# Cyclosternum fasciatum or Davus fasciatus ?



## pezzonovante (May 23, 2005)

Are those species the same or different specimens ?


----------



## morda (May 23, 2005)

Davus fasciatus is an old name of C. fasciatum. Cyclosternum fasciatum is an official name.


----------



## GoTerps (May 23, 2005)

It is now _Davus fasciatus_.  Schmidt restored _Davus_.


----------



## BakuBak (May 23, 2005)

grrrr ... <edited>


----------



## luther (May 23, 2005)

GoTerps said:
			
		

> It is now _Davus fasciatus_.  Schmidt restored _Davus_.


Really? Now I have to re lable my Cf tank.  I wish they'd make their minds up.


----------



## pezzonovante (May 23, 2005)

So is it C.fasciatum or D.fasciatus ???? Make up your minds !


----------



## Spider-man 2 (May 23, 2005)

Are you serious Eric?


----------



## GoTerps (May 23, 2005)

> Are you serious Eric?


Yes, see the following recent threads.

HERE 
HERE 
HERE 

Schmidt G. 2005, Die Gattung Davus O.P.-Cambridge, 1892 (Arachnida : Araneae : Theraphosidae : Theraphosinae). Tarantulas of the World. Ausgabe 104, April 2005 : 7-18.

I haven't read a translation or anything, nor am I offering any validation of Schmidt's work... just stating the facts of where things stand right now.



> So is it C.fasciatum or D.fasciatus ???? Make up your minds !


I think some patience is in order when it comes to this issue... it's not like hordes of money are being thrown out there for this type of work. 

Be prepared to keep changing your labels!!!


----------



## Spider-man 2 (May 23, 2005)

Awesome!  *grabs out the label maker*


----------



## Aleks32 (Feb 13, 2006)

Was it ever decided which name is right? It seems that most of the sellers are still using Cyclosternum Fasciatum. I have spelled it here as it appears in The Tarantula Keeper's Guide. I have noticed that I've spelled it incorrectly in some of my posts. Waah. 

I am not an idiot. 

most likely.


----------



## M.F.Bagaturov (Feb 13, 2006)

Eric is right, but!
Schmidt restored the Davus name for some of the Cyclosternum's with fused spermathecae (look here under news "10" for 2005: http://tarantulas.tropica.ru/english/index2.php?link=evol5.html), but this is do not officially eccepted (dunno why but that was one of the rare Schmidt's work which makes sence, from my opinion), so You see, now Cyclosternum faciatum is still the official name for it.
For comments on the previouse status see The spider catalog by Norman I. Platnick.
Hope this clear the situation for You.


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Feb 13, 2006)

I'll say it if nobody else will...

Schmidt's recent work = bollocks = ignore  

Of course, I am just a humble hobbyist, not a scholar and you can ignore me even easier. I will just say that my Tarantula Bibliography does not, and will not, include any of the rapid fire changes and "descriptions" published in "Tarantulas of the World" that are made without examining all the type material and making a proper deposit of type. Apparently, Herr Doktor Schmidt is trying to publish as many things as possible before he leaves this green earth (he's in his 80s). I suggest crossword puzzles or sudoku.  

Just my 2 Euro,

Michael


----------



## angelarachnid (Feb 13, 2006)

And just tp really put the spoon in and give the pot a big stir,


The huge tiger rumped things we have in Captivity are probably not even the real D. fasciatum ;P (if they are then D. fasciatum has an enormous range)

I have examined the type specimen and it is very small around 5-6cm leg dia, with brown legs (just like the ones we used to get in the 80s), a radial patern in the hairs on the carapace. 

The real ones also lack the blue sheen on the legs etc.

If i get time (and if someone can send me dead males of the species currently sold as D. fasciatum)  i will do a redescription with comparisons of pet trade material for the BTS journal.

Ray


----------



## FryLock (Feb 13, 2006)

Michael Jacobi said:
			
		

> I'll say it if nobody else will...
> 
> Schmidt's recent work = bollocks = ignore


In this case only partly (the word partly maybe loaded here but i don't wanna get sued  ), but Platnick will except Davus when there's been some more work published im sure .


----------



## M.F.Bagaturov (Feb 13, 2006)

Yep, Bill.
As I told, this is one of his recent works (to maybe the only one) which makes some sence with all features he study and proposed, so...
Time will tell.



> <b>Angelarachnid</b>: "I have examined the type specimen and it is very small around 5-6cm leg dia, with brown legs (just like the ones we used to get in the 80s), a radial patern in the hairs on the carapace."


This means that it has the same size as Cyriocosmus spp., Ray?
As for the patterns it looks like the one at the West's site as C. pentalore?
My adult 6 y.o. fem long ago sell as "C. fasciatum" (and has a characteristic spermathecae shape) are near 5 cm in BL... and do not grows bigger last two years.
The sub-adult males from UK (from last summer breeding) of presumed tha same specimen (You should know which one I'm talking about) are soon, I'm sure, get matured. So, we'll see!


----------



## Michael Jacobi (Feb 13, 2006)

angelarachnid said:
			
		

> If i get time (and if someone can send me dead males of the species currently sold as D. fasciatum)  i will do a redescription with comparisons of pet trade material for the BTS journal.


I'll check with some of the big importers here in the US and see if I can find some mature males for you. MJ


----------



## GoTerps (Feb 13, 2006)

My labels now say _Davus/Cyclosternum_ sp. "Central America"  

I had 2 males of this "species" mature recently (from 2 seperate WC females, different sources)... one male was barely 2", the other was a solid 4.5".


----------



## angelarachnid (Feb 13, 2006)

Sorry still not a supporter of Kodak identification

So does the picture on the website show the same extent of pattern on the *underside* of the abdomen as your specimen?

Fabian Vol introduced D. pentalore into Europe a few years back. I am unaware of any specimens going to the US. but just because it had the tiger rump dealers everywhere called them C. (or D.) fascaitum not pentalore to sell then, but as soon as a few people had eggsacs both C. fasciatum amd D. pentalore suddenly hit the market. The same happened with Davus species "Veracruiz" that is gone now, another tiger rumped spider so it must be fascaitum mainly because (and all you dealers and breeders out there know this) named species sell "sp's" dont. so anything which has not got a species name which has a tiger rump is labeled as C. fasciatum just to sell stock and make money.

If this is not true then where are all the for sale lists full of "unidentifed tiger rumped species from Guatamala, Veracruiz, dont know area but possibly Mexico" etc??

And its not just tiger rumped species, Hysterocraties for example (i covered this in a previous thread) Avicularia, most people wont know this but *NO ONE* and i will say this again *NO ONE* has ever accesses the type specimens of A. avicularia to compare what we have in the hobby So without examining the type of A. avicularia how the <EDIT> can any one say they have Avicularia avicularia, or mettalica, or geroldi, or braunshauseni, or any of the blue/green Guyanan/Brasilian Avics come from?????

Gallon synonomised P. mammilatus years ago so why is it still seen on dealers lists???

diffent names sell specimens (happens in herps also) and if things are sold with a common name it just makes matters worse I could make up a ton of names for my P. regalis and get lots more than 3 for £5 for them, Sun Gold black and white, giant yellow legs, Indian Golden Giant.......get the picture.

Ray


----------



## BakuBak (Feb 13, 2006)

and the worst thing  in this  whole thing is that many of those dealers  do not feel guilty  for cheating  people


----------



## M.F.Bagaturov (Feb 14, 2006)

No underside pic You know, Ray 
It is whole are mess with all those "tiger rumps" 
It seems so is only makes sence to name those species for some abbreviation sp "Veracrus" or so, as I know some amateurs make with Hysterocrates spp...
and breed only defenate source specimens in similiarity with such a features like spermathecae shape, coloration (patterns), adult size, etc.

Radek, unfortunately many dealers do not interesting in those tricks with taxonomy which one is only bothered them... but due to this many species became extinct in hobby  so, it is a time for educated dealers a long time ago, but still just a little of em we have...


----------

