# Cyriopagopus paganus vs. Haplopelma sp "longipedum"...



## safetypinup (Mar 25, 2003)

Hopefully someone can help us solve a debate here...

It seems that Cyriopagopus paganus and Haplopelma sp. "longipedum" are frequently one in the same in the pet trade.  Does anyone have any specific taxonomic information that either proves or disproves that these are indeed the same species (or at least a closely related species)?  Is one possibly a "color morph" of the other?  There are definitely two varieties of this "mystery spider" floating around--One is a predominantly black spider with pronnounced tan or brown chevron markings on the abdomen (this is the one I have always called "longipedum").  Then there is the "C. paganus", which looks similar to the other variety, but without the brown chevrons.






"Cyriopagopus paganus"


Does anyone have any ideas or information?  

Thanks in advance...
Flannery


----------



## safetypinup (Mar 25, 2003)

Forgot to post a "longipedum" picture...

Here's the only one I could find:


----------



## MrDeranged (Mar 25, 2003)

If you do a search with either of those sci names in the forum, you should find a post or two from Volker Von Wirth that sort of explains what's going on.

Scott


----------



## safetypinup (Mar 25, 2003)

Cool, thanks 
Guess I should have done that pre-post, eh? lol...

Love the sig, by the way 

Flannery


----------



## JacenBeers (Mar 25, 2003)

THis is probably one of the worst issues in tarantula taxonomy right now.  It is very frustrating especially because I have bred this species and am hoping for an eggsac. But what do I call them?


----------



## safetypinup (Mar 25, 2003)

I agree, Jacen...It is definitely a topic under "heated debate" in the World of Taxonomy right now...
Upon further research, I have come to the conclusion that it is virtually "non PC" to call these guys anything at all at the moment.  They are (maybe) not C. paganus because, technically, no one knows what C. paganus *is* (because the original preserved specimen is M.I.A).  They are also (maybe) not "longipedum" because there is no such animal as "longipedum" as of yet.....

All I know is that there are two distinctly different tarantulas being labelled as "Cyriopagopus paganus" in the pet trade.  One of these may well be an "actual" C. paganus, but, as physical markings/color is not an acceptable taxonomic tool of reference, it shall remain undecided.

I am planning on taking my female (labelled "C paganus") to Rick West or Andrew Smith at the ATS conference this year for some sort of definitive answer...

In the meantime, I will sit here and pull my hair out.............

  :?    :? 


Anyone else have any information?

Volker.....Martin.....Andrew Smith? hehe....
Help me out here


----------



## LaRiz (Mar 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by JacenBeers _
> *THis is probably one of the worst issues in tarantula taxonomy right now.  It is very frustrating especially because I have bred this species and am hoping for an eggsac. But what do I call them? *


This subject is not that hard to grasp.  You can call them Haplopelma sp. "longipendum".  If they were on a price list, I'd know exactly what you're talking about.  I'd also know what you'd be selling if I saw them on your list as Cyriopagopus paganus.
john


----------



## Chris (Mar 26, 2003)

Might as well call them vietnamese birdeaters, asian chevrons or thailand tigers... they seem to have the common names just about as straight as the latin names on these guys  lol


----------



## Midwest Art (Mar 27, 2003)

*C. paganus*

Yes the discussions continue regarding C. paganus, H. longipedum or "the real" pagaus, locality variations, etc.  All would agree that they are a beautiful species, here's my female.

N-Joy
Art


----------



## phormingochilus (Jun 8, 2004)

And this is where it gets hairy. Your spider "looks" like the dark variety of H. albostriatum. But there are also H. sp. "longipedum" and H. sp. "vietnam". All three can be distinguished by taxonomical characters. Whether these are stable or merely interspecific variations I cannot tell, the man with the knowledge would be Volker at the time being. All three spiders looks superficially similar and has been and are being sold as C. paganus by various dealers.

I have attached pictures of H. sp. "longipedum" and H. sp. "vietnam" please compare all three species. There are distinct species when seen side by side, that the untrained eye rarely notice when facing only a batch of one of the species. Do you notice them? ;-)

Søren




			
				Midwest Art said:
			
		

> Yes the discussions continue regarding C. paganus, H. longipedum or "the real" pagaus, locality variations, etc.  All would agree that they are a beautiful species, here's my female.
> 
> N-Joy
> Art


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jun 10, 2004)

phormingochilus said:
			
		

> And this is where it gets hairy. Your spider "looks" like the dark variety of H. albostriatum. But there are also H. sp. "longipedum" and H. sp. "vietnam". All three can be distinguished by taxonomical characters. Whether these are stable or merely interspecific variations I cannot tell, the man with the knowledge would be Volker at the time being. All three spiders looks superficially similar and has been and are being sold as C. paganus by various dealers.
> 
> I have attached pictures of H. sp. "longipedum" and H. sp. "vietnam" please compare all three species. There are distinct species when seen side by side, that the untrained eye rarely notice when facing only a batch of one of the species. Do you notice them? ;-)
> 
> Søren


The only differences I can see are that the specimens in the first two pictures (I'm going top to bottom here) have longer setae on the metatarsus and tarsus and the third one has more profound markings on the petella and femur/petella joint than the first two.  But of course there has to be something else different between that last one or else it would be too easy.  So what say you Soren, what are the differences in those pictures and which species are which?

-Lonnie


----------



## phormingochilus (Jun 10, 2004)

Actually that's the trick question -  as it is not that hard to seperate them - which again makes you wonder about those dealers selling the whole grey mottled asian stuf as "Cyriopagopus paganus" - a grotesque constellation as the type specimen of C. paganus is lost and as such no spider can be identified to that species as the original description is extremely vague ...

The two first pictures are Haplopelma sp. "longipedum" top picture a specimen in premolt and the middle picture the same specimen in postmolt. This species is easily distinguished from both H. albostriatum and H. sp. "vietnam" in that it has prolonged leg IV which furthermore has a dense cover of longer setae. 

The hard part is to seperate H. sp. "vietnam" (bottom picture) from the dark varieties of H. albostriatum - it can be done, but you need a microscope ... 

Very best regards
Søren




			
				AphonopelmaTX said:
			
		

> The only differences I can see are that the specimens in the first two pictures (I'm going top to bottom here) have longer setae on the metatarsus and tarsus and the third one has more profound markings on the petella and femur/petella joint than the first two.  But of course there has to be something else different between that last one or else it would be too easy.  So what say you Soren, what are the differences in those pictures and which species are which?
> 
> -Lonnie


----------



## Spiderman937 (Aug 11, 2010)

*Cyriopagopus paganus vs. Haplopelma sp.*

Many Haplopelmas have the same basic build, their front legs are about the same size as their back legs, and may have the tiger stripe patterns on the abdomens. Cyriopagopus may look very similar, but will usually have much wider tarsi, especially on the front, so their front 2 pairs of legs are usually much bigger than the rear compared to Haplopelma. Look at the Skeleton Tarantula for example. So Cyriopagopus paganus to a Haplopelma sp. would be like the Ephebopus murinus is to the Aphonopelma seemanni. Does anyone get this? It is very easy to tell by looking. I have kept many of these Tarantulas. I have gotten misidentified spiders when trying to get Cyriopagopus paganus, but I have had Cyriopagopus which was most likely paganus also. "Cyriopaganus" doesn't have light colored patella or tibial stripes either. Oh yeah, their legs are actually arms. Unlike a usual Haplopelma, if you happen to handle a "Cyriopaganus", they tend to show behavior similar to arboreal tarantulas and may jump from one hand to the other, or to the floor if you are not careful, kinda like the skeleton tarantula. Cyriopagopus are very nervous though, and like Haplopelma, are not recommend for handling.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Draiman (Aug 11, 2010)

Spiderman937 said:


> I have had Cyriopagopus which was most likely paganus also. "Cyriopaganus" doesn't have light colored patella or tibial stripes either.


How do you know what _Cyriopagopus paganus_ looks like? What makes you think any of the spiders you had were actually _C. paganus_, considering the fact that the type specimen for the species is missing and nobody really knows what the species looks like?

Please read (btw, this post was immediately before yours):



phormingochilus said:


> a grotesque constellation as the type specimen of C. paganus is lost and as such no spider can be identified to that species as the original description is extremely vague ...


----------



## Spiderman937 (Aug 16, 2010)

I know what the "Cyriopaganus" looks like. It looks like a C. Thorelli, but all blacker and velvety like a Haplopelma minax, with secret tigerstripes onn the as. But these people are probably right in the sense that the original specimen is probably missing. My theory then would be that someone realized it was actually a morph, or a misidentified Haplopelma, so they stole it or removed it (additional text was deleted). When I get my "Cyriopaganus", I will make sure it is at least a Cyriopagopus, is not a thorelli or schioedtei, fits the paganus look feel and smell and taste,  then I will post pics of it to get opinions of others. But I will still know what it is and what it isn't. If there is a Cyriopagopus paganus, I have had one, but if there is no paganus, then I don't know what in the Cyriopagopus that T was I had. Couldn't have been much else. This is gonna be difficult to get another. I may have to go through many misidentified spiders to finally get it, or I may never get another one unless I go catch one myself, or find the secret cult that has been hiding them and stealing specimens.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Spiderman937 (Jul 11, 2011)

I was looking at possible pet tarantulas again and saw another that came in as a thai tiger. According to the place I usually see these they are usually  brought in as Haplopelma, or rarely Cyriopagopus. This one was supposed to be thai tiger or Haplopelma, but noticed right away it was perched as an arboreal would, and front legs were slightly larger with thicker somewhat divided looking pads, but not as much as Cyriopagopus or the unidentified I once had. Spinnerets are smaller and are held out instead of up against the abdomen. Immediately I took her to the sealed room because I knew this could be dangerous handling over a counter or hard floor. Took her out, she was startled but adapted to being handled, I'm good like that. Unlike a usual Haplopelma, or any correctly identified ones I have experienced, this one would jump from one hand to the other like an arboreal as well. Even would dangle from 1 or 2 legs to feel below before climbing back onto my hand. Looks almost identical to Haplopelma, overall brownish black with tiger striped chevron markings on abdomen, but with the special features I mentioned, and the abdomen was really small but still healthy looking. I bought her, took her home and gave her 2 crickets. When done I gave another 2. Then another 2. I know a haplopelma when I see one but this one is questionable. Are any Haplopelmas known to be semi-arboreal and jump? Or have thicker front pads?


----------

