# INFO: Buyer beware! A. bicegoi being sold are A. aurantiaca



## xenesthis (Apr 5, 2006)

They are several importers selling "Avicularia bicegoi". These spiders are NOT that species. They are instead Avicularia aurantiaca.

See:

http://www.birdspiders.com/archive/15B043FCKD0B7KAEC2K145B80E41150104A.html

and

http://www.birdspiders.com/archive/15B016A8KD0B7KAEC2K149B2F0F71686906.html

Both are not common in our U.S. hobby, but I wanted hobbyists to beware of the mixed up ID that I'm seeing several people selling this spiders as.

Todd


----------



## common spider (Apr 6, 2006)

Each of the spiders in those pics are very very nice Avics.I just wish I had some money to buy one of those.


----------



## BedroomEyzOfBlu (Apr 6, 2006)

I totally agree, I really like the A. sp. (poss bicegoi Mello-leitao) - but I'm impartial - I loveeeeeeeeeee all of the Avicularias.  Unfortunately will be yrs before I can afford the entire collection lol.


----------



## bengerno (Apr 6, 2006)

That's cool guys, BUT If you know what species you have, you will avoid crossbreeding!


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 6, 2006)

It's been suggested that the "REAL" _A. bicegoi_ has not been sold in years.  

But, Todd, how do you know what's being sold is _A. aurantiaca_?


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 6, 2006)

*A. aurantiaca*

Eric,

I'm not a theraphosid taxonomist, but I am a person that has seen this spider in the hundreds when it arrived from Peruvian imports between '98-'01 and I've keep high numbers of them before and very familar with their habits and care.  In many circles of our trade, it was called Avicularia magdelena and then A. aurantiaca. They are robust pinktoes, cinnamon in color with two yellow bands on its legs, grow to about 6 3/4" legspan and are semi-docile. I might be mistaken, but I thought R. West or other theraphosid taxonomist looked at them back in the late '90s and confirmed the ID.

A. bicegoi has never been available as anything other than slings/juvs out of Europe. I did see a monster 7 3/4" female by Rob Cherico of Pompano Beach, FL back in the mid '90s. She was very aggressive, dark-colored body/legs of black to blackish-gray with long, brick-red abdominal hairs. It was a very, very impressive beast.

A. aurantiaca is a rare species and a nice addition to anybody's collection, but for me, I like A. bicegoi better. It probably has to do with its rarity as I'm inclined to like what isn't seen much as far as tarantula species.

There are three dealers/importers right now selling these as "A. bicegoi". I just wanted hobbyists to know they are A. aurantiaca.

Todd


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 6, 2006)

Hi Todd,

Thanks for your reply!

It gets quite confussing (big surprise!) since there's been quite a few different looking animals refered to as _A. aurantiaca_.  I'm just wondering which one you're refering to.

The last reply in THIS THREAD by Ray G. illustrates best what I'm talking about.

Eric


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 6, 2006)

Hi Todd,

It is unclear from your posts whether you are commenting on wild-caught spiders or captive-bred spiderlings. You first used the term "importer" instead of "dealer" so I am wondering if these spiders are in the hands of reptile wholesalers or our colleagues.

I wouldn't want to comment on what "real" _A. bicegoi_ are, as we all know that to say the taxonomy of the genus _Avicularia_ is buggered up would be an understatement. You gave a very good description of what _A. aurantiaca_ is; that is, what for our _non-arachnological_ arachnocultural purposes that particular type of tarantula is. In other words, my argument is always: yes, perhaps _A. metallica_ is really a geographical variant within the _Avicularia avicularia_ complex and not really a distinct species, BUT WHAT WE REFER TO AS _A. metallica_ IS A DISTINCT SPIDER. As long as breeders pair within the same type, our beloved _A. metallica_ will always be that to us HOBBYISTS, even if it isn't to those SCIENTISTS.

I realize that I have digressed from the point of your thread. You have called our attention to the fact that there are some dealers (_please_ email or PM me who they are if you don't want to post it publicly) selling what we call _A. aurantiaca_ as _A. bicegoi_. That's a great service as we have to be the watch dogs for our hobby. My tangent is related to the fact that Eric mentioned that some believe that the "real bicegoi" has not been sold in years. Well, I recently had some _A. bicegoi_ spiderlings available that were bred by Alex Orleans. I am raising a number of these for myself and I believe they are the "real bicegoi", but I haven't raised any to adulthood so I will reserve judgement. In fact, you have piqued my curiousity and I may just call Alex and ask for a photo of his breeders.

Cheers, Michael


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 6, 2006)

*Avic problem*

Michael,

I'm referring to the 4"-5" size that become available from several dealers/importers in the last two weeks. I don't know if they are CB or WC.

I'm not going into technical, taxonomic differences here. I leave that for the theraphosid taxonomists to debate those details/differences. For most tarantula-keeping hobbyists, they are not going to understand that and some don't care to. They want a descriptive/appearance identification. Of course, it's not 100% scientifically and politically, per say, correct, but it is what most hobbyists will understand. I think there is a tendency this past year for some to talk over the heads of most hobbyists and/or to show off some taxonomy knowledge. Sometimes the "KISS" concept works well. "Keep it simple". I suggest that we all remember  the target audience here. It's kinda like web site creation. Lots of bells and whistles might amaze, look neat and have great special effects, but also remember that not everyone has broadband to view all that.

These spiders recently made available are A. aurantiaca. Yes, I question any "A. bicegoi" on the market. I last saw an adult back in 1995 from Rob Cherico. A huge, 8" monster.

Todd


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 6, 2006)

Hi Todd,

I've never seen an "aurantiaca" in person but have seen a number of different looking spiders labeled as such... and was just curious.  

So I take it the ones in question look like the specimen on Rick's site?  I'd like to keep one of these.

Eric


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 6, 2006)

*A. aurantiaca on Rick's site*

Eric,

Yes, they are a dead-ringer for the photo on Rick's site. I used to unpack and set up hundreds of these between '98 and '01.

Todd


----------



## boidaddic (Apr 6, 2006)

I'd just like to clear some things up for the dealers out their that made this mistake (and yes i'm one of them). When we get our animals in it is quite common that we get them in as something different then what they truly are and their is no way of us knowing, as we are not taxonomists. For example these came in from Europe and were labeled as bicegoi so thats what i sold them as, and I apologize to everyone who has bought them from me. We are not scam artists, we just made an honest mistake so those out their who have been caught up in this mistake dont take it personally, it certainly wasnt our intentions. 
Regards,
Eric Weintraub


----------



## PA7R1CK (Apr 6, 2006)

Beautiful Avics. I loved the pictures. Once I move I would like to buy some more


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 6, 2006)

@ boidaddic - There are plenty of misidentifications that are reasonable due to similar species, but if these were the size Todd mentioned and a "dealer" didn't know the obvious difference between _A. aurantiaca_ and what we know as _A. bicegoi_, it may be an honest mistake, but it is due to inexperience and little interest in verifying a species he or she may not be familiar with.

@ Todd - Again far off topic... but I agree with adapting your comments to your target audience, but you seem to assume that everyone has the same target audience. Those who wish to "target" the beginner/inexperienced might consider some discussions "over their head", but those who seek intelligent conversation with peers or more knowledgeable individuals do not consider these less knowledgeable persons their "audience". Personally, I don't think a definite choice needs to be made. I enjoy teaching newbies basics that have been covered ad nauseum almost as much interacting with taxonomists that I learn a great deal from even though sometimes they are talking over my head.

@ Eric - I keep and have kept a number of _A. aurantiaca_ and they are very cool Avics. I've forgotten what year I first got them, but they were sold as "A. magdalena". Hell, just find someone selling the misidentified _A. bicegoi_ and you'll have some  

Cheers, Michael


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 7, 2006)

> I'd just like to clear some things up for the dealers out their that made this mistake (and yes i'm one of them). When we get our animals in it is quite common that we get them in as something different then what they truly are and their is no way of us knowing, as we are not taxonomists.


Hi "boidaddic",

In this case, it doesn't take a taxonimist to realize you're not selling _A. bicegoi_.  

And if it's that common to recieve things "as something different then what they truely are" maybe you should reconsider your source.  You're still responsible for what you sell.

I really don't mean to be ignorant, but the "that's what I bought it as, so it's OK" bit is getting old.  I'll shutup now.

Eric


----------



## MRL (Apr 7, 2006)

I heard the same thing happened with "subfusca" slings a while ago.


----------



## Tony (Apr 7, 2006)

MRL said:
			
		

> I heard the same thing happened with "subfusca" slings a while ago.


I myself could go for one of those aurantica myself
Tony
Edit: crik crik


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 7, 2006)

MRL said:
			
		

> I heard the same thing happened with "subfusca" slings a while ago.


I think you are mistaken. I believe you are referring to _P. miranda_, which were sold by a child wholesaler and later were discovered to be _P. rufilata_. In this case, it was an honest mistake and would have been very difficult to detect as they were 2nd instar Poec slings, which are similar in appearance (a molt or two later it was easy to tell and the backlash began). I was one of a number of dealers who received some of these spiders. Looking at a 4" cinnamon-colored Avic with yellow leg banding and not realizing that it doesn't fit the description of "bicegoi" - a spider often referred to as the "brick red-rump" is quite another situation.

Cheers, Michael


----------



## hamfoto (Apr 7, 2006)

I bought one of these "bicegoi" and after reading this and doing some searching...I'm thinking it is "huriana"...and all the other ones I saw looked were exactly like mine.  It's obviously just visual, physical characteristics I'm going by, but they don't look like "aurantiaca" to me at all.

just my thoughts,
Chris


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 7, 2006)

MRL said:
			
		

> I heard the same thing happened with "subfusca" slings a while ago.





			
				Michael Jacobi said:
			
		

> I think you are mistaken


Sorry, Manny. You weren't mistaken. I have been reminded via PM that this did happen recently. But, as I mentioned with the miranda/rufilata, this is an easy legitimate mistake. I spent yesterday potting up 66 baby _P. subfusca_ and until they molt another time or two, they are difficult to identify to species. Baby Poecs just look similar.

Cheers, Michael


----------



## Lopez (Apr 7, 2006)

How's about this.....

Buyer Beware!

They are people selling "Haplopelma minax". These spiders are NOT that species. They are instead Ornithoctonus aureotibialis.

See:

http://www.vsupermarket.co.uk/~lopez/spidersite/gallery/Haplopelmaminax06.jpg
H.minax

and

http://www.vsupermarket.co.uk/~lopez/spidersite/gallery/Haplopelmaaureopilosum04.jpg
O.aureotibialis

Both are reasonably common in the hobby, but I wanted hobbyists to beware of the mixed up ID that I'm seeing people selling this spiders as.

Leon

Sound familiar Todd? :?  

I do sympathise with dealers, who are forced to rely on the word of the importer/wholesaler/breeder - it's a difficult situation.

Sorry, the "heads up" is no doubt appreciated by hobbyists in the US, but people in glass houses...


----------



## MRL (Apr 7, 2006)

Michael Jacobi said:
			
		

> Sorry, Manny. You weren't mistaken. I have been reminded via PM that this did happen recently. But, as I mentioned with the miranda/rufilata, this is an easy legitimate mistake. I spent yesterday potting up 66 baby _P. subfusca_ and until they molt another time or two, they are difficult to identify to species. Baby Poecs just look similar.
> 
> Cheers, Michael


Thanks Michael. I understand but my intent was to bring up a similar example to the topic but I think Lopez did a better job at doing that.


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 7, 2006)

*mixed up species and chill pills in suppository form!*

Leon and all:

It is much easier to tell the difference between A. aurantiaca v.s. A. bicegoi than Haplopelma minax and Ornithoctonus aureotibialis. That's not a good comparision.

Bottom line: Some species are very distinct taxonomy-wise and appearance-wise. Others are not so apparent.

There is a trend on this board for some high and mighty to instant cry conspiracy theory and think somebody is pulling the rug over tarantula-keeping hobbyists, but in almost 99% of these mixed up ID situations the importer/dealer is just passing on the name of the spider it was sold to them as. Of course, they should try their best to know the difference and make the correction. Sometimes that ID info isn't available to them or they can't find it. But, they are not doing it on purpose like I know some particular European transactions concerning H. hercules/H. gigas have been done.

These three dealers selling "A. bicegoi" here in the U.S. are not evil people trying to rip somebody off. I hate to hear and watch people make into that. They just didn't know the differences. They are learning. In the meantime, my original post was an alert for those to jump on that learning curve quickly and make sure they got what they think they bought and to make sure that they have the right species for breeding purposes in the future.

So far, in our U.S. hobby, I haven't seen many rip-off types except with Pat Kane, Rob Cherico and the like. Mixed up IDs with our constantly changing theraphosid taxonomy nightmare is common in our hobby. It doesn't mean dealers are doing anything deliberately evil. So with that said, I hope people that want to instant jump at that take a breath and give some slack. The names keep changing like playing a slot machine in Vegas. Until that slows down and becomes more concrete, it isn't easy for everybody to know everything at any given moment.  Otherwise, people that jump to attack need a chill pill in a suppository form. 


Todd


----------



## FryLock (Apr 7, 2006)

The big Q is..

Which A.aurantiaca is being sold as which A.bicegoi?.

The old "pet trade" versions or the new "pet trade" versions as Rick's pictures cover both, 

The bicegoi picture there may well be what used to be sold as A.bicegoi but not anymore (the new one's look more like A.huriana). 

Rick's other picture look's like the "new" pet trade A.aurantiaca, but if these missold A.aurantiaca are the same as the old "pet trade" A."magdalena(trade name)" they could well look like A.juruensis (or even be that sp) and not be the same as Rick's picture (which is unlighty).

Another thread by Ray on A.bicegoi that will be of some use >Here< (the one Eric linked to covers most of the A.aurantiaca story).


----------



## IguanaMama (Apr 7, 2006)

*Huh?*

I think since only three dealers were selling the misidentified Avics, perhaps a classier, less public and less controversial way of handling the situation would have been to email or pm the dealers to let them know the situation.  This would have given them a chance to notify those whom they sold the avics to and make good on the deal by offering a refund or whatever.   As was stated, none of these dealers are evil.  It was just a mistake, we all make them.  None of us are born walking or talking, there is a learning curve and I am sure these dealers have learned a good lesson and will do better next time :clap: .

As a typical collector, I have a pretty good idea of what the spider I'm buying is going to look like before I buy it, therefore, if I open the package and it looks significantly different, I would contact the dealer about it and deal with it that way.

If not happy, well that's what the review section is for.

Regarding the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) rule, well I think I was just insulted.   Does anyone else feel insulted?  Oh well, no hard feelings, but if simple is the goal, then PM or email is the route--real simple keep me out of it.

Personally, I enjoy Michael's posts and discussions on the differences in Avics and when and by whom they were sold and the whys and wherefores and I don't think the target audience is all that simple.


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 7, 2006)

@ Bill - LOL! I was wondering when someone was going to bring up _A. juruensis_ and further complicate matters. I should have known I could count on you :worship: . Well, I'm going to make it _simple _  for all... _Avicularia _is a monotypic genus and all variations are do to light speed speciation and hobby marketing. ;P 

@ Jodi - Well put 

@ Chris - If you bought one of these bogus _bicegoi_/potential _aurantiaca_, please post a photo here (I think you might know a thing or two about photography  )

@ anyone - Todd has not responded to my request for a PM or email with the names of the three dealers. Besides "boidaddic" who has/had them? Please email michael@spidershoppe.com. I may want a couple 

RE: the phrase "KISS... Keep it simple, stupid (or keep it simple, soldier)"
I've always thought it should be you're stupid if you keep it simple! The only way to keep talking over the heads of people is to continuing talking down to them. I'd like to think that the "average hobbyist" appreciates education. 

Cheers, Michael


----------



## Lopez (Apr 7, 2006)

xenesthis said:
			
		

> Leon and all:
> 
> It is much easier to tell the difference between A. aurantiaca v.s. A. bicegoi than Haplopelma minax and Ornithoctonus aureotibialis. That's not a good comparision.


Oh but I think it's a very good comparison. The overall "habitus" (I think this is the German word for the basic build/shape/stature of the spider) is very different in minax and aureopilosum. 



> Bottom line: Some species are very distinct taxonomy-wise and appearance-wise. Others are not so apparent.


Very true, though personally I think it's easier to tell an Ornithoctonus from a Haplopelma than an Avicularia from another Avicularia, but then Avics aren't my field of interest, so that may be just me 



> There is a trend on this board for some high and mighty to instant cry conspiracy theory and think somebody is pulling the rug over tarantula-keeping hobbyists, but in almost 99% of these mixed up ID situations the importer/dealer is just passing on the name of the spider it was sold to them as. Of course, they should try their best to know the difference and make the correction. Sometimes that ID info isn't available to them or they can't find it. But, they are not doing it on purpose like I know some particular European transactions concerning H. hercules/H. gigas have been done.


I don't think there is a trend for "conspiracy theory" but I do agree that 99% of the mixed up ID situations are almost completely innocent/oblivious. I don't think that many of these situations are underhand at all.



> These three dealers selling "A. bicegoi" here in the U.S. are not evil people trying to rip somebody off. I hate to hear and watch people make into that. They just didn't know the differences. They are learning. In the meantime, my original post was an alert for those to jump on that learning curve quickly and make sure they got what they think they bought and to make sure that they have the right species for breeding purposes in the future.


You're right, they are probably not. The same as you are not trying to rip anyone off when you sold aureotibialis as minax! It's just an honest mistake that is the result of several factors.



> So far, in our U.S. hobby, I haven't seen many rip-off types except with Pat Kane, Rob Cherico and the like. Mixed up IDs with our constantly changing theraphosid taxonomy nightmare is common in our hobby. It doesn't mean dealers are doing anything deliberately evil. So with that said, I hope people that want to instant jump at that take a breath and give some slack. The names keep changing like playing a slot machine in Vegas. Until that slows down and becomes more concrete, it isn't easy for everybody to know everything at any given moment.  Otherwise, people that jump to attack need a chill pill in a suppository form.
> 
> 
> Todd


I don't think anybody is attacking you Todd. Why are you always so aggressively defensive? All I was doing was pointing out that this is something you (and plenty of other dealers/traders, myself included!) have done the same thing yourself in the past, reinforcing your point that it is an easy thing to fall victim to.

I really don't see the need for an anal relaxant, :?  I think this has been an interesting thread with some valid contributions.


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 7, 2006)

*Mis-ID of A. Bicegoi...........*

I purchased several of these a few weeks ago and they were sold and listed as A. bicegoi. I knew after I got home and started researching them, that's NOT what they were. I have a true A. bicegoi at home and frankly there is no mistaking the two (size and color wise). I informed several individuals and a "dealer" that was not what they were and I believed them to be A. juruensis. The info was promptly dismissed because the "invoice" stated different, and WHO AM I anyway? This is what happens when you have "dealers" who are not into the hobby for the love of it:drool: , but solely for profit  . But again, WHO AM I ANYWAY?


----------



## moricollins (Apr 7, 2006)

arachnoheebs said:
			
		

> I have a true A. bicegoi at home



Just wondering whom ID'ed these "true" ones you have? are they the original ones, or the ones that have come since as bicegoi (but not the ones that are the subject of this thread)?

thanks
Mori


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 7, 2006)

*True A. bicegoi*

Purchased from reptist:worship:, which came from a private collection in Arizona.
Mark Neuling
Neu World Tarantulas
arachnoheebs


----------



## moricollins (Apr 7, 2006)

arachnoheebs said:
			
		

> Purchased from reptist:worship:, which came from a private collection in Arizona.
> Mark Neuling
> Neu World Tarantulas
> arachnoheebs



So, should I interpret this as "nobody did" then?

IMO, people ought NEVER to say they have "true" Avicularia sp. unless they have had it professionally ID'ed


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 7, 2006)

When aquired from the collection, the seller had purchased from a very reputable "Certified Acrachnodealer". The history came with the tarantula and I have found no reason to believe otherwise. Furthermore, I would not make a statement as I did unless I knew for sure what it was. This is why I have not posted the Avicularias bicegoi/juruensis/auratiaca, etc, etc... in question (from this thread) for sale! They are still under investigation. The LAST thing I would want to do is spread more mis-information.
Many thanks for your questions and imput.
Mark Neuling
Neu World Tarantulas


----------



## Lorgakor (Apr 7, 2006)

moricollins said:
			
		

> So, should I interpret this as "nobody did" then?
> 
> IMO, people ought NEVER to say they have "true" Avicularia sp. unless they have had it professionally ID'ed


Even _A. versicolor_?


----------



## moricollins (Apr 7, 2006)

Lorgakor said:
			
		

> Even _A. versicolor_?



Even A. versicolor.  From talking with longtime hobbyists the ones around today don't look like the ones that used to be in the hobby.

*I* have 0 experience with versicolor (other than staring at pictures) so I cannot say much.


----------



## FryLock (Apr 7, 2006)

moricollins said:
			
		

> Even A. versicolor.  From talking with longtime hobbyists the ones around today don't look like the ones that used to be in the hobby.


Two island races were mixed one large (the first in the hobby) and one small (imported later and mixed in) but the same sp (info from Ray G), i myself can remeber them being in genral larger and a more then a tad nastier then the one's iv seen in the last few years.


----------



## moricollins (Apr 7, 2006)

FryLock said:
			
		

> Two island races were mixed one large (the first in the hobby) and one small (imported later and mixed in) but the same sp (info from Ray G), i myself can remeber them being in genral larger and a more then a tad nastier then the one's iv seen in the last few years.



hehe, I'm glad I haven't TOTALLY lost my marbles.....


----------



## TheDarkFinder (Apr 7, 2006)

*OK I will take a swing at it.*

So I will take this shamless opportunity to post pictures of what I beleive to be A. bicegoi. The is a small sling about 2". I know you can not ID from picture. But I can try.

A.bicegoi
A. bicegoi
Larger jpg. warning Dialup killer.


----------



## hamfoto (Apr 7, 2006)

o.k., so here is one of the Avicularias in question...

looks like huriana to me.  I'm eagerly awaiting the responses...

thanks,
Chris


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 7, 2006)

*Reason for public comment*

For Iguana Mama, this was made into a public comment because one of the three dealers doesn't share our concern about getting IDs/name correct and they will continue to sell the spider as "Avicularia bicegoi" because the invoice they got from Europe said that (Eric makes this point also on this thread). So, my post served as a warning for hobbyists to be aware there is a problem with the name of the spider they are purchasing currently as "A. bicegoi". That's all. That's it.

As for the dumbing down or talking over hobbyists heads (target audience) that seems to happen more frequently on this boards, I'm just stating that there seems to be a tendency for some to take a hobbyist's problem of an ID and instanty go into a high and mighty, very technical explanation that smacks of ego and showing off with the Harvard medical school language. It doesn't come across as "educating" a hobbyist. I think that kind of post or response should go to a thread/forum that is more about taxonomy that theraphosid taxonomists, wanna-be taxonomists and advanced hobbyists can engage in healthy debate. Of course, those that respond like that will not like me making this point, but hey, there is a mainstream hobby out there and talking over their heads to show off or bring attention onto oneself isn't what they want. Assuming they know spider anatomy and taxonmic rules is a mistake. I'm sure this paragrah will cause a stir as it's probably a 50/50 thing. Some people will call talking over hobbyists heads "educating them". Others will call it smacking of ego glorification and trying to make everybody recognize how smart you are. I'm just saying to those that engage it that to remember we have minors, beginners and other hobbyists here as the mainstream that are not on your level.

As for the pic posted on this thread above, yes, that looks like A. hurriana. These "A. bicegoi" for sale this past two weeks look like A. aurantiaca just as pictured on R. West's site.

Todd


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 7, 2006)

xenesthis said:
			
		

> As for the pic posted on this thread above, yes, that looks like A. hurriana. These "A. bicegoi" for sale this past two weeks look like A. aurantiaca just as pictured on R. West's site.


I agree that it "looks like" _A. huriana_. And Chris' photo IS one of the "A. bicegoi" being currently being sold these "past two weeks" so I guess they don't ALL look like _A. aurantiaca_. Mark has shown the class to not sell something as a species he doesn't believe it is. The other two either don't care or are too inexperienced to know better. Choose your own preference...

Cheers, Michael


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 7, 2006)

arachnoheebs said:
			
		

> Purchased from reptist:worship:, which came from a private collection in Arizona.


Alright, now I'm confused. Purchased from someone in TX that acquired them from a collection in AZ ?!?!? Why has Todd commented on sticking with a name on a EUROPEAN invoice. We aren't adding misinformation to misinformation here are we? :wall: 

Cheers, Michael

PS - Regardless of what you want to call them, the photo that Mark posted is of a very beautiful spider. I think I've had my fill of this thread... Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 7, 2006)

*Reveal all*

Michael and all:

Eric intially listed them as A. bicegoi, but before shipping said they might be another Avic. I was fine with that. He is a good guy and did the right thing by realizing it isn't A. bicegoi.

Mark Lucas is selling them as A. bicegoi and will not change that due to , well ah, those in the know, will understand the unstated here. (Mark and company gets their spiders from Germany).

I can't speak to the other seller's take or mindset about it. Based on the info posted here, it looks like A. hurriana and A. aurantiaca have entered into the U.S. hobby as "A. bicegoi". Hurray! More screwed up name labels! 

Todd


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 7, 2006)

I know I said I would stay away, but now I see it is even more confusing than previously thought.

The three dealer comment Todd made led me to assume (yeah, I know) that the three in question were all Texans - reptist, boidaddic, and arachnoheebs. Now you mention Lucas (and yes, that brings it all down a big level... aargh). So, am I now to understand that there is one group of bogus _A. bicegoi_ that these Texans have that look like _A. huriana_ and another group that Florida importer/scumbag (I'll say it) Lucas has that look like _A. aurantiaca_? Or is the fact that the three Texans live in the same state a coincidence and one or more of them has the spiders that originated in Florida with Lucas and Co.? This is one of MANY reasons that I only sell captive-bred animals (not that there isn't controversy/problems there too).

:wall: MJ


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 8, 2006)

Michael:

>The three dealer comment Todd made led me to assume (yeah, I know) >that the three in question were all Texans

No. They are not all Texans.

> - reptist, boidaddic, and arachnoheebs. Now you mention Lucas (and yes, that brings it all down a big level... aargh).

Haha. Wow, this is getting interesting. I didn't know about arachnoheebs. So, there are now four dealers selling "A. bicegoi".

> So, am I now to understand that there is one group of bogus A. bicegoi >that these Texans have that look like A. huriana and another group that >Florida importer/scumbag (I'll say it) Lucas has that look like A. >aurantiaca? 

Eric and Mark Lucas have A. aurantiaca UNLESS Erick has two different Avics. Let him clarify that if he wants.

>Or is the fact that the three Texans live in the same state a coincidence >and one or more of them has the spiders that originated in Florida with >Lucas and Co.? This is one of MANY reasons that I only sell captive-bred >animals (not that there isn't controversy/problems there too).

Reptist lives in AZ. 

Yes, the import situation is screwed up from exporters that sell stock under the wrong name, BUT I've seen that done with CB stock as well, but I agree it doesn't happen as much.

Todd


----------



## boidaddic (Apr 8, 2006)

Apparently I have two different species, as Chris did aquire that avic from my distributor. I'm staying away from this thread as Todd has already explained I informed him of it possibly not being a bicegoi, since i wasnt sure. 
Regards,
Eric Weintraub


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 8, 2006)

Todd-
We (Neu World Tarantulas/arachnoheebs) have NOT sold a one of these as A. bicegoi nor have we ever tired to as we did not know if they were 
A. juruensis or A. huriana. We (my family) own an A. bicegoi as a pet aquired last year from reptist/Brandon (from AZ). Please do not confuse us with ANY dealers trying to sell what we have as A. bicegoi, as we HAVE NOT and this is the very reason why. We still have all of them and will keep them until we can confirm the species. 
Regards...
Mark and Keri Neuling
Neu World Tarantulas


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 8, 2006)

Mark & Keri,

O.k. Michael Jacobi mentioned you in these thread. I didn't know of any dealings you had on this species, so no problem. To help us out on this thread, can you post a pic here of your "A. bicegoi" from Brandon. Thanks.

Todd




			
				arachnoheebs said:
			
		

> Todd-
> We (Neu World Tarantulas/arachnoheebs) have NOT sold a one of these as A. bicegoi nor have we ever tired to as we did not know if they were
> A. juruensis or A. huriana. We (my family) own an A. bicegoi as a pet aquired last year from reptist/Brandon (from AZ). Please do not confuse us with ANY dealers trying to sell what we have as A. bicegoi, as we HAVE NOT and this is the very reason why. We still have all of them and will keep them until we can confirm the species.
> Regards...
> ...


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 8, 2006)

Todd-
No problem, however she is ready to molt and completly webbed up. As soon as she molts, we will be delighted:}  to post the images for you on this thread, via PM, personal email and/or the "Daily Post" LOL!!
Regards...
Mark and Keri Neuling
Neu World Tarantulas


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 8, 2006)

My mistake... Yes, this reptist is in AZ. I think this has become even more confusing because of geographic and name similarities. My friend Eric Reynolds has commented here, but shouldn't be confused with the kid from Texas named Eric that goes by boidaddic. (Although Mr. Reynolds also lives in TX! LOL!). And Mark (arachnoheeb) of TX shouldn't be confused with Mark Lucas of Florida - the reptile jobber. (Does he still work for Strictly Reptiles and moonlight as his own business or is he completely independent now? Doesn't really matter... I certainly wouldn't buy anything from him... or Strictly).

Mark Neuling emailed me photos of the spiders he was sold as "A. bicegoi" and I agree with Todd - they are _A. aurantiaca_. Of course, they are completely different than the photo Chris posted, which is consistent with _A. huriana_.

So, for those of you keeping score at home, there are two apparently unrelated and simultaneously coincidental occurences of an Avic being sold as "A. bicegoi" that is really not. In some cases, duplicate names and states are involved  And, for the record, neither Todd nor I have anything to do with any of this! And Steve has no point at all. 

Cheers and goodbye, Michael


----------



## IguanaMama (Apr 8, 2006)

*May I add some more confusion*

Well, since I like avics, I purchased a two couple of months ago.  An _A. bicegoi _ was listed, I considered it, but I opted for the _A. geroldi _instead.  Since it was mentioned that it hasn't really been sold in the pet trade for years, what was *he* selling?  And, what is my _A. geroldi _really?  This was off the list of one of the regular arachnodealers.
:evil: Jodi :evil:


----------



## Bearskin10 (Apr 8, 2006)

Ok with all this talk about bicegoi what is a real one and not? I will post a picture of one I bought about 3 years ago as a small sling, I am assuming it is a bicegoi as I bought it from a very reputable dealer...


----------



## Gesticulator (Apr 8, 2006)

Bearskin10 said:
			
		

> Ok with all this talk about bicegoi what is a real one and not? I will post a picture of one I bought about 3 years ago as a small sling, I am assuming it is a bicegoi as I bought it from a very reputable dealer...


Looks quite the same as mine, Greg.... But something I don't quite understand...isn't it somewhat "understood" that the avicularia "complex" has many "hazy" distinctions? It has been discussed numerous times (and I only know from what I have read here) how perhaps many are merely just "morphs" of the same species and have been bred with similar morphs and then "named" as one species or another? I understand that if someone was to purchase one and receive another, that person should be rightly compensated. If the seller can admit a "mistake" and correct it, then the dealer would still be considered ok in my book.

Just for the record, here's my A bicegoi.


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 8, 2006)

Aaarrrghh... it keeps sucking me in!

Chris, 

Can you post additional photos of your spider? I was told that yours might be from the same batch as Mark's (arachnoheebs). He sent me a half dozen or so shots and they looked "aurantiaca" to me. Having gone back and looked at your photo, I realize that a better shot or different angles may reveal it is indeed the same. I now notice the yellow banding, but the angle and depth of field of the image makes it questionable. Can you provide an overhead dorsal view and a lateral view?

Mark,

Perhaps you wish to post the images you sent me...

Cheers, Michael


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 8, 2006)

Well, it seems this thread may be moving in a positive direction.

Ok, now entereing Pentaxonomist mode!

It is NOT surprising at all to me that spiders sold as _A. bicegoi_ would turn out to be _A. huriana_.  I "think" some may be slight color forms of _A. huriana_... or slight cf's of what we've come to know "huriana" to look like in the trade.  

The fact that the many of the _A. bicegoi_ being sold today look very much like, or identical to, _A. huriana_  (and that the _A. bicegoi_ being sold some years in the past look quite different) has been mentioned long before this thread started.

It is suprising to me to see the _A. aurantiaca_ being passed off as _A. bicegoi_, but again, the _A. huriana_ is not surprising at all.

So, I would sure appreciate it if people would continue to post photo's of their "pet-trade" _A. bicegoi_.

There are pictures of what was sold as _A. bicegoi_ ~10 years back in THIS THREAD.

Eric


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 8, 2006)

We tried to attach the pictures, but each one is too big per the boards error message. We will retake and try again.
Thx...
Mark


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 8, 2006)

*Summing it all up....*

Eric, Michael and all:

The HUGE female A. bicegoi that I saw of Rob Cherico's in 1995 was a solid 8" legspan. What was very different about her, besides her size, was that her leg hair color was grayish-black without the "frosted" look of A. metallica or A. hurriana. The other distinct thing about her was her abdominal hairs. Not only were they red, but bright red and very, very long protruting almost out and over the end of her spinnerets. The A. hurriana pics posted here do not have these characteristics that I saw in Rob's female.

My conclusion about all this:

Back in the mid' 90's, a single shipment of less than 25 adult A. bicegoi came into the the U.S. hobby. I believe Bryant Capiz got some of these and had a CB hatchout and sold the slings here in the U.S.A.  These were most likey the real A. bicegoi. Between 1998 and 2000, we got hundreds of A. aurantiaca from Peru before it closed. In 2001, Ecuador exports gave us more A. aurantiaca. The recent shipments that three dealers have been selling seem to have A. aurantiaca and A. hurriana being sold as "A. bicegoi".  In the captive-born market since the late 1990's, I don't believe any of the A. bicegoi were that species and I'm concluding all or a vast majority have ended up showing us they were instead A. hurriana.

The bottom line:

The "real" A. bicegoi has not been available since the 1990's and based on our strong debate her on this thread, we have created even more demand for this rare species. 

Yes, anybody with "A. bicegoi" in their collections should post their pics here to help us out.

Todd


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 8, 2006)

Hi Todd,



> The other distinct thing about her was her abdominal hairs. Not only were they red, but bright red and very, very long protruting almost out and over the end of her spinnerets.


Would it be ok to ASSume that whoever coined the term "brick-red pinktoe" in reference to _A. bicegoi_ was going of the bright red setae covering the abdomen?  I hate to bring common names into this, but this may have some relevance.

The few specimens I've seen that I tend to associate with "_A. bicegoi_" have this characteristic.  Quite different from the the "huriana" stuff which have the "tufts" of "red" setae on the sides of the abdomen only.

Eric


----------



## reptist (Apr 8, 2006)

First off - I dont have any of the T's being discussed here and I am only involved in this to the point that I sold mark what I believe to be an A. biceogi about 4 or so mos. ago, so if any one is refering to me not careing or being undereducated, please read through the previous posts get your story straight and try not to sling so much mud that it gets on my name, as I try to keep it clean, and wasnt involved in the mud fight in the first place, PEACE    B. I DONT LIVE IN TEXAS


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 8, 2006)

*No mud fight, just open debate to figure out a problem*

Brandon,

There is no "mud fight" going on here. We have several interested hobbyists and dealers trying to figure out this "A. bicegoi" and its commercial history here in the U.S. It's very helpful for us to show pics and debate what we know about this species along with A. hurriana and A. aurantiaca.

We have all acknowledged a ID problem here with "A. bicegoi". Let's share notes and pics and figure this puzzle out.

Todd


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 8, 2006)

arachnoheebs said:
			
		

> We tried to attach the pictures, but each one is too big per the boards error message. We will retake and try again.
> Thx...
> Mark


You don't need to retake them... you just need to resize them with imaging software. I would be happy to do so on your behalf if you like. MJ


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Apr 8, 2006)

Here are Mark Neuling's photos (arachnoheebs/Neu World Tarantulas):


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 8, 2006)

I finally accomplished my task, so here are a few additional pics. Thanks go out to Michael Jacobi for his assitance with the earlier posting of my pics. Hope these help to CLARIFY, not complicate. Let's see.
Mark Neuling
Neu World Tarantulas


----------



## becca81 (Apr 8, 2006)

I'm by no means an expert, but the photos from Mark look very much like what I bought as _Avicularia huriana_, although the banding seems different?


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 8, 2006)

Most everthing so far in this thread is seems very "huriana-like" to me.

I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but I believe it's quite relative to where this thread is heading.

If anyone has photos of ultimate or penultimate males of this hobby "_A. bicegoi_" I would LOVE to see them...

Since we're comparing a lot of these animals to _A. huriana_, it begins to call into question a few things for me... here is a couple photos (same specimen) of a penultimate and ultimate male _Avicularia huriana_ that I currently have.

Penultimate male _A. huriana_






Ultimate male _A. huriana_






So, do we know where the current WC "_A. bicegoi"_ are being collected?  

Do the _A. huriana_ we have in the hobby originate from Ecuador, or maybe not?

Interestingly, awhile back, I recieved a specimen which came in from a WC shipment of _A. purpurea_ from Ecuador... It was quite different from all the normal _A. purpurea_ in the shipment... it turned out to be female, and now looks like this:







The purple is very vibrant, especially in natural light.  I believe she's still growing and is currently 6" in DLS.

The same specimen looked like this as a subadult:












Knowing that _A. huriana_ is found in Ecuador... could this be a cf. of said species?  or something else?

Eric


----------



## IguanaMama (Apr 8, 2006)

Hmmm.  Looks like those three dealers from Texas aren't the only ones misidentifying these particular avicularias, and it's been happening over the past few years?  Understandably, it seems.  I wonder if any records were kept on who got the original 25 _A. bicegoi_, to see if they bred them.  Whatever you have there, Eric, it sure is a BEAUTY!!!!!


----------



## xenesthis (Apr 8, 2006)

*Mark's photos*

My initial impresson from viewing Mark's photos posted by Michael is could this by a natural-occuring hybrid in the wild of A. aurantiaca and A. hurriana OR did some breeder in Europe mate these two species and we have the resulting offspring?

This is just one possibility that I'm thinking about after seeing this A. hurriana-looking Avics with muted, yellow leg banding that I've neve seen in other A.hurriana.

Todd


----------



## hamfoto (Apr 8, 2006)

Michael and everyone else,
if you want me to, I will post more pics of mine...but it does look exactly like the pics of Mark's T.  And from personal interaction with him right after I got mine and seeing his...I told him how much they look the same.
so, that being said...Todd makes a good point too.  What if it's a hybrid?
it looks very huriana-like to me...but those prominent yellow leg bands throw me off...

oh yeah, here is a link to 2 more pics that I had put in the "Avicularia Picture Thread".
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=643355&postcount=380

Chris


----------



## Arachnoheebs (Apr 8, 2006)

*Avic's sp. in question? Ultimate MALE*

Here are a couple of pictures of the ultimate male I purchased with the others.
Enjoy....
Mark Neuling
Neu World Tarantulas


----------



## GoTerps (Apr 8, 2006)

Hi all,

I just recieved a phone call from Frank Somma, who asked me relay a few of his opinions publicly in this thread.

Frank feels that the _A. bicegoi_ he was getting in '90s is EXTREMELY similar in appearance to what's being sold now as _Avicularia_ sp. "Amazonica".  He mentioned he had spoken to a few contacts oversees, who also felt this way... although felt the "Amazonica" are slightly larger in size (doesn't mean much).  *Note, not pointing to anything being the "REAL" _A. bicegoi_... just discussing what was/is in the hobby as such.

He also felt the majority of the stuff sold as _A. bicegoi_ , both WC and CB, in the past few years has been what we're seeing posted in this thread... "huriana"-like.


Hi Todd,



> My initial impresson from viewing Mark's photos posted by Michael is could this by a natural-occuring hybrid in the wild of A. aurantiaca and A. hurriana OR did some breeder in Europe mate these two species and we have the resulting offspring?


I think there could be LOTS of c.f.'s/variations of the huriana/urticans complex that occur in the wild... my best impression at this point is that most of the recent "bicegoi" are just slight variations of "huriana".  I don't think there's any reason to point to a captive cross-breeding, but who knows.

Eric


----------



## Jmadson13 (Apr 8, 2006)

A bit confusing but definitely informative. Thanks for keeping the thread going guys, I have learned a bit.
Jamison


----------



## Bearskin10 (Apr 8, 2006)

GoTerps said:
			
		

> Most everthing so far in this thread is seems very "huriana-like" to me.
> 
> I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but I believe it's quite relative to where this thread is heading.
> 
> ...


Hey Eric mine is a male so when he does mature I will send you a picture of him, he is already a good 5" so he's going to be a pretty large mature Avic even if he matures next molt. Also mine has the exact orange banding as seen in the other photo's here they just didn't come out very good on my picture. That is one HUGH purpurea (sp.) 


> Frank feels that the A. bicegoi he was getting in '90s is EXTREMELY similar in appearance to what's being sold now as Avicularia sp. "Amazonica". He mentioned he had spoken to a few contacts oversees, who also felt this way... although felt the "Amazonica" are slightly larger in size (doesn't mean much). *Note, not pointing to anything being the "REAL" A. bicegoi... just discussing what was/is in the hobby as such.


All the more reason for me to get some of the Avic (sp.) amazonica's that I had already planed on. 
Off subject Eric, I sent the Striata (male and female) to a show over the weekend with Chris and if he makes it back from there he's yours if you still need him...


----------



## billopelma (Apr 10, 2006)

Very interesting thread, but I'm getting dizzy trying to get it all straight...
 I posted an 'id me' thread a while ago (pentax-onomy) and didn't get many opinions, now I can see why. I was then under the obviously wrong impression that A. bicegoi, huriana, aurentiaca and juruensis where somewhat sorted out, at least more so than the A. avic complex. 
 I got the avic-in-question about a year ago, invoiced to SCR in error as A. brocklehursti. It was quite apparent that it was an avic and had A B on the container so I assumed it was a stock picking error and was actually A. bicegoi. I have also picked up a couple more sold-as-bicegoi's in the last few months so it will be interesting to compare as they grow.

 Anyway, figured I might as well paraphrase my previous post and add it to this thread as it looks to be related and I have tons of pics. 
And here it is;

I've been trying to sort this one out for close to a year, every time she molts I figure it finally will become obvious. She just molted again and for the first time didn't change other than size, ~4", so I'm assuming this is close to her adult form. And the Id has still, for me, remained elusive, though I believe it is either A. bicegoi or A. huriana.
As far as A. bicegoi, huriana, aurentiaca and juruensis I would think that with good picture one should be able to differentiate something noticable between them. I have found that the more pic's I see, the more confused
I get. It has become apparent to me (and others I'm sure) that many people have they're avic's, within these four sp., mis-id'ed to the point were it almost seems to be random, particularly on the Genus Avicularia thread.

Looking to see if there is any id concensus on these pics 

















> I'm just curious what the true color is. I mean, in natural light, does it really have that lavender hue? Or is that my eyesight/computer?



Hard to say, 'true' color is subjective at best. In the diffuse sunlight in the first pic she does show a bit of pinky/purple, under full spectrum flourescent more brownish blue, and with just camera flash more blue/yellow. The carapace is purplish in almost any light, the abdomen looks sometimes more red, sometimes more purple. One problem is, I think, that the long leg hairs are one color at the tips and taper off to different shades and the shorter 'base' setae are different still. All a matter of angles and light, every picture has it's own look, one of my most difficult T's to get good color rendition on.
 My last camera, a nikon 4600, really highlighted blue, great for GBB's and P. metallica's. The one I'm currently using, a pentax wpi, is a little more balanced and a little lighter on the color saturation. Don't forget, with digital photography, an algorythm or whatever translates/extrapolates the light (that the ccd picks up through the lens) into the picture you see. There is no 'true', it's all an interpretation the camera software makes, then your viewing program and finally your monitor. 
All of this is just another reason pictures are 'iffy' for id's.

This is one from the her last molt that I put in the Genus avicularia thread.
Shows up more 'nikon blue', but really she's got alot more brown/yellow in 'normal' light. 







And the molt before that;







And a couple molts before;







Bill


----------



## Steve Nunn (Apr 10, 2006)

Hi guys,
If I can make a suggestion, because you ain't going to figure it out with images. Collect all the mature spider exuvia, label them with what info you have, including where purchased, and get them to a taxonomist who knows the complexity of the _Avicularia_. You may come up with some rough answers in this thread and it is the best you can do here, I don't think that's a problem, any discussion helps for sure. But without a look at the vast array of exuiva you guys have, you won't get as far as communication with a taxo who knows a little about this group, someone like Rogerio Bertani.......

A lot of the hardcore taxo scientist types appreciate any effort hobbyists make toward positive ID's, sometimes they see stuff not noted before in those collections, great steps can often be made doing this sort of thing. Why not collaborate a little and get them looked at properly???

Just a thought, this is a confusing group and a perfect candidate for this sort of identification.

Steve


----------



## Raqua (Apr 10, 2006)

I just want to point something out, that has been discussed on other European forums.
In Europe, what is being sold right now as A.bicegoi looks very similar to A.huriana.
Also under name A.aurantiaca were sold at least three different looking spiders. I personally have some of those and I believe that they might be part of A. urticans complex rather than A.aurantiaca.

Possibly the real A.aurantiaca ?
What is believed to be the 'real' aurantiaca looks very similar to A.juruensis.

On pictures Mark Neuling has posted there is some leg banding visible, but I don't think this looks like the banding that A.aurantiaca is suposed to have.
A. huriana (and most of the other Avic. of urticans/huriana/bicegoi or whatever that is) also do have leg banding but it is more of a orange color and not as prominent as A.aurantiaca.

So to add to the confusion ( :? ), those spiders that entered US hobby from Europe as A.bicegoi, might be even 
1) A.huriana sold under name A.bicegoi
2) A.urticans sold under name A.aurantiaca and somehow mislabelled on the way... 
3) some other stuff ... 

To add my pentaxonomist opinion, the spider on Mark Neuling's pics doesn't look like A.bicegoi (prob. A.huriana), A.huriana or A.aurantiaca (prob. A.urticans) that I have in my collection. It has some visual similarity to A.huriana but it is also quite different. 
So for now I would rather stay with Avic. sp. label than saying it is huriana.


----------



## stubby8th (Apr 12, 2006)

hamfoto said:
			
		

> I bought one of these "bicegoi" and after reading this and doing some searching...I'm thinking it is "huriana"...and all the other ones I saw looked were exactly like mine.  It's obviously just visual, physical characteristics I'm going by, but they don't look like "aurantiaca" to me at all.
> 
> just my thoughts,
> Chris


I am in complete agreement with you Chris -
I was recently at the Richardson show and purchased a beautiful 7+ inch Avic from Mark Neuling (who sold it as Avicularia sp, by the way). My first thought when I saw her was A.bicegoi(?) because of the deep red highlights on her opisthosoma, but the blue hues were absent. Further photo compairisons have led me to believe A.huriana. I have an A. aurantiaca that I purchased from Regal Reptiles as a tiny sling, and she looks just like this:  http://www.tarantulas.ru/roda_obzor/Avicularia1/Avicularia_aurantiaca.htm
What I bought from Mark that day is this:


----------



## hamfoto (Apr 12, 2006)

Tom,

hey thanks for chiming in...I would agree, ours look identical.

as for the link of the "aurantiaca"...when I see these, I think "juruensis"!

didn't know you had one of these...very, very nice!

Chris


----------



## becca81 (Apr 15, 2006)

Just to add a bit here.. here's a fresh molt from what I purchased as _Avicularia huriana_...


----------



## gumby (Apr 17, 2006)

ya so after reading this thread I jumped on google and was looking at as many images as I could of different avics for comparison I thought it was interesting when I found this french sight that listed 47 different types of avic many of these did come from type 1 and 2 of same T but it sure makes you wonder what type you might get in the mail when you order my basic thought is that if I dont get the type im looking for the first time I can buy another T yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sorry about the link being so long on the french site I couldnt figure what the actual sight name was. http://images.google.com/imgres?img...art=47&prev=/images?q=Avicularia+aurantiaca+%


----------



## MizM (Apr 17, 2006)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Hi guys,
> If I can make a suggestion, because you ain't going to figure it out with images. Collect all the mature spider exuvia, label them with what info you have, including where purchased, and get them to a taxonomist who knows the complexity of the _Avicularia_. You may come up with some rough answers in this thread and it is the best you can do here, I don't think that's a problem, any discussion helps for sure. But without a look at the vast array of exuiva you guys have, you won't get as far as communication with a taxo who knows a little about this group, someone like Rogerio Bertani.......
> 
> A lot of the hardcore taxo scientist types appreciate any effort hobbyists make toward positive ID's, sometimes they see stuff not noted before in those collections, great steps can often be made doing this sort of thing. Why not collaborate a little and get them looked at properly???
> ...


A lot of the _hobbyists_ appreciate any effort made toward positive IDs! I have been putting off buying ANY black Haplopelma species until everyone is SURE they have a longipedum or minax or vonWirthi.... 

And I won't buy any Avicularia species that aren't easily identified by sight until this gets cleared up.

Let's not even TALK about the genus Aphonopelma!


----------



## David Burns (Apr 17, 2006)

MizM said:
			
		

> A lot of the _hobbyists_ appreciate any effort made toward positive IDs! I have been putting off buying ANY black Haplopelma species until everyone is SURE they have a longipedum or minax or vonWirthi....
> 
> And I won't buy any Avicularia species that aren't easily identified by sight until this gets cleared up.
> 
> Let's not even TALK about the genus Aphonopelma!


Don't forget Hysterocrates.:wall:


----------



## angelarachnid (Apr 18, 2006)

*test*

Just spent 40 mins or so replying to this thread and my reply did not come up.

Ray


----------



## angelarachnid (Apr 18, 2006)

Ok i am not going to write the full explination again.

so here is the sumary

NO ONE knows what the real A. aurantica looks like,

the stuff being sold as A. bicegoi in the past couple of years is not the same as the "old" A. bicegoi and is possibly a colour variety of A. hurriana,

A, hurriana is (in my opinion) not in the A. urticans complex,

Avic. sp "Amazonica" is not the same as the old A. bicegoi.

dealers are not taxonomists and dont really know what they are selling.

Ray


----------



## eman (Apr 25, 2006)

*Pentaxonomy help on Avic sp. Peru*

I am looking for an opinion on this species (experienced breeders/keepers only please).  I realize that this is guess work at best... but unfortunately, that is all I have at this time.  Essentially, I have 2 adult females and several slings. These came from a private collection.  The only information I was able to obtain was that they were purchased as WC _Avicularia huriana/urticans _from Peru.  At first glance, they looked nothing like _huriana_ to me and only somewhat similar to _urticans_.  I am leaning towards _aurantiaca_ (only based on the pictures on Rick’s site).  Also, I have seen many WC Avic sp. Magdalena/Colombia which is strikingly similar if not identical to _juruensis_ - I am quite confident that this is _not_ what I have however.  Moreoever, I don't think _juruensis_ and _aurantiaca_ are synonomous (only my opinion). Any ideas on what this species might be... angelarachnid?


----------



## M.F.Bagaturov (Apr 25, 2006)

Hello!

The tarantula at the picture looking very similar the one is known as Avicularia sp. ulrichea but the real A. ulrichea originated from Brazil.
As an alternative variant taken in mind that it possibly come from Peru I would go to the suggestion of this Avicularia possibly is the real A. aurantiaca.


----------



## eman (May 5, 2006)

M.F.Bagaturov said:
			
		

> Hello!
> 
> The tarantula at the picture looking very similar the one is known as Avicularia sp. ulrichea but the real A. ulrichea originated from Brazil.
> As an alternative variant taken in mind that it possibly come from Peru I would go to the suggestion of this Avicularia possibly is the real A. aurantiaca.


I just had a chance to read your reply - thanks for the info.  I was hoping for more feedback... 

Cheers!


----------



## MRL (Jun 4, 2006)

My female just molted, she's about 6" now. I wasn't sure if the label is appropriate but I'm just going off this thread.


----------



## angelarachnid (Jun 4, 2006)

Well that is something completelly different to the 3 sp i have had as A. aurantiaca.

But nice spider, all Avics are nice.

Just because an Avic has yellowish banding does not mean to say it is A. aurantiaca (aimed at the dealers, please see above post).

On a previous post i think EMAN posted a pic which Mikhail said he thought was A. ulrichea, i think that is also possible but it also looks similar to what we once had as Avic sp "Walckeanari", which was also sold in Europe as A. aurantiaca.

I have now seen 2 museum specimens one of which identifed as A. "walkeneari" by Pockock which look nothing like the pic i have just refered to but looks more like what we once had as A. magdalena/juruensis. So maybe the identification as Avic sp "ulrichea" is possible.

With the exception of A. purpurea, A. minatrix, A. versicolour and A. leata NO ONE can say for certanty what any of the other Avics really are. The reason is simple NO ONE has examined the types starting with Avic avic the generic type, and certainly most of the specimens (with the exception of A. purpurea) described in the past 20 years or so have not been compared with other type specimens. OK you may say A. ulrichea was compared against A. hurriana but what was A. hurriana compared against?????The same goes for A. geroldi, braushauseni, metalica, avicularia, and any of the other blue green sp. NEVER compared against the type of A. avicularia so very dubious in thier identifications.


Just because they are new in the hobby does not always mean they are new to science and dealers ( not just American but world wide) should stop ripping people of by claiming (anything other than the 4 mentioned above) are genuine identifications. And any who claim there identifications are genuine are LIARS. :liar: 

with the exception of the 4 above, all Avics for sale should be labled as Avicularia sp "whatever".

Yea Yea taxonomically they can be called A. hurriana etc but untill a full generic revision is done NO ONE knows what they really are.:wall: 

Ray


----------

