# Identification: "Bought as Hysterocrates hercules"



## Tugbay Yagci (Oct 25, 2009)

Greetings.
Bought this one as a H. hercules when it was a tiny sling. These are my first photos of it during 3 years. I had no idea when it molted, what did it do, what does it look like during this long period. 

Now i managed to get some photos as i rehoused it, and i have read several topics about this genus claiming that "no H. hercules exist, your H. hercules is either a H. gigas or H. ederi"

What are your ideas? I'd would like to know.


----------



## seanbond (Oct 25, 2009)

wheres a pik?
and i agree, h hercules isnt around or nobody is saying thay have em


----------



## Exo (Oct 25, 2009)

seanbond said:


> wheres a pik?
> and i agree, h hercules isnt around or nobody is saying thay have em


There are a few people in europe that have some.


----------



## seanbond (Oct 25, 2009)

Exo said:


> There are a few people in europe that have some.


us speaking, sorry
evrything is in europe!


----------



## Tugbay Yagci (Oct 25, 2009)

here are the pictures.


----------



## billopelma (Oct 25, 2009)

Bottom line, you can't ID it to species level without original locality/collection data.



> There are a few people in europe that have some.


Who ID'ed them? That would be big 'taxonomic' news, I'd imagine someone would want credit for it... 
Unless something has changed very recently, as far as I know Richard Gallon (a/the leading authority on African t's) still maintains they are not in the hobby. 

I wish people would stop perpetuating this unsubstantiated crap. Next it will be another thorelli/paganus thread... :wall: 

Bill


----------



## Bill S (Oct 25, 2009)

billopelma said:


> Unless something has changed very recently, as far as I know Richard Gallon (a/the leading authority on African t's) still maintains they are not in the hobby.


Given that individual hobbyists do get out in the field collecting specimens from different countries, I don't really see how one person can make the statement that any given species "does not exist in the hobby".  All it takes is for one person to visit the country where a species lives and collect a specimen or two.  There's no record keeping of such events, and no requirement to notify Mr. Gallon or any other "leading authority".

If he wants to say something is "not generally seen" in the hobby, that might make sense.  Or even "most specimens of X species seen in the hobby are not correctly identified."

As for _Hysterocrates hercules_..... I haven't a clue.


----------



## Exo (Oct 25, 2009)

It's nice to know that I'm a poster of "unsubtantiated crap", I did not previously know this, so thanks for letting me know.  

The european T community is very different from ours and many of them could care less about reporting what they own to the scientific community. If a breeder wants a rare T, they will find someone who will get it for them.


----------



## billopelma (Oct 25, 2009)

> If he wants to say something is "not generally seen" in the hobby, that might make sense. Or even "most specimens of X species seen in the hobby are not correctly identified."



Can't recall (or don't know) the details but there are issues with the condition of the type specimen and maybe the description and/or locality info. It's purely conjecture to say any spider is it until it's compared to the type and some particular set of parameters are met.  
 Since no one has ever compared and identified (or can ever, possibly) a spider as being H. hercules since Pocock described it in 1897 then no one can say they have it.  How would you know?:? 




> It's nice to know that I'm a poster of "unsubtantiated crap", I did not previously know this, so thanks for letting me know.


Sorry for the rant. I see you're fairly new here and I guess I should have cut you some slack but this subject just comes up over and over and never seems to go away. It still is "unsubstantiated crap" IMHO and that's why these things perpetuate...

As for the Europeans, sure they're ahead of us in the hobby but that doesn't mean there are no dis-informed noobs and idiots over there either. I bought an H. "hercules" just for <edit> and grins at a show in germany a few years ago because it did actually look different from other Hysterocrates I'd seen and it was only 3 euro. It is presently a typical 6" mature male "hobby gigas" looking T, if you know anyone who want's one...


Bill


----------



## Philth (Oct 25, 2009)

Exo said:


> If a breeder wants a rare T, they will find someone who will get it for them.


Or someone who will call it that to make a few bucks.

Later, Tom


----------



## JimM (Oct 26, 2009)

I don't think there are any T collector running around in H. gigas home turf. 
Nigeria is a dangerous place. That alone is enough reason to be highly skeptical of any supposed H. hercules being kept on any continent.


----------



## Bill S (Oct 26, 2009)

billopelma said:


> Can't recall (or don't know) the details but there are issues with the condition of the type specimen and maybe the description and/or locality info. It's purely conjecture to say any spider is it until it's compared to the type and some particular set of parameters are met.
> Since no one has ever compared and identified (or can ever, possibly) a spider as being H. hercules since Pocock described it in 1897 then no one can say they have it.  How would you know?:?


OK.  If you don't know what the issues are with the type specimen, how do you know nobody has compared specimens to it?  

Beyond the specimen itself, there should have been a written description, hopefully including illustrations, detailing key features that the author thought separated it from other similar species.  If someone sank the species (undermined the reasons for calling it a separate species), that would be one thing - but if the species still stands as valid and identifying features have been noted and recorded - that information should be adequate for someone to tentatively identify  captive specimens.  In the original description there could also be the type locality, and in todays world of relatively easy travel a collector could go to the type locality and collect.  And again, there would be no reason to assume that a collector would feel obligated to announce to the world where they had traveled or what they had collected.

One poster has suggested that because Nigeria is a troubled region, it's reasonable to assume that collectors would not be able to go there.  Sorry if I offend anyone - but that's a pretty naive viewpoint.  People DO travel into troubled regions, for many different reasons.  And while in those places may well collect specimens to bring home with them.  I personally have friends and relatives who have traveled into troubled regions (including countries in Africa), and they have collected biological specimens.  (Regretably, not tarantulas though.)


----------



## billopelma (Oct 26, 2009)

> OK. If you don't know what the issues are with the type specimen, how do you know nobody has compared specimens to it?



I have no clue as to what or whether anything has been compared, just that nothing has matched whatever there is to match and if it has is not published. Just because a species "stands as valid" doesn't necessarily mean what's available is enough to validate new material. C. thorelli is an example of that.



> Beyond the specimen itself, there should have been a written description, hopefully including illustrations, detailing key features that the author thought separated it from other similar species. If someone sank the species (undermined the reasons for calling it a separate species), that would be one thing - but if the species still stands as valid and identifying features have been noted and recorded - that information should be adequate for someone to tentatively identify captive specimens. In the original description there could also be the type locality, and in todays world of relatively easy travel a collector could go to the type locality and collect.


'...hopefully, should have, could have, would have, but if...' whatever....
You seem to know much more about taxonomic procedure than I, do a bit of digging and let me in on what's actually current fact instead of just conjecturing on generalities. 

I'm not referring to a general number of species here, I'm talking about H. hercules, specifically.
I don't know what the details are. What I'm saying is very simple, no one has validated any material since 1897. 
Until that happens no one can say they have it. If someone does have it but it hasn't been compared/matched then it is still *not valid*. Again, how would they know? I don't think just anyone can walk into the BMNH entomology dept and ask to play with the type specimens. How difficult is this to understand? 

I'm done...

Bill


----------



## JimM (Oct 26, 2009)

Bill S said:


> One poster has suggested that because Nigeria is a troubled region, it's reasonable to assume that collectors would not be able to go there.


I simply said it's reason to be skeptical...that's not naive, it's reasonable.
I never said it was impossible.


----------



## Tugbay Yagci (Oct 26, 2009)

thanks for hacking out this thread. I think US boards was a wrong place to ask for this specie. 

What would you write if i didnt include "H. hercules" in the thread? I am sure then I would get what I wanted.

anyway, nevermind.


----------



## EDED (Oct 26, 2009)

Tugbay

try UK sites like BTS or the tarantula store

and compared the replies regarding H. 'hercules'

dont get too upset man


Bill S, you should ask your friends to bringing in some rare T's, sounds like they are adventurist,,,initial introduction of any new species (well depending on size/coloration usually but anything new) will make good profit, until they get bred and bred.  im sure they got some monster spiders in Africa


----------



## GoTerps (Oct 26, 2009)

Bill S said:


> Given that individual hobbyists do get out in the field collecting specimens from different countries, I don't really see how one person can make the statement that any given species "does not exist in the hobby".  All it takes is for one person to visit the country where a species lives and collect a specimen or two.  There's no record keeping of such events, and no requirement to notify Mr. Gallon or any other "leading authority".
> 
> If he wants to say something is "not generally seen" in the hobby, that might make sense.  Or even "most specimens of X species seen in the hobby are not correctly identified."
> 
> As for _Hysterocrates hercules_..... I haven't a clue.


Hi Bill,

First, I totally understand what your saying.  

However, in this case, it would be entirely necessary for whoever collected these specimens to examine the type... or else there would be no way for them to know their specimens are what was described as _H. hercules_.  They would also need a good feel for this genus overall, and an idea what they would be looking for in their comparisons.  Pocock's 1899 description is not going to cut it in this case.  And if someone was accessing this type at the British Museum, I'm quite confident Richard would know about it .  Until this genus is properly dealt with, the collectors of these specimens wouldn't know what they had.  

I guess we can all wait for that dude from LOST to parachute into the Niger Delta (I've have to pass on this excursion) and bring some specimens back   Do some searches if that statement is 'lost' on you!

Eric

PS.  The type is a very large specimen... I've seen it 
PSS. A commonly linked to thread regarding captive _Hysterocrates_, for those interested. CLICK HERE


----------



## billopelma (Oct 26, 2009)

> What would you write if i didnt include "H. hercules" in the thread? I am sure then I would get what I wanted.


What? I answered your question first line of my first post, regardless of the hercules banter. Maybe not what 'you wanted' to hear but not my fault if you didn't believe it... 


> Originally Posted by billopelma
> Bottom line, you can't ID it to species level without original locality/collection data.


If you would like another more professional opinion read GoTerps link.  

Bill


----------



## JimM (Oct 26, 2009)

Eric,

Any idea if the photo in Russ Gurley's old book is an actual hercules?


----------



## Bill S (Oct 26, 2009)

> Can't recall (or don't know) the details but there are issues with the condition of the type specimen and maybe the description and/or locality info.





billopelma said:


> I have no clue as to what or whether anything has been compared, just that nothing has matched whatever there is to match and if it has is not published.





> I don't know what the details are. What I'm saying is very simple, no one has validated any material since 1897.


I'm kind of repeating myself, but it's because there are holes in your statements that are somewhat contradictory.  Above, for example, you say you have no idea whether any comparisons have been made.  You don't know any details. OK.  So if you don't know that, how do you know that nobody has found any matches?  



> Since no one has ever compared and identified (or can ever, possibly) a spider as being H. hercules since Pocock described it in 1897 then no one can say they have it.


Again, you're making absolute statements that are based on your admitted conjectures.



> ... do a bit of digging and let me in on what's actually current fact instead of just conjecturing ....


I was just going to suggest you do the same.




> Again, how would they know? I don't think just anyone can walk into the BMNH entomology dept and ask to play with the type specimens. How difficult is this to understand?


I haven't been in the BMNH, so I can't speak to their policies - but I've certainly been in other museums and universities and was allowed to walk in and look at type specimens.  It's not like you need national security clearance.  Generally if you present yourself as a responsible person curators will allow you access.  At least one other person in this discussion has seen the type specimen of _H. hercules_, and very likely he's not the only person in the world to do so.  

So again I'll ask the question - how do you know nobody has compared specimens they've collected with the type specimen?  Is it more than pure conjecture?  Or do you have actual knowledge that nobody has done so?


----------



## billopelma (Oct 26, 2009)

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:


----------



## Bill S (Oct 26, 2009)

billopelma said:


> :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:


Anothr less than lucid answer?


----------



## JimM (Oct 26, 2009)

BillS,

Also, FYI...I was after a certain color phase of the Ornate Nile Monitor for quite a long time. I looked high and low for years to no avail, the reason being that the habitat where this variety occurs was right in the middle of very unstable, dangerous territory in Cameroon. So an animal being scarce to nonexistent in the hobby due to conditions in it's home habitat is hardly unprecedented, even in my own direct, limited experience.


----------



## GoTerps (Oct 26, 2009)

Tugbay Yagci said:


> thanks for hacking out this thread. I think US boards was a wrong place to ask for this specie.
> 
> What would you write if i didnt include "H. hercules" in the thread? I am sure then I would get what I wanted.
> 
> anyway, nevermind.


Whatever dude.  You just want someone to give you want you want to hear. 

You start a thread on another board, and bash the response you got here.  

You can't ask about a spider you bought as H. hercules and not expect folks to discuss the problematic nature of this name, and the spiders which have been sold as such. 

Best answer... it looks like a _Hysterocrates_ species.  There are very few individuals in the world who could comment any further than that by looking at your pictures... and actually have a solid basis for their comments.

You were linked to Richard's post about the nature of _Hysterocrates_ in captivity, and despite being quite few years old now, I doubt much has changed.  Maybe he will respond to your post on the BTS forum.

Take care,
Eric


----------



## billopelma (Oct 26, 2009)

> Anothr less than lucid answer?


I'm getting pretty far off of the Id thread here,:8o 

Not that I mind a good pissing contest once in a while but I feel that I have made my point and you seem to refuse to either acknowledge or understand it. Many of the points you are making are perfectly valid but have little to do with what I am obviously failing to convey and appear to me as simply sidestepping. That's a game with no end and is just too reminiscent of arguing with my girlfriend, might be she's right, it is me... 

Sorry if this is what you were going to say about me, but you already used that one anyway.
  I also apologize for my apparent shortcoming in lucidity and bow to your superior talent for deflection and tenacity.:worship: 

Bill


----------



## bliss (Oct 26, 2009)

I would listen to Eric, he knows this kind of stuff better than most people on these boards.  

I would just label it as:  "_Hysterocrates sp. (purchased as hercules)_" and let it be for now.


----------



## Bill S (Oct 26, 2009)

JimM said:


> I was after a certain color phase of the Ornate Nile Monitor for quite a long time. I looked high and low for years to no avail, the reason being that the habitat where this variety occurs was right in the middle of very unstable, dangerous territory in Cameroon. So an animal being scarce to nonexistent in the hobby due to conditions in it's home habitat is hardly unprecedented, even in my own direct, limited experience.


I do understand your point.  The more difficult it is to access the animal, the rarer it is likely to be in captivity.  But that doesn't make it impossible.  And to follow up on this using your example - a friend of mine, a herpetologist, has been doing field work with the Goliath frog in Cameroon.  Yes, there are difficulties in that region.  But people do go there.


----------



## Bill S (Oct 26, 2009)

billopelma said:


> I'm getting pretty far off of the Id thread here,:8o
> 
> I also apologize for my apparent shortcoming in lucidity and bow to your superior talent for deflection and tenacity.:worship:


Well, since the ID issue is tied in with determining whether the animal exists in the hobby, and you suggest that it doesn't - I'll stretch this aspect of the thread a little further.  (But I can't help you win arguments with your girlfriend.)

You may be right that the animal does not exist in the hobby.  But your arguments have not supported that claim, at least in what I can see in them.  I'll try to summarize why I think you have failed to support the argument - and you can point out where I have misunderstood.  And maybe fill in the blanks. 

You started off with "as far as I know Richard Gallon still maintains they are not in the hobby".  OK - does "as far as I know" stem from recent communication with him?  Or just a rumor you once heard?  Big difference, but you haven't clarified.

You seemed to be under the impression that people can't just go to a museum and look at type specimens - but that's not true.  I've done it myself in several institutions in several countries.

You indicated that if someone did manage to look at type specimens they would have published something.  Why?  I've not had any reason to publish on any type specimens I've examined, and doubt that most people do.  

If someone compared a specimen they had with a type specimen and were then able to identify it as that species - there's still no reason (in most cases) to publish a paper on it.  Most of the people I know who use type specimens or other known specimens to identify something in their own collections do not publish a report on it - they just make their own notes and label their own specimens.  

I gather from other posts here that the original description for _H. hercules_ left a lot to be desired.  Unfortunate, but certainly not unheard of.  However, that does not mean that other people haven't made notes, sketches or descriptions based on the type specimen.  Can you be certain that during the 110 years since the original description that NOBODY has done this? 

I'm not trying to have a pissing contest with you - but trying to pin down how valid your claim is that the animal doesn't exist in the hobby.  You've avoided direct straight answers and brought in smilies, girlfriends and deflections.  

So I'll ask one last time (perhaps a little more clearly this time?) - *what actual evidence do you have that nobody has made comparisons of privately collected animals with the type specimen?*

And if it will help - if you have an answer like "the museum has a list of everyone who has looked at the specimen in the past 50 years and the reasons for which they looked at it, and that list was made public on such-and-such a date" - that would certainly qualify as a lucid, meaningful answer.

If you have no such answer - then maybe we can both drop this line.


----------



## Xian (Oct 26, 2009)

*Picture...*

Tugbay,

Found a photo of H. hercules that might help you........it's in the species link...


http://www.angelfire.com/anime/spiderchris/


----------



## GoTerps (Oct 26, 2009)

Xian said:


> Tugbay,
> 
> Found a photo of H. hercules that might help you........it's in the species link...
> 
> ...


Holy crap that is a brutal website.


----------



## Xian (Oct 26, 2009)

GoTerps said:


> Holy crap that is a brutal website.


Does that mean it's good or bad?


----------



## JimM (Oct 26, 2009)

Awful........


----------



## billopelma (Oct 26, 2009)

Again apologies for continuing the thread hijack...




> Originally Posted by Bill S
> You may be right that the animal does not exist in the hobby. But your arguments have not supported that claim, at least in what I can see in them.


Let me first get something clear here, before I waste any more time on this. You’re saying that because I can’t prove with documentation that no one has compared material to the type at the British museum then I can’t be correct in saying “_H. hercules _doesn’t exist in the hobby”? 
A simple yes or no would be fine here, though I doubt that’s likely or even possible so… 
 Guess I’ll waste a bit more time then, still feel that this is (and will be taken as) more or less redundant to what I’ve previously stated.

With my (likely somewhat flawed) impression of how the process of validating (a spider in this case) as a particular species works, *you’re the one *(or anyone actually) who has the obligation to provide evidence that someone has done it. Until then I can rightly state that “it doesn’t exist in the hobby!” 

Assuming your premise that someone could have already done it, they would then have go through a process, sounds like you would be more familiar with it than I. It would probably consist of things like having to document the findings, publish in a peer reviewed journal, address any questions, etc. Once it is accepted by whoever does these things, it becomes “official”, or however you’d like to call it. Then and only then can you say your material is _H. hercules_. Until that time you can say what you have is “similar to _H. hercules_”, “possibly _H. hercules_”, “looks like _H. hercules_” or even “probably is _H. hercules_”. You can call it whatever you want but that does not make it “officially accepted”, meaning for all (except your, obviously) intents and purposes no one can claim it currently exists. You can't really think that just anyone can claim anything they want with no peer review and be taken seriously? 
Well, maybe some people in some cases but not this one…

 If you’re real point through all of this is only that there may well be a spider somewhere out there that really is the same as the originally described one then that’s true. However, no one can rightfully use the name _H. hercules_ until all the official hoops have been jumped through. I see it as being similar to a registered trademark, you’re infringing/bootlegging if not officially sanctioned. 

 So… You still cannot claim a spider *by that name* exists anywhere except the one in the BMNH. 

Now lets hear again how vague my point is and is again totally lost to you, I have great faith that you *will* have the last word in this.



Bill


----------



## Xian (Oct 26, 2009)

billopelma said:


> Again apologies for continuing the thread hijack...
> 
> 
> So… You still cannot claim a spider *by that name* exists anywhere except the one in the BMNH.
> ...


Does that mean that you do not believe the picture at the link I posted earlier is H. hercules?


----------



## billopelma (Oct 26, 2009)

Couldn't say one way or the other whether it is the same sp. spider as the one originally described as such. What I do believe is that they can't legitimately call it_ H. hercules_...

Bill


----------



## Xian (Oct 26, 2009)

I guess i'd have to believe that it is a H. hercules since the photo was takin' at The Cornell Entomology Dept. at Ithaca. But to each is own.


----------



## billopelma (Oct 27, 2009)

Yup, people believe what they want to believe, seems to be an underlying theme in this thread.

Actually I didn't even bother to look at the picture, it wouldn't have mattered what the picture was of or who took it for me to conclude what I did. 
I can see why most of those who could clear this up here, don't bother anymore, kind of unfortunate...

Here is a link to a thread where there is a picture of one that I do believe is real.



Bill


----------



## Koh_ (Oct 27, 2009)

billopelma said:


> Yup, people believe what they want to believe, seems to be an underlying theme in this thread.
> 
> Actually I didn't even bother to look at the picture, it wouldn't have mattered what the picture was of or who took it for me to conclude what I did.
> I can see why most of those who could clear this up here, don't bother anymore, kind of unfortunate...
> ...


totally agree! 

Im originally from s.korea and i think none of ppl back home know about that Hysterocrates hercules are not in T hobby now. 
tons of Hysterocrates gigas are being sold as 'Hysterocrates hercules '(common name =hercules baboon tarantula).


----------



## Xian (Oct 27, 2009)

Do you think that is the only specimen ever? I believe there are more than one of this species in different entomology dept. around the world, alive. I have only come up with the one photo from Cornell however.


----------



## Satellite Rob (Oct 27, 2009)

You can tell by the long narrow carapace and the enlarged rear legs that it's 
not H.Hercules.But going by the pictures you posted I would guess it's a 
H.Gigas.But I can't be 100% sure by looking at a picture.It would be a lot 
easier to ID if I had it in front of me.The last and only time true H.Hercules
came into the United States was in 1995.Thay were imported by Glade Herp 
and only 5 came in.I would almost bet there isn't a live specimen in the US at 
this time.Unless 1 of Glades Herp import are still alive.The last and only time I 
ever saw a H.Hercules was in Germany in 1997.It was a large female a little 
more than 8".I tried to buy it.But he would not sell it at any price.It had a 
large almost round carapace and large abdomen.But what I remember most 
it was the olive sheen on it's legs.One truely impressive TARANTULA.When I 
returned to Germany a couple of years later I found out that it died.He told 
me while he was feeding it bolted and fell off his table and died a few days  later.Over the last 25 years I bought H.Hercules 25 different times and never 
received a real H.Hercules.That 1 T i'll never forget.


----------



## spiderfield (Oct 27, 2009)

Xian said:


> I guess i'd have to believe that it is a H. hercules since the photo was takin' at The Cornell Entomology Dept. at Ithaca. But to each is own.


Sorry Xian, but regarding the site you linked, I wouldn't take their pics as the "end-all-be-all" evidence for species identification, even though it may be from The Cornell Entomology Dept. at Ithaca.  If you look at the photo link for _Megaphobema robustum_, its obviously not that species...in fact, it looks a lot like _Brachypelma boehmei_.  Both species which, in fact, can be discerned one from the other.

I don't dispute the possibility of there being _H. hercules_ in some collection somewhere out there, but i'd say to take the pics from that site with a grain of salt.


----------



## Satellite Rob (Oct 27, 2009)

I have pictures of real H.Hercules.But there older pictures taking on 35mm 
film and would have to get the pictures converted to digital.Plus I would 
need to get permission from the owner to post them.Theres just to many 
problems to post them.


----------



## Tugbay Yagci (Oct 27, 2009)

Satellite Rob said:


> You can tell by the long narrow carapace and the enlarged rear legs that it's
> not H.Hercules.But going by the pictures you posted I would guess it's a
> H.Gigas.But I can't be 100% sure by looking at a picture.It would be a lot
> easier to ID if I had it in front of me.The last and only time true H.Hercules
> ...


thank you my friend, what i was seeking for was this enlightening memory of yours, other than discussions whether if H. hercules exists or not...

Actually there was no answer that i wanted to hear while i was starting this topic. But I got the same response from BTS too, i think it is something about my English then. 

anyway, thank you for all your commitments.


----------



## billopelma (Oct 27, 2009)

...And the dis-information continues, lives to see another day...

I give over...


Bill


----------



## GoTerps (Oct 28, 2009)

Satellite Rob said:


> I have pictures of real H.Hercules.


Really?

I mean seriously after actually reading this entire thread you feel you can make that statement?  

Eh, deep breaths, on we go... over an out.

Eric


----------



## pato_chacoana (Oct 28, 2009)

Haha, really amazing... Oh well...don't want to offend anyone... but  some things are so simple to understand, yet many people can't ever do it!

Yes Eric, deep breaths haha!


----------



## JimM (Oct 28, 2009)

..............


----------



## Xian (Nov 10, 2009)

Just an update on my opinion on this one. I was totally wrong in thinking this species was around. I have since educated myself on this species. Thanks to those that sent me in search of more information. (billopelma, JimM) You guys may be tired of subjects such as this thread, but it did get me to do my homework. Thanks


----------



## Buckwheat (Feb 1, 2010)

I spoke to Rick C. West personally a few years back on this subject and he had been to the border region of Cameroon/Nigeria in search of clues and, or the presence of anything resembling _Hysterocrates hercules_ and described the countryside there to me at that time. He also stated that he found nothing to indicate the presence of this species there. What he did find was _H. gigas_ among others. But this thread is exactly why for the most part we don't see any of the well known tarantula experts around here on American forums such as West. I'm not siding with anyone here or even offering an opinion. Just stating what someone told me that has been there and knows what they are looking for. Nothing more.


----------

