# Hysterocrates hercules



## Austin S. (May 2, 2007)

I purchased one of these 5" beauts and will be getting it tomorrow. I am thinking it is not hercules however. I will not give any names, but they said they purchsed them with that name from Europe. I'm thinking it is either H. gigas, sculpt (spelling?), or some other Hy. sp. What are you alls opinions? Got a good deal on it, so I went ahead and took it. 

Austin


----------



## Austin S. (May 2, 2007)

No one have anything to say eh?


----------



## iluvspydrz (May 2, 2007)

may be easier to ID or answer your question if you had a pic. post one when she arrives


----------



## Austin S. (May 2, 2007)

iluvspydrz said:


> may be easier to ID or answer your question if you had a pic. post one when she arrives


DEF will do. I'm gettin so excited! This is my first Hy. sp. to own.


----------



## P. Novak (May 2, 2007)

Hey Austin congrats on the new T! I don't think its actually Hysterocrates hercules though because I remember Michael Jacobi saying something about them not actually being in the hobby, and that he hasn't even seen one alive, only dead ones preserved in alcohol. I could be wrong though, we'll wait for him to drop by to answer that question.

You should definately get a picture though, I don't know how much Iding we'd be able to do though, because I always soo this species with unsure names like Hysterocrates spp. THis species might be as screwed up as Avicularia. 

Anyways, congrats once more, and lets see those pics.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 2, 2007)

Congrats! But I seriously doubt its a true H. hercules. (If there is indeed one)
It may just be a Hysterocrates sp.

-Sean


----------



## Austin S. (May 2, 2007)

Hahah I know. I am 99% sure it wont be. Even the guys I got it from were not 100% sure. But for me there is still that 1%. :drool: Come on, show me the money!


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 2, 2007)

Did you per chance get a locale on this specimen? Where its from?

-Sean


----------



## Austin S. (May 2, 2007)

ShadowBlade said:


> Did you per chance get a locale on this specimen? Where its from?
> 
> -Sean


Europe.... so there is no tellin.


----------



## Michael Jacobi (May 2, 2007)

Click here.

As for the other _Hysterocrates _species, the genus is perhaps second only to _Avicularia_ in taxonomic uncertainty. Something I expect Mr. Gallon will correct in due course.

Best regards, Michael


----------



## EDED (May 2, 2007)

pictures wont help especially with Hysterocrates (other than notable differences in leg IV swellings)

can you tell the difference between this real ederi vs. any of the hobby Hysterocrates 'gigas' and 'crassipes' from pictures alone to species level?

http://www.the-t-store.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=7807&hl=ederi&st=0


----------



## Austin S. (May 5, 2007)

This is the specimen I bought from Europe. They labeled it under Hysterocrates hercules. This individual is 5", in pre molt. I bought it as unsexed, but got it out and it is 100% female. So I got lucky on the sex, not so sure about it being the "true" hercules. What do you all think? 
Here are some shots of her enclosure.
Label that was on shipping container.


----------



## P. Novak (May 5, 2007)

Hey Austin, I only see the picture with the label. Did you mean to only post that pic or others as well?


----------



## Austin S. (May 5, 2007)

Enclosure/container shots










Being in pre molt shes dull as of right now.


----------



## Austin S. (May 5, 2007)

She is a gorgeous spider, but I have absolutely no idea if she is the true "hercules" or not. No idea.


----------



## P. Novak (May 5, 2007)

That doesn't even look like a Hyserocrates spp. , looks like a C.crawshayi to me. Gorgeous none the less.


----------



## David Burns (May 5, 2007)

I'd almost say you have a Cithariscius crawshayi.

I have to be faster.


----------



## Hedorah99 (May 5, 2007)

Novak said:


> That doesn't even look like a Hyserocrates spp. , looks like a C.crawshayi to me. Gorgeous none the less.


I was just about to say that. Doesn't look like Hysterocrates. to me. Definitly a nice critter though.


----------



## beetleman (May 5, 2007)

wow :clap: beautiful baboon, you got me on the id,not sure either,she kinda looks like a REALLY BIG king baboon alittle, don't mind me asking but what do you pay for her? just courious. she is awesome at that!


----------



## P. Novak (May 5, 2007)

beetleman said:


> wow :clap: beautiful baboon, you got me on the id,not sure either,she kinda looks like a REALLY BIG king baboon alittle, don't mind me asking but what do you pay for her? just courious. she is awesome at that!


Actually she looks like a really small C.crawshayi because in the third pic there is a cricket next to her, and unless that cricket is huge, she is small.


----------



## Austin S. (May 5, 2007)

She is not a king baboon. Along with the mean ass attitude, she did not "hiss".  I have two very large adult crawshayis, this looks nothing like them...


----------



## P. Novak (May 5, 2007)

Hmmm, can you post pictures of your other two Kings Austin? 

She really looks like a C.crawshayi..


----------



## Austin S. (May 5, 2007)

This is my largest, the other is never out. Now to be honest with you, this does look like crawshayi and this SOB is going to get a hell of a talking.


----------



## CedrikG (May 5, 2007)

Hi,

not a doubt, this is _Citharischius crawshayi_


----------



## P. Novak (May 5, 2007)

Austin I really believe you just picked up another C.crawshayi. I can't see any differences from the supposed H.hercules and your C.crawsahyi.

Not like picking up another one is a bad thing.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 5, 2007)

That so looks like _C. crawshayi_.

-Sean


----------



## SSW.com (May 5, 2007)

We were the ones who sold this spider to Austin.  It is not C. crawshayi.  His picture does make it look like it is though.  More than likely it is not H. hercules...which we also told austin before he purchased the spider from us.  But i firmly believe it to be a Hysterocrates sp.   This is a prime example that shows that you cannot ID from a photo.  Below is a picture of another of these that was sold to us a H. hercules.    I hope Austin will post a pic of his again....without the flash maybe.  

Joel Miller


----------



## P. Novak (May 5, 2007)

Wow what a difference flash makes, Austin can you try taking pics without flash? The one Joel posted definately looks like a Hysterocrates spp.


----------



## David Burns (May 5, 2007)

Is it not possible that the one he has and the one you have are different species? I have 15 C.crawshayi and his look like them, given that is an ID from a pic. The pic you posted doesn't look like your average C.crawshayi, but again that is an ID from a pic.


----------



## SSW.com (May 5, 2007)

David Burns said:


> Is it not possible that the one he has and the one you have are different species? I have 15 C.crawshayi and his look like them, given that is an ID from a pic. The pic you posted doesn't look like your average C.crawshayi, but again that is an ID from a pic.



Well if it is C. crawshayi...then i need to slow way down on packing spiders as from my memory the one i sent out looks just like the one i have here.  But i am human and have made many mistakes. 

Joel


----------



## beetleman (May 5, 2007)

wow by looking at SSW pic that doesn't look like a king baboon at all,ive got 4 adult females they are very different,and yeah useing a flash makes a big difference,but you never know with this ssp.:?


----------



## beetleman (May 5, 2007)

just on another note i know it's still young,but it looks very leggy also,just my opinion either way it's an awesome spider.


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

Sorry I have not gotten back to this thread in a while, I was very busy tonight. Anyways, trying to take pics without a flash was a disaster. It is not like one of your normal cameras with just a switch of a button to turn the flash off, this lil bastard is hard to do. Just go everyone knows, the pics that I previously took look way to light than what this species actually looks like. Everytime it gives a threat display, no hissing. I have NEVER known any crawshayi that does not do this while being threatened. Crawshayi arent leggy also, this one is. She has very long legs and is a very dark orange, almost dark red color to her. But the no hissing subject for this one, dead givaway it is not crawshayi. Just for the record, SSW, calling you a SOB was uncalled for. I guess people and their suggestions can really get to you and lead you toover looks things. Tomorrow, I will figure this damn camera out and get some decent photos without the flash. Sound good?

Austin


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

However, as of for now, I have some pics I did take a lilttle bit ago. I could only take the brightness down. I'll figure out the no flash crap tomorrow. The last pic however, is without the flash, but it will not focus in on it if the cameras life depended on it. But I'll go ahead and post it for you.


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

Dunno why this pic did not show up.


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

Austin S. said:


> This is my largest, the other is never out. Now to be honest with you, this does look like crawshayi and this SOB is going to get a hell of a talking.


Look at the back thick legs here, see how they point inward like each crawshayi's do? The new one's do not...


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

I'm just going to say it. Hairy thick legs, not pointing inward, no hissing. This is not C. crawshayi. Sorry for the mix up.


----------



## SSW.com (May 6, 2007)

Hey Austin,  i did notice that she did have a very redish brown appearance before i sent her out....this is due to her being very well into her molt cycle....once she molts she will look totally different .....at that point ...you can take a pic and it will look alot different as well.   I think this is a real good lesson showing that "Kodak Taxonomy" does not work well.  Of course it would still be nice to know exactly what kind of Hysterocrates you have....your female has a lot of growing to do also....she looks like she is going to be a monster.  


Joel Miller


----------



## CedrikG (May 6, 2007)

Hi ...

No _Hysterocrates_ sp. or even _Phoneyusa_ sp. share these large tarsus and metatarsue ... I mean, a camera cannot change anything to the large apparence of these organs ... We're not talking of the coloration here ... No a doubt this is _Citharischius crawshayi_ to me.


----------



## SSW.com (May 6, 2007)

Hi Cedrik,  did you see the picture that i posted earlier in this thread?  Tell me what you think about that one please.  Thanks!

Joel Miller


----------



## CedrikG (May 6, 2007)

Hi,

Looks a lot more like a _Hysterocrates_ sp. ... in my opinion he lev IV are to large to be a _Hysterocrates hercules_, looks more like the _Hysterocrates ''gigas_'' found everywhere in the hobby.


----------



## SSW.com (May 6, 2007)

Hey Cedrik ,  thanks for the reply.  I have seen both of these spiders and they look the same in real life.  I really believe that Austins camera is deceiving us...not just in color.   I have had many C. crawshayi and in person they are easy to distinguish from Hysterocrates.  Even Austin has said that it doesnt look like his other C. crawshayi that he posted pics of.   Of course as i have said...i am human and prone to mistakes.   Hopefully Austin can get us some better pictures and we can come to a conclusion that we can agree on.  

Joel Miller


----------



## CedrikG (May 6, 2007)

Hi,

yes, I also am a human (at least I think so) and can be mistaking, can't wait to see the new pictures.


----------



## David_F (May 6, 2007)

Austin,

I can't see the pics of the "H. hercules" here at work for some reason but if you can get a pic of the labium and sternum of the spider it will quickly tell us whether it's a C. crawshayi or.....well, something different.  C. crawshayi will have a longer than wide labium while Hysterocrates spp. will have wider than long.  

While you're getting those pics, if you still have the exuvium from the last molt, try to get pics of the spermathecae,  outside (rear-facing) surface of the chelicerae, the inner (forward-facing) surface of the maxillae, and coxa and trochanter of leg I.

If this thing hasn't hissed at all, and it's really a Hysterocrates sp. or C. crawshayi, you're probably not annoying it enough. 

As far as it being a "real" H. "hercules"....there's absolutely no way to tell (at least that I'm aware of).  Try a search on the species and see what you come up with.

Oh yeah, for pics without flash, put some masking tape or something over the flash and just light the spider up with a desk lamp.  You should be able to focus fine but you really need strong light.

That should be the last edit. 



			
				CedrikG said:
			
		

> No Hysterocrates sp. or even Phoneyusa sp. share these large tarsus and metatarsue ...


Have you seen the pics of the "Hysterocrates sp." that Garrick had/has posted on his site?  Huge metatarsus and tarsus IV


----------



## CedrikG (May 6, 2007)

Hi,

no i've not, I was'nt on forum for the last months


----------



## David_F (May 6, 2007)

CedrikG said:


> Hi,
> 
> no i've not, I was'nt on forum for the last months


Ah, I see. 

Anywho, these are old pics.  Don't think he's got the spider any more but it was an interesting looking thing.  It is Specimen 2 on this page.

Sorry to derail your thread, Austin.


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

Not a prob David!

I took some pictures outside without a flash today. Yeah, I figured it out haha. Here is what I got.


----------



## Tim St. (May 6, 2007)

David_F said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> Anywho, these are old pics.  Don't think he's got the spider any more but it was an interesting looking thing.  It is Specimen 2 on this page.
> 
> Sorry to derail your thread, Austin.


Austins T looks like Specimen 2, look at the long hairs on the back legs


----------



## David_F (May 6, 2007)

LRG said:


> Austins T looks like Specimen 2, look at the long hairs on the back legs


I can't looks at the pics right now.  The computer at work won't load pics from hosting sites.  Gotta wait until I get home.

"Looks like" doesn't really solve much anyway.  Gotta look at the features I mentioned in a previous post to even begin to get an idea of sub-family and genus.  However, if it looks like that spider I'm extremely envious.


----------



## Brian S (May 6, 2007)

I personally label all of them as Hystocrates sp as there is not much way of knowing what they are unless you know exactly where they were originally collected from. There is a pretty good chance that the H gigas that are sold here are not even the true H gigas.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 6, 2007)

Brian S said:


> There is a pretty good chance that the H gigas that are sold here are not even the true H gigas.


Ain't that the truth!

My only comment I'll make on the specimen now in question, is what makes you think it even _could_ be _H. hercules_? This species has never been in the hobby. Jacobi has never even seen a live one?

-Sean


----------



## CedrikG (May 6, 2007)

Richard said ;



> Hysterocrates gigas
> This was the next species imported from mainland Africa, Cameroon. Males and young mature females have a thickened tibia on leg IV. Ironically this species is probably not the real gigas, but is "pet trade gigas". However really large females loose the thickened tibia IV (and were often sold as H. hercules). Now you understand why your "real hercules" spiderlings have got thickened tibia IV!





> This species has never been in the hobby. Jacobi has never even seen a live one?


How can you say that there never been any _Hysterocrates hercules_ in the hobby ? Especially when no_ Hysterocrates_ sp. are really idable due to the mess in this genus, and the miss of information for Id'ing them ...



David_F said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> Anywho, these are old pics.  Don't think he's got the spider any more but it was an interesting looking thing.  It is Specimen 2 on this page.


This is interesting David, very hard to tell the identification of this specimen on picture, unfrotauntyl theres'nt much information on this site


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 6, 2007)

CedrikG said:


> How can you say that there never been any _Hysterocrates hercules_ in the hobby ? Especially when no_ Hysterocrates_ sp. are really idable due to the mess in this genus, and the miss of information for Id'ing them ...


Click on the underline.

I meant it in the form of- no correct ID'd _hercules_ have been in the hobby, so anyone selling it as such is :?.


----------



## CedrikG (May 6, 2007)

Some people sell them but they're not real ... anyway ... how is it possible to proof that a _Hysterocrates hercules_ is a real one 

This said, the hobby goes deeper then just on forums, I would say that a TON of expert dont go on forums, so we just dont know what been/is in the hobby.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 6, 2007)

CedrikG said:


> Some people sell them but they're not real ... anyway ... how is it possible to proof that a _Hysterocrates hercules_ is a real one
> 
> This said, the hobby goes deeper then just on forums, I would say that a TON of expert dont go on forums, so we just dont know what been/is in the hobby.


That is _exactly_ why I'm asking him. What made him sell it as such? I'm just curious.

-Sean


----------



## David Burns (May 6, 2007)

Austin S. said:


> This is my largest, the other is never out. Now to be honest with you, this does look like crawshayi and this SOB is going to get a hell of a talking.


In this picture the back legs don't have the long setae that it has in later pics. The tarsi on the back legs are larger then later pics too. That is the pic I based my identification on.


----------



## P. Novak (May 6, 2007)

David Burns said:


> In this picture the back legs don't have the long setae that it has in later pics. The tarsi on the back legs are larger then later pics too. That is the pic I based my identification on.


In that picture, that is the actual C.crawshayi. He was just comparing it to the new T he picked up.


----------



## David Burns (May 6, 2007)

Novak said:


> In that picture, that is the actual C.crawshayi. He was just comparing it to the new T he picked up.


Notice the wording on top of the pic.

Maybe I am misunderstanding it. Sorry if I caused any trouble.


----------



## SSW.com (May 6, 2007)

ShadowBlade said:


> That is _exactly_ why I'm asking him. What made him sell it as such? I'm just curious.
> 
> -Sean





Sean,  we listed it as H. hercules ...because that is what we purchased it as from Europe.   Now that may not have been the right thing to do...but in our defence we did not sell it as that...I informed Austin that I was about absolutely certain that it was not H. hercules.  Anyone that inquired about it was told that. Maybe we should have listed it as just a Hystocrates sp.   but then we wouldnt have had this very informative discussion.    So we were not really trying to pass it off as a Hercules.


----------



## David_F (May 6, 2007)

Finally got a chance to look at the pics and it's definitely not a C. crawshayi (Was that even still up for debate?).  As has been mentioned, the hairs on legs IV are too long, the tibiae of legs IV are incrassate, and the tarsus and metatarsus of leg IV appears to be "normal" (it's just a bit difficult to tell due to the angles of the pics).  I'd say it's a Hysterocrates sp......at least what we know as Hysterocrates sp. in the hobby.  Procurved fovea, incrassate tibiae IV, long leg IV, etc.  No way to tell if it's H. hercules or H. gigas or H. crassipes or ........well, you get the point.

So.....how 'bout some pics of the metatarsal scopula of leg IV?  And when she molts spermathecae pics would be cool too.  

Nice spider, Austin.


----------



## Brian S (May 6, 2007)

SSW.com said:


> Maybe we should have listed it as just a Hystocrates sp.   but then we wouldnt have had this very informative discussion.


Hey Joel, 
Hows it going?
You do have a point. Its cool how these interesting discussions come out of nowhere. I just happen to be on the Tarantula Store site while back or I wouldnt have know how bad Hystocratres spp is all meesed up. Unfortunately it seems that the Pet Trade H gigas could possibly be a hybrid according to the Brits and I do trust their judgement and findings


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 6, 2007)

SSW.com said:


> because that is what we purchased it as from Europe.


Thank you, that is what I wanted to know. No problem.

-Sean


----------



## Austin S. (May 6, 2007)

SSW did inform me in telling me that this was not hercules, I thought I made that clear in this post... maybe not.  

David Burns- About the large crawshayi pic, I was referring to the female crawshayi's I do have. That was a pic of my largest one. There was a debate whether or not it was crawshayi so I posted a pic of one of mine. 

Thank you all for your time and effort in this, glad we "somewhat" got this figured out. I will get some pics of the metatarsal scopula of leg IV and when she molts (which should be soon) of the spermathecae also. I will keep you posted. 

Austin


----------

