# AVICULARIA REVISION PUBLISHED!



## CEC (Mar 3, 2017)

I have been waiting since Fukushima's thesis proposal in 2011. It's finally finished...

Link to article:
http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=10717

Caribena versicolor



Caribena laeta



Ybyrapora diversipes

Reactions: Like 7 | Agree 1 | Informative 13 | Helpful 1 | Love 6 | Award 3 | Clarification Please 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 3, 2017)

Thanks for posting!

Oh my, this is going to cause a confusion and muttering.....

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 3 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Chris LXXIX (Mar 3, 2017)

I protest  this is an armed assault against Latin by the arachno-pundits. No more 'bird eater' (_Avicularia_) all of a sudden but _Caribena _

Plus _Ibyrapora  
_
lol

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 8


----------



## petkokc (Mar 3, 2017)

I was waiting for someone to post this 
Now, who will make a full list of changes?

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1 | Award 1


----------



## DSCPL (Mar 3, 2017)

Rabble rabble rabble

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 6


----------



## KezyGLA (Mar 3, 2017)

At this rate the label-maker will need re-labelled.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1 | Funny 2 | Award 2 | Winner 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 3, 2017)

@petkokc , are you volunteering?

@advan @AphonopelmaTX , I think it is useful to make this a sticky.


----------



## mygale (Mar 3, 2017)

Caribena gen. n. and Ybyrapora gen. n. by mygale, auf Flickr


Avicularia:

Avicularia avicularia (Linnaeus, 1758)
Avicularia glauca Simon, 1891
Avicularia variegata (F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1896), stat. n.
Avicularia minatrix Pocock, 1903
Avicularia taunayi (Mello-Leitão, 1920)
Avicularia juruensis Mello-Leitão, 1923
Avicularia rufa Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1945
Avicularia purpurea Kirk, 1990
Avicularia hirschii Bullmer, Thierer-Lutz & Schmidt, 2006
Avicularia merianae sp. n.
Avicularia lynnae sp. n.
Avicularia caei sp. n.
Doesn't exist anymore (nomen dubium) or transferred into other genera (com. nov)

Avicularia vestiaria (De Geer, 1778), nomen nudum
Iridopelma leporina (C. L. Koch, 1841), comb. n., nomen dubium
Iridopelma plantaris (C. L. Koch, 1842), comb. n., nomen dubium
Euathlus affinis (Nicolet, 1849), comb. n.
Ischnocolus hirsutum Ausserer, 1875, nomen dubium
Avicularia metallica Ausserer, 1875, nomen dubium
Ischnocolus gracilis Keyserling, 1891, nomen dubium
Grammostola subvulpina (Strand, 1906), comb. n.
Avicularia arabica (Strand, 1908), nomen dubium
Thrixopelma aymara (Chamberlin, 1916), comb. n.
Avicularia aurantiaca Bauer, 1996, nomen dubium
Araneus hirtipes (Fabricius, 1787), nomen dubium
Avicularia testacea (C. L. Koch, 1841), nomen dubium
Avicularia detrita (C. L. Koch, 1842), nomen dubium
Avicularia hirsutissima (C. L. Koch, 1842), nomen dubium
Avicularia holmbergi Thorell, 1890, nomen dubium
Ischnocolus doleschalli Ausserer, 1871, nomen dubium
Avicularia rapax (Ausserer, 1875), nomen dubium
Avicularia ochracea (Perty, 1833), nomen dubium
Avicularia walckenaerii (Perty, 1833), nomen dubium
Avicularia azuraklaasi Tesmoingt, 1996, nomen dubium
Avicularia braunshauseni Tesmoingt 1999, nomen dubium
Avicularia geroldi Tesmoingt, 1999, nomen dubium
Avicularia huriana Tesmoingt, 1996, nomen dubium
Avicularia ulrichea Tesmoingt, 1996, nomen dubium
Avicularia soratae Strand, 1907, nomen dubium
Avicularia fasciculata Strand, 1907, nomen dubium
Avicularia fasciculata clara Strand, 1907, nomen dubium
Avicularia surinamensis Strand, 1907, nomen dubium
The new combinations:

Antillena rickwesti (Bertani & Huff, 2013) comb. n.
Caribena laeta (C. L. Koch, 1842), comb. n.
Caribena versicolor (Walckenaer, 1837), comb. n.
Ybyrapora sooretama (Bertani & Fukushima, 2009), comb. n.
Ybyrapora gamba (Bertani & Fukushima, 2009), comb. n.
Ybyrapora diversipes (C. L. Koch, 1842), comb. n.
Quoted from here: https://vogelspinnenforum.ch/index....lysis-of-Avicularia-Lamarck-1818-Araneae-The/

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Award 9


----------



## petkokc (Mar 3, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> @petkokc , are you volunteering?


Only to make a video once everything is cleared

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 3, 2017)

Nomen dubium....meaning these can be revised as well in the near future

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Venom1080 (Mar 3, 2017)

So I'm seeing nomen dudium next to the aurantica, I just picked one up. If the name doesn't exsist anymore, what is is it? @mygale

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## elysium (Mar 3, 2017)

From Google


In zoological nomenclature, a *nomen dubium*(Latin for "doubtful name", plural nomina dubia) is a scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful application. In bacteriological nomenclature, nomina dubia may be placed on the list of rejected names by the Judicial Commission. The meaning of these names is uncertain.


What happens to my sp. Amazonica?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Paiige (Mar 3, 2017)

"Ybyrapora" what a mouthful. Now I have to tell hubby his beloved versicolor is no longer an Avic and he's going to be so confused...

Reactions: Agree 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Jeff23 (Mar 3, 2017)

elysium said:


> From Google
> In zoological nomenclature, a *nomen dubium*(Latin for "doubtful name", plural nomina dubia) is a scientific name that is of unknown or doubtful application. In bacteriological nomenclature, nomina dubia may be placed on the list of rejected names by the Judicial Commission. The meaning of these names is uncertain.
> What happens to my sp. Amazonica?


Good question.  I have ??? sp. Amazonica as well.  It was already in la la land before now.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## boina (Mar 3, 2017)

Oh great. Well, I don't have an Avicularia anymore. I now have an... what was it? Ybyrapora. I'll have to practice that.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## CEC (Mar 3, 2017)

mygale said:


> Caribena gen. n. and Ybyrapora gen. n. by mygale, auf Flickr
> 
> 
> Avicularia:
> ...





mygale said:


> Caribena gen. n. and Ybyrapora gen. n. by mygale, auf Flickr
> 
> 
> Avicularia:
> ...


The junior synonym species won't exist anymore, but the species that are considered nomen dubium (doubtful label) were not examined or holotypes/paratypes missing. Therefore, they couldn't be studied. Fukushima states "The _Avicularia_ species considered _nomina dubia_ and _nomina nuda_ by World Spider Catalog (2016) do not have their status changed." So I expect the WSC will still have them listed.



Venom1080 said:


> So I'm seeing nomen dudium next to the aurantica, I just picked one up. If the name doesn't exsist anymore, what is is it? @mygale


They state _aurantiaca_ is most likely _Avicularia rufa_ but they can't be sure because the holotype & paratype are missing.

Also, they imply hobby _juruensis_ is actually _Avicularia rufa_.
Quote:
"For many years the name A. juruensis has been applied to specimens that have vivid yellow leg rings and grizzled setae on legs and palps, that are commonly found in the states of Mato Grosso and Rondônia, Brazil. They have spermathecae with midwidth not expanded, developed prominence on palpal bulb and leg IV longer than leg I. However, A. juruensis syntypes have whitish leg rings and lack setae with conspicuous whitish apex on legs, spermathecae with midwidth expanded, palpal bulb with well-developed prominence, and leg IV as long as leg I. The characters found in these specimens formerly known as A. juruensis match, in fact, with those of A. rufa. Thus, we conclude the name A. juruensis is being mistakenly applied to specimens of A. rufa."

The real _juruensis_ maybe from the _urticans_ complex or even sp. Peru Purple. I'm not sure.

A. sp. Amazonica is possibly _Avicularia variegata_

A. sp. Tarapoto is _Avicularia merianae_, I'm fairly certain of that, they are quite unique.

*Remember this is just my take on the revision, I could be wrong. Until _Avicularia_ hobby stock is examined, put your label makers down.
The species with a new genus name, go ahead and relabel.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3 | Helpful 2 | Award 2


----------



## Yulian (Mar 3, 2017)

Great... just when I was getting the hang of the genus names I only know that I know nothing.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Moonohol (Mar 3, 2017)

boina said:


> Oh great. Well, I don't have an Avicularia anymore. I now have an... what was it? Ybyrapora. I'll have to practice that.


It's quite the mouthful but I think it's a fitting name for such a colorful and unique T!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## boina (Mar 3, 2017)

What I want to do - what I really, really want to do is do barcode sequencing from all hobby species and find out how they are related. Of course, it wouldn't be so easy to compare it to wild cought and taxonomically identified specimen, but at least you could sort out the hobby Ts.


----------



## KezyGLA (Mar 3, 2017)

So my Avicularia rickwesti is now Antillena rickwesti? It is its own in the genus?


----------



## CEC (Mar 3, 2017)

KezyGLA said:


> So my Avicularia rickwesti is now Antillena rickwesti? It is its own in the genus?


Yep, a monotypic genus.


----------



## KezyGLA (Mar 3, 2017)

CEC said:


> Yep, a monotypic genus.


I knew there was a wording in english but not sure what. 

Thanks

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gypsy cola (Mar 3, 2017)

So A.metallica no longer exists?


----------



## boina (Mar 3, 2017)

gypsy cola said:


> So A.metallica no longer exists?


"Nomen dubium" only means the species hasn't been studied. The names and the species designations will be kept until someone else comes along who will take another look at this genus and find out if it is a valid species or not.

So, A. metallica still exists, at least for now

Reactions: Helpful 2


----------



## Magenta (Mar 3, 2017)

Errmagerrrd!The world is upside down! Is today still Friday? Is the milk expired now? Is green still a color?

Seriously though, What does this mean in terms of record keeping? When do I change their names in my records?

*I have had too much coffee this morning*:wideyed:


----------



## awiec (Mar 3, 2017)

Magenta said:


> Errmagerrrd!The world is upside down! Is today still Friday? Is the milk expired now? Is green still a color?
> 
> Seriously though, What does this mean in terms of record keeping? When do I change their names in my records?
> 
> *I have had too much coffee this morning*:wideyed:


Most of the species didn't have their holotype studied(ie the specimen kept in the museum if they even have one) so they can't say for sure if they are valid, basically says "Someone should look at this, but I'm not the one to do it". So for now just keep the name they have as they haven't been re-evaluated yet.


----------



## Chris LXXIX (Mar 3, 2017)

KezyGLA said:


> So my Avicularia rickwesti is now Antillena rickwesti? It is its own in the genus?


Like the *Goddess *0.1 _Pelinobius muticus_ my man :-s

until someone discover her 'MIA' sister somewhere deep in a "civil war area" burrow u_u

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sdsnybny (Mar 3, 2017)

@CEC 


> The following new synonymies are established: _Avicularia velutina_ Simon 1889, _Avicularia exilis_ Strand, 1907, _Avicularia ancylochyra_ Mello-Leitão, 1923, _Avicularia cuminami_ Mello-Leitão, 1930, and _Avicularia nigrotaeniata_ Mello-Leitão, 1940 are junior synonyms of _A. avicularia;_


So if I'm reading this right A velutina is just an Avicularia avicularia? (diff Local)
Also;


> _Avicularia urticans_ Schmidt, 1994 is a junior synonym of _Avicularia juruensis_ Mello-Leitão


??

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Red Eunice (Mar 3, 2017)

@CEC, thanks for the information. 
 Doesn't pertain to my collection, but will read it in more depth this evening.

 Aviculariinae keepers: reload those label makers. Lol!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Philip Fraley (Mar 3, 2017)

Switching my A. diversepies label Y. diversepies is going to be lot easier for me to swallow than this part of the study " A more precise taxonomy and the proposal of a strongest phylogenetic hypothesis especially for theraphosid spiders are very urgent since constant habitat destruction *and* *high rate of pet trade are pressing problems for spiders populations* (Bond et al. 2005; Hamilton et al. 2011)." (emphasis added).

I'm not judging anyone here, this a fantastic community of kind helpful people. I'm just having a personal moral quandary on my hobby and the market I'm a part of. Newly captured species can pull a premium, the price people can charge for Pamphobeteus solaris right now is ridiculous, but we've seen it before in Harpactira pulchripes and Poecilotheria metallica. I think the price a seller can charge for a new species is an incentive for some to take specimens out of the wild. There are a lot of tarantulas in the trade that are listed as endangered on the iucn red list for the same reasons, habitat destruction and pet trade. Obviously the pet trade isn't the only culprit here, habitat destruction is probably a much more pressing problem. I just can't clear my conscious when the pet trade is listed in peer reviewed literature and by conservation groups as a problem for various tarantula populations. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## cold blood (Mar 3, 2017)

Dang that was one long technical read...lucky for me I had my medic alert bracelet on....had an aneurysm halfway through...luckily the good paramedics revived me so I could finish.:wideyed:

Thanks for posting @CEC, as well as your interpretations.

And thanks @mygale for summing up the important points in one concise post

That post alone should be stickied somewhere!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Moonohol (Mar 3, 2017)

Philip Fraley said:


> Switching my A. diversepies label Y. diversepies is going to be lot easier for me to swallow than this part of the study " A more precise taxonomy and the proposal of a strongest phylogenetic hypothesis especially for theraphosid spiders are very urgent since constant habitat destruction *and* *high rate of pet trade are pressing problems for spiders populations* (Bond et al. 2005; Hamilton et al. 2011)." (emphasis added).
> 
> I'm not judging anyone here, this a fantastic community of kind helpful people. I'm just having a personal moral quandary on my hobby and the market I'm a part of. Newly captured species can pull a premium, the price people can charge for Pamphobeteus solaris right now is ridiculous, but we've seen it before in Harpactira pulchripes and Poecilotheria metallica. I think the price a seller can charge for a new species is an incentive for some to take specimens out of the wild. There are a lot of tarantulas in the trade that are listed as endangered on the iucn red list for the same reasons, habitat destruction and pet trade. Obviously the pet trade isn't the only culprit here, habitat destruction is probably a much more pressing problem. I just can't clear my conscious when the pet trade is listed in peer reviewed literature and by conservation groups as a problem for various tarantula populations. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


I think, and I HOPE, that the vast majority of breeders do what they do not because they want to make money, but because they truly have a passion for the hobby and for arachnids in general. It's incredible how experienced breeders have developed methods for pairing even the most reluctant of species (P. metallica comes to mind). I think the moral and ethical incentive of captive breeding endangered species far outweighs the monetary incentive of illegal wild collection and exportation.

It's nowhere near a black and white issue, of course. But I find it hard to believe that our hobby has a net negative effect on tarantula populations compared to habitat destruction. Many of these species could likely go extinct within our lifetimes due to deforestation/habitat destruction, leaving behind only the captive bred populations to carry on their legacy. I'd rather see them continue to thrive in captivity than disappear altogether. 

Just my two cents on the matter.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 6


----------



## Magenta (Mar 3, 2017)

awiec said:


> Most of the species didn't have their holotype studied(ie the specimen kept in the museum if they even have one) so they can't say for sure if they are valid, basically says "Someone should look at this, but I'm not the one to do it". So for now just keep the name they have as they haven't been re-evaluated yet.



Ok, thanks


----------



## Arachnomaniac19 (Mar 3, 2017)

Moonohol said:


> I think, and I HOPE, that the vast majority of breeders do what they do not because they want to make money, but because they truly have a passion for the hobby and for arachnids in general. It's incredible how experienced breeders have developed methods for pairing even the most reluctant of species (P. metallica comes to mind). I think the moral and ethical incentive of captive breeding endangered species far outweighs the monetary incentive of illegal wild collection and exportation.
> 
> It's nowhere near a black and white issue, of course. But I find it hard to believe that our hobby has a net negative effect on tarantula populations compared to habitat destruction. Many of these species could likely go extinct within our lifetimes due to deforestation/habitat destruction, leaving behind only the captive bred populations to carry on their legacy. I'd rather see them continue to thrive in captivity than disappear altogether.
> 
> Just my two cents on the matter.


The main problem with captive specimens being released in the wild is the possibility of inbreeding and hybridization. Not to mention that lack of natural selective pressures.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Moonohol (Mar 3, 2017)

Arachnomaniac19 said:


> The main problem with captive specimens being released in the wild is the possibility of inbreeding and hybridization. Not to mention that lack of natural selective pressures.


I can't speak to releasing captive bred spiders in to the wild. Indeed, it seems like a bad idea for a few reasons I can think of. I am only in support of keeping the populations going in captivity.


----------



## Ratmosphere (Mar 3, 2017)

Dang, I'll have to take my labels off.


----------



## Spidermolt (Mar 3, 2017)

1. My brain hurts now 
2. Pluto is still a planet!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stugy (Mar 3, 2017)

Hah. So fun to see you silly tarantula peeps handling the destruction of "Avicularia"  It seems that not enough people pay attention to scorpions (scientifically) compared to tarantulas to be changing the generas( families? ummm I keep forgetting. I'm not very good at the entire thing ). Just watch. I'm gonna jinx it and Centruroides will be next xD

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## HybridReplicate (Mar 4, 2017)

Philip Fraley said:


> Switching my A. diversepies label Y. diversepies is going to be lot easier for me to swallow than this part of the study " A more precise taxonomy and the proposal of a strongest phylogenetic hypothesis especially for theraphosid spiders are very urgent since constant habitat destruction *and* *high rate of pet trade are pressing problems for spiders populations* (Bond et al. 2005; Hamilton et al. 2011)." (emphasis added).
> 
> I'm not judging anyone here, this a fantastic community of kind helpful people. I'm just having a personal moral quandary on my hobby and the market I'm a part of. Newly captured species can pull a premium, the price people can charge for Pamphobeteus solaris right now is ridiculous, but we've seen it before in Harpactira pulchripes and Poecilotheria metallica. I think the price a seller can charge for a new species is an incentive for some to take specimens out of the wild. There are a lot of tarantulas in the trade that are listed as endangered on the iucn red list for the same reasons, habitat destruction and pet trade. Obviously the pet trade isn't the only culprit here, habitat destruction is probably a much more pressing problem. I just can't clear my conscious when the pet trade is listed in peer reviewed literature and by conservation groups as a problem for various tarantula populations. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


I'm not opposed to WC specimens so long as it is done responsibly, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism or organization in place that monitors such things or has policies & procedures in place to give guidance on WC practices. Without that structure in place there's no way to engage in education & advocacy for responsible buying practices, namely because there is no clear way to identify responsible vendors; e.g. "sustainably harvested" certifications or something of the like. The only way to personally avoid contributing to the problem (that I can determine) is to buy from reputable vendors who captive breed. Even then you can't be assured that those bred aren't WC, or if they are that it was performed sustainably--whatever "sustainably" means in this context. 

As far as I can tell there isn't much organization in place that would allow self-governance so if/when it becomes a problem inevitably governments will have to step in with bans & criminal penalties to dissuade folks from harmful practices. Ideally vendors would operate completely transparently & document/share their supply chain & breeding practices & what they do to avoid harm to wild populations. Problematically, there likely isn't enough money in the sustainability business (or suitably expensive consequences) to encourage this. 



Moonohol said:


> I think, and I HOPE, that the vast majority of breeders do what they do not because they want to make money, but because they truly have a passion for the hobby and for arachnids in general. It's incredible how experienced breeders have developed methods for pairing even the most reluctant of species (P. metallica comes to mind). I think the moral and ethical incentive of captive breeding endangered species far outweighs the monetary incentive of illegal wild collection and exportation.
> 
> It's nowhere near a black and white issue, of course. But I find it hard to believe that our hobby has a net negative effect on tarantula populations compared to habitat destruction. Many of these species could likely go extinct within our lifetimes due to deforestation/habitat destruction, leaving behind only the captive bred populations to carry on their legacy. I'd rather see them continue to thrive in captivity than disappear altogether.
> 
> Just my two cents on the matter.


When the monetary incentive for sustainable collection & breeding practices outweighs that for "strip harvesting" specimens then irresponsible practices will dwindle. It will not be a moral imperative that prevents this. 

Inarguably habitat destruction is probably more of a concern than the pet trade but given that habitat destruction has occurred & the incentive/consequences for continued habitat destruction do not exist the focus turns to conservation of the wild populations which the pet trade directly depletes. 




Interestingly, I never see mention of the food trade. I do not know numbers of imported species, but the volume by which tarantulas are harvested from the wild as delicacies is astounding, or at least appears so at market. & they charge something like 10¢/spider!

Reactions: Agree 1 | Sad 2 | Award 1


----------



## Stugy (Mar 4, 2017)

HybridReplicate said:


> I'm not opposed to WC specimens so long as it is done responsibly, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism or organization in place that monitors such things or has policies & procedures in place to give guidance on WC practices. Without that structure in place there's no way to engage in education & advocacy for responsible buying practices, namely because there is no clear way to identify responsible vendors; e.g. "sustainably harvested" certifications or something of the like. The only way to personally avoid contributing to the problem (that I can determine) is to buy from reputable vendors who captive breed. Even then you can't be assured that those bred aren't WC, or if they are that it was performed sustainably--whatever "sustainably" means in this context.
> 
> As far as I can tell there isn't much organization in place that would allow self-governance so if/when it becomes a problem inevitably governments will have to step in with bans & criminal penalties to dissuade folks from harmful practices. Ideally vendors would operate completely transparently & document/share their supply chain & breeding practices & what they do to avoid harm to wild populations. Problematically, there likely isn't enough money in the sustainability business (or suitably expensive consequences) to encourage this.
> 
> ...


bruhhhh. some scary stuff right there. I would love to know how many people faint when they see that xD


----------



## Moakmeister (Mar 4, 2017)

Wow, are you kidding me? So many replacements...

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Mar 4, 2017)

So who has the largest collection of Avicularia species and will go through and key them with this revision?   For starters, I'm guessing pet trade Avicularia metallica is Avicularia avicularia morphotype 6.


----------



## Czech prime (Mar 4, 2017)

KezyGLA said:


> At this rate the label-maker will need re-labelled.


I just printed out all labels a week ago :/ And now they are useless!!!


----------



## Czech prime (Mar 4, 2017)

Btw what happened to sp. Peru purple?
Still sp. Peru purple? I'm lost


----------



## Charlie69 (Mar 4, 2017)

Help. I have two Avicularia sp guynea? Can't see them anywhere.  What are they? Avic avic? Or something else?


----------



## johnny quango (Mar 4, 2017)

I only have 3 Avics (or maybe not) metallica,braunshauseni and sp colombia so for now I'm going to sit down with a coffee and ignore the fact I may or may not  have to change a few labels I think it's for the best.

Ps ignorance is bliss

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rob1985 (Mar 4, 2017)

This is why I don't label my T's. I just put a label with Thing 1... 2.. and so on. The info on each is on a spreadsheet. lol

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## awiec (Mar 4, 2017)

johnny quango said:


> I only have 3 Avics (or maybe not) metallica,braunshauseni and sp colombia so for now I'm going to sit down with a coffee and ignore the fact I may or may not  have to change a few labels I think it's for the best.
> 
> Ps ignorance is bliss


I am still keeping the names on them as reference to what "type" they are. Of course the versis will get relabeled but I agree with moving them to a new genus just due to their several unique traits.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PanzoN88 (Mar 4, 2017)

I have a headache now just from trying to soak in all the new information

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## johnny quango (Mar 4, 2017)

awiec said:


> I am still keeping the names on them as reference to what "type" they are. Of course the versis will get relabeled but I agree with moving them to a new genus just due to their several unique traits.


I'll probably never replace the labels if I have to but looking through the paper again it seems I won't have to anyway for now .
All joking aside it seems frustrating at times but it's for the good of the hobby and tarantulas in general. I sometimes think a few snap judgements have been made in the past probably for reasons we don't know and that's why we come across names like Avicularia anthracina before they finally became G anthracina.
I can only imagine a big bulky G anthracina climbing amongst leaves and branches

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Magenta (Mar 4, 2017)

I only have A. versicolor and A. metallica. My head is spinning after reading all that.


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Magenta said:


> I only have A. versicolor and A. metallica. My head is spinning after reading all that.


No need, you just have Caribena versicolor and Avicularia metallica. For now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## darkness975 (Mar 4, 2017)

My head hurts.

I guess _Brachypelma _is next?  

Changing the names that one has been using for years mentally is a nightmare and not always successful.


----------



## Rob1985 (Mar 4, 2017)

So I had this discussion with the T guys at the my local expo this morning. The consensus is that we are all still calling them Avicularia behind closed doors. Same with Haplopelma!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Crone Returns (Mar 4, 2017)

CEC said:


> I have been waiting since Fukushima's thesis proposal in 2011. It's finally finished...
> 
> Link to article:
> http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=10717
> ...


I need chemical restraints now...


----------



## Rob1985 (Mar 4, 2017)

crone said:


> I need chemical restraints now...


 Haldol, Geodone or Ketamine?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Czech prime (Mar 4, 2017)

darkness975 said:


> My head hurts.
> 
> I guess _Brachypelma _is next?
> 
> Changing the names that one has been using for years mentally is a nightmare and not always successful.


What do you mean? I got used to Omothymomomo..lampropelma violaceopes

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Venom1080 (Mar 4, 2017)

Stugy said:


> Hah. So fun to see you silly tarantula peeps handling the destruction of "Avicularia"  It seems that not enough people pay attention to scorpions (scientifically) compared to tarantulas to be changing the generas( families? ummm I keep forgetting. I'm not very good at the entire thing ). Just watch. I'm gonna jinx it and Centruroides will be next xD


revision does not equal destruction. its pretty exciting actually.


----------



## Arachnomaniac19 (Mar 4, 2017)

This really isn't that confusing. If your species got changed, change the name. If it didn't, like A. sp. Peru Purple, then keep it as it's labelled now.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## viper69 (Mar 4, 2017)

CEC said:


> I have been waiting since Fukushima's thesis proposal in 2011. It's finally finished...
> 
> Link to article:
> http://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=10717
> ...


I go away for a week and a lot happens..jeez! I've been waiting for years.

I've been expecting this paper for years, and I'm very disappointed only cladistics was used, and no DNA was done.

I'm also bummed out that many of the long kept species in the hobby were not examined, like A. metallica.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 5


----------



## boina (Mar 4, 2017)

viper69 said:


> I'm very disappointed only cladistics was used, and no DNA was done.


YES! Me, too. And for some reason they put Heteroscodra and Stromatopelma in Aviculariinae and I really can't see that - DNA would have been really helpful.

If I can find funding somewhere I want to do DNA from spiders in the hobby, starting with mine. I'm a molecular biologist, I'm doing DNA sequencing all day long and I'm seriously thinking about how I can manage to get a few spiders sequenced in our lab...

Reactions: Like 6 | Agree 3


----------



## Crone Returns (Mar 4, 2017)

Rob1985 said:


> Haldol, Geodone or Ketamine?


All of them:wideyed:

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## volcanopele (Mar 5, 2017)

Am I the only one disappointed that my Avic wasn't one of those moved to a different genus.  My poor purpurea juvie stays an Avic  On the other hand, this gives me a perfect excuse to get a versicolor.  "It's a completely different genus, honey, I don't have a Caribena!"

Edit: even as a scientist, I screw up latin sometimes.  To be fair, I'm not a biologist...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ungoliant (Mar 5, 2017)

volcanopele said:


> "It's a completely different genera, honey, I don't have a Caribena!"


Not to be that person, but _genera_ is plural. The singular form is _genus_.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2 | Funny 1


----------



## HybridReplicate (Mar 5, 2017)

Ungoliant said:


> Not to be that person, but _genera_ is plural. The singular form is _genus_.


TBH I love being corrected, IME it's one of the best ways to learn.

Reactions: Agree 5


----------



## WhyUBiteBite (Mar 5, 2017)

Right when I finish making all my frigging labels lol...

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Moonohol (Mar 5, 2017)

HybridReplicate said:


> TBH I love being corrected, IME it's one of the best ways to learn.


Found the masochist.

Reactions: Funny 7


----------



## Jeff23 (Mar 7, 2017)

I think I missed something in this thread for Avicularia metallica.  I see where it says it doesn't exist anymore.  Is this one that we don't know the new name (at least until the publication is final)?


----------



## deadwolfarachnids (Mar 7, 2017)

Paiige said:


> "Ybyrapora" what a mouthful. Now I have to tell hubby his beloved versicolor is no longer an Avic and he's going to be so confused...


In my opinion,  this is all bs.. I feel so infuriated but I guess I better get used to it

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## deadwolfarachnids (Mar 7, 2017)

I'm just so confused, so what would my Avicularia Avicularia now be called??

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Jeff23 (Mar 7, 2017)

deadwolfarachnids said:


> I'm just so confused, so what would my Avicularia Avicularia now be called??


I believe that one remains unchanged.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## boina (Mar 7, 2017)

Jeff23 said:


> I think I missed something in this thread for Avicularia metallica.  I see where it says it doesn't exist anymore.  Is this one that we don't know the new name (at least until the publication is final)?


The publication is final. Once it's published it's final and can't be changed or added too. A metallica stays A met until someone decides otherwise. Nomen dubium just means they haven't looked or the material wasn't complete and propose that someone else should have a look or asign a new neotype. Since it is highly unpractical to disregard half of all Avics names they still should be used until something better comes along.

The main rule, as stated by the ICZN is: Taxa indicated as _nomina dubia_ cannot be used as the basis of further taxonomic acts;
it does not state that the name can't be used anymore.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Paiige (Mar 7, 2017)

deadwolfarachnids said:


> I'm just so confused, so what would my Avicularia Avicularia now be called??


They weren't all revised, just some of them. Avic avics are still the same.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Venom1080 (Mar 7, 2017)

deadwolfarachnids said:


> In my opinion,  this is all bs.. I feel so infuriated but I guess I better get used to it


seriously? im surprised by alot of the reactions in this thread..  is it that hard to remember a different name?? i would think people would be happy _theraphosidae_ research is coming along but alot of people seem to just be whining about it. 
i for one, am seriously happy some one went through and better classified one of my favorite genera, and im surprised not many others seem to think the same..

Reactions: Agree 7 | Winner 1


----------



## petkokc (Mar 8, 2017)

@Venom1080 I'm personally disappointed only in the fact that so many species were left out. I don't really know about scientific stuff and how long does it takes for it, but to me revision should mean you review all species, not just remove majority of species that you see fit, it looks like a half done job to me.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## Ungoliant (Mar 8, 2017)

petkokc said:


> I'm personally disappointed only in the fact that so many species were left out. I don't really know about scientific stuff and how long does it takes for it, but to me revision should mean you review all species, not just remove majority of species that you see fit, it looks like a half done job to me.


Science, including taxonomy, is a work in progress. While it would be great to have the whole genus reexamined in one article, it is far better to have some of the work done (and published) than none of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 4 | Winner 1


----------



## petkokc (Mar 8, 2017)

@Ungoliant Can't argue with that.


----------



## Crone Returns (Mar 8, 2017)

Venom1080 said:


> seriously? im surprised by alot of the reactions in this thread..  is it that hard to remember a different name?? i would think people would be happy _theraphosidae_ research is coming along but alot of people seem to just be whining about it.
> i for one, am seriously happy some one went through and better classified one of my favorite genera, and im surprised not many others seem to think the same..


I have struggled all my life with memorization. Learning disorder. And I'm 3/4 joking, too. I've only been at this a year, so taxonomy is still a bit overwhelming.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ungoliant (Mar 8, 2017)

crone said:


> I have struggled all my life with memorization. Learning disorder. And I'm 3/4 joking, too. I've only been at this a year, so taxonomy is still a bit overwhelming.


I set taxonomic revisions as auto-corrects in Word in case I forget.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Useful 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 8, 2017)

Venom1080 said:


> seriously? im surprised by alot of the reactions in this thread..  is it that hard to remember a different name?? i would think people would be happy _theraphosidae_ research is coming along but alot of people seem to just be whining about it.
> i for one, am seriously happy some one went through and better classified one of my favorite genera, and im surprised not many others seem to think the same..


It is just human nature i think. When it is warm, it is too hot. When it is cold it is too cold.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## shaneshac (Mar 8, 2017)

Are there any pics of Avicularia subvulpina which has been moved to Grammostola

Would really like to see that one!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Venom1080 (Mar 8, 2017)

petkokc said:


> @Venom1080 I'm personally disappointed only in the fact that so many species were left out. I don't really know about scientific stuff and how long does it takes for it, but to me revision should mean you review all species, not just remove majority of species that you see fit, it looks like a half done job to me.


Better than nothing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## The Spider Faery (Mar 8, 2017)

Venom1080 said:


> So I'm seeing nomen dudium next to the aurantica, I just picked one up. If the name doesn't exsist anymore, what is is it?


I noticed that Tarantula Canada is now labeling them Avicularia juruensis morphotype 'aurantica".  Maybe if you send them a message they can give you more info?

Reactions: Helpful 1


----------



## CEC (Mar 9, 2017)

The Spider Faery said:


> I noticed that Tarantula Canada is now labeling them Avicularia juruensis morphotype 'aurantica".  Maybe if you send them a message they can give you more info?


Well, the revision says otherwise. _Avicularia aurantiaca_ is considered nomen dubium meaning the name is doubted but WILL still exist on the WSC species listing. Which is what most people follow for classification. Also, the authors say _aurantiaca_ is most likely a morphotype of _rufa_ (hobby _juruensis_) not the real _juruensis_ which is possibly sp. Peru Purple.

I encourage everyone to read it thoroughly or even a few times if needed. Come back and comment with your interpretations. That's what this thread is for, read and then discuss. I wouldn't dismiss this revision so easily just because some species are missing when the previous authors never deposited their specimens where they were supposed to for future comparison. I bet a lot of these "nomen dubium" species are described in this revision as morphotypes(color forms) of one of 12 species listed. So do the authors, that's exactly why they are doubtful of the labels, they just can't prove it without specimens to compare. Therefore, I'll say it once again, if your species is considered nomen dubium KEEP it as labeled. These species may never be proven a junior synonym of another species. It's hard to prove when the original specimens used aren't available to compare. The silver lining is we should keep color forms separated for breeding purposes anyway, I think there's more confusion in using just morphotype numbers as labels oppose to their nomen dubium names, a lot more room for error. 

The revision does have some weak spots, though, like describing a new species only using a male. That seems a bit rushed. Not using DNA is another, that would solidify any correct notion. Other than that, they did what they could, with what they had available. It's without a doubt a needed clarification of this notorious mess of a genus. Before this revision, you couldn't send your _Avicularia_ to anyone and have them identify it with any certainty. Now hobby stock can be examined and determined one of the 12 species or not. I believe that's a giant step forward & a long time coming.

Reactions: Agree 5 | Informative 3


----------



## CEC (Mar 9, 2017)

Arachnomaniac19 said:


> This really isn't that confusing. If your species got changed, change the name. If it didn't, like A. sp. Peru Purple, then keep it as it's labelled now.


I'm assuming sp. Peru Purple got examined, they just don't use hobby common names. 
In fact, I'm almost positive sp. Peru Purple (Iquitos)/urticans is the original juruensis described... 1) urticans is now a junior synonym of juruensis. 2) Fukushima's color description matches; lack of yellow bands and a vivid purple sheen etc. 3) Iquitos is the correct locality for urticans/sp. Peru Purple and juruensis. 4) Rick West has sp. Peru Purple picture(s) on his site once labeled urticans. He has since changed the label to juruensis. Rick is no dummy and was in contact with the authors so I assume there's credibility.


----------



## shaneshac (Mar 9, 2017)

There are a couple of different Avics from the Iquitos/Nauta region. One is very similar to the hobby type Peru Purple, another is rust coloured and quite a bit larger from the wild specimens I encountered. The third seems to be one of the three new species reported A linnae


----------



## CEC (Mar 9, 2017)

shaneshac said:


> There are a couple of different Avics from the Iquitos/Nauta region. One is very similar to the hobby type Peru Purple, another is rust coloured and quite a bit larger from the wild specimens I encountered. The third seems to be one of the three new species reported A linnae


Sure but you have to remember that size and color don't mean squat. That's proven by all the morphotypes.  That large rust colored one could be _huriana_ (they are that color and size) which they consider it nomen dubium because they think it's probably a morphotype of another species, again possibly juruensis.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## shaneshac (Mar 9, 2017)

I understand what you mean

I have the spermathecae of a rust coloured on I collected. Will be good to compare to the Peru purple 

The rust coloured one as an example












Avicularia sp



__ shaneshac
__ Apr 10, 2016
__ 4

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## CEC (Mar 9, 2017)

shaneshac said:


> I understand what you mean
> 
> I have the spermathecae of a rust coloured on I collected. Will be good to compare to the Peru purple
> 
> ...


I remember that picture, Pretty _Avicularia_ none the less...

If my memory serves me correct, A. _lynnae_ was discovered by Rick West and named after his wife Lynn. I also remember an assumption that the hobby _hirschii_ with the single bold black abdominal stripe is actually _lynnae_. All Rick's pictures of _lynnae_ match what I know as hobby _hirschii._ While his _hirschii_ pictures are close in appearance but lack that obvious black abdominal stripe.


----------



## shaneshac (Mar 9, 2017)

Yes the lynnae also has more pronounced banding on each leg segment that the specimens i encountered which is a trait of the hobby juruensis.
I would be more comfortable calling it a huriana at the moment


----------



## CEC (Mar 9, 2017)

shaneshac said:


> Yes the lynnae also has more pronounced banding on each leg segment that the specimens i encountered which is a trait of the hobby juruensis.
> I would be more comfortable calling it a huriana at the moment


Not only the obvious differences in appearance_, Avicularia lynnae _& _Avicularia hirschii_ are also small species like _Avicularia minatrix_, they probably only get about half the size of _Avicularia huriana_.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## The Spider Faery (Mar 12, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Nomen dubium....meaning these can be revised as well in the near future


Yep, considering nomen dubium means "doubtful name".   But until or unless that list also officially gets changed, Avicularia stays, at least for now.


----------



## Siderum (Mar 12, 2017)

In instances where we find multiple morphotypes for a species (like _A. juruensis_ and those formerly known as _A. urticans), _how do we go about refering to them in the pet trade? "_A. juruensis_ morphotype 2"? Also, do we go about only breeding one morphotype with the same kind? (I think we should).


Some of these morphotypes (assuming _A. metallica_ ends up being an_ A. avicularia_, which I know is not a conclusion of this study) really do seem to have size, color, and temperament differences. Obviously confirmation biases come into play,  but I think the differences are obvious enough between these "different species" with a nomen dubia that the question should be considered.
I am eagerly awaiting molecular data to clarify these questions.


----------



## viper69 (Mar 19, 2017)

They should have used DNA.

I'd like to know if A. metallica is a true species/sub-species etc.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 4


----------



## aurusantula (Mar 28, 2017)

Dang, gonna need to read this paper. One of my other favorite animal groups (Dinosauria) also just went through a taxonomic shuffling, so this will be fun to read.


----------



## N1ghtFire (Mar 29, 2017)

This change is going to be so confusing for me. Time to go re-lable half of my tarantulas. XD


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 31, 2017)

aurusantula said:


> Dang, gonna need to read this paper. One of my other favorite animal groups (Dinosauria) also just went through a taxonomic shuffling, so this will be fun to read.


Dinosaurs are being revisited still?
Ugh, they are better off studying Theraphosidae species instead of fossils...


----------



## aurusantula (Apr 1, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Dinosaurs are being revisited still?
> Ugh, they are better off studying Theraphosidae species instead of fossils...


Well, they just moved Theropoda out of Saurischia (which is no longer a clade) and now Ornithischians and Theropods share a combined clade Ornithoscleida. that's at least what people are going with for now, I am not sure I trust the analysis though.


----------



## Andrea82 (Apr 1, 2017)

aurusantula said:


> Well, they just moved Theropoda out of Saurischia (which is no longer a clade) and now Ornithischians and Theropods share a combined clade Ornithoscleida. that's at least what people are going with for now, I am not sure I trust the analysis though.


I'm sorry...but that went straight over my head.... To each his own, dinosaurs are not really my cup of tea


----------



## JoshDM020 (Apr 1, 2017)

spiderdude88 said:


> do we go about only breeding one morphotype with the same kind? (I think we should).


I disagree entirely. While it WOULD be a form of hybridization, it wouldnt be a bad thing as  it would still be the same SPECIES. As i understand it, the issue with hybrids is they dilute the species. This wouldnt happen with breeding different morphotypes of the SAME species. It would provide genetic diversity and possibly help them develop. Odds are, a different morphotype probably didnt come from parents of identical morphotypes in the wild.

Reactions: Disagree 3


----------



## aurusantula (Apr 3, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> I'm sorry...but that went straight over my head.... To each his own, dinosaurs are not really my cup of tea


Nah that's fair. Basically: sharptooths are now more closely related to everything that isn't a long neck, instead of sharp tooths and long necks being more closely related. If that helps at all

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Siderum (Apr 4, 2017)

JoshDM020 said:


> I disagree entirely. While it WOULD be a form of hybridization, it wouldnt be a bad thing as  it would still be the same SPECIES. As i understand it, the issue with hybrids is they dilute the species. This wouldnt happen with breeding different morphotypes of the SAME species. It would provide genetic diversity and possibly help them develop. Odds are, a different morphotype probably didnt come from parents of identical morphotypes in the wild.


There is merit to your argument if these species dubbed "nomen dubia" do sort out to be merely morphotypes. We are not there yet, even with this published  paper.  The danger of hybridization (for the sake of preserving a species in captivity) far outweighs the danger of loss of genetic diversity at the moment.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## CEC (Apr 4, 2017)

I completely disagree with mixing color forms. Most hobbyists agree with me, just looking at all the other genera with color forms of one species. Yes, it's not really hybridization but would be merely different breeds but I like my color forms and I'm sure most people would agree to keep the color forms.
Another thing that will confuse most hobbyists about labeling, is there are different localities/color forms within most of the morphotypes. So just using morphotype numbers would be pointless in the attempt to keep locality integrity. Thus, why keeping the pet trade name of the species that are considered nomen dubium will be significant in helping deter mutts.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## JoshDM020 (Apr 5, 2017)

spiderdude88 said:


> There is merit to your argument if these species dubbed "nomen dubia" do sort out to be merely morphotypes. We are not there yet, even with this published  paper.  The danger of hybridization (for the sake of preserving a species in captivity) far outweighs the danger of loss of genetic diversity at the moment.


Fair point. Hopefully with more research we may be able to breed them more like they could possibly in the wild.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## BobBarley (Apr 5, 2017)

Don't mix the different forms of a species....  it's the same with Poecilotheria bara's change to subfusca so there now being two different subfusca's in the trade, lowland and highland.  Both have probably been mixed because of it.  Although this isn't a recent example, this is a valid example.

For a more recent example, check out the two different forms of Brachypelma albopilosum.  One from Honduras (and most of the hybridized) and the new form from Nicaragua which looks completely different.  Sure they are the same species, but that doesn't justify mixing them up willy nilly.

Then there are the literal tons of "Rosies" being and that have been imported...  Some may turn out to be the same species, but it's still imperative to keep them separate.

Just my 2 cents and anyone is entitled to disagree.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## TarantulaArvind (May 17, 2017)

Darn!! Ur resourceful.. Thing 1,thing  2....

Reactions: Clarification Please 1


----------

