. My suggestion to you Steven and/or everyone else, is to pick a few people(like Zoltan) and read *all* of their posts. You will learn much more from their posts then waiting around for one of them to answer your questions. Also try to actually absorb the information than just skim over it. There were two great links in this thread that should of answered your questions about when the reclassification is coming out and and even a slight overview of it. That is as much as they are going to give us until it is officially released. To be honest I am glad they even gave us that much info in the overview. It gives us something to look forward to. Just my two cents.  -Chad

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## grayzone (Mar 30, 2012)

advan said:


> Hi Steven, I highly doubt that _Avicularia diversipes_ will be moved to _Iridopelma_. _Iridopelma_ mature males have a second set of tibial spurs. Now that said, one would think _Iridopelma seladonium_ should eventually be moved out of that genus for that very reason. If you read the link provided earlier in this thread it says _Avicularia diversipes_, _Avicularia sooretama_ and _Avicularia gamba_ will be moved to a new still to be named genus.


 yupp... got it.. i tried to edit the post but sometimes the edit, the reply with quote, and even the reply buttons dont work for me


----------



## Philth (Mar 30, 2012)

advan said:


> Hi Steven, I highly doubt that _Avicularia diversipes_ will be moved to _Iridopelma_. _Iridopelma_ mature males have a second set of tibial spurs. Now that said, one would think _Iridopelma seladonium_ should eventually be moved out of that genus for that very reason.


This might not be the right place to ask but, I always wonder why the second set of tibial spurs in _Iridopelma_ are used as a taxonomist tool ?  Why can genera like _Theraphosa_ and _Nhandu_ have species that have one or none at all and they are considered the same genera. :? There is prob more to it than I know, I suspect?

later, Tom


----------



## grayzone (Mar 31, 2012)

hmm never thought of THAT tom... which species in either of those genera have 2 sets?


----------



## Philth (Mar 31, 2012)

grayzone said:


> hmm never thought of THAT tom... which species in either of those genera have 2 sets?


Iridopelma hirsutm has 2 sets.  _Theraphosa_ can have 1 or none at all, ( _T. blondi_ & _T. stirmi_ have none, T. apophysis has one), yet they are considered the same genera.

_Nhandu carapoensis _lacks tibial spurs, but the rest of the genus have them.  I guess my question is why can it vary in one genus and not another ?:?

Later, Tom


----------



## paassatt (Mar 31, 2012)

Philth said:


> I guess my question is why can it vary in one genus and not another?


Good question, and one that I've been wondering for a while myself.

Edit: More clearly, why is _N. carapoensis_ in the same genus as the rest of _Nhandu_ if it's the only species that lacks tibial spurs? Is that characteristic alone not enough to disqualify it from being classified in a particular genus with other species that don't share that specific characteristic?


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 31, 2012)

On some level, deciding what comprises a genus is futile. Genera are purely artificial constructs. Species are a real and well defined biological unit, genera aren't. They are developed by humans for simplicity and to recognize that some species are more related to each other than other groups of species. That doesn't mean that all genera comprise species that are as closely or distantly related compared to other genera. Ideally, all genera should be reciprocally monophyletic. Without a good phylogeny, that's pretty much impossible to ensure, and the dividing line of what comprises a genus tends to be quite arbitrary.  Given that good species level phylogenies are nearly non-existent within the world of tarantulas, I'm sure there are many genera that need some reorganizing. It doesn't quite answer the question, but it might provide some insight into the tibial spurs question. My guess is that early morphological taxonomists often used traits that differentiated species and genera (and subfamilies and families and ....) that reflected their own intuition of the relationships.


----------



## arachnidsrva (Apr 1, 2012)

i have a really awesome book written only about Avics - it's out of print now... i wish I could find more


----------



## grayzone (Apr 1, 2012)

what is the name of the book arachnid? id like to see if i could find it online somewhere


----------

