# A. avicularia vs A. metallica



## Phases (Dec 6, 2017)

Hey all.

I have one of each of these, well, or do I? That's the question. They were sold as such but really I can't tell a daggum difference barely between the two. 

I will be able to post pictures when I get home of them like, side by side or similiar pictures - but in the meantime what are some of the differences I can look for if they otherwise appear mostly the same, color, pattern, etc.

Actually, here..

This one was sold as A. a: https://www.instagram.com/p/BbUsBruhNAq/?taken-by=project_tarantula

This one as A. m: https://www.instagram.com/p/BcAWqUcBPWU/?taken-by=project_tarantula

Hard to see diffs in those but, you get the gist. They are very similar.

Any insight appreciated!


----------



## KezyGLA (Dec 6, 2017)

They are both Avicularia avicularia but metallica is a different morphotype I think. 

@CEC is your man for the facts

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 2


----------



## cold blood (Dec 6, 2017)

metallica, or avic avic morph 6, wont have red hairs on its rump....the normal avic avic does.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Moonohol (Dec 6, 2017)

cold blood said:


> metallica, or avic avic morph 6, wont have red hairs on its rump....the normal avic avic does.


I thought A. geroldi was Morphotype 6?


----------



## 14pokies (Dec 6, 2017)

Moonohol said:


> I thought A. geroldi was Morphotype 6?


I believe they are as well but a different morhpotype 6 from different species. Not sure the latest revision is too much to keep straight.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## 14pokies (Dec 6, 2017)

Phases said:


> Hey all.
> 
> I have one of each of these, well, or do I? That's the question. They were sold as such but really I can't tell a daggum difference barely between the two.
> 
> ...


Second one looks like the former metallica.  That's not saying much though..

Hard to Id this species through pictures.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Vanessa (Dec 6, 2017)

Avicularia avicularia - https://www.instagram.com/p/BbFK83shRIC/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan
Avicularia avicularia - https://www.instagram.com/p/BZyc_XkhcR0/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan

Avicularia metallica - https://www.instagram.com/p/BcBdLWjB98Z/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan
Avicularia metallica - https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb4fTYmBvlk/?taken-by=vanessa_arachnovegan

All these individuals are almost the same size and are all adults or sub-adults.

Your first photo looks like an Avicularia avicularia and the second photo is not clear enough, nor provides enough detail, to make a guess either way.


----------



## CEC (Dec 6, 2017)

Phases said:


> Hey all.
> 
> I have one of each of these, well, or do I? That's the question. They were sold as such but really I can't tell a daggum difference barely between the two.
> 
> ...


IMO they're are both Avicularia avicularia morphotype #6, or former metallica, especially the first one pictured since it's a clear shot which would explain your confusion because the differences should be noticeable side by side. 
As mentioned before pet trade "metallica" have thick whitish brown abdominal setae and grizzly white tipped leg setae which is clearly shown in the first pic. These also reach 6+" DLS.
Avicularia avicularia morphotype #1 (pet trade Avicularia avicularia) have thin red abdominal setae,(especially fresh from molt), less grizzled without white tipped setae. These get about 4-5" DLS.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Helpful 2


----------



## viper69 (Dec 7, 2017)

DNA DNA DNA

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 3 | Funny 2


----------



## Phases (Dec 7, 2017)

To me they look the same. Same colors, just that one might have thicker hair. No red.. Also I have one down for 4.5" and one down for 5+".  One has barricaded herself in her web, she may be getting ready to fast for a while, so soon as I can, I will, and will tag you (guys). Thank you,


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Dec 7, 2017)

viper69 said:


> DNA DNA DNA


Well, lets start by educating people on how to follow dichotomous keys and using morphology to get in the ball park.  DNA (whether mitochondrial or nuclear) is a good tool for delimiting species, but useless for the vast majority of people who just want a species identification.

I hear there is a good revision of Avicularia that was published recently that provides a good diagnosis of Avicularia avicularia and its variations.  Using it, one can easily determine whether their pet trade Avicularia metallica keys to a form of A. avicularia.  Given there can't be an identification with any certainty based on a picture, the next step is to follow the key to Avicularia species.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## viper69 (Dec 9, 2017)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> Well, lets start by educating people on how to follow dichotomous keys and using morphology to get in the ball park.  DNA (whether mitochondrial or nuclear) is a good tool for delimiting species, but useless for the vast majority of people who just want a species identification.
> 
> I hear there is a good revision of Avicularia that was published recently that provides a good diagnosis of Avicularia avicularia and its variations.  Using it, one can easily determine whether their pet trade Avicularia metallica keys to a form of A. avicularia.  Given there can't be an identification with any certainty based on a picture, the next step is to follow the key to Avicularia species.


As I've said before cladistics is simply not enough.

The revision is good, I waited years for it, a good beginning. However it would have been strengthened significantly by DNA. It would be nice to know what A metallica really is. Morphotype (insert #) is not sufficient.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## CEC (Dec 9, 2017)

viper69 said:


> As I've said before cladistics is simply not enough.
> 
> The revision is good, I waited years for it, a good beginning. However it would have been strengthened significantly by DNA. It would be nice to know what A metallica really is. Morphotype (insert #) is not sufficient.


Not sufficient for hobbyists, sure... but sufficient to scientists apparently.


----------



## viper69 (Dec 10, 2017)

CEC said:


> Not sufficient for hobbyists, sure... but sufficient to scientists apparently.


This is not entirely true. Yes the paper was accepted without DNA data. However, there are arachnologists and other scientists that feel DNA is quite useful, hence the Hamilton/Bond paper on Apho. revision!


----------



## Phases (Dec 11, 2017)

Welp, this has flown right over my head lol. It's almost like scientific names have become common names for the extra-enthused!  I can see why proper differentiation would be important though. 

That said, we might have two A. metallicas here. Again still waiting for one to emerge though before I can post proper pictures. Course the way things are molting left and right around my parts it shouldn't be too long heh. Unless of course she goes the route of our A. chalcodes - in which case she may be in pre-molt until the end of time.


----------



## CEC (Jan 8, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> Well, lets start by educating people on how to follow dichotomous keys and using morphology to get in the ball park.  DNA (whether mitochondrial or nuclear) is a good tool for delimiting species, but useless for the vast majority of people who just want a species identification.
> 
> I hear there is a good revision of Avicularia that was published recently that provides a good diagnosis of Avicularia avicularia and its variations.  Using it, one can easily determine whether their pet trade Avicularia metallica keys to a form of A. avicularia.  Given there can't be an identification with any certainty based on a picture, the next step is to follow the key to Avicularia species.


Well said.



viper69 said:


> As I've said before cladistics is simply not enough.
> 
> The revision is good, I waited years for it, a good beginning. However it would have been strengthened significantly by DNA. It would be nice to know what A metallica really is. Morphotype (insert #) is not sufficient.


What you got against Morphotypes, Chris? Lol Just another label to me. Whether separated by morphotypes or a species label, what's the difference to us hobbyists?
DNA is useful to scientists but not really useful to hobbyists, it makes identification even more complicated. DNA is nice for a solid classification but it means squat to hobbyist trying to ID without locality data or close examination, example _Aphonopelma_ revision...
Unfortunately, DNA won't be useful in determining if your "metallica" is actually a real _Avicularia_ _metallica either,_ since there is not a type specimen to compare.


----------



## CEC (Jan 8, 2018)

viper69 said:


> This is not entirely true.


 Sarcasm.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 8, 2018)

CEC said:


> What you got against Morphotypes


Nothing per se.



CEC said:


> Just another label to me


To you, not to me. Just label your Avics like this, Moe, Larry and Curly 



CEC said:


> Whether separated by morphotypes or a species label, what's the difference to us hobbyists?


It can be significant actually. It could mean the difference between producing pure breds, or producing FrankenTs. I'd like to know if hobbyists are putting identical species together, and not various morphotypes. As many have asked since the revision, "if it's the same species, can't I just breed them?"



CEC said:


> DNA is useful to scientists but not really useful to hobbyists


See above answer.



CEC said:


> it makes identification even more complicated


DNA doesn't necessarily do that. It provides another piece of data to add with cladistics to make a more powerful determination of a species.

There are many examples of DNA being used to identify 2 animals as different species, or subspecies.



CEC said:


> since there is not a type specimen to compare


Unfortunately true


----------



## viper69 (Jan 8, 2018)

CEC said:


> Sarcasm.


Is not always conveyed by the written word.


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 9, 2018)

viper69 said:


> DNA doesn't necessarily do that. It provides another piece of data to add with cladistics to make a more powerful determination of a species.


The authors of the Avicularia revision acknowledge that the morphotypes of Avicularia avicularia could be a matter of cryptic species and that additional lines of evidence, including molecular data, are needed to make a more accurate determination on that matter.  No one is arguing against the use of DNA as a valuable piece of evidence to delimit species and to identify a tarantula to species level.  As you know, it has been used multiple times in spider taxonomy to great success.

The argument here is the lack of usefulness in using a gene sequence to average Joes like myself.  Instead of arguing the point, I would like to hear from you how that would be possible.  Hypothetically, lets say in some miraculous set of circumstances Avicularia metallica was no longer considered nomen dubium, was considered a valid species, and found to be morphologically indistinguishable from A. avicularia, but could be distinguished by a sequence of the CO1 gene which is published in GenBank.  How would I, an every day tarantula collector, use that information to determine that the Avicularia metallica I bought was really that species?

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> How would I, an every day tarantula collector, use that information to determine that the Avicularia metallica I bought was really that species?


Generally speaking you wouldn't. In the context you presented, that's never been my point, never. However, my drum beat for DNA is not about morphologically identical specimens, it never has been, and it never will be as it relates to the average owner.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CEC (Jan 9, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> The authors of the Avicularia revision acknowledge that the morphotypes of Avicularia avicularia could be a matter of cryptic species and that additional lines of evidence, including molecular data, are needed to make a more accurate determination on that matter.  No one is arguing against the use of DNA as a valuable piece of evidence to delimit species and to identify a tarantula to species level.  As you know, it has been used multiple times in spider taxonomy to great success.
> 
> The argument here is the lack of usefulness in using a gene sequence to average Joes like myself.  Instead of arguing the point, I would like to hear from you how that would be possible.  Hypothetically, lets say in some miraculous set of circumstances Avicularia metallica was no longer considered nomen dubium, was considered a valid species, and found to be morphologically indistinguishable from A. avicularia, but could be distinguished by a sequence of the CO1 gene which is published in GenBank.  How would I, an every day tarantula collector, use that information to determine that the Avicularia metallica I bought was really that species?


Exactly... 

DNA really only helps taxonomist determine a species not hobbyists seeking a label... Hobby material would have to be examined (which puts us right back where we started until all hobby material is examined). As you know, you're dreaming if you think that'll be done. So I find it irrelevant to the problem at hand.
At a hobbyist stand point, DNA usually makes IDing even more complicated. Comparing cladystics, locality, and color description can be accurate, but by adding DNA that separates species that are identical in cladystics, share locality and have similar color descriptions makes IDing that much harder.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

The problem is many newly discovered tarantulas get into the hobby long before they are characterized either with cladistics, DNA or both.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

CEC said:


> Comparing cladystics


@advan He can spell Columbia correctly, but not cladistics   Someone's been hitting the sauce too much

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## CEC (Jan 9, 2018)

viper69 said:


> @advan He can spell Columbia correctly, but not cladistics   Someone's been hitting the sauce too much


*Colombia lol

Reactions: Funny 1 | Lollipop 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

CEC said:


> makes IDing that much harder.


I get all that, but science is still science, facts are facts.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

CEC said:


> *Colombia lol


That's what I get for doing 2 different things at the same time, typing about Ts, and typing an email to someone at Columbia University

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## CEC (Jan 9, 2018)

viper69 said:


> I get all that, but science is still science, facts are facts.


I'm picking up what you're putting down and I completely agree, but it doesn't help any hobbyist figure out the differences between hobby material, which is the OP's question...

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## CEC (Jan 9, 2018)

viper69 said:


> That's what I get for doing 2 different things at the same time, typing about Ts, and typing an email to someone at Columbia University


No one is perfect. Especially, when multi-tasking or not sober... lol

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

CEC said:


> I'm picking up what you're putting down and I completely agree, but it doesn't help any hobbyist figure out the differences between hobby material, which is the OP's question...


I agree re: hobby. I've never not agreed there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phases (Jan 9, 2018)

You dudes are well over my head lol. Nonetheless Eve has molted and measures at 5.5, I'm betting she can hit 6 when fully stretched. 

Now I may be wrong, but to ME with my current understanding.. this makes me think shes definitely metallica vs regular avicularia, and ..likely a female(?). She's still relaxing post molt but here is what I thought was a really good shot that I got of her a couple days ago:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BdrFNeJhpHT/?taken-by=project_tarantula


----------



## viper69 (Jan 9, 2018)

Phases said:


> You dudes are well over my head lol. Nonetheless Eve has molted and measures at 5.5, I'm betting she can hit 6 when fully stretched.
> 
> Now I may be wrong, but to ME with my current understanding.. this makes me think shes definitely metallica vs regular avicularia, and ..likely a female(?). She's still relaxing post molt but here is what I thought was a really good shot that I got of her a couple days ago:
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BdrFNeJhpHT/?taken-by=project_tarantula



What I can say is that metallica has fiber optic setae and is a deep blue but bright similar to yours. A avic does not have white tipped setae, however other Avics do.

A full dorsal shot would be best

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phases (Jan 14, 2018)

viper69 said:


> A full dorsal shot would be best


Does this help? Shot it for you:

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 14, 2018)

Phases said:


> Does this help? Shot it for you:



It does. They both look identical from a very gross morphological view of what used to be known as A. metallica. Which is now known as A. avicularia morphotype #6.

The traditional A. avic they are not. A. avic's have red setae on their abdomen once they are older. A. metallica's are white, as yours are, that very noticeable fiber optic setae. Also you commented on one being more black. That is not a distinguishing characteristic, the more black one simply has setae on its abdomen, whereas the other one has a bald spot.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phases (Jan 14, 2018)

Awesome, thanks so much, glad to have these ID'd finally. I had to wait for Eve to chill a while, molt, then chill a while again before shooting this.

Appreciate your help!


----------



## viper69 (Jan 14, 2018)

Phases said:


> Awesome, thanks so much, glad to have these ID'd finally. I had to wait for Eve to chill a while, molt, then chill a while again before shooting this.
> 
> Appreciate your help!


I caution against saying these are actually metallica however. I only looked at a video and that's not enough to ID many Avics.  As these are WC they could in theory be something else without further examination. I'm not an arachnologist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phases (Jan 14, 2018)

True enough, but I'd say I'm a lot closer to a true ID than it was before. For a hobbiest like myself, metallica seems to be what i will put on my spreadsheet, - I'm getting comments on YT and messages in Insta saying Metallica, too. 

One person said it looks like a good breeding pair but, who knows.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 14, 2018)

Phases said:


> True enough, but I'd say I'm a lot closer to a true ID than it was before. For a hobbiest like myself, metallica seems to be what i will put on my spreadsheet, - I'm getting comments on YT and messages in Insta saying Metallica, too.
> 
> One person said it looks like a good breeding pair but, who knows.



You are closer for sure. The person that said that doesn't know what they are talking about. I saw your video too. Sure the general idea of body size w/males and females of Avic makes yours appear like a pair...However, my male A. metallica at times appeared female, but def. wasn't hah.

And my A. geroldi, while appearing male at times, is def. a female-- molt confirmed it myself.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Phases (Jan 14, 2018)

Yea I mean who's to say they are even remotely near the same age. I do have a molt to read from the larger one, and it looks like soon enough I will the smaller. I'll do them together  @viper69


----------



## MSRT (Jan 14, 2018)

This thread was a fascinating read! I have a T that was sold just as a pink toe, so I've been referring to him as an A. avicularia, although he has similar white tipped setae like Phases's T, but with a greenish carapace... Might he be another morphotype of A. avicularia? Is there a page that has descriptions (or better pictures) of each time? I am finding nothing with my google search surprisingly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CEC (Jan 16, 2018)

viper69 said:


> And my A. geroldi, while appearing male at times, is def. a female-- molt confirmed it myself.


Your geroldi was female ventrally, it was blatantly obvious. I only molt sexed her for you, otherwise I wouldn't have.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 18, 2018)

CEC said:


> Your geroldi was female ventrally, it was blatantly obvious. I only molt sexed her for you, otherwise I wouldn't have.


Indeed you did. I wasn't saying it wasn't. My point was just casually looking at their size and such doesn't mean you have one gender or the other at certain time points. Molt is still 100%  Trust me, much appreciated you did. She just molted a few days ago, a considerable size gain on her too. Needs a rehouse.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CEC (Jan 18, 2018)

viper69 said:


> Indeed you did. I wasn't saying it wasn't. My point was just casually looking at their size and such doesn't mean you have one gender or the other at certain time points. Molt is still 100%  Trust me, much appreciated you did. She just molted a few days ago, a considerable size gain on her too. Needs a rehouse.


Ok, I thought you meant ventrally looked male at times because the only time the body / legs look male is upon maturity. I might be overestimating the people you are explaining this to, though.  
Nice, I'm glad she is still doing well!


----------



## viper69 (Jan 18, 2018)

CEC said:


> Ok, I thought you meant ventrally looked male at times because the only time the body / legs look male is upon maturity. I might be overestimating the people you are explaining this to, though.
> Nice, I'm glad she is still doing well!


I had a feeling that's what you thought. You may be as well. We never know how much/little a person really knows. Get with Boom and breed some more Avics!

Reactions: Agree 1


----------

