# Mystery T. un-mystified



## vincent.shaw (Mar 6, 2013)

So I was given a s'ling many years ago, no idea what it was. I took some pictures back in April 2009:




I originally thought, possible _Haplopelma_ sp. or possibly _Ornithoctonus_ sp. 

I haven't seen this tarantula until the other day, when I saw a leg and decided to tempt it out with a cricket - resulting in some terrible, out of focus pictures:





I realised it was much darker, and a lot bigger for the setup I had for it, so I took it to a local pet shop where I know a guy knowledgeable in Tarantulas to try and ID this spider for me, after 4 years! and also to get some pictures for me. The results are stunning:





She has been identified as_ Lampropelma nigerrimum _, and I have to say I am one happy guy!  After years of treating her as a burrowing species, I now know she is in fact arboreal, so modifications to her set WILL be made asap. 

More pictures will follow as soon as I rehouse her and she gets the opportunity to throw some poses my way.


----------



## advan (Mar 6, 2013)

That is not a _Lampropelma nigerrimum_. It looks like a _Haplopelma_ sp. to me. Possibly _H. minax_.

Either way, nice spider!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## vincent.shaw (Mar 6, 2013)

I was thinking that originally, but had two people suggest L. nigerrimum? I shall get some clearer shots within the next few days and post them up.


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 6, 2013)

advan said:


> That is not a _Lampropelma nigerrimum_. It looks like a _Haplopelma_ sp. to me. Possibly _H. minax_.
> 
> Either way, nice spider!



definitely agree its a haplopelma just seeing the sling pic it was screaming haplopelma looks like so many of my sling its not even funny. could be the following minax or hainanum. I would throw out haplopelma doriae, but I doubt they even in the hobby yet.


----------



## paassatt (Mar 6, 2013)

vincent.shaw said:


> I was thinking that originally, but had two people suggest L. nigerrimum? I shall get some clearer shots within the next few days and post them up.


You never saw it at all during feedings or anything for the past few years?


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 6, 2013)

also if you been keeping it as a fossorial species and it has a burrow and everything thing. why would you suddenly assume it was arboreal all along?


----------



## vincent.shaw (Mar 6, 2013)

No I never saw the T, it was always hidden, the most I got to see was a toe here or there. The spider was wild caught in Thailand somewhere by someone I used to know, so I guess it could be anything. I'm just going by what I was told the other day, regardless - she's still beautiful. She still needs re-housing so I guess I could give her the option to climb or dig and see which she goes for? This spider has had me stumped for so long guys, I thought I finally got somewhere!


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 6, 2013)

vincent.shaw said:


> No I never saw the T, it was always hidden, the most I got to see was a toe here or there. The spider was wild caught in Thailand somewhere by someone I used to know, so I guess it could be anything. I'm just going by what I was told the other day, regardless - she's still beautiful. She still needs re-housing so I guess I could give her the option to climb or dig and see which she goes for? This spider has had me stumped for so long guys, I thought I finally got somewhere!


it is a stunning T regardless, if it is a H. max it you will have one jealous guy in the U.S. thats for sure


----------



## vincent.shaw (Mar 6, 2013)

spiderengineer said:


> it is a stunning T regardless, if it is a H. max it you will have one jealous guy in the U.S. thats for sure


Cheers! I'm really excited to get her out and get some decent pictures, just need to get a new setup sorted for her and loan a camera off a friend. I'll keep you posted. Can you not get H. minax in the US? Or have you just not got one?


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 6, 2013)

vincent.shaw said:


> Cheers! I'm really excited to get her out and get some decent pictures, just need to get a new setup sorted for her and loan a camera off a friend. I'll keep you posted. Can you not get H. minax in the US? Or have you just not got one?


I have yet to find one and it seems like they are only found in other countries. if I did find one I would imagine it would be outrageously expensive thats why I don't have a H. bach ma. they are close to a hundred dollars a sling

---------- Post added 03-06-2013 at 05:54 PM ----------

I am wondering if its Chilobrachys dyscolus or something from the Cyriopagopus genus could be also possibility. I don't have experience with that species or genus so I could be wrong


----------



## catfishrod69 (Mar 6, 2013)

Here is what a L. nigerrimum female looks like.







My guess is you have a Haplopelma as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## vincent.shaw (Mar 6, 2013)

That's a pretty T Catfishrod, thanks for sharing! 

I was originally thinking it could belong to Cyriopagopus or Haplopelma... I'll make sure I get some decent shots from all angles, and I'll post them either on this thread or in the ID section.


----------



## catfishrod69 (Mar 6, 2013)

Thanks! It could be a Cyriopagopus, i dont know enough of the species to be sure though. Yep some really good shots will help out alot.


----------



## Alltheworld601 (Mar 6, 2013)

If its a Cyriopagopus, then it should be an in arboreal setup, shouldn't it?  I have one of those but its just a baby.  As a sling it has built underground tunnels and dirt turrets.  But I'm waiting for it to start hanging out higher.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Mar 6, 2013)

Beautiful spider, regardless of what it turns out to be.


----------



## DannyH (Mar 6, 2013)

I would put my vote out for haplopelma. They can get pretty dark.


----------



## syndicate (Mar 6, 2013)

Haplopelma Minax

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (Mar 6, 2013)

Definitely not L. nigerrimum.


----------



## Lopez (Mar 7, 2013)

catfishrod69 said:


> It could be a Cyriopagopus, i dont know enough of the species to be sure though.


Why would it be Cyriopagopus?

I wish people would stay out of threads that they don't have enough relevant knowledge and experience on to comment with some degree of authority. Posts like yours just add noise and confusion to the original poster. Sorry if you think this is harsh but you do this sort of thing all the time on this forum and it just makes a complicated topic even more complicated than it needs to be.

I agree with syndicate - quite probably a Haplopelma minax. Keep it as you have already been doing.


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 7, 2013)

Lopez said:


> Why would it be Cyriopagopus?
> 
> I wish people would stay out of threads that they don't have enough relevant knowledge and experience on to comment with some degree of authority. Posts like yours just add noise and confusion to the original poster. Sorry if you think this is harsh but you do this sort of thing all the time on this forum and it just makes a complicated topic even more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> I agree with syndicate - quite probably a Haplopelma minax. Keep it as you have already been doing.


technically I threw it out as a possibility. the reason I suggested it was because he said he got it from a friend who went to Vietnam. and Cyriopagopus is an Asian genus and burrow species it belong to the sub family Ornithoctoninae that haplopelma are in. I know that this sub family has been change around in years so that some haploplema ended up belong to different genus. so I wasn't just throwing out a random genus.


----------



## Lopez (Mar 7, 2013)

spiderengineer said:


> he got it from a friend who went to Vietnam. and Cyriopagopus is an Asian genus


Asia is a big place! I don't know of any Cyriopagopus from Vietnam, although I'm far from an expert in the field.



> I know that this sub family has been change around in years so that some haploplema ended up belong to different genus. so I wasn't just throwing out a random genus.


If you're talking about what was sold in the pet trade as "Cyriopagopus paganus" actually being a Haplopelma, that was nothing to do with science and everything to do with lack of education/guesswork on the part of collectors/traders - no actual classification changes ever happened. The only other transfers have included Ornithoctonus/Haplopelma to the best of my knowledge, not Cyriopagopus.


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 7, 2013)

Lopez said:


> Asia is a big place! I don't know of any Cyriopagopus from Vietnam, although I'm far from an expert in the field.
> 
> 
> If you're talking about what was sold in the pet trade as "Cyriopagopus paganus" actually being a Haplopelma, that was nothing to do with science and everything to do with lack of education/guesswork on the part of collectors/traders - no actual classification changes ever happened. The only other transfers have included Ornithoctonus/Haplopelma to the best of my knowledge, not Cyriopagopus.


fair enough I just think its better to explain why that can't be right so that the person suggesting learns from this and allows them to gain knowledge. instead of just saying your wrong and telling them to stay out of this. doesn't help the situation and nothing is gain from it.

---------- Post added 03-07-2013 at 09:59 AM ----------

also I was wrong he said thailand not vietnam, but he said he said it was wild caught and given to him from a some one he use to know.


----------



## advan (Mar 7, 2013)

spiderengineer said:


> fair enough I just think its better to explain why that can't be right so that the person suggesting learns from this and allows them to gain knowledge. instead of just saying your wrong and telling them to stay out of this. doesn't help the situation and nothing is gain from it.


It takes time to correct people and give a detailed description supporting why the other poster was wrong. One reason why a lot of the knowledgeable people barely post and just look the other way. It can also be said for your reply too, why did you think it could be _Chilobrachys_ or _Cyriopagopus_? Where are your details supporting why you thought it could be from those genera? If you ran a search Leon has posted a lot of good information regarding _Haplopelma_. Considering from what I've gathered, you are a big fan of _Haplopelma_, I suggest you run that search. 

As confusing as it is with WC spiders, led alone _Haplopelma_, throwing out a random genus helps no one and it led to other worthless posts regarding keeping the spider arboreal.

While I'm not as versed in Ornithoctoninae as Chris or Leon, the things that stuck out to me were the size and shape of the carapace, the stripes on the patellas, and the over-all bulk of the spider. Seeing it's from Thailand the overall black coloring and lack of tiger stripes on the abdomen led me to _H. minax_. To my understanding the northern specimens of _H. minax_ lack the tiger striping(please correct me if I'm wrong).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 7, 2013)

advan said:


> why did you think it could be _Chilobrachys_ or _Cyriopagopus_? Where are your details supporting why you thought it could be from those genera?


well the specific species I was suggesting for chilobrachys genus was Chilobrachys sp. "Kaeng Krachan" or Chilobrachys dyscolus  which are located in thailand and Vietnam. what I been reading they are burrowing and look almost identical to the T in question. as far as  why the Cyriopagopus, well lopez, which is am assuming is leon basically explain the confusion I was having with it, because their was another recent thread where some one was trying to identify haplopelma and it appeared to be H. longipes, but some one was talking about it being a Cyriopagopus paganus. apparently their was small difference between then two. he  was saying it was similiar in care. however thanks to leon information it seem I understand their was just missinform people selling the wrong species. in the end from what I have been looking up it seemed like the haplopelma seemed have have lost of few species from its genus and went to other in the sub family Ornithoctoninae, but I guess it was only in one genus and not all of them. on another unrelated topic I don't think H. bach ma belong in the haploplema genus but that is a different topic entirely 

---------- Post added 03-07-2013 at 12:42 PM ----------




advan said:


> If you ran a search Leon has posted a lot of good information regarding _Haplopelma_. Considering from what I've gathered, you are a big fan of _Haplopelma_, I suggest you run that search.
> .


I definitely will thank you


----------



## catfishrod69 (Mar 7, 2013)

Thanks once again for showing me how you deal with people who say something COULD be something. I didnt say that is is 100% hands down. I just said COULD be. I do this thing all the time?, now thats kind of funny. If someone asks " what is this", and i dont know but give a guess, how does that hurt? If the critter is later ID'd, and a newer reader happens to read that, wouldnt they have the brains to read what it was actually ID'd as? 

Man, you really need your own forum, you would make one hell of a moderator. Better yet why not become a supervisor where i work. One more boss that acts this way really isnt gonna hurt. 





Lopez said:


> Why would it be Cyriopagopus?
> 
> I wish people would stay out of threads that they don't have enough relevant knowledge and experience on to comment with some degree of authority. Posts like yours just add noise and confusion to the original poster. Sorry if you think this is harsh but you do this sort of thing all the time on this forum and it just makes a complicated topic even more complicated than it needs to be.


----------



## Balvala (Mar 7, 2013)

Lopez said:


> Why would it be Cyriopagopus?
> 
> I wish people would stay out of threads that they don't have enough relevant knowledge and experience on to comment with some degree of authority. Posts like yours just add noise and confusion to the original poster. Sorry if you think this is harsh but you do this sort of thing all the time on this forum and it just makes a complicated topic even more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> I agree with syndicate - quite probably a Haplopelma minax. Keep it as you have already been doing.


Here's an image of a Cyriopagopus sp. "Sulawesi Black" that looks very similar to the original posters image: http://ppterra.webd.pl/galeria/ptaszniki/Cyriopagopus/index.html

Which might be a possible candidate as a suggestion from someone who is merely attempting to offer their opinion. It shouldn't beckon your blatantly rude intolerance toward just that, by any means.

Take care.


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Mar 7, 2013)

A quick look, though, shows that the Sulawesi black is quite different than the OP's T.  Both are black and that's about it.  Rudeness notwithstanding, he does make a valid point, which Advan elaborated on.  (Spiderengineer also made a valid point, too, that once it is identified all invalid guesses are null.)


----------



## Lopez (Mar 7, 2013)

Balvala said:


> Here's an image of a Cyriopagopus sp. "Sulawesi Black" that looks very similar to the original posters image:
> 
> Which might be a possible candidate as a suggestion from someone who is merely attempting to offer their opinion. It shouldn't beckon your blatantly rude intolerance toward just that, by any means.
> 
> Take care.


Very similar in that it has eight legs and is largely black.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Balvala (Mar 7, 2013)

Lopez said:


> Very similar in that it has eight legs and is largely black.


Correct, which is why I wasn't stating that I had thought it was from the genus suggested, I was merely claiming that might have been a clear reason for confusion. It doesn't disregard how unnecessarily frustrated you were toward John's comment. 

I too, however, would further have to agree more toward the _H. Minax_ decision after what I've observed thus far. It doesn't really matter either way because advan's information is much more desirable than me merely saving face by making this post in the first place.


----------



## Lopez (Mar 8, 2013)

advan said:


> It takes time to correct people and give a detailed description supporting why the other poster was wrong. One reason why a lot of the knowledgeable people barely post and just look the other way.


This is true - and I admit that my replies last night were blunt as I was going out and didn't have a lot of time to construct a full response



			
				advan said:
			
		

> ]It can also be said for your reply too, why did you think it could be _Chilobrachys_ or _Cyriopagopus_? Where are your details supporting why you thought it could be from those genera?


This is also very true!



			
				advan said:
			
		

> As confusing as it is with WC spiders, led alone _Haplopelma_, throwing out a random genus helps no one and it led to other worthless posts regarding keeping the spider arboreal.


Which was exactly the point I was making 



spiderengineer said:


> well the specific species I was suggesting for chilobrachys genus was Chilobrachys sp. "Kaeng Krachan" or Chilobrachys dyscolus  which are located in thailand and Vietnam


We are not in a position to see the stridulating organ but we can make an educated guess based on the overall shape and structure of the creature. What makes you think it could have been from the Selenocosminae?



			
				spiderengineer said:
			
		

> what I been reading they are burrowing and look almost identical to the T in question.


No, not really. 



			
				spiderengineer said:
			
		

> as far as  why the Cyriopagopus, well lopez, which is am assuming is leon basically explain the confusion I was having with it, because their was another recent thread where some one was trying to identify haplopelma and it appeared to be H. longipes, but some one was talking about it being a Cyriopagopus paganus. apparently their was small difference between then two. he  was saying it was similiar in care. however thanks to leon information it seem I understand their was just missinform people selling the wrong species. in the end from what I have been looking up it seemed like the haplopelma seemed have have lost of few species from its genus and went to other in the sub family Ornithoctoninae, but I guess it was only in one genus and not all of them.


Okay, in basic terms.

For a few years, big black spiders were imported for the wild. Dealers, traders, whoever, called them "Cyriopagopus paganus" - which was quite literally an uneducated stab in the dark
After a lot of research these spiders were found to largely be a mix of 3 species (2 of which were undescribed at the time) - H.minax, H.longipes, H.vonwirthi
Although things have improved over the last ten years, and people in the hobby and trade are better educated, people still drag up the name of "Cyriopagopus paganus" when discussing big black Asian tarantulas. The type of C.paganus is supposedly lost and the description poor so it's not possible at this stage to ascertain if C.paganus is any of the above species, assuming it's a valid description in the first place. Please be aware I've not followed this topic closely for some years so that last sentence may be a little out of date.



			
				spiderengineer said:
			
		

> on another unrelated topic I don't think H. bach ma belong in the haploplema genus but that is a different topic entirely



Pour quoi?



catfishrod69 said:


> Thanks once again for showing me how you deal with people who say something COULD be something. I didnt say that is is 100% hands down. I just said COULD be. I do this thing all the time?, now thats kind of funny. If someone asks " what is this", and i dont know but give a guess, how does that hurt? If the critter is later ID'd, and a newer reader happens to read that, wouldnt they have the brains to read what it was actually ID'd as?
> 
> Man, you really need your own forum, you would make one hell of a moderator. Better yet why not become a supervisor where i work. One more boss that acts this way really isnt gonna hurt.


I've explained to you in the past the confusion your "stab in the dark" guesses have on people, so I won't do it again. Feel free to carry on as you are, I'll do my best to ignore your posts in future if my comments offend you 

Oh Arachnoboards, how I have missed you :biggrin:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## advan (Mar 8, 2013)

catfishrod69 said:


> Man, you really need your own forum, you would make one hell of a moderator.


I guess you haven't been around enough to know why that statement is actually pretty funny. 



Lopez said:


> The type of C.paganus is supposedly lost and the description poor so it's not possible at this stage to ascertain if C.paganus is any of the above species, assuming it's a valid description in the first place. Please be aware I've not followed this topic closely for some years so that last sentence may be a little out of date.


The holotype is deposited in the Calcutta Museum per Von Wirth. He said he hasn't been able to gain access to it. Considering _C. paganus_ is the type species for the genus, if it's examined and proven to be what we know now as _Haplopelma_, there's going to be a lot of disgruntled people that hate changing labels! 

P.S. We've missed you too!


----------



## arachnidsrva (Mar 8, 2013)

i thank its one of those crazy Haplopelma that change entirely

there are so many - If Haplofool (Jason Wallace) ever surfaces I'll show him this thread


----------



## Lopez (Mar 8, 2013)

advan said:


> I guess you haven't been around enough to know why that statement is actually pretty funny.
> 
> The holotype is deposited in the Calcutta Museum per Von Wirth. He said he hasn't been able to gain access to it. Considering _C. paganus_ is the type species for the genus, if it's examined and proven to be what we know now as _Haplopelma_, there's going to be a lot of disgruntled people that hate changing labels!
> 
> P.S. We've missed you too!


Thanks - I'd heard about the Calcutta story but not from a reliable source so didn't want to quote it 

I do genuinely enjoy posting here, I'm fully aware that a lot of (particularly American) hobbyists find me abrasive but hey ho, can't please everyone

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## advan (Mar 8, 2013)

Lopez said:


> Thanks - I'd heard about the Calcutta story but not from a reliable source so didn't want to quote it
> 
> I do genuinely enjoy posting here, I'm fully aware that a lot of (particularly American) hobbyists find me abrasive but hey ho, can't please everyone


Thin skin?  I would take abrasive, solid information over cherry-on-top, happy-go-lucky misinformation(or in this case shots in the abyss) any day!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 8, 2013)

that was very informative lopez thanks, but I never suggested it was from the Selenocosminae genus


----------



## freedumbdclxvi (Mar 8, 2013)

I believe he meant the subfamily of selenocosminae, which Chilobrachys is a part of, not the genus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## spiderengineer (Mar 8, 2013)

freedumbdclxvi said:


> I believe he meant the subfamily of selenocosminae, which Chilobrachys is a part of, not the genus.


I see well I was looking at this thread

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?213034-Chilobrachys-Dyscolus
which made me think it could be

but since syndicate posted on here saying it was a H. minax then I doudt it Chilobrachys Dyscolus. so I will just go with H. minax like everybody else


----------



## Lopez (Mar 8, 2013)

spiderengineer said:


> but I never suggested it was from the Selenocosminae genus


Selenocosmiinae is a subfamily not a genus. And Chilobrachys belongs to the Selenocosminae subfamily.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## vincent.shaw (Apr 5, 2013)

So, she finally came out for a photoshoot - whatever she is. Hope you guys enjoy  









Also, could anyone advise if that red bump on the carapace is of concern? And what it is?


----------



## vincent.shaw (Apr 5, 2013)

And here's another


----------



## spiderengineer (Apr 5, 2013)

yeah I think I will go with haplopelma minax as far as the red stuff maybe just something that got stuck on her, not sure what it could be other than that.


----------



## Arachtion (Apr 5, 2013)

spiderengineer said:


> definitely agree its a haplopelma just seeing the sling pic it was screaming haplopelma looks like so many of my sling its not even funny. could be the following minax or hainanum. I would throw out haplopelma doriae, but I doubt they even in the hobby yet.


They most certainly are! here is my demonic doriae  and on the ID sling looks Haplopelma so I'd say minax,as it lacks the cheliceral "beards" of hainanum


----------



## Arachtion (Apr 5, 2013)

vincent.shaw said:


> And here's another
> 
> View attachment 115163


Didn't see that before I replied, 100% minax, and a magnificent specimen at that


----------



## Scourge (Apr 8, 2013)

Yep Haplopelma sp., could be minax, or one of the minax lookalikes. You say your friend collected it in Thailand? If you know the location it was found, we could narrow it down to which sp. it is most likely to be. For example, if it comes from the northwest it's likely to be the big black lookalike, but if it comes from around Erawan it could be the real minax.


----------

