# [Article] Rudloff & Weinmann - Theraphosa stirmi new species!



## Zoltan (Dec 9, 2010)

After reading this thread, I did a search and found a reference to an article:

Rudloff J.-P. & D. Weinmann. 2010. A new giant tarantula from Guyana. _Arthropoda Scientia_ *1 (1)*: 20-38.

Apparently this article describes a new _Theraphosa_ species called _Theraphosa stirmi_, and supposedly this is _Theraphosa_ sp. "Burgundy."

Edit: Martin H. informed me that this article (or rather, the journal issue) is hot off the printing machine and may technically not be published yet as it's in the process of being sent to the subscribers.

Edit 2: Another person (author of the post in the link Draychen posted) told me this journal issue is available since Wednesday, so it looks like this is published information after all.


----------



## jbm150 (Dec 9, 2010)

So this is replacing _spinipes_?  Or is the sp. Burgundy about to get even more confusing with a new species....?


----------



## Draychen (Dec 9, 2010)

Here's the lowdown:

http://www.aracmania-forum.com/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=376 

T. spinipes was never official for the Theraphosa sp. "burgundy"


----------



## BlackVenom (Dec 9, 2010)

This is good to know can't wait to hear more on this.


----------



## Falk (Dec 9, 2010)

Link to an article please


----------



## Zoltan (Dec 9, 2010)

jbm150 said:


> So this is replacing _spinipes_?  Or is the sp. Burgundy about to get even more confusing with a new species....?


Trying to find out more information myself. I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing."



Draychen said:


> T. spinipes was never official


Correct. The combination "_Theraphosa spinipes_" so far hasn't been published as a new combination.



Falk said:


> Link to an article please


I don't have a PDF yet.

I'll update here when I'll know more.


----------



## PrimalTaunt (Dec 9, 2010)

Can't say I'm too surprised that it's not spinipes because, if I recall correctly, the last word was that nothing was finalized up to that point and that they still wanted hobbyists to use sp. burgundy. 

I look forward to reading the pdf once you post it, Zoltan.


----------



## Falk (Dec 9, 2010)

PrimalTaunt said:


> Can't say I'm too surprised that it's not spinipes because, if I recall correctly, the last word was that nothing was finalized up to that point and that they still wanted hobbyists to use sp. burgundy.
> 
> I look forward to reading the pdf once you post it, Zoltan.


Yes, and as you probably know _spinipes_ was moved from _Lasiodora_


----------



## Vespula (Dec 9, 2010)

Can't wait to hear more about this!


----------



## Terry D (Dec 9, 2010)

Glad to see this is clearing up. I'd like take a look and see what additional descriptive notes they've added or subtracted to what we keepers already have available/known for Theraphosa sp "burgundy".


----------



## c.h.esteban (Dec 10, 2010)

> So this is replacing spinipes?


_L. spinipes_ was described with material from Sao Paulo (Ausserer, 1871) and from Santa Catarina (Mello-Leitao, 1921). 

Think about.


bye


----------



## CombiChrist (Dec 10, 2010)

The link provided above by Draychen was the first mentioning of it I've seen also.
It surprised me though, for I was told it was actually the same spider as described by Ausserer as "Lasiodora spinipes".
And aren't the common rules of naming species that the oldest one always stays the valid one, so that by moving to another genus, the speciesname should have been kept the same ?

But probably L.spinipes is not the smae spider as this new Theraphosa species


----------



## GoTerps (Dec 10, 2010)

I can send the paper to those interested.  Not at the house now, so will be a couple hours.

Eric


----------



## pato_chacoana (Dec 10, 2010)

GoTerps said:


> I can send the paper to those interested.  Not at the house now, so will be a couple hours.
> 
> Eric


Eric,
I'm in for a copy... thanks

Pato-


----------



## Falk (Dec 10, 2010)

GoTerps said:


> I can send the paper to those interested.  Not at the house now, so will be a couple hours.
> 
> Eric


I would be very happy:razz:


----------



## GoTerps (Dec 10, 2010)

Falk, can't send without your email.

Eric


----------



## syndicate (Dec 10, 2010)

Would love a copy to man!
Dj.syndicate@gmail.com
-Chris


----------



## Terry D (Dec 10, 2010)

Eric, Thanks again for the copy,

 I just popped my big female out of the freezer to try for a look at the spination on apical femur 4 but the front legs are curled so as to inhibit inspection- unless thawed.

 Of course I probably don't have a good enough camera (or the ability to use it) to show this well. If anyone gets pics of this feature then please post them. I'm sure all would like to see. Cheers, 

Terry


----------



## Spyder 1.0 (Dec 10, 2010)

mmorra@uoguelph.ca please


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Dec 11, 2010)

After reading the T. stirmi description, I find several things interesting. One,  the types of T. apophysis and T. blondi were not examined thus the identification of those specimens used for comparison to T. stirmi must have been made by assumption.  T. apophysis is easy enough to identify but T. stirmi and T. blondi adult males and females are very similar.  Thus brings me to another point.  Gerschman, et. al. (1966), Tinter (1991) and Rudloff & Weinmann (2010) state T. blondi does not have stridulating setae on coxa II BUT Bertani (2001) states T. blondi DOES have stridulating setae on coxa II.  Also, none of those authors note that the types of T. blondi were studied. So what the heck was Bertani looking at when he found stridulating bristles on coxa II on T. blondi when the other authors didn't find them?  Also, the drawing of the papal bulb belonging T. blondi in the Gerschman, et. al. (1966) paper, distinctly illustrate teeth on the keel extending to the distal tip, just like T. stirmi.  The illustrations of the T. blondi papal bulb in the Bertani (2001) paper do not clearly illustrate teeth on any keel.  Aside from the juvenile coloration/ patterns, and the presence or absence of setae on the patella of legs I - IV, and the spines on the apical femur IV, there seems to be no other distinctions between T. blondi and T. stirmi.  I'm not even sure if those would be stable characters given the apparent confusion as to what T. blondi really is.  I question it more when I go through my collection of spiders that were sold to me as T. blondi and a couple have long setae on the patella, one has short setae, and another has none.  Fortunately we have a name for the Theraphosa sp. "burgundy" but it caused more confusion (at least for me) as to what a Theraphosa blondi is exactly.  Anyone care to comment? 

- Lonnie


----------



## CombiChrist (Dec 11, 2010)

Would definately love a copy, vogelspinnen@hotmail.nl


----------



## jebbewocky (Dec 11, 2010)

I'd love one as well!  jebbewocky@gmail.com


----------



## Falk (Dec 11, 2010)

jensfalk@yahoo.se


----------



## Winters (Dec 11, 2010)

Can i have a copy please?

conorwinters@hotmail.com


----------



## LV-426 (Dec 11, 2010)

may i have a copy please? john_perhach@yahoo.com


----------



## zonbonzovi (Dec 11, 2010)

GoTerps said:


> I can send the paper to those interested.  Not at the house now, so will be a couple hours.
> 
> Eric


Hi Eric, I'd like to have a copy as well:

zonbonzovi at hotmail.com

Thanks!


----------



## CombiChrist (Dec 12, 2010)

Thanks !


----------



## Scoolman (Dec 12, 2010)

I would like copy also, please.
Armijod at gmail dot com

Thank you.


----------



## CombiChrist (Dec 12, 2010)

I don't know if I'm allowed to, but for those interested I hosted them online. Might save a lot of mailings.
Thanks to Eric and if for some reason this hosting was not allowed, just remove this and let me know please 


<links removed at request of publisher>


----------



## spiderfield (Dec 12, 2010)

CombiChrist,

Thanks for sharing the information...that was very much appreciated!

Regards,
Ryan


----------



## LV-426 (Dec 12, 2010)

thank you for emailing me the info


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 12, 2010)

I spoke with Fran - he assures me that _stirmi_ will not be the lasting name for this species, but is not able to divulge more than that at this time.

I'm sure once he is back on the boards, he will have more to say.  Until then, this post reflects info from *him*, not from me.


----------



## pato_chacoana (Dec 13, 2010)

Whatever happens... I was hoping for a more detailed kind of paper description with a full genus analysis, ethology and ecology info as well as specific habitat data, and even anything molecular would be interesting. It also doesn't mention examination of _T. blondi_ type or paratypes.

I know it's very difficult thing to achieve but, I think it's time for a more integral, kind of _Theraphosidae_ taxonomy.

Cheers,
Pato


----------



## Spyder 1.0 (Dec 13, 2010)

There has only been two groups lately that have done anything molecular with theraphosids including myself. Brachypelma was briefly touched by Petersens et al. 2007 and some group sequenced the mitochondrial genome of an Ornithochinous species. Both on GenBank.

I'm currently working with Poecilotheria (unpublished as of now), I doubt much else is going on, let alone Theraphosa...


----------



## pato_chacoana (Dec 13, 2010)

Spyder 1.0 said:


> There has only been two groups lately that have done anything molecular with theraphosids including myself. Brachypelma was briefly touched by Petersens et al. 2007 and some group sequenced the mitochondrial genome of an Ornithochinous species. Both on GenBank.
> 
> I'm currently working with Poecilotheria (unpublished as of now), I doubt much else is going on, let alone Theraphosa...


Nevermind molecular, it's a lot to ask for. But the other aspects I mentioned are more reasonable I think.


----------



## Jon3800 (Dec 17, 2010)

Zoltan said:


> Trying to find out more information myself. I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing."


What he basically means is that we're calling the former T.spinipes (T. sp.burgundy) = T.stirmi.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

I'd like a copy as well

slickjon@hotmail.com


----------



## CombiChrist (Dec 17, 2010)

It's in your mailbox Jon.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 17, 2010)

pato_chacoana said:


> Whatever happens... I was hoping for a more detailed kind of paper description with a full genus analysis, ethology and ecology info as well as specific habitat data, and even anything molecular would be interesting. It also doesn't mention examination of _T. blondi_ type or paratypes.
> 
> I know it's very difficult thing to achieve but, I think it's time for a more integral, kind of _Theraphosidae_ taxonomy.
> 
> ...


Pato: I'm curious, why would sequence data be interesting, as opposed to all other intrinsic characters? By "integral [integrated?] kind of taxonomy," I assume you mean conforming to the requirement of total evidence. Yes?


----------



## Philth (Dec 17, 2010)

Jon3800 said:


> What he basically means is that we're calling the former T.spinipes (T. sp.burgundy) = T.stirmi.


I think what Zoltan means is how can you replace something that never existed 

Later, Tom


----------



## Merfolk (Dec 17, 2010)

If you have time, I would like a copy, please.

pat_loisel@yahoo.ca


----------



## Arachnoholic420 (Dec 17, 2010)

I would like a copy as well..... pls n tnx!!!!
Odnamra420@hotmail.com


----------



## pato_chacoana (Dec 17, 2010)

Kirk said:


> Pato: I'm curious, why would sequence data be interesting, as opposed to all other intrinsic characters? By "integral [integrated?] kind of taxonomy," I assume you mean conforming to the requirement of total evidence. Yes?


Kirk,

I think the other instrinsic characters are important as well, but I see the other aspects can be complementary (not opossed to). Yes, I mean total evidence as a more integrated description. I find it a lot more interesting than just legs meassurement. As I said before, you can exclude molecular data, as I know it's still rare within Theraphosids. But the other aspects should't. Authors such as Bertani are shyly starting to include some of these aspects in their latests descriptions.

Cheers,
Pato


----------



## CombiChrist (Dec 17, 2010)

Merfolk and Arachnoholic : mail is sent


----------



## Jon3800 (Dec 17, 2010)

Thanks man 

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------




Philth said:


> I think what Zoltan means is how can you replace something that never existed
> 
> Later, Tom


True 

Now I'm gonna be busy renaming this species in all my youtube vid's  on the species.  Here I go 

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 PM ----------




CombiChrist said:


> It's in your mailbox Jon.


Thanks a lot


----------



## mirro1958 (Sep 21, 2011)

*Any info on this journal and the article??*

I searched the journal "Arthropoda scientia" on ISI Web of Knowledge and didn't find it in the database. Is this a peer-reviewed journal? What evidence is produced in favour of splitting one species into two, rather than calling morphological variation merely "morphotypes" in this case?

Of the authors D. Weinmann co-authored 3 more papers relating to tarantulas, as of September 2011.


----------



## Martin H. (Sep 22, 2011)

Spyder 1.0 said:


> There has only been two groups lately that have done anything molecular with theraphosids including myself. Brachypelma was briefly touched by Petersens et al. 2007 and some group sequenced the mitochondrial genome of an Ornithochinous species. Both on GenBank.
> 
> I'm currently working with Poecilotheria (unpublished as of now),


BTW, there is also a German guy working with the DNA of Poecilotheria - are you in touch with him?


----------



## Falk (Sep 22, 2011)

I wouldnt call different spermathecaes for morphological variation =) I have the description but im at work now.


----------



## dactylus (Oct 8, 2011)

CombiChrist said:


> The link provided above by Draychen was the first mentioning of it I've seen also.
> It surprised me though, for I was told it was actually the same spider as described by Ausserer as "Lasiodora spinipes".
> And aren't the common rules of naming species that the oldest one always stays the valid one, so that by moving to another genus, the speciesname should have been kept the same ?
> 
> But probably L.spinipes is not the smae spider as this new Theraphosa species


Would someone please send me a copy of this paper?  Thanks in advance!!

dlaw2001@comcast.net


----------



## xhexdx (Oct 8, 2011)

To my knowledge, this is _not_ a peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## Falk (Oct 8, 2011)

The name spinipes was never a name for T. stirmi, it was just a rumour.


----------



## theraphosa1983 (Oct 10, 2011)

*Need more information*

Is there any way someone could copy me as well on this T. Stirmi info that's going around? I just picked one up yesterday and I am having trouble finding all of the information I am looking for by doing just a standard online search of the name.


----------



## ZergFront (Oct 10, 2011)

Could be why some weren't getting T.blondi sacs. Maybe some paired off Arthropoda males with T.blondi females and vice versa.


----------

