# Can anyone ID this



## Martin H. (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi,

can anyone ID this species?


----------



## Aviculariinae (Jul 6, 2004)

I heard this great saying before ,cant remember from where........But it said..
*You can,t identify a tarantula from a picture*


----------



## Rourke (Jul 6, 2004)

_Ornithoctonus andersoni?_

Just a guess.....


----------



## No name (Jul 6, 2004)

Aviculariinae said:
			
		

> I heard this great saying before ,cant remember from where........But it said..
> *You can,t identify a tarantula from a picture*


Hi Brendan,

This is the thread <Click here>

Thanks for reminding me. His great saying was for me. Now let me refresh your own memory Martin.

Hi "no name",

Quote:
Originally Posted by No name

Is this the same thing Martin?

how should I know?! I only have your photo and on a photo I can't see the taxonomically relevant characters. => I am not a big fan of IDs by photos. 

all the best,
Martin

PS.: Is the one on the first photo a male or female? Where do they come from / from whom did you get them?
__________________
Deutsche Arachnologische Gesellschaft e.V.
British Tarantula Society


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi,



			
				Aviculariinae said:
			
		

> I heard this great saying before ,cant remember from where........But it said..
> *You can,t identify a tarantula from a picture*


indeed and that's why I have opened this thread, to show exactly this! And I bet most people wouldn't even get close to the genus (probably only by accident) of the species shown above! =;-)

sorry, couldn't resist! 
Martin


----------



## Aviculariinae (Jul 6, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> indeed and that's why I have opened this thread, to show exactly this! And I bet most people wouldn't even get close to the genus (probably only by accident) of the species shown above! =;-)
> 
> ...



I had an idea thats what you were up to  I couldn,t see you contradicting what you have being preaching ever since i can remember  
Very good move though  

You will die with those famous last words LOL


----------



## extrovertinvert (Jul 6, 2004)

H. incei?  just a guess but that looks close to me


----------



## morda (Jul 6, 2004)

Yeah, it look like a H.incei. 
So what is it?


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi,

nope it's not Holothele incei nor Ornithoctonus andersoni.

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## spiderPeter (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi Martin,

I am just trying....Citharacanthus spinicrus? )

All the best,
Peter


----------



## L_L (Jul 6, 2004)

Selenocosmia sp. (maybe peerboomi?) or Chilobrachys sp.?


----------



## pelo (Jul 6, 2004)

It has a greenish sheen to the abdomen like an Ephebopus...so maybe E.fossor or uatuman??


----------



## Garrick (Jul 6, 2004)

Some kind of Selenogyrid?  Can't even guess the genus haha!

Wild guess,

Garrick


----------



## Lopez (Jul 6, 2004)

It's an arachnid - I'm 99.9% sure


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi,




			
				spiderPeter said:
			
		

> Hi Martin,
> 
> I am just trying....Citharacanthus spinicrus? )


nice try, but it's something different! =;-)






			
				L_L said:
			
		

> Selenocosmia sp. (maybe peerboomi?) or Chilobrachys sp.?


nope, it's no Selenocosmia and also no Chilobrachys.






			
				pelo said:
			
		

> It has a greenish sheen to the abdomen like an Ephebopus...so maybe E.fossor or uatuman??


none of those either.






			
				Garrick said:
			
		

> Some kind of Selenogyrid?  Can't even guess the genus haha!


and also no Selenogyriinae! 






			
				Lopez said:
			
		

> It's an arachnid - I'm 99.9% sure


are you sure? =;-)




If you run out of names take a look here >>click here<< for new ideas! =;-)~

all the best,
Martin


----------



## Lopez (Jul 6, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> are you sure? =;-)


Never be 100% sure! 



			
				Martin H. said:
			
		

> If you run out of names take a look here >>click here<< for new ideas! =;-)~
> 
> all the best,
> Martin


LOL


----------



## MizM (Jul 6, 2004)

Hard to tell from a photograph (  ) it could resemble any number of species but I'll toss out a few obscure names to at least get in the running for this thing!!

Phoneyusa rutilata
Reversopelma petersi Schmidt
Chilobrachys 'guangxiensis'
Harpactira hamiltoni Pocock


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi,



			
				MizM said:
			
		

> Phoneyusa rutilata
> Reversopelma petersi Schmidt
> Chilobrachys 'guangxiensis'
> Harpactira hamiltoni Pocock


and it's also none of those genera!

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## Tony (Jul 6, 2004)

Oddly I feel african...hysto sp perhaps?
T


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 6, 2004)

Hi,



			
				monantony said:
			
		

> Oddly I feel african...hysto sp perhaps?


hysto = _Hysterocrates_? Nope, and it is not an african species at all! =;-)

all the best,
Martin


----------



## smalltime (Jul 6, 2004)

Annandaliella species maybe, it seems small.... And it may seem stupid  
But you probably took a rather common spider to make your point  so I was thinking E. cyanognathus as well, maybe male :?


----------



## blombo (Jul 6, 2004)

just for fun here's my guess,
possibly a holothele but who knows..  ;-)
is that specimen adult?

hm another guess would be *Cyclosternum kochi*, i think thats what it looks like


----------



## Robert Seliger (Jul 6, 2004)

Maybe _Neochilobrachys spp._ ???
Or _Coremiocnemis spp._  ???

Greetings.
Robert


----------



## genious_gr (Jul 6, 2004)

Citharacanthus livingstoni???

That must be a REAL pet-rock


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 7, 2004)

Hi,



			
				smalltime said:
			
		

> Annandaliella species maybe


nope




			
				smalltime said:
			
		

> But you probably took a rather common spider to make your point  so I was thinking E. cyanognathus as well, maybe male :?


nope, and it's not a common one. But if you wish we can play this game also with a common species or a look-alike of a common species! 






			
				blombo said:
			
		

> just for fun here's my guess,
> possibly a holothele but who knows..  ;-)


auch die ist es nicht! =;-)




			
				blombo said:
			
		

> is that specimen adult?


not sure, but I guess it is.




			
				blombo said:
			
		

> hm another guess would be *Cyclosternum kochi*, i think thats what it looks like


it's no Cyclosternum!





			
				Robert Seliger said:
			
		

> Maybe _Neochilobrachys spp._ ???
> Or _Coremiocnemis spp._  ???


auch Du hast es nicht getroffen! =;-)






			
				genious_gr said:
			
		

> Citharacanthus livingstoni???


and it's also not this one!



...I always love those photo ID threads!   

	
	
		
		
	


	





all the best,
Martin


----------



## brgn (Jul 7, 2004)

Metriopelma spp.?

Robert


----------



## FryLock (Jul 7, 2004)

This could be Cyriopagopus dromeus (used to be Melognathus dromeus) if its from the Philippines (id ruled out Phlogiellus because of the transverse foveal groove)


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 7, 2004)

brgn said:
			
		

> Metriopelma spp.?


nope.





			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> This could be Cyriopagopus dromeus (used to be Melognathus dromeus) if its from the Philippines (id ruled out Phlogiellus because of the transverse foveal groove)


nope and it is also not from the Philippines (even I have some material from overthere).



BTW, how many genera are left!? =;-)

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## Aviculariinae (Jul 7, 2004)

>>>Click Here<<< for my answer. LOL


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 7, 2004)

Hi,



			
				Aviculariinae said:
			
		

> I had an idea thats what you were up to  I couldn,t see you contradicting what you have being preaching ever since i can remember
> Very good move though


if I would have a species to ID, I would never post a photo on a public message board and ask which species it is. IMHO it is more likely to hit the correct genus/species if one picks out one species name by random from the WSC than to ask for it on a public board (just see all the different suggestions you get in all these "please ID threads")!  ;P 
[FLAME RETARDANT: sensitive and thin-skinned people shouldn't read the following paragraph 'cause there will be some direct and 'harsh' words (but that's my personal opinion on this topic)]
In those threads on public fora there are IMO way too many people who throw in their "uneducated commentaries" (= which seems do have absolutely NO background knowledge on the taxonomy of theraphosids) and which do more confuse with their comments than help! – Or how should one explaine, when there is a photo of a species with an obvious patch of urticating hairs and those guys throw in names of old world species!?  :?   Or you can see tibia apophysis and they throw in names of species which lack tibia apophysis!?  :?   Or...   :?    => IMO if one even don't know some basic characters which can be seen on photos (tibia apophysis, patch of urticating hairs, etc.) I think one should better stay quite than throw in such useless "noise".

If I have a species I like to get an ID for (and which I can't ID myself or want to get a second opinion on it) I send a *cast skin or dead specimen* to someone who is working with genera I think the species in question belongs to.


And some general words on species IDs based on photos:
In general overall colouration has no importance in taxonomy even some species are described only by colour differences, but in most cases this has been done by "layman taxonomists". Colour is a poor indicator of anything 'cause it is a very variable issue – especially on a computer screen as well as in print as there are so many factors that influence the colours on a pix: the condition of the spider (premolt or postmolt or subadult male or juvenile or adult or etc etc (see e.g. the thread "What difference a moult makes" >>click here<<), the conditions under which one keeps them (cold/hot, humid/dry), the ligth intensity while shooting, the colour temperature of the light or the flash, the sensibility of the film, the quality of the image enhancement (dependent on both program and user), the quality and degree of the compression of pictures to web use, and lastly the settings and quality of your own monitor and graphic card. Plus a lot more I probably have forgotten rigth now... 

And in most cases on the photo you *can't see* the *taxonomic relevant characters* like placement and arrangement of the stridulating organ, shape and structure of spermathecae and palpal bulb, spination, leg length relations, scopulation, type of urticating hairs and in lesser degree clypeus and ocular arrangement. All these characters and some others more specific to some specimens has to bee seen in relation to each other and have to be compared with the type material and a good array of congeners if not all congeners to be of any real value.

This is why a certain positive ID in most cases cannot be made from a picture alone. One can rule out some genera or even species (e.g. patch of urticating hairs => can't be an old world species and some new world genera which lack urticating hairs) but *not* make a *valid ID*. 

I know, it is hard to believe/swallow respectively something the average hobbyist does not like to hear, especially when he is used to see a lot of "please ID" threads and a lot more people who post their "IDs" (maybe one better should call it guesses or lottery) on those threads. Years ago when someone gave me a photo and asked me what species it is, I said it is species XY. But in the last years I have red and discussed a lot about theraphosid taxonomy and I think I have learned some basics (see e.g. above) *+* at "Taxonomy Teaching Days" (see >>click here<<) I have seen too many species which have been sold as species "XY" change their name to species "ZW" (e.g. a spider which has been sold as Brachypelma has been exposed to be an Aphonopelma species, another one which has been sold as T. blondi and which looked on the first glance like a T. blondi has beend IDed as Pamphobeteus sp., etc.) => all this made me to change my view on photo IDs (see above).

just my two cents!
Martin


----------



## JJJoshua (Jul 7, 2004)

Very enlightening, interesting and informative. If I ever want anything ID'd I will send you every molt the T ever had, just so you have enough information on it. BUUTT I was wondering if you could ID this for me

	
	
		
		
	


	





Hehe, nevermind you don't have to, I already know its a T. BLondi   :}  :} 


Best of Luck,
Joshua


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 7, 2004)

Hi,



			
				L_L said:
			
		

> Selenocosmia sp. (maybe peerboomi?) or Chilobrachys sp.?


just a little hint for the next time when you have S. peerboomi on the shortlist: ask for a close up photo of metatarsus IV! S. peerboomi does have a prominent scopula on metatarsus IV (like Xenesthis). See the photo below of a specimen with about 2,8 cm bodylength.
If the specimen in question does have such a prominent scopula it might be S. peerboomi (but does not have to). If it lacks such a prominent scopula, you can rule out S. peerboomi! 

all the best,
Martin


----------



## FryLock (Jul 7, 2004)

Martin as valid as many points you raise are I sense this may provoke a backlash that the mod’s will have fun having to deal with, so I will offer a few gentle counterpoints #1 clearly some species that are both distinct in there appearance and common in the pet trade can be ID’ed from a good picture i.e. many of the Brachypelma species, #2 although a lot can not be seen on a picture it is possible (thanks to macro) to take clear shots of carapace/eyes/labium/sternum/chelicerae/scopulae of the of tarsal/metatarsal pads/male tibial spurs so given the right material to go on some one viewing those pictures MAY be able to give a positive ID, #3 tho it can be very hard to give a ID as to what something is one can rule out some things which in its self could help to stop someone wasting a good male with the wrong female or making (unknowingly) hybrids you and other on this board have used pictures too show what something is NOT on quite a few occasions.


----------



## Rourke (Jul 7, 2004)

FryLock said:
			
		

> #1 clearly some species that are both distinct in there appearance and common in the pet trade can be ID’ed from a good picture i.e. many of the Brachypelma species, #2 although a lot can not be seen on a picture it is possible (thanks to macro) to take clear shots of carapace/eyes/labium/sternum/chelicerae/scopulae of the of tarsal/metatarsal pads/male tibial spurs so given the right material to go on some one viewing those pictures MAY be able to give a positive ID, #3 tho it can be very hard to give a ID as to what something is one can rule out some things which in its self could help to stop someone wasting a good male with the wrong female or making (unknowingly) hybrids


Quite capably and diplomatically set forth, FryLock!
Martin's major point, as I see it, remains.  The positive identification of a spider from one or a few pictures is fraught with difficulties, many of which are not acknowledged (or even understood) by some of the folks who--quite carelessly and without hesitation--make such "positive" IDs.  While one doesn't like to criticize good intentions, in some cases these semi-random proclamations can lead to confusion, with undesirable consequences!  Since arachnoculture as a hobby (and, arguably, arachnology as a science) is still in its infancy, a forum such as this can become an important source of useful, valid, and often new information.  As such, we should all take care, politely and tactfully, of course, to discourage the proliferation of erroneous information by those who have little or no experiemce, knowledge, or credibility.  I think it can be useful to post a picture of an unidentified arachnid and ask for information.  Those who respond should (we can all hope) be knowledgeable, experienced, and would clearly state any caveats behind statements they might make toward genus or species identification.


----------



## FryLock (Jul 7, 2004)

Mr Rourke again im in awe of your way with words I did not touch on the stuff in Martins post that I did agree with (about 90% which I know is hard to believe) for want of sounding insulting to anyone, but all of this raises a much larger problem how do we as hobbyists and even breeders/dealers know 100% that the animals we have be they W/C or C/B are what we think they are, now while people are breeding there spiders from within there own stock the risks are limited so long as that stock is all of one species (or race of a certain species in some cases) and of one providence and the founder stock has been ID'ed as such but when some one buys in stock of that species from different sources how do we know there the same not very similar species being sold under the same name, of course we can send material to experts who can ID it but what if every hobbyist wanted to get there stock checked out?, even if the experts doing the work are paid for there time can you imagine the time it would take them, plus some genera are in such a bad state that 100% answers could not be given add to this also the fact the are very few people working on genera such as avic (plus C/B stock often has no solid providence as to were it was collected and in fact could have hybrid back grounds) the answers lie in both helping people to better understand how to ID there own animals as Martin has said and the hobbyist having access to actuate and concise books that they can use to check there own stock against, like the best ever book on Asian Theraphosid’s that Martin and Volker will bring out in a few years .


----------



## Rourke (Jul 7, 2004)

FryLock said:
			
		

> ...the answers lie in both helping people to better understand how to ID there own animals as Martin has said and the hobbyist having access to actuate and concise books that they can use to check there own stock against...


Very true.  Availability and dissemination of good information will be the key factor in the evolution of the hobby, and the integrity of the trade for the future.

One other very positive aspect of these forums, which I failed to mention explicitly before:  There are enough knowledgeable users of the board (with more certainly to come) that when someone does post bogus and lunatic garbage it will usually get sorted out promptly.  I think we can all agree, however, that this is not an argument against being cautious when preaching what we think we know.


----------



## Rourke (Jul 7, 2004)

Oh, and I'm still waiting--we all are--with bated breath to know the ID of the spider in the pic which started this thread.  I feel that to prove his point, Martin must have chosen an example which will surprise us all.  Probably an arboreal.

.....or a scorpion.....


----------



## Rourke (Jul 7, 2004)

_Psalmopoeus?

Tapinauchenius??_


----------



## Rourke (Jul 7, 2004)

_Tapinauchenius purpurea._

That's my final answer, Regis.....


----------



## WYSIWYG (Jul 7, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> can anyone ID this species?


I'll just give a very general guess as to where
it came from - It looks like an Asian species to me.

On the other hand, the legs on it remind me of a
Thrixopelma photo I saw, but I'd still go with Asian.

Will be interesting to find out what it is.  (I haven't
read all the way through the thread yet so if the
answer is there, I haven't seen it yet).  

Wysi


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 7, 2004)

Hi,



			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> access to actuate and concise books that they can use to check there own stock against, like the best ever book on Asian Theraphosid’s that Martin and Volker will bring out in a few years .


not me, for such an effort I really don't know enough – en contraire, but there are two specialists who will write it. Another book, written by a different specialist of course, will be about the South American T's. One specialist is already found to write the one about Baboonspiders. Probably two will write the one about theraphosids from Middle America. North America... 
...it's all in progress, but will take it's time of course!




			
				Mr. Rourke said:
			
		

> _Psalmopoeus?
> 
> Tapinauchenius??_


both: nope




			
				Mr. Rourke said:
			
		

> _Tapinauchenius purpurea._


nope






			
				WYSIWYG said:
			
		

> I'll just give a very general guess as to where
> it came from - It looks like an Asian species to me.


but it's no asian T! =;-)





			
				WYSIWYG said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the legs on it remind me of a
> Thrixopelma photo I saw, but I'd still go with Asian.


and also not a Thrixopelma.



now, with all that nopes and what it isn't it should be easy, shouldn't it! =;-)





			
				WYSIWYG said:
			
		

> Will be interesting to find out what it is.  (I haven't
> read all the way through the thread yet so if the
> answer is there, I haven't seen it yet).


another "problem"/point I forgott to mention above: people are not reading the whole thread but posting replies! =;-)


all the best,
Martin


----------



## Wade (Jul 7, 2004)

I agree completely that from a purely taxonomic angle, photo ID's are less than useless. I do think, however, they will have some (admittedly limited) utility within the hobby. 

When it comes to truly rare and unusual specimens, little aside from examining a dead specimen or a molt will lead to anything conclusive. When it comes to species that are common within the hobby, however, the possibility of making a correct educated guess improves dramatically. For example, say a newbie hobbyist purchases a spider at his neighborhood pet shop. It’s labeled “Friendly orange knee fuzzy butt tarantula” with no Latin name. This hobbyist, wanting to know more, posts a pic on arachnopets. This spider looks like B. smithi, and is identified by several members as such. There is of course the possibility that this spider is a “look alike” species, but the odds are in favor that it really is B. smithi, since this is the most common and wide spread species with that appearance in the hobby. To be 100% sure would require a lot more, but I’d argue that in this type of situation it’s good enough for the hobby.

The question as to what species are misidentified in the first place is a whole other issue. Most hobbyists are not likely to take the time to learn the taxonomic keys to identify their tarantulas themselves. This isn’t a criticism; I definitely don’t have the taxonomic skills to even pretend to be a taxonomist myself. To get to that level, one must be truly dedicated to tarantulas (or at least spiders) specifically. Personally, my invertebrate interests are way to broad for me to ever really understand tarantulas as thoroughly as someone like Martin. People with the skills required to properly ID tarantulas are too few and far between to expect 100% accuracy on the part of the hobby. When a genuine taxonomist takes time out of his or her schedule to identify a specimen for a hobbyist, it’s done as a favor, as animals in the pet trade have no value scientifically. We can’t really expect our limited number of experts to handle this just to be nice! 

It’s all well and good to say hobbyist need to learn these skills themselves, but haven’t wanna-be armature taxonomists caused enough problems already? I think it’s better to accept a certain amount of inaccuracy than to culture a new generation of pseudo-scientists. To be honest, from a hobby perspective, it’s much more important that we all call the same spider the same name than it is that the name be correct. That may sound like sacrilege, but hear me out. Take Nhandu carapoensis for example. I have several spiders in my collection that are labeled that. Lately, there has been considerable doubt expressed on the boards that the pet trade N. carapoensis is really that species. Personally, I’m not wringing my hands over this, if it turns out to be Acanthoscurria, fine, still a nice-looking spider. I am concerned, however, that there may be TWO spiders going by that name. That is a REAL problem, since it can affect captive breeding.

The bottom line is photos can’t tell us anything about the real taxonomy of a species; all we can do is guess. Sometimes, however, a guess may suffice, at least in the imprecise and imperfect world of the tarantula-keeping hobby.

Wade


----------



## Socrates (Jul 7, 2004)

Martin,

You're being cruel at this point.     I am such a newby with tarantulas, and even I've been looking at hundreds and hundreds of pictures, trying SO hard to even attempt a guess - but I can't.   ..and I won't because I'll just make a fool of myself.

You totally got your point across though about guessing a tarantula species by a mere picture.  Would you believe another thread was started WITHOUT a picture, but just a description? 

Please don't keep us in suspense any longer.
(...Wendy liegt anflehend auf der Erde.....)

---
Wendy
---


----------



## GoTerps (Jul 7, 2004)

A Bonnetina sp. perhaps?


----------



## David Burns (Jul 7, 2004)

I will say, about this thread ,that I've certainly learned that there are a lot of species that I've never heard of.

 Also this forum is not a place where info. of a strictly scientific nature is disseminated. Alot of it is fluff and for purposes of entertainment. To be honest, I have gone to some of the links to the scientific papers you have posted and while I appreciate the opportunity check them out. I can get very little from them as I don't have the back ground (i.e.;zoological nomenclature etc...) to understand them. Perhaps someone such as yourself could write a book to explain the meaning of the scientific advances of the last decade in terms the laity could understand. 

  I always appreciate your posting on this forum as it raises the level for all but a very few.

Dave


----------



## Palespider (Jul 7, 2004)

Stichoplastoris? Pachistopelma?


----------



## Tamara (Jul 7, 2004)

Don't laugh at my guesses! I think each of these is possible, but I'm leaning towards the insubtilis.

Citharacanthus livingstoni
Acanthoscurria insubtilis, male, pre-moult

Tamara


----------



## MizM (Jul 7, 2004)

Pullingourleggius?  

You are just LOVING our suspense, aren't you Martin?!!


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 7, 2004)

Hey Martin, I think your point is well and truly proved, why don't you add some real fuel to the fire and give a collection location? 

I think it may come from a genus that is very unique in the Theraphosidae and considered by some an enigma.......many T's from all over the world were once lumped into this genus (some still are, obviously) , but without a location, this is a waste of time....up the ante Martin, up the ante.


Thanks,
Steve


----------



## Crotalus (Jul 7, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> can anyone ID this species?


Chaetopelma or Ischnocolus sp?

/Lelle


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 7, 2004)

Crotalus said:
			
		

> Ischnocolus sp?


That's what I was thinking Lelle, but it really is hopeless without additional data.


----------



## Crotalus (Jul 7, 2004)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> That's what I was thinking Lelle, but it really is hopeless without additional data.


Sure is. But then it would be too 'easy' perhaps ;-)

/Lelle


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

My first though was Selenocosmiinae then new world Ischnocolinae then i found a descip that was a match on colour/eyes(front row at least from what i could see)/and fovea from Ornithoctoninae (i know it does not look like any from that subfamily iv seen) which was wrong so l to am back to Ischnocolinae Martin has said its not African so im still thinking new world Ischnocolinae tho not Europe or Asia :?


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Wade said:
			
		

> It’s all well and good to say hobbyist need to learn these skills themselves, but haven’t wanna-be armature taxonomists caused enough problems already? I think it’s better to accept a certain amount of inaccuracy than to culture a new generation of pseudo-scientists. To be honest, from a hobby perspective, it’s much more important that we all call the same spider the same name than it is that the name be correct. That may sound like sacrilege, but hear me out. Take Nhandu carapoensis for example. I have several spiders in my collection that are labeled that. Lately, there has been considerable doubt expressed on the boards that the pet trade N. carapoensis is really that species. Personally, I’m not wringing my hands over this, if it turns out to be Acanthoscurria, fine, still a nice-looking spider. I am concerned, however, that there may be TWO spiders going by that name. That is a REAL problem, since it can affect captive breeding.


The problem is even some of the chaps who are not laymen also make mistakes, and some time rush to get new species named even when they know others are working on the same problem, Martin has pointed this out many times "Nhandu chromatus" anyone  also AFAIK most of the good guys trying to stort out the mess in Theraphosid's are doing so on there own time and there own money  i believe offen museums can be unhelpfull to them (not letting them lone types for example) this in part may stem from the fact that (again AFAIK) many of the "good guys" are them self's laymen iv also heard someone use the term "Gentleman Arachnologist" (im in the UK remember you can't get a degree in that field here) some say a "little" knowledge is a bad thing but i still agree with Martin about helping ppl to learn more about the Taxonomy (and every thing else) of there pets be it though course work or though having access to well done books, i dont have macro on my cam but it would be fun to take a load of close up pictures of eyes/tarsi and met pads/lab/ect of a common spider in the pet trade and then make them gray scale (to hide any colour clues) and see how many ppl could id the spider in the pictures by looking at there own animals closely i bet a lot would just take stabs in the dark but every one may learn something too (as well as have a lot of fun  ).

P.S Wade that spider you speak of the N.carapoenis look-a-like is now Acanthoscurria altmanni (Schmidt-Tesmoingt 2003) i believe, and Martin you may not be writeing that book but im sure you will take a lot of pictures for it 

P.S.S Ack I forgot too add this (although its as old as the hills) if the was a proper peer review system for Theraphosid naming “cowboy taxonomists” would not get there work published and then recognised in the first place.


----------



## Scorpiove (Jul 8, 2004)

I agree with frylock, there is more potential harm in not knowing..............


----------



## WYSIWYG (Jul 8, 2004)

another "problem"/point I forgott to mention above: people are not reading the whole thread but posting replies! =;-)


all the best,
Martin[/QUOTE]

I see how that could be a problem, though when one is playing a guessing
game, one would like to make the guess without being influenced by other guesses.  

Also, several of the posters do not make it particularly easy to read their
posts because they run about 40 lines of text together with no paragraph
breaks.  I generally will skim such posts as it all runs together in one big
blurb and is especially hard  on my poor eyes.  

Wysi


----------



## WYSIWYG (Jul 8, 2004)

Ok, here's my latest guess...

Phormictopus nesiotes - Cuban Gold

It might help if you had some pix from other angles.
I had only guessed it was Asian earlier because the
abdomen was so much shorter and thinner than the
carapace.

I haven't seen anyone guess Phormictopus so if worse comes
to worst, we can rule that genera out too.  

Wysi


----------



## NYbirdEater (Jul 8, 2004)

For someone who doesn't want wild guesses spewed out you sure postpone your answer till every possible guess IS spewed out. Hypocricy, no one can escape it. 

Could just be a trinidad chevron, H incei, or Heterothele villosella Tanzanian Dwarf Tarantula or some other juvenile after a molt or something , the horrible lighting hides the obdomen and carapace features alot. The colors are all desaturated, it's out of focus, and the picture is too low res and compressed to tell. You ask us to guess, and then after tons of guesses you start pointing out how rediculous it is to do this, when you COULD HAVE posted the photo and asked everyone as a group what would be the best way to ID a T. AND ACTUALLY TEACH US HOW TO DO IT CORRECTLY STEP BY STEP!  Then by examining all the definable traits (if any), TOGETHER WITH YOUR HELP, we could all decide on an educated guess and actually learn something. You obviously know that most of us will try to identify it by looking at what is obvious to US, color, size and shape, proportions, and relation to the background and substrate.

Your approach has no other obvious outcome than to make YOU and the most experienced of T keepers look superior to the majority of us, while you and your two cronies pat eachothers backs for linguistics points. My advice is you should take turns sticking your blue spikes in some hard to reach places while they photograph you with a cheap camera & the rest of us can sit here and try to figure out what friggin species you are...

 ;P    :}     ;P


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Ok here I come again as the devil’s advocate ;P, now if this was a real ID me thread if Martin had posted pictures of the spiders dorsal and ventral sides taken with the spider at full spread (to show the legs and there size in relation to each other and the ceph) plus close up macro shots of the carapace as a whole/ the ocular tubercle and eye arrangement (not to be used alone of course)/the sternum / the labium area (not easy too show cuspules I know but other things such as the lab/ster mounds are a key to some Ischnocolinae for example) / the tarsal and metatarsal pads/ a moult showing the coxa and trochanter of the palp and leg I plus the chelicerae (would be hard to show some of tho’s with killing the spider other wise) and lastly (but not leastly) if it’s a she and mature the spermatheca, and you know what I personally could have told Martin about the ID of this spider if he had given all of tho’s pictures that iv just listed… probably nothing BUT an expert could have a very high chance of giving a 99% answer providing #1 he/she had clear shots of all the relevant areas iv listed #2 that the spider is in fact a know named species.


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Id just like to add after Rereading both NY’s post and my own guess the spider from the macro shots idea, would a basic taxo teaching thread not be a great idea im sure if all the experts here can making such great posts decrying picture ID’s they could put the same amount of effort into such a thread :? just because ppl are new to this hobby or just see there spiders as pets does not mean there dumb and cant learn this stuff  

P.S NY if i came over as Eilteist im not m8 believe me i left full time schooling at 13 because of health problems and have to run every post though a spell checker as have mild dyslexic (read find but jumble the letters )


----------



## NYbirdEater (Jul 8, 2004)

FryLock said:
			
		

> Id just like to add after Rereading both NY’s post and my own guess the spider from the macro shots idea, would a basic taxo teaching thread not be a great idea im sure if all the experts here can making such great posts decrying picture ID’s they could put the same amount of effort into such a thread :? just because ppl are new to this hobby or just see there spiders as pets does not mean there dumb and cant learn this stuff
> 
> P.S NY if i came over as Eilteist im not m8 believe me i left full time schooling at 13 because of health problems and have to run every post though a spell checker as have mild dyslexic (read find but jumble the letters )


Exactly, posting some good shots and explaining step by step of how to identify (even if not 100%) a Tarantula to the best of one's knowledge would be beneficial to everyone on the board. Making a mockery of an ID just seems like a waste of time. It would also be good to show pictures like the one posted because it is bad quality, but for an experienced person, there still may be definable characteristics that a novice might not realize right away. Teaching us what to look for in either case would be a great learning tool. This is one of the few places (if not the only) where tarantula keepers can communicate quickly over great distances, share knowledge and hopefully become smarter and better keepers and help further the hobby as well as the survival and preservation of the animals we love. The more we know, the more we can educate those who pass legislation banning our pets, as well as friends and family, and yes even pet store owners.

No need to appologize. I didn't hear many voices going against this kind of discussion so I am the kind to take it upon himself to point it out with extreme prejudice so that maybe someone will notice what should be obvious, but nothing personal to anyone. I just hate when it seems like people are being belittled and it gives a certain pleasure to others.Especially since without us all helping eachother, where would we be right now? I have seen everyone here post a problem, including myself. We are all a part of this community. Or, ignore what I say, curse me and tell the mods to ban me ;P


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Nope your 110% right, I enjoy Martin’s post’s he posts some great info and some excellent link’s but I too was being to feel he was turning this thread into belittlement or perhaps getting a sense epicaricacy from all this (guilty pleasure the German word is Schadenfreude which is better but its so passé with Lisa Simpson and all that) add to that the thread would fill up with B.smithi pic’s one got in before I could post , but as I stated in my first post back after Martin had his say I had to point out that Martin and others have many times used pictures (both of the whole animal and key features) to prove that a spider is not the species that some one is saying it is, now I don’t want to open up old wounds but Martin (rightly I believe) used sets of pictures of two (at least at that time) undescribed species to show which one was which and again in a thread he himself linked too in one of his posts on this very thread again photographic proof as to why Leon’s spider did not  seem to be H.schmidti fine to say pictures are of little or no uses to prove what a species is but ok to prove what it is not seems odd too hold both opinions


----------



## NYbirdEater (Jul 8, 2004)

FryLock said:
			
		

> Nope your 110% right, I enjoy Martin’s post’s he posts some great info and some excellent link’s but I too was being to feel he was turning this thread into belittlement or perhaps getting a sense epicaricacy from all this (guilty pleasure the German word is Schadenfreude which is better but its so passé with Lisa Simpson and all that) add to that the thread would fill up with B.smithi pic’s one got in before I could post , but as I stated in my first post back after Martin had his say I had to point out that Martin and others have many times used pictures (both of the whole animal and key features) to prove that a spider is not the species that some one is saying it is, now I don’t want to open up old wounds but Martin (rightly I believe) used sets of pictures of two (at least at that time) undescribed species to show which one was which and again in a thread he himself linked too in one of his posts on this very thread again photographic proof as to why Leon’s spider did not  seem to be H.schmidti fine to say pictures are of little or no uses to prove what a species is but ok to prove what it is not seems odd too hold both opinions


Maybe it would ne nice for the most advanced keepers and mods to periodically(weekly monthly whatever) to start a learning post. Each time a different topic would be chosen and all members would be encouraged to participate, though it should not be geared to a contest. Maybe users could vote on what the topic would be, if it related to a scpecific species or was more generalized. Maybe each user would be given a task in a PM by the mods which he/she would have to research on their own, and then post their findings in the thread, so maybe the full meaning of the thread would not be fully realized until all posts were in. Deadline of course, but the goal should be to enlighten ourselves and gain knowledge and not for something material. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen. Most everyone here seems intelligent enough to handle that. Plus it gives us something to do in between feedings


----------



## Crotalus (Jul 8, 2004)

Martin, its time to reveal the ID now I think.
And Frylock/NYbirdeater - I dont think he was turning this into a contest, you both seemed to managed that yourselfs. ;-)


/Lelle


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Lelle I know a few of Martin’s posts from my lurking days here I believe he wanted to simulate a good debate at least as much as put forward his own point of view, it was perhaps mean of me to bring his own use of pictures up but I believe it was full justified when one considers the wider argument he is bringing to the table.


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 8, 2004)

Hi,



> Originally Posted by *Wade*_
> 
> I agree completely that from a purely taxonomic angle, photo ID's are less than useless. I do think, however, they will have some (admittedly limited) utility within the hobby. _
> [...]


dito in many points.






			
				Wade said:
			
		

> Take Nhandu carapoensis for example. I have several spiders in my collection that are labeled that. Lately, there has been considerable doubt expressed on the boards that the pet trade N. carapoensis is really that species. Personally, I’m not wringing my hands over this, if it turns out to be Acanthoscurria, fine, still a nice-looking spider. I am concerned, however, that there may be TWO spiders going by that name. That is a REAL problem, since it can affect captive breeding.


unfortunately there are several example where two ore more different species have been / are sold under the same name: Haplopelma sp. "aureopilosum" has been sold for years labelled as Haplopelma minax and sometimes still is. But in the last two years more and more often the real H. minax popped up on the market. In Germany a certain dealer sold over years a little bit greenish form of Haplopelma lividum as Lampropelma violaceopes. Since 2001 there is a second species on the market sold as Lampropelma violaceopes (first [and sometimes still is] the latter one has been sold as Haplopelma robustum). Arround 1997 someone in the area of Stuttgart (Germany) has erroneously sold spiderlings of A. brocklehursti as A. geniculata. Wondering how many and which species have been sold in the past labelled as Hysterocrates hercules. Or Ephebopus cyanognathus vs. E. uatuman...     etc. pp. – many examples like this!

As long as one buys a spider just to keep and enjoy it, I agree it is irrelevant what name it does have (as long as you provide the proper set up). But when one wants to breed them....  not only because of hybrids (most hobbiists probably don't care if they keep a hybrid or a "pure" species) but also to save money. I don't want to know how many males get eaten by the females, because they are a different species than the females without the owner knowing it. See the example above of the Pamphobeteus sp. which has been sold as T. blondi. What would have been happened when the owner would have decided to breed it and bought a T. blondi male for his supposed T. blondi female? How often does this happen, that similar looking species are sold with a wrong label!? 






			
				Socrates said:
			
		

> (...Wendy liegt anflehend auf der Erde.....)


*LOL* 







			
				NYbirdEater said:
			
		

> You ask us to guess, and then after tons of guesses you start pointing out how rediculous it is to do this, when you COULD HAVE posted the photo and asked everyone as a group what would be the best way to ID a T. AND ACTUALLY TEACH US HOW TO DO IT CORRECTLY STEP BY STEP!  Then by examining all the definable traits (if any), TOGETHER WITH YOUR HELP, we could all decide on an educated guess and actually learn something. You obviously know that most of us will try to identify it by looking at what is obvious to US, color, size and shape, proportions, and relation to the background and substrate.


in my opinion there are different ways to teach something: e.g. you can stay in front of a class/audience and explain something step by step. Or you can ask the class/audience what ideas they have to solve a certain problem and when they don't have a solution lead them with some question to the solution you have. Or you can make an "experiment", let make the class/audience an experience in their own body and then after they have had their light bulb moment and are sensitive to the topic you can give new input or even better lead them with some question to the solution you have and let them think it's their own. Or...

In different situations on different topics different teaching methods may make sense! I general it is said, that if someone finds a solution for a problem himself he will accept it and identify himself with it much better than when a third person tells him how to do something! 
This time I have choosen the latter, because in the past I had the impression that my posts in which I said that you can't make a reliable ID from a photo only or in which I tried to explain how variable colors are and that in general overall colouration has no importance in taxonomy (exception: the genus Poecilotheria where mainly the markings [not the colour] is used to ID the different species; colour is only an aditional information to ID them) has been almost a waste of time I think.





			
				NYbirdEater said:
			
		

> It would also be good to show pictures like the one posted because it is bad quality,


talking about the quality of the photo, here are some examples of photos which are usually posted in "please ID" threads (I have picked out these threads by random): >>click here<<, >>click here<<, >>click here<<, >>click here<<, ...





since I don't have the time to comment all further posts just a summary: it is none of the suggested species, but some guesses are quite close! =;-)

all the best,
Martin


----------



## Rourke (Jul 8, 2004)

AAAAAAACCKKK!!!

Did Martin really just make that long post and NOT reveal the identity???

Somebody tell me I have missed it somehow!

Rourke liegt anflehend auf der Erde.....
(not sure what that means, but hoping it will apply universally)


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

NOOOO Mr Rourke, Khan would never "anflehend" to anybody  ;P


----------



## Socrates (Jul 8, 2004)

Mr. Rourke said:
			
		

> AAAAAAACCKKK!!!
> 
> Did Martin really just make that long post and NOT reveal the identity???
> 
> ...


No, you didn't miss it anywhere.  I myself read through Martin's response three times, thinking I was missing it somewhere.

Sorry about the German sentence I threw in.  I believe you'll be taking it back, Mr. Rourke, once you find out what it means, because I honestly can't imagine you in that pose. 

Freely translated it means: "<insert any name> is laying on the ground, begging for the revelation." 

---
Wendy
---


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Martin i did recheck "that" thread (its been cleaned up a bit too  ) you did use pattern as well as colour but i think the point still stands that pictures can be a good tool if used right see some of Mr Voi's papers online http://gea.free.fr/pseudoligoxystrebolivianus.htm


----------



## WYSIWYG (Jul 8, 2004)

Mr. Rourke said:
			
		

> AAAAAAACCKKK!!!
> 
> Did Martin really just make that long post and NOT reveal the identity???
> 
> ...


Yep, he sure did.  And not only that, he didn't even address my most
recent guess of Phormictopus nesiotes.  (If it's definitely wrong, I'd like to
explore other options).  

Earlier, someone mentioned it could just be a Psalmopoeous.  I'd had that
thought earlier, but couldn't see the "lightening strikes" on the feet nor the
obvious Chevron on the abdomen so I ruled that out right away.  It seems
with even a relatively unclear pic, that info should have sill been seen unless
Martin completely cut off the feet of the spider.  Maybe a different species
in that genus?  It really is a very leggy critter, though it's hard to decide if
it's because it's an arboreal or just a male of some species or simply just the
camera angle making it appear to be leggy.

Wysi


----------



## Tamara (Jul 8, 2004)

In post 41 he says it's not a Psalmopoeus. The ocular arrangement is sure distinct. What genera have that arrangement other than Nhandus?
Tamara


----------



## MizM (Jul 8, 2004)

NYbirdEater said:
			
		

> Exactly, posting some good shots and explaining step by step of how to identify (even if not 100%) a Tarantula to the best of one's knowledge would be beneficial to everyone on the board. Making a mockery of an ID just seems like a waste of time. It would also be good to show pictures like the one posted because it is bad quality, but for an experienced person, there still may be definable characteristics that a novice might not realize right away. Teaching us what to look for in either case would be a great learning tool. This is one of the few places (if not the only) where tarantula keepers can communicate quickly over great distances, share knowledge and hopefully become smarter and better keepers and help further the hobby as well as the survival and preservation of the animals we love. The more we know, the more we can educate those who pass legislation banning our pets, as well as friends and family, and yes even pet store owners.
> 
> No need to appologize. I didn't hear many voices going against this kind of discussion so I am the kind to take it upon himself to point it out with extreme prejudice so that maybe someone will notice what should be obvious, but nothing personal to anyone. I just hate when it seems like people are being belittled and it gives a certain pleasure to others.Especially since without us all helping eachother, where would we be right now? I have seen everyone here post a problem, including myself. We are all a part of this community. Or, ignore what I say, curse me and tell the mods to ban me ;P


Oh CHILL for heaven's sake! There has not been ONE WORD even CLOSE to being "belittling". Prior to your outburst, this WAS a FUN thread! I've checked out each species guessed and have LEARNED about some I've never even HEARD of! Of course I'm DYING to find out the species of the mystery T, but in the process, I'm getting a little education and having fun doing it!! Please, don't turn this thread into an argument... everyone else is ENJOYING it!


----------



## NYbirdEater (Jul 8, 2004)

MizM said:
			
		

> Oh CHILL for heaven's sake! There has not been ONE WORD even CLOSE to being "belittling". Prior to your outburst, this WAS a FUN thread! I've checked out each species guessed and have LEARNED about some I've never even HEARD of! Of course I'm DYING to find out the species of the mystery T, but in the process, I'm getting a little education and having fun doing it!! Please, don't turn this thread into an argument... everyone else is ENJOYING it!


I'm quitting this <caca butt> forum


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

MizM Belittlement is perhaps to harsh but im sure NY was detecting the same vibe that many others may have been, but it would seem from the posts now being made here the apprentice’s are prostrating them self’s eagerly to learn but the masters are oddly silent but time will tell , however it would seem by keeping the name of the spider hidden in this last post he seems to have confirmed the epicaricacy i spoke of ;P (not that i begrudge him that), still a fun thread anyway.


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

NYbirdEater said:
			
		

> I'm quitting this <caca butt> forum


I would not give up on your point of view here so quickly.


----------



## MizM (Jul 8, 2004)

FryLock said:
			
		

> MizM Belittlement is perhaps to harsh but im sure NY was detecting the same vibe that many others may have been, but it would seem from the posts now being made here the apprentice’s are prostrating them self’s eagerly to learn but the masters are oddly silent but time will tell , however it would seem by keeping the name of the spider hidden in this last post he seems to have confirmed the epicaricacy i spoke of ;P (not that i begrudge him that), still a fun thread anyway.


And it's gotten me to look up a veritable HERD of species that I've never heard of or seen... and have added to my wish list!   My only complaint is that if they keep doing this sort of thing, I'll have all 850± species on that list!! Well, going to buy a lottery ticket!


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 8, 2004)

Hi,



			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> however it would seem by keeping the name of the spider hidden


...in the whole thread I gave so many hints ... there are not many possibilities left ... ok, here is another one: there are some – like you – who have been VERY close to the answer ... just one more little step! =;-)

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Chaetopelma Holothele Ischnocolus Hemiercus are all ruled out (or did you just rule out species listed from tho's genera) plus Africa has been ruled out and it is not clearly not Pseudoligoxystre or Oligoxystre (fovea looks wrong) that leaves Cratorrhagus (from the mid east) or Nesiergus (the Seychelles) :?


----------



## Tamara (Jul 8, 2004)

Are you sure he ruled out Ischnocolus? Perhaps holosericeus? Or maybe andalusiacus? Those are both in Europe, but I cannot find much about andalusiacus.
Tamara


----------



## LaRiz (Jul 8, 2004)

_Ephebopus rufescens_ 
It looks like some sort of Ephebopid to me.
john


----------



## morda (Jul 8, 2004)

Martin - You are so cruel! 
I know that You can't identify a spider from photo. I send Hysterocrates sp. photo for identification (LOL). No one knows what this can be...


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 8, 2004)

Hi FryLock,

et voilà! =





			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> Chaetopelma Holothele Ischnocolus Hemiercus are all ruled out


have I really ruled out Hemiercus in this thread?  

	
	
		
		
	


	





Ok, I could now tell any species which hasn't been mentioned yet 'cause nobody could prove it =;-) 
At the time when I made the photo (in 2002) (and when I didn't mix up the folders/labels – I photographed a lot of species at this day which I have never seen before) it has been introduced to me has _Hemiercus_ sp. (that what my notes say).
It has been collected in Venezuela and has been IDed by someone who has a deeper interest in the taxonomy of southamerican theraphosids, among others also in those small (brown) jobs – he has a lot of such boring uniform stuff! =;-) He only gave me the genus name – maybe it is a new species, maybe he does not know if it is already described or maybe because he is always very reserved naming species even he has a good idea what it probably is. He prefers to ID them till genus name and give them a number (each locality where he has found spiders has a own number, this one is in his system "Hemiercus sp. 18")

Peace, health, wisdom and wealth. Live long and prosper.
Martin


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Well fun as the chase has been this is perhaps not the best way to show hobbyists they cant ID any thing from pictures seeing as next to no one has any Hemiercus sp ”18”  after all if you were to have shown all the pictures I suggested even the likes of Dr Raven and Rick West would have gotten the genus only (unless they had material of there own) BTW bad netiket from me but i thought you ruled out Hemiercus when you ruled out H.inflatus on a other forum.


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 8, 2004)

Hi,



			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> Well fun as the chase has been this is perhaps not the best way to show hobbyists they cant ID any thing from pictures seeing as next to no one has any Hemiercus sp ”18”


"Für nichts verwendet der Mensch so viel Energie wie für das Erfinden von Ausreden!" =;-)
Freely translated it means: For nothing humans use as much energy as for inventing excuses! =;-)

=> you wish a different example? Try it with the attached photo! It's easy – or maybe it's not!? =;-)





			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> BTW bad netiket from me but i thought you ruled out Hemiercus when you ruled out H.inflatus on a other forum.


did *I* really, or was it someone else who did! =;-)~

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

True Martin true but but you also said this  



			
				Martin H. said:
			
		

> nope, and it's not a common one. But if you wish we can play this game also with a common species or a look-alike of a common species!


Also i should not have read so much of your silence on Hemiercus else were.


----------



## MizM (Jul 8, 2004)

Picture number two, is it an Aphonopelma species... yet another convoluted and completely messed up family?


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 8, 2004)

MizM said:
			
		

> Picture number two, is it an Aphonopelma species...


far away!

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## MizM (Jul 8, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> far away!
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin


THAT WAS A CLUE!!! It sure is a beaut, the coloring reminds me of an Apho, but the body style... maybe a Haplopelma? :?


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

Ok in for a penny.. Coremiocnemis (no idea of species)


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 8, 2004)

FryLock said:
			
		

> Ok in for a penny.. Coremiocnemis (no idea of species)


it's a different genus!

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## Rourke (Jul 8, 2004)

Holy ZOMBIE _JESUS_, Martin!

I was just about to guess Hemiercus!  I just couldn't decide between sp. 17 and sp. 18!

By the way, are you 100% sure it's not a 17??  Because it appears to be a penultimate male, and I have a group of 10 females looking for some ACTION!!!


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

G1 Mr Rourke    ok if its not that then it could be Lyrognathus but as i cant see the under side of the met of leg 4..


----------



## FryLock (Jul 8, 2004)

BTW Mr Rourke he has no male's left all this thread was of course in part to drum up trade for Hemiercus sp “18” seeing as Martin has 23 sac’s at N2


----------



## MizM (Jul 8, 2004)

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to "I.D. That TarRANtula" with your host, Martin Huber. On today's show, see the contestants guess the genus & species of a stunning brown and tan tarantula as Martin pops off clues.


----------



## phormingochilus (Jul 10, 2004)

LOTFLMSAO!!!

Martin - I think you are a wee bit rough with the "pupils" ;-p 

Well since this picture actually has a taxonomically relevant character I will try and make an educated guestimate to which species it might be ;-) Well - the character is - that metatarsus IV is fully scopulated ventrally along the whole lenght of the segment. This key character is found in Xenesthis species, Lyrognathus species and in one Selenocosmia species - namely - Selenocosmia peerboomi. It's clearly not a Xenesthis (lacks urticating hair patch). I have examined Lyrognathus specimens at Oxford and usually their leg IV are more incrassate than that of your spider, but the spider in the picture could be a juvenile specimen. The general appearance also do fit with a juvenile specimen of Selenocosmia peerboomi, but without more specific locality data I'd say either a Lyrognathus spp. or S. peerboomi. 

Knowing you - I would place my bets on the latter species, firstly because I know you have this species in your collection, secondly because if you had one of the true indian Lyrognathus species I am sure we would know by now and thirdly it would be very Huber'ish to show a specimen you have already told how to distinguish (but you forgot about Lyrognathus' leg IV scopulation - didn't you?) in the same thread, but that would be a guess that have absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy ;-)

Overall - I can only comply with Martin that most picture ID's from the "experts" (bautiful word for self claimed specialists - a friend put it like this "ex" is former "spert" is a drop released under pressure (spurt) ... get the picture?) are merely noise that confuses more than it enlightens. In particular if the guy asking doesn't know much about spiders, taxonomy - or perhaps even more important in this regard - who to trust in the world of taxonomy and identification. Usually the name they leave the board with is the result of democracy (3 Haplopelma minax, 1 Brachypelma smithi and 4 Psalmopoeus cambridgei - arh well P. cambridgei it is ...) - or - the name the guy that "shout" the highest and longest put forth ... but ...

Taxonomy and identification is not about democracy or how well you put forth your arguments. And usually you will not get any definite answers from a real taxonomist unless he has examined a skin or a spider from you that has a locality label (I can reveal to you that this is not the adress of the pet shop that sold you the spider) and compared that with a type specimen (or knowing the type specimens of a genus so well as to be able to key out your specimen - very few can actually do this reliably) pictures are nice to show to friends, like we usually do on this board, but in general very poor tools for identification. Though I will admit that some species can be guestimated with some certainty from a picture, it doesn't make a rule out of it - on the contrary it's the few exceptions that underlines the rule. 

Very best regards
Søren




			
				Martin H. said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> "Für nichts verwendet der Mensch so viel Energie wie für das Erfinden von Ausreden!" =;-)
> Freely translated it means: For nothing humans use as much energy as for inventing excuses! =;-)
> ...


----------



## Crotalus (Jul 10, 2004)

Give me locality data and I can guess. Locality data is one key thing when it comes to ID a species so without that this thread is more or less "take a pick and hope for the best" game. And its getting a bit old. 

/Lelle


----------



## FryLock (Jul 10, 2004)

I too thought of Selenocosmia for the following reason the spider shown could also be a Chilobrachys.sp but Martin well knows that Selenocosmia and Chilobrachys differ on the stridulating organ something that can not be seen on the picture  I will stick with it being a Lyrognathus.sp (tho iv only owned one) and for all we know the picture was taken in situ


----------



## Rourke (Jul 10, 2004)

Lyrognathus is what I was originally going to guess, though for no better reason than that it looks like a spider I once had from Kelly Swift which was sold as "Lyrognathus capizi."

I have no idea if that epithet is, or was ever, valid.


----------



## FryLock (Jul 10, 2004)

The one I had was sold as L.robustus but was clearly not (ceph close to 4 times length as wide very odd spider) iv cheated and looked at S.peerboomi adults online (iv only seen slings myself) but the back legs still don’t seem right but is that because its not mature as Søren is thinking humm.


----------



## L_L (Jul 10, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> "Für nichts verwendet der Mensch so viel Energie wie für das Erfinden von Ausreden!" =;-)
> Freely translated it means: For nothing humans use as much energy as for inventing excuses! =;-)
> ...


poste mal bidde ein closeup vom metatarsus IV...


----------



## FryLock (Jul 10, 2004)

L_L said:
			
		

> poste mal bidde ein closeup vom metatarsus IV...


Yes but Martins trying to show that you cant id from just one picture in which it is hard to see much in the way of definable traits


----------



## FryLock (Jul 10, 2004)

But I think i can see were your going with that L_L the young S.peerboomi would most certainly have the full leg IV met scopulation but do you then know that a younger Lyrognathus lacks the full scopulation on leg 4 met at that size :?


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 11, 2004)

Hi,



			
				phormingochilus said:
			
		

> and thirdly it would be very Huber'ish to show a specimen you have already told how to distinguish (but you forgot about Lyrognathus' leg IV scopulation - didn't you?) in the same thread, but that would be a guess that have absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy ;-)


*LOL* Søren, it seems that you know me too well! =;-) yep, it's a female of _Selenocosmia peerboomi_. 

(BTW, I have expected that some will suggest _Selenocosmia dichromata_ because of the colour of the 'carapace'.)






			
				phormingochilus said:
			
		

> Overall - I can only comply with Martin that most picture ID's from the "experts" (bautiful word for self claimed specialists - a friend put it like this "ex" is former "spert" is a drop released under pressure (spurt) ... get the picture?) are merely noise that confuses more than it enlightens. In particular if the guy asking doesn't know much about spiders, taxonomy - or perhaps even more important in this regard - who to trust in the world of taxonomy and identification. Usually the name they leave the board with is the result of democracy (3 Haplopelma minax, 1 Brachypelma smithi and 4 Psalmopoeus cambridgei - arh well P. cambridgei it is ...) - or - the name the guy that "shout" the highest and longest put forth ... but ...
> 
> Taxonomy and identification is not about democracy or how well you put forth your arguments. And usually you will not get any definite answers from a real taxonomist unless he has examined a skin or a spider from you that has a locality label (I can reveal to you that this is not the adress of the pet shop that sold you the spider) and compared that with a type specimen (or knowing the type specimens of a genus so well as to be able to key out your specimen - very few can actually do this reliably) pictures are nice to show to friends, like we usually do on this board, but in general very poor tools for identification. Though I will admit that some species can be guestimated with some certainty from a picture, it doesn't make a rule out of it - on the contrary it's the few exceptions that underlines the rule.


exactly my point! good summary, very well said! =






			
				Crotalus said:
			
		

> without that this thread is more or less "take a pick and hope for the best" game.


like almost any of the other "please ID"-threads on this (and other) forum! 




			
				Crotalus said:
			
		

> And its getting a bit old.


dito!






			
				FryLock said:
			
		

> iv cheated and looked at S.peerboomi adults online (iv only seen slings myself) but the back legs still don’t seem right but is that because its not mature as Søren is thinking humm.


it's an adult female (as far as I know it's from the first batch which was been sold several years ago). I think it's because of the angle from which I took the photo.

all the best,
Martin


----------



## FryLock (Jul 11, 2004)

Well think we have all learnt things from this thread but il add this (which follows on from Søren's points), The problem inherent is that people when told that they can not learn about something for them self's the more they will continue to strive to do so even if they do it in a way that is less then correct, but by giving people some knowledge to play with not only do they gain a feeling a achievement on a personal level they also gain a greater insight in the problems of the subject  (as I learnt my self many years ago).

P.s iv also gained a need for S.peerboomi from this thread


----------



## MizM (Jul 11, 2004)

"Huber'ish"  

Thanks Martin! Informative and fun thread!!


----------



## phormingochilus (Jul 13, 2004)

BTW Can anyone put a name tag on this pokie? ;P 

 Søren


----------



## Aviculariinae (Jul 13, 2004)

I think ill join the fun and make a fool of myself i seem to have a habit of doing that! Would,nt that be wright soren   

Poecilotheria Miranda/ possibly Hanuamavilosumica though if it is id like to know where you got that picture from


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 13, 2004)

Hi Søren,



			
				phormingochilus said:
			
		

> BTW Can anyone put a name tag on this pokie? ;P


looks like one of these ugly brown jobbies! =;-p
As you very well know, Poecilotheria spp. are IDed by the markings on the underside of leg I and IV => any good ventral pix!?

all the best,
Martin

PS.: Has your camera problems with catching blue bloom or is it indeed as ugly? =;-p


----------



## Crotalus (Jul 13, 2004)

phormingochilus said:
			
		

> BTW Can anyone put a name tag on this pokie? ;P
> 
> Søren


Hereby I name it Vishnu ;P 

/Lelle


----------



## Palespider (Jul 13, 2004)

phormingochilus said:
			
		

> BTW Can anyone put a name tag on this pokie? ;P
> 
> Søren



I was thinking P. subfusca.

Jim


----------



## FryLock (Jul 13, 2004)

gald i did not find £150 for a sling


----------



## phormingochilus (Jul 14, 2004)

It is indeed as ugly as that and very much premolt - truly the beauty and the beast all in one ;-)

Makes you think twice of all these photo ID's doesn't it? - here we even had the genus narrowed down ... This is the same spider post molt ... 

Søren




			
				Martin H. said:
			
		

> Hi Søren,
> PS.: Has your camera problems with catching blue bloom or is it indeed as ugly? =;-p[/SIZE]


----------



## Lopez (Jul 14, 2004)

phormingochilus said:
			
		

> BTW Can anyone put a name tag on this pokie? ;P
> 
> Søren


*Colour of carapace and abdomen much as in other species (of Poecilotheria), but dark bands on the carapace more widely separated mesially and the pale band on the abdomen much less distinct and traversed by a darker stripe; upperside of legs and palpi tolerably uniformly coloured and becoming darker towards the extremities, showing faint metallic lustre; tarsi not spotted above;protarsi with thin brown stripe; tibiae with very indistinct lines of yellow spots; lower side of palpi entirely deep brown, with faint metallic blue lustre; lower side of anterior legs blackish brown, and strong metallic blue lustre, and a large orange-yellow patch on the under and inner sides of the base of the tibia; third and fourth legs uniformly coloured below with a similar but smaller tibial spot and much less metallic blue tint; lower side of abdomen uniformly chocolate-brown.
*

^^ makes far more sense after looking at your premoult picture doesn't it?


----------



## phormingochilus (Jul 14, 2004)

Yes - I believe Pocock had a faded specimen to work with ;-) The absolute certain way to distinguish Pokes is to look at the markings on leg 1 and 4. All else is speculation.

Søren



			
				Lopez said:
			
		

> *Colour of carapace and abdomen much as in other species (of Poecilotheria), but dark bands on the carapace more widely separated mesially and the pale band on the abdomen much less distinct and traversed by a darker stripe; upperside of legs and palpi tolerably uniformly coloured and becoming darker towards the extremities, showing faint metallic lustre; tarsi not spotted above;protarsi with thin brown stripe; tibiae with very indistinct lines of yellow spots; lower side of palpi entirely deep brown, with faint metallic blue lustre; lower side of anterior legs blackish brown, and strong metallic blue lustre, and a large orange-yellow patch on the under and inner sides of the base of the tibia; third and fourth legs uniformly coloured below with a similar but smaller tibial spot and much less metallic blue tint; lower side of abdomen uniformly chocolate-brown.
> *
> 
> ^^ makes far more sense after looking at your premoult picture doesn't it?


----------



## Palespider (Jul 14, 2004)

phormingochilus said:
			
		

> It is indeed as ugly as that and very much premolt - truly the beauty and the beast all in one ;-)
> 
> Makes you think twice of all these photo ID's doesn't it? - here we even had the genus narrowed down ... This is the same spider post molt ...
> 
> Søren


LOL. I took the bait, hook line and sinker. Amazing how unprofessional your first pic is as far as lighting in comparison to the second pic. That's what I get for trying to identify a species by color.  

Good stuff guys, I'm learning. 
Jim B.


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 15, 2004)

Anyone care to guess this one??







Photograph by D.Knowles.


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 15, 2004)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Anyone care to guess this one??


Just to give some hints, this is the male, they reach handspan at full size, the females are jet black, they possess a stridulating organ, that should do. I'll be impressed if anyone can even get the genus right


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 15, 2004)

Hi,



			
				Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Just to give some hints, this is the male, they reach handspan at full size, the females are jet black, they possess a stridulating organ, that should do.


as first advance I would say it's a mygalomorphae (from the position of the chelicera, as far as I can see) and I wouldn't be surprised when you posted a photo of a non-theraphosidae. =;-) Is it from Australia?

all the best,
Martin


----------



## LaRiz (Jul 15, 2004)

phormingochilus said:
			
		

> BTW Can anyone put a name tag on this pokie? ;P
> Søren


_Poecilotheria megadeth_  (sorry, I had to)


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 15, 2004)

Martin H. said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised when you posted a photo of a non-theraphosidae. =;-) Is it from Australia?


Hi Martin,  How can you tell it isn't Theraphosidae??


----------



## Martin H. (Jul 15, 2004)

Hi Steve,



			
				Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> How can you tell it isn't Theraphosidae??


How!? I could tell if I could examine it and check some characters like if there are flocci under the claws or not, the shape of the maxillarlobus (sorry, don't know the english term for it), the scopula at the tarsi, the spinnerets, how many claws are at the tarsi, etc.  ...but I think you know all that very well yourself! =;-)

BTW, I didn't say that it isn't a theraphosidae I just said that it would not surprise me if you would have posted a photo of something different than theraphosidae (based on all all the stuff you have down under and your comment that you don't think that someone would hit the right genus).

BTW2: What about my question, is it from Australia or not?

all the best,
Martin


----------



## Crotalus (Jul 15, 2004)

Steve Nunn said:
			
		

> Anyone care to guess this one??
> 
> Photograph by D.Knowles.


I´ve seen that picture in "Spiders of Australia" but unfortunatly they do not name the spiders in that book 
A Ctenizidae?

/Lelle


----------



## Tamara (Jul 15, 2004)

dontcheat-thefilenamedoesnothelp.jpg
Martin - you're too funny! But maybe Steve needs to rename his files too.
Selenocosmia?


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 15, 2004)

Tamara said:
			
		

> But maybe Steve needs to rename his files too.
> Selenocosmia?


Hi Tamara,
No, it isn't _Selenocosmia_. The file name won't help you 

Hi Lelle,
Yes, it is Australian.

Hi Martin, 
OK. It's Australian 

Another clue, it does possess tarsal scopula.

Cheers,
Steve


----------



## Tamara (Jul 15, 2004)

Darn! Thought I might get somewhere with that guess! Now I'll just wait in suspense for you guys to solve it!
Tamara


----------



## Steve Nunn (Jul 18, 2004)

I posted this pic to show just how difficult it really is to ID any mygale spider. This spider has about a 14cm legspan, is 'hairy' all over, stridulates/hisses, has claw tufts and tarsal scopula, just like every tarantula/theraphosid. Although, forget genus, this spider isn't even in the same family as the tarantulas, it's from the Barychelidae and is called _Idiomnata scintillans_.

I was hesitant to post it, seeing as most collectors don't really know anything about the other mygale families, but thought it a good thing to show how similar all mygales can look, this problem isn't restricted to just the theraphosids.

Steve


----------

