# Grammostola aureostriata = G. pulchripes



## GoTerps

Just an FYI, some of you will need to change your tank labels  

_Grammostola auerostriata_ is now a junior synonym of _Grammostola pulchripes_.

http://www.thebts.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5079

Eric


----------



## Protectyaaaneck

sweet thanks for the info.


----------



## bamato

Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?


----------



## Protectyaaaneck

Look at the title.


----------



## GrammatonCleric

Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??

Oh, and WAR GUIDA, PYN.


----------



## bliss

GrammatonCleric said:


> Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??


more than likely because it was never an _Avicularia_ to begin with 

maybe a bad description?

-dan


----------



## bamato

Protectyaaaneck said:


> Look at the title.


Yeah I noticed that, just the funny jargain threw me off.  :?


----------



## GoTerps

Hi Bamato,



bamato said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?


Yes, that is correct.


----------



## Kirk

GrammatonCleric said:


> Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??


This is a quite standard procedure in systematics. _Avicularia borellii_ was originally described in 1897 as _Eurypelma borellii_. It's not uncommon that earlier conceptions of taxa have been based on poor definitions that didn't stipulate relevant characters indicating monophyly. Moving species into other genera becomes especially common as researchers are doing revisionary work.


----------



## Kirk

bamato said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?


No. The phrase junior synonym indicates that one taxon (species, in this instance) has been given two different names. The younger name is a junior synonym relative to the older name which is the senior synonym. Usually, systematists will use the older name as it has historical precedence, but there are rules that sometimes allow for the continued use of junior synonyms.

_Grammostola aureostriata_ was described in 2001, whereas _G. pulchripes_ was described in 1891 (I think). If it is shown that _G. aureostriata_ is the same species as _G. pulchripes_, then the name _G. aureostriata_ takes nomenclatural precedence.


----------



## tabor

Everyone should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy) before changing the labels, and also keep in mind it is just one paper. There will undoubtedly be people who disagree with him.

Here is a good quote from the wiki link:

"It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."


----------



## Kirk

tabor said:


> Everyone should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy) before changing the labels, and also keep in mind it is just one paper. There will undoubtedly be people who disagree with him.
> 
> Here is a good quote from the wiki link:
> 
> "It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."


The situation is a little more involved. Article 23.9 *Reversal of precedence* in the _International Code of Zoological Nomenclature_ (1999) provides the stipulations for maintaining a junior synonym:



> 23.9. Reversal of precedence. In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:
> 
> 23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:​
> 23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and
> 
> 23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.
> 
> 23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies. From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be qualified by the term nomen protectum and the invalid, but older, name by the term nomen oblitum (see Glossary). In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid.​


One would have to look at the recent paper for reasons why the synonymy has be effected. If it's the case that _Grammostola aureostriata_ was described in 2001, whereas _G. pulchripes_ was described in 1891, then article 23.9 could not possibly be invoked.


----------



## GoTerps

Howdy,



chone1 said:


> If it's the case that _Grammostola aureostriata_ was described in 2001, whereas _G. pulchripes_ was described in 1891, then article 23.9 could not possibly be invoked.


This is exactly the case.  

I haven't gotten the paper yet myself, but stayed with Ray for a few days last month and saw why he came to this conclusion.  

Eric


----------



## GoTerps

Hi tabor,



tabor said:


> Here is a good quote from the wiki link:
> 
> "It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."


This does not apply here at all.  There would be absolutely no reason at all to give precedence to the junior synonym in this case.

Eric


----------



## Kirk

GoTerps said:


> Howdy,
> 
> This is exactly the case.
> 
> I haven't gotten the paper yet myself, but stayed with Ray for a few days last month and saw why he came to this conclusion.
> 
> Eric


Eric,

Yes, just knowing when each name was published immediately indicates his unquestionable justification. I've sunk a few families, genera, and species in my time, and it's a nice feeling doing the housework, as it makes life easier for everyone.

Kirk


----------



## tabor

GoTerps said:


> Hi tabor,
> 
> 
> 
> This does not apply here at all.  There would be absolutely no reason at all to give precedence to the junior synonym in this case.
> 
> Eric


I was just going off that one wiki article (a mistake, obviously), and didnt know there were bylaws or whatever. But yeah after reading more into it I do see why the new name would take presidency. 

my main point is this though: do you think dealers will immediately change the name of the name from G. aureostriata to its new name? I don't think so. So while yes, the new name might apply in scientific context, most people in the hobby have known G. auerostriata and what it is for most of the last decade. 

that's why i pointed that quote from the wiki article out, when it says "This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature," i suppose the online hobby and community doesn't count (it makes sense that it wouldn't)  


so, here is another question, would it be incorrect in any context to call them G. auerostriata? I mean outside of a scientific journal does it matter?


----------



## Rick McJimsey

I thought G.pulchripes was G.mollicoma? :?


----------



## GoTerps

Hi Ryan,



tabor said:


> my main point is this though: do you think dealers will immediately change the name of the name from G. aureostriata to its new name?


Good ones will  
At first, IMO, they should label them as such:
_Grammostola pulchripes_ (formerly _G. aureostriata_)

This will reduce the confusion that would arise for those hobbyists not aware of the change.



> i suppose the online hobby and community doesn't count (it makes sense that it wouldn't)


That's true, the use of that name in the hobby has no relevance.  (In relation to the precedence issue you brought up)



> so, here is another question, would it be incorrect in any context to call them G. auerostriata? I mean outside of a scientific journal does it matter?


But, why would you want to?  As old types are continually examined, and new research done, this is just one of MANY changes in nomenclature that are sure to come.  Hobbyists need to learn to embrace these changes.  

Eric


----------



## pato_chacoana

Well this is great. The Grammostola genus keeps getting better. I wonder how many of the people writing Grammostola papers ever saw a Grammostola in the wild...hehe, or are aware of that the spider that in the USA and Europe was being called G. aureostriata all these years is quite different than the one sent in the first place for the G. aureostriata description.....


----------



## GoTerps

Hi Pato,



pato_chacoana said:


> I wonder how many of the people writing Grammostola papers ever saw a Grammostola in the wild.


In this case, I don't understand how seeing them in the wild would make any difference at all?  That's not what the paper is about. The relevant specimens for this paper can't be found in the wild.  The only thing that matters (in this particular case) is to look at the type specimens.  



> The Grammostola genus keeps getting better.


I know you were being a bit facetious, but housecleaning such as this is critical in the genus "getting better".

Ok, I've commented enough in this thread I do believe, off to enjoy my afternoon and drink some good IPA's. 

Eric


----------



## pato_chacoana

No need to get upset Eric!

Ok, maybe it sounded bad what I wrote or just didn't express myself correctly. By ''keeps getting better'', I didn't mean that this particular paper would make it worse. Maybe in fact this paper does good to the genus, I really couldn't tell 'cause I haven't read it.
It's just a very difficult genus to clear up, and it won't be for many years if not ever. That is what is annoying to me, not the honest people who wants to work in the genus.
So you say the specimens can't be found in the wild? Why's that? Are they extinct? I'm curious. It is important to work in the field too, but I get what you say about type material examination only...

I'm curious about this species as I'm curious about all the Theraphosids from my country. I know the person who collected the type for the G. aureostriata description in 2001 and I've seen these spiders. But also I've seen another ''G. aureostriata'' that is different, and this spider is the one I've seen in the international hobby more often. I personally think they are two different species.

Best regards,
Pato


----------



## GoTerps

Hello Pato,



pato_chacoana said:


> No need to get upset Eric!


Of course not!   I'm quite happy... must just be the internet lingo!



> So you say the specimens can't be found in the wild? Why's that? Are they extinct? I'm curious. It is important to work in the field too, but I get what you say about type material examination only...


No, no.  What I mean is that for the purpose of the paper being discussed here, observing specimens in the wild is of no importance.  The only thing of importance is to examine the actual type specimens.  Is that more clear?



> I know the person who collected the type for the G. aureostriata description in 2001 and I've seen these spiders. But also I've seen another ''G. aureostriata'' that is different, and this spider is the one I've seen in the international hobby more often. I personally think they are two different species.


That's interesting Pato... no comments from me on that topic!

Eric


----------



## pato_chacoana

Hi Eric!

Oh yes, I get what you mean about the types examination. It's always really good to be able to make such studies! I'm really looking forward to read the paper, I hope it's available  

Yes it's interesting about the two G. aureostriata, I discussed this with Colin D. Wilson in the BTS forum, who also is aware of this:

http://thebts.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4550&page=2

Again, I'm sorry about my first post, I didn't express myself correctly.
Best regards,

Pato-


----------



## Kirk

tabor said:


> so, here is another question, would it be incorrect in any context to call them G. auerostriata? I mean outside of a scientific journal does it matter?


The international rules for formal nomenclature are not just for the benefit of scientists, but for everyone. A nomenclatural system ensures that our communication about systematic hypotheses are as accurate as possible. For instance, using the correct scientific names are critical to medical treatment, conservation issues, or simply casual discussion. Considering how vehement pro and con discussions about hobbyist hybridization get on AB, it follows that accurate adoption of nomenclature is essential. Otherwise, our communication suffers.


----------



## metallica

is the paper in a peer reviewed journal?


----------



## Hamburglar

chone1 said:


> No. The phrase junior synonym indicates that one taxon (species, in this instance) has been given two different names. The younger name is a junior synonym relative to the older name which is the senior synonym. Usually, systematists will use the older name as it has historical precedence, but there are rules that sometimes allow for the continued use of junior synonyms.
> 
> _Grammostola aureostriata_ was described in 2001, whereas _G. pulchripes_ was described in 1891 (I think). If it is shown that _G. aureostriata_ is the same species as _G. pulchripes_, then the name _G. aureostriata_ takes nomenclatural precedence.


Forgive my typical ignorance..  I am confused a bit by this post.  In the first paragraph you state that systematists will use the older name because of historical precedence.  Isn't G. pulchripes the older name in this instance?  If G. aureostriata was described in 2001 how does it move ahead?


----------



## Kirk

Hamburglar said:


> Forgive my typical ignorance..  I am confused a bit by this post.  In the first paragraph you state that systematists will use the older name because of historical precedence.  Isn't G. pulchripes the older name in this instance?  If G. aureostriata was described in 2001 how does it move ahead?


Yes, _G. pulchripes_ is the older name, and thus has priority of use over _G. aureostriata_. The latter name has been placed into synonymy with the former. In other words, _G. aureostriata_ should no longer be used.

Sorry for reversing the order in my last sentence in my earlier post!


----------



## pato_chacoana

Yes...that is IF they are in fact the same species.


----------



## Kirk

pato_chacoana said:


> Yes...that is IF they are in fact the same species.


Yes well, that is the whole basis for the synonymy, now isn't it?


----------



## Endagr8

UGH...reminds me of singapore blues.

How frustrating. :wall: :wall: :wall:


----------



## metallica

Endagr8 said:


> UGH...reminds me of singapore blues.
> 
> How frustrating. :wall: :wall: :wall:


why? that was described only once.


----------



## Endagr8

metallica said:


> why? that was described only once.


Yes, but the whole Cyriopagopus-Lampropelma garbage?


----------



## bliss

Endagr8 said:


> Yes, but the whole Cyriopagopus-Lampropelma garbage?


yes but, Cyriopagopus sp Singapore blue was the incorrect name..  the original description of what is sold in the hobby as Singapore blue is actually L. violaceps.  The old L violaceps is now referred to as Ornithoctoninae G. sp Robustum, and that particular species was sold earlier in the hobby as "Haplopelma robustum" which was an incorrect name as well..  

Basically, there was an mismatch in names, and one of those names was a incorrect.

whereas with this situation, there is only one suspect species, with two names, simply the one name "aureostriata" is a junior synonym.   Since pulchripes is the older name, it takes the spot of aureostriata.


if i'm wrong on any count, point to me my mistakes


----------



## Aarantula

Who's on first...? :?


----------



## Kirk

bliss said:


> yes but, Cyriopagopus sp Singapore blue was the incorrect name..  the original description of what is sold in the hobby as Singapore blue is actually L. violaceps.  The old L violaceps is now referred to as Ornithoctoninae G. sp Robustum, and that particular species was sold earlier in the hobby as "Haplopelma robustum" which was an incorrect name as well..


Isn't _Lampropelma violaceopes_ Abraham, 1924, still a valid species? Are you only talking about formal and informal names as they've been thrown around in the hobby?


----------



## PhilR

chone1 said:


> Isn't _Lampropelma violaceopes_ Abraham, 1924, still a valid species?


Yes it is. The spider formerly known as _Cyriopagopus_ sp. blue in the hobby has been found to actually be _L. violaceopes_.


----------



## dtknow

Their was a stir on another forum about the newt Mesotriton alpestris having a paper published making this name the synonym of some ancient name Ichthyosaura alpestris.

Is their any coincidence that genuses somewhat related to each other tend to be similarly named(often using a similar latin prefix or suffix)? Is this a conscious effort of taxonomists to make things easier?


----------



## Kirk

dtknow said:


> Is their any coincidence that genuses somewhat related to each other tend to be similarly named(often using a similar latin prefix or suffix)? Is this a conscious effort of taxonomists to make things easier?


Naming genera (not 'genuses') is sometimes just a matter of taste of the individual formally designating the names in a publication. For some of the genera I've described, I have used names somewhat similar to others, e.g. _Pseudoaugeneriella _in reference to _Augeneriella_, or _Novafabricia _in reference to _Fabricia_. But on other occasions, I decided to use anagrams simply because I thought it would be amusing, e.g. _Brifacia _ and _Raficiba _(anagrams of _Fabricia_).

There's a genus of spiders from Hawaii called _Orsonwelles_, after the somewhat rotund actor, Orson Welles.


----------



## Drachenjager

GoTerps said:


> Hi Ryan,
> 
> 
> 
> Good ones will
> At first, IMO, they should label them as such:
> _Grammostola pulchripes_ (formerly _G. aureostriata_)
> 
> This will reduce the confusion that would arise for those hobbyists not aware of the change.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, the use of that name in the hobby has no relevance.  (In relation to the precedence issue you brought up)
> 
> 
> 
> But, why would you want to?  As old types are continually examined, and new research done, this is just one of MANY changes in nomenclature that are sure to come.  Hobbyists need to learn to embrace these changes.
> 
> Eric


how bout calling them _Grammostola pulchripes_ (formerly _G. aureostriata_)  (formerly _G. pulchripes_) (because we have no clue what we are doing here)

sorry all the name changes make me want to go back to common names lol Remember at one time they were all Avicularia lol


----------



## John Kanker

Hi. 
sorry I asked this in a different thread but got no reply to it.

Anyway can you help I don't quite understand that G. aureostriata  paper as there are a couple of points in it that don't make much sense to me.
For example on page 4 it says how the synonymy of G. pulchripes with G. grossa appears to have been based on “pet trade” material and the specimen of G. pulchripes was not compared with the type specimen of G. pulchripes, making the synonymy quite dubious, but earlier on in the paper on page 3, it says the specimens of G. aureostriata used in this paper are from the author’s personal collection! At no time does it say that the author even looked at the holotype of G. aureostriata so how does he know his personal collection is the same as what Schmidt & Bullmer discribed? Would or could this not make the synonymy seem dubious also? After all there are no comparative drawings or anything to even try and back up the claims so it is like, you just have to believe it just because the author says it is so. Surely if the author was not able to view the types for whatever reason it should have been put in the paper, but there is no mention of them. I'm not saying the author is wrong, I'm just pointing out that the paper seems a little poor in a few places, but maybe that’s just me.

Thanks
John


----------



## Sequin

Drachenjager said:


> how bout calling them _Grammostola pulchripes_ (formerly _G. aureostriata_)  (formerly _G. pulchripes_) (because we have no clue what we are doing here)



Hahah, I like it.


----------



## Martin H.

Hello John,

some interesting points you mention there...

Wondering, if a peer reviewed journal would have accepted this paper or rather given it back to the author with some "homework" (e.g. to fill the gaps mentioned by you).

all the best,
Martin


----------



## pato_chacoana

Very interesting indeed. I read the paper a few days ago, and it looked to me that this synonymy has not many arguments to be backed up. And it's true also that does not mention the holotype examination of G. aureostriata. Just because the G. pulchripes type had yellow stripes and it's found in same location (Chaco Region, which is very extense region, the second largest forest in America) the author assumes it's the same as G. aureostriata.

Now, G. pulchripes could be yellow striped spider and G. aureostriata, another:

The real G. aureostriata, this same exact species was sent to Germany for the original description. The spider's owner Dr. Claudio Lipari. This spider grows very large.

female












male






And this one is the common ''G. aureostriata'' that I see more often around the hobby:

female (this picture is from the net)






male






Maybe they are just two forms, but maybe not.....

Best regards,
Pato-


----------



## Martin H.

Pato, VERY beautiful speciment - even it is a southamerican species! =;-)

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## pato_chacoana

Yes Martin she really was! Southern spiders rules  Died some years ago from old age. Never seen anymore of them since then! They were always really rare to find in the wild. A friend gave me some slings of what looks something similar to that one...at least in the picture I've seen, I'll have to check his spider out in real life soon  

Best regards,
Pato


----------



## Bosing

WOW!!! This is one huge Grammostola Specie!  I hope someone out there will be able to breed these for it to spread around...


----------



## GoTerps

That's interesting Pato, thanks for sharing the photos.

Eric


----------



## pato_chacoana

No problem   I just wish some day to see those beautiful giants in the wild.

Best regards,
Pato


----------



## John Kanker

Hello Pato
Very nice spiders in your photos. It is also very interesting because I remember that a about 3-4 years ago, there were meant to be two different forms of G. aureostriata in the hobby.
A Paraguayan form that was said to have a covering of long pinkish hairs all over, and a different colored carapace. Also they had three stripes on the patella.
The other was said to be the Argentinean form, that lacked the pinkish hairs and only had the two stripes on the patella.

Going from these simple descriptions I would say that is what your photos show, these two different forms. All be it I do not know if they were ever proven to different forms of the same species or actual different species but I would have thought that paper may have cleared this up, however it makes no reference to them what so ever, which I feel is rather strange if you are going to synonymize this species with another.
Martin's point is very good about a peer reviewed journal as even if the article is true, without the gaps being filled in it is making for rather a poor argument I think. 
How then is this sort of article accepted? Surely someone must review it at some stage before it becomes the accepted fact, otherwise you could just write a story for some nature magazine about how on holiday you found such and such a species and because it looks like another species found a few miles away, say they are the same thing and this then is fact just based on a location, if you can kind of understand what I mean.

Thanks
John


----------



## pato_chacoana

Hi John,

I completely understand what you mean. My personal opinion is that they are different species. BOTH can be found in Argentina, that is for sure. Also, the type for G. aureostriata description is from Argentina. So, this Paraguay/Argentina forms, doesn't convince me much...
If they were only two different forms, then we should reconsider the term ''form''. As you might know, the problem in Grammostola genus is that their genital characters vary very little between species most of the time. Some authors consider that if they can mate with each other, showing very similar genitalia and somatic features, then they are the same species. This I do not agree. But in this particular case of Grammostola aureostriata, there are very evident differences between these two spiders, and the difference in size is impressive.  The thing is that they are both from Chaco Region...so many authors assume that it's likely to be the same sp, and only local variations, but, as I've said before, Chaco is a HUGE region. I've explored a lot of this region and found Acanthoscurria chacoana, Acanthoscurria sp. ''musculosa'' and Eupalaestrus campestratus, unfortunately I still haven't found G. aureostriata. My next trip to the Region will be focused on this species only. The ''real'' one is very rare, while the other one seems to be more common. Lately someone collected specimens from Chaco, and a friend has two of them... from a photo I've seen they look similar to the real one, but really can't tell from just one pic, I will check them out soon. Also he gave me two slings to raise (thank's Gaston!!  
Although I think G. pulchripes shouldn't be erased as it could be very well a valid species, I think G. aureostriata shoudn't be wiped out in synonymy until further research is done to see what's going on with this variations.

Best regards,
Pato


----------



## Aarantula

Sooo... does this mean everyone on the boards are listing their Aureo's as Pulchripes now in the "For Sale" section and from now on in other threads? :?


----------



## arachyd

Not me. I'll still refer to mine as aureostriata.


----------



## Aarantula

arachyd said:


> Not me. I'll still refer to mine as aureostriata.


Oh ok... 

Kinda stinks because now ya gotta search under two different names to find infromation on one species...


----------



## Zoltan

Hello Pato,


pato_chacoana said:


> But in this particular case of _Grammostola aureostriata_, there are very evident differences between these two spiders, and the difference in size is impressive.


Have you measured specimens of both? According to Gabriel's paper, the holotypes of _G. pulchripes_ and _G. aureostriata_ are almost identical in size.


----------



## pato_chacoana

Yes males from both and females from the bigger form, haven't got in my hands any females from the 'smaller form'. But in any case, the G. pulchripes could be aureostriata and the other smaller variant another species (maybe it is that way, I really couldn't say and so far it looks like no one can until further research is done) But the picture of Gabriel's paper shows the classic smaller variant (at least for what I can see on the picture)
For sure, G. 'aureostriata' (the bigger one) is a big spider that would be rare to be discovered so recently, taking in consideration that the habitat is a explored area since decades and there were people in the past aware of this spider over here many years ago.
I'm not saying that the synonymy is wrong, just that the two different 'forms' should be studied to see if we are talking about two species or forms instead of one and how important this is for their biology/ecology 

I know for sure that the type of G. aureostriata (Schmidt 2001) was the bigger form. I know the collector. Again, maybe this is the actual G. pulchripes, and the other form which is more common in the european hobby is the 'new' species... who knows. But so far there is no research done to evidence there are two different species, and I don't have the material needed to do it yet, so I won't claim there are two different yellow striped Grammostola species... just have the _feeling_ for myself that they are other forms or species... And I think it's also important to know this for my breeding plans...

Best regards,
Pato


----------



## Zoltan

Hey Pato,

Thanks for the post and the information.


----------



## pato_chacoana

No problemo  

Take care,
Pato


----------



## Moltar

Wow, this has been a very informative read! My opinion (and that's all it is) is that we will eventually end up with G. aureostriata and G. pulchripes as two seperate species.

Thank you to all you hyper advanced arachno-people for this stimulating discussion. I quite prefer this to "my rosie doesn't eat" for breakfast-time reading.


----------



## pato_chacoana

*More photos*

The large and more rare 'form' Grammostola aureostriata from Chaco, Argentina. Adult female collected recently, I was lucky to get this girl and I managed to get a group of spiderlings for breeding 













Best regards,
Pato


----------



## Bosing

Wow!!! Congratulations Pato!!! Very very nice specimen!  I hope to someday get a sling of that T that you intend to breed!


----------

