# Genus Ischnocolus



## tarcan (Apr 10, 2009)

Got these cuties a few years ago, I really like them... the golden coloration is absolutly gorgeous.

I mated one female so far and have a few more to go, so hopefully I might have the chance to get a sac.

They were given to me as Chaetopelma adenense. This species has been synonymised with Ischnocolus jickelii. Who knows what they really are, but until anything new comes up, I keep them labelled as such.

Here are female and mature male













Hope you like em

Martin


----------



## tarcan (Apr 10, 2009)

Here is another picture of a female showing a little bit better the abdominal pattern.


----------



## tarcan (Apr 10, 2009)

Here is another species, maybe some off you have seen the picture on my site.

It is a female of another Ischnocolus sp. from Tunisia


----------



## Koh_ (Apr 10, 2009)

Hi Martin.
i'd like to know what differences are between  Ischnocolus  and chaetoplema.
Thanks!


----------



## tarcan (Apr 10, 2009)

Koh,

You are asking me? LOL, you have the wrong guy, I am no taxonomist, just a hobbyist.

Take care

Martin


----------



## syndicate (Apr 11, 2009)

Nice looking spiders there Martin!Pretty uncommon to!Best luck producing them  
-Chris


----------



## fartkowski (Apr 11, 2009)

Very nice Martin 
I'm guessing it's a smaller species?
I hope the breeding process goes well


----------



## tarcan (Jul 24, 2009)

Chris,

Oups, never answered you, yes they are small, females are about 1.5" to 2" legspan max.

I had three sacs eaten, at the fourth I got fed up and removed it right away. I opened it earlier this week. About half was no good, but still a few babies in there. Hopefully they make it to second instar.

Martin


----------



## AlainL (Jul 24, 2009)

They look very good Martin, congrats for your egg sac:clap:


----------



## fartkowski (Jul 25, 2009)

That's pretty cool Martin 
You can already see a bit of the abdomen pattern.


----------



## Zoltan (Jul 29, 2009)

Hi Koh,

Males are easy to distinguish, as _Ischnocolus_ males don't have a tibial apophysis on leg I, while _Chaetopelma_ males have two tibial apophyses on leg I. Females are a bit of a harder subject, I don't have any recent literature on _Ischnocolus_ (and there isn't much anyway), but the recent revision of _Chaetopelma_ by Guadanucci and Gallon gives some clues. The fovea (or thoracic groove) in _Ischnocolus_ ranges from procurved to straight, in _Chaetopelma_ it ranges from straight to recurved. Furthermore, in _Ischnocolus_ the tarsal scopulae on all legs are divided, but in _Chaetopelma_ - according to Guadanucci and Gallon's description - only divided on legs II-IV by a band of thick setae. Hope this helps.

Martin, really nice spiders!  It's a pity they aren't really popular and available in the trade.


----------



## Koh_ (Jul 29, 2009)

Zoltan said:


> Hi Koh,
> 
> Males are easy to distinguish, as _Ischnocolus_ males don't have a tibial apophysis on leg I, while _Chaetopelma_ males have two tibial apophyses on leg I. Females are a bit of a harder subject, I don't have any recent literature on _Ischnocolus_ (and there isn't much anyway), but the recent revision of _Chaetopelma_ by Guadanucci and Gallon gives some clues. The fovea (or thoracic groove) in _Ischnocolus_ ranges from procurved to straight, in _Chaetopelma_ it ranges from straight to recurved. Furthermore, in _Ischnocolus_ the tarsal scopulae on all legs are divided, but in _Chaetopelma_ - according to Guadanucci and Gallon's description - only divided on legs II-IV by a band of thick setae. Hope this helps.
> 
> Martin, really nice spiders!  It's a pity they aren't really popular and available in the trade.



Thanks Zoltan!
really appreciate it.  it was such a big help. 

i've never seen any Ischnocolus species in person, and it seemed Chaetopelma and Ischnocolus from the pics above are nearly indentical as im not an expert. (i've kept some chaetopelma olivaceums).
Thanks for the good info again Zoltan.:clap:


----------



## tarcan (Jul 29, 2009)

Zoltan,

Thanks for the info.

Just wanted to add that Richard has accepted to have a look at some specimens and molts I will send him, so we might get more information on them in the future!

Martin


----------



## Zoltan (Jul 30, 2009)

Koh_ said:


> i've never seen any Ischnocolus species in person, and it seemed Chaetopelma and Ischnocolus from the pics above are nearly indentical as im not an expert.


Initially _Chaetopelma_ was merely a subgenus of _Ischnocolus_, so they are obviously very closely related. According to the 2008 revision, in addition to the two tibial apophyses on males, _Chaetopelma_ differs from all other ischnocoline genera (except _Nesiergus_), by having "clavate trichobothria* in two rows on the tarsi, maxillary serrula** absent, paired tarsal claws of both sexes without teeth". You won't be able to check these features without a microscope, except maybe the third. Also, I'm not completely sure if each of these characters is unique to _Chaetopelma_ or the combination of them makes separation from other genera possible, but based on the text, I'd say it's the former. I'd also like to add, don't base the identification on tarsal scopulation when working with immature specimens, as this can change with age, and it can be different in immature specimens than in adults.

*sensory structures on the legs.
**the maxillae are the modified first segments of the pedipalps (as far as I know, more precisely called gnathocoxa[e]), which form the sides of the mouth parts. The inner part of the maxillae may be serrated (formed like little saw-like teeth), this is to help cutting the prey.

Here's a full reference to the article:
Guadanucci, J. P. L. & Gallon, R. C. 2008. *A revision of the spider genera .Chaetopelma Ausserer 1871 and Nesiergus Simon 1903 (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Ischnocolinae)* _Zootaxa 1753: 34–48_.


----------

