# Aphonopelma seemanni ? Acanthoscurria borealis



## Travis K (Aug 20, 2008)

I know there is an almost identical discussion going on here.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=132500
But for better search results in the future I thought I would post this one.  Below is a T I picked out for a coworker to give her grandson for his birthday.  I assumed it was A. seemani, but then the above thread came up and of coarse I had my doubts.

So lets here it guys and girls, I can't let the T go without even knowing what species it is.  So lets hear your thoughts.















































OK let me hear it?


----------



## desertdweller (Aug 20, 2008)

The male you have there sure doesn't look jumpy enough to be an A seemani.  Also no orange spinnerets says it isn't either.  After that, who knows?  Not me.


----------



## Travis K (Aug 20, 2008)

desertdweller said:


> The male you have there sure doesn't look jumpy enough to be an A seemani.  Also no orange spinnerets says it isn't either.  After that, who knows?  Not me.


please tell me how you know whethter or not it is "JUMPY" from a picture?


----------



## equuskat (Aug 20, 2008)

desertdweller said:


> The male you have there sure doesn't look jumpy enough to be an A seemani.  Also no orange spinnerets says it isn't either.  After that, who knows?  Not me.


Spinnerets look orange to me  but I guess that can be either species.  crpy can do an "eye field" comparison or something like that if he gets the molts...


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 20, 2008)

I wish I could help, but now you guys got me wondering what I have.  I bought this guy at Petco.  He was sold as A. seemanni.



















He has gotten lighter in color, both on top and on his underside, since the last picture was taken (within about an hour of molting).  He's also two-toned like the third and fourth pictures in Travis's original post.  I'll post a few more pictures when I get home.


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 20, 2008)

Here are some pictures I took today.  Up until today, I was fully convinced he was an A. seemanni.


----------



## Koh_ (Aug 21, 2008)

i would still say it's a.seemani. what i know is the usual 'black morph' a. seemani is from costarica and those things u guys have are from guatemala.
im not sure 100% but that's what i heard and know so far 
thanks


----------



## crpy (Aug 21, 2008)

Their ocular arrangement should be different if they are different spp. if cladistic systematics has anything to do with it. We just need to compare both suspects..so to speak.  What thats gonna take is coordinating getting both carapaces from molts to me or somebody, its worth a shot.

when shipping Just be sure to label the "known" seemanni= rusty tummy and spinnerets


----------



## Crazy0monkey (Aug 21, 2008)

100% seemani, The light underside and dark top gives it away. + orange spinerets.


----------



## Hamburglar (Aug 21, 2008)

Strange,  the pics in this thread don't look anything like the female A. seemanni I had a long time ago...  Your guess is as good as mine, but I would go with borealis...


----------



## M.F.Bagaturov (Aug 21, 2008)

This is maybe not a big secret for everyone, but i suggest you one character which is definately distinguish Aphonopelma from Acanthoscurria 200% - it is a shape (type) of the spermatheace.
Aphonopelma seemanni has typical Aphonopelma-type spermathecae and Acanthoscurria borealis according the Schmidt's illustrations in description has typical Acanthoscurria-type spermatheace...


----------



## equuskat (Aug 21, 2008)

M.F.Bagaturov said:


> This is maybe not a big secret for everyone, but i suggest you one character which is definately distinguish Aphonopelma from Acanthoscurria 200% - it is a shape (type) of the spermatheace.
> Aphonopelma seemanni has typical Aphonopelma-type spermathecae and Acanthoscurria borealis according the Schmidt's illustrations in description has typical Acanthoscurria-type spermatheace...


I mentioned this in the other thread, and in a subsequent post, crpy suggested eye field arrangements.

Either way would work, but either way we need molts from both suspects.


----------



## crpy (Aug 21, 2008)

M.F.Bagaturov said:


> This is maybe not a big secret for everyone, but i suggest you one character which is definately distinguish Aphonopelma from Acanthoscurria 200% - it is a shape (type) of the spermatheace.
> Aphonopelma seemanni has typical Aphonopelma-type spermathecae and Acanthoscurria borealis according the Schmidt's illustrations in description has typical Acanthoscurria-type spermatheace...


there ya go, each genera/spp. has a "finger" print or two or eight


----------



## Travis K (Aug 21, 2008)

Man I was really hoping someone could tell be those pics?  And give some evidence to their conclusion?


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 21, 2008)

Crazy0monkey said:


> 100% seemani, The light underside and dark top gives it away. + orange spinerets.


Though those features are characteristic of A. seemanni, this thread leads me to believe that they are not necessarily indicative.

http://atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18136&highlight=seemani


----------



## Travis K (Aug 21, 2008)

GOMER113 said:


> Though those features are characteristic of A. seemanni, this thread leads me to believe that they are not necessarily indicative.
> 
> http://atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18136&highlight=seemani


yeah I know, I read that thread already and it just added to the confusion.  LOL, it is really bugging that I don't know what the species is of this T cause it has to leave the office tomorrow and I want this kid to know what he is getting.


----------



## crpy (Aug 21, 2008)

now theres a quandary


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 21, 2008)

Travis K said:


> yeah I know, I read that thread already and it just added to the confusion.  LOL, it is really bugging that I don't know what the species is of this T cause it has to leave the office tomorrow and I want this kid to know what he is getting.


Hmm... keep it and get him something else.  That way you both get a new T and everyone wins!


----------



## Travis K (Aug 21, 2008)

GOMER113 said:


> Hmm... keep it and get him something else.  That way you both get a new T and everyone wins!


LOL, I just went with Jane to pic everything out for her and get it setup.  I has to go, but I really wnat to know what it is.


----------



## Travis K (Aug 21, 2008)

GOMER113 said:


> Hmm... keep it and get him something else.  That way you both get a new T and everyone wins!


Yeah Right!  My next Ts are gonna be GBB and/or P. metallica.


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 21, 2008)

Come on, it doesn't hurt to have a mystery/ambiguous T as a next T.


----------



## Travis K (Aug 21, 2008)

GOMER113 said:


> Come on, it doesn't hurt to have a mystery/ambiguous T as a next T.


Mysteries were made to be solved.


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 21, 2008)

Here, it's been ID'd.  Mystery solved.


----------



## Travis K (Aug 21, 2008)

GOMER113 said:


> Here, it's been ID'd.  Mystery solved.


LOL LOL LOL 

Thanks, That is GOLDEN! :clap:  :clap:


----------



## dtknow (Aug 21, 2008)

Color means nothing.

Who knows whether or not A. borealis has orange spinnerets or a tawny underside?

The stripe pattern on these "stripeknees" always struck me as odd.


----------



## Crazy0monkey (Aug 22, 2008)

Ugh..... im still 100% sure its a seemani.. here is a pic of my old seemani..


----------



## M.F.Bagaturov (Aug 22, 2008)

Very funny...
Look.

If this is Acanthoscurria of which we don't know yet it maybe any of the species of the genus.
If we consider it Aphonopelma, which features told You it is seemanni?
It's not seemanni at least due to an absence of dence striping on legs...
If You want to continue guessing, why not go with A. burica? or any other...


----------



## Travis K (Aug 22, 2008)

M.F.Bagaturov said:


> Very funny...
> Look.
> 
> If this is Acanthoscurria of which we don't know yet it maybe any of the species of the genus.
> ...


Well what is your thought?  I was hoping that overnight I might get some good information.  LOL, after that T goes away today I am still going to be very interested in what it is or is not.


----------



## Crazy0monkey (Aug 22, 2008)

omg.. it looks just like mine. teh striping isint vibrat. Your seemani will turn black with vivid white stripes in later molts. the striping fadness dosent indicate that its not a  seemani. mine is a seemani and its body/stripes look just like urs. Get over it its nto some special sp. Its a  seemani that will really look like one when it molts

also look at the striping patern. back legs on both pics look the same


----------



## Travis K (Aug 22, 2008)

Crazy0monkey said:


> omg.. it looks just like mine. teh striping isint vibrat. Your seemani will turn black with vivid white stripes in later molts. the striping fadness dosent indicate that its not a  seemani. mine is a seemani and its body/stripes look just like urs. Get over it its nto some special sp. Its a  seemani that will really look like one when it molts


So the pics in the OP are subadult colorations?  That is fine, in fact that is great cause I would rather it turn out to be A. seemani.  I think A. seemani are more beautiful than A. borealis, IMO.  I just want to know which one it is.

Does any one have before and after pics for A. seemani?  Sling to sub-Adult to Mature?


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 22, 2008)

Travis K said:


> Does any one have before and after pics for A. seemani?  Sling to sub-Adult to Mature?


This is something I'd be interested in seeing, as well.  When I bought mine, I thought it was mislabeled since it was such an ugly brownish tan color, but then I was convinced by the "orange spinnerets = A. seemanni" conclusion I've seen here many a time.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but the A. borealis threads got me doubting it.  I'd still bet on yours (and mine) being A. seemanni, though.


----------



## Crazy0monkey (Aug 22, 2008)

yes i do actualy, its not mine but someone elses. The seemani is  a brownish black prior to molt and then its black/blue after molt(the molt is laying beside the fresh t) Let me try to find pic


----------



## Travis K (Aug 22, 2008)

Crazy0monkey said:


> yes i do actualy, its not mine but someone elses. The seemani is  a brownish black prior to molt and then its black/blue after molt(the molt is laying beside the fresh t) Let me try to find pic


That is good too, but what I am really looking for is Sling, Sub-Adult, Mature.


----------



## Crazy0monkey (Aug 22, 2008)

here is the link
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/gallery/showimage.php?i=2868&catid=member&imageuser=6002


----------



## Travis K (Aug 22, 2008)

*Same T different camera*


----------



## Topcat1 (Aug 22, 2008)

Any chances that owners of both can post pics of spermathicae?


----------



## GOMER113 (Aug 22, 2008)

^ Here's mine.


----------



## Travis K (Aug 22, 2008)

Stalker13 said:


> Any chances that owners of both can post pics of spermathicae?


I wish but I think the one I posted just molted so it probably wont be any time soon?


----------



## Drachenjager (Sep 21, 2008)

Crazy0monkey said:


> omg.. it looks just like mine. teh striping isint vibrat. Your seemani will turn black with vivid white stripes in later molts. the striping fadness dosent indicate that its not a  seemani. mine is a seemani and its body/stripes look just like urs. Get over it its nto some special sp. Its a  seemani that will really look like one when it molts
> 
> also look at the striping patern. back legs on both pics look the same


BS
I have one that looks just like that that just now molted and still looks just like that at about 5" I will be retrieving the exo today to check the spermathicae(sp).


----------



## Drachenjager (Sep 21, 2008)

where is the link that has all the spermathecae pics for identification?


----------



## Drachenjager (Sep 21, 2008)

*ok here ya go*

Pics of 2 different appearing "A. seemanni" and their spermathecae
Normal Nice looking one lol











other one


----------



## Widowman10 (Sep 22, 2008)

Drachenjager said:


> where is the link that has all the spermathecae pics for identification?


i have it at home, i can link it to you if you still need it...


----------



## GOMER113 (Sep 22, 2008)

Drachenjager said:


> BS
> I have one that looks just like that that just now molted and still looks just like that at about 5" I will be retrieving the exo today to check the spermathicae(sp).


Is yours also a male?  Robc has a male that looks like these as well AND has matured and still doesn't have the stripes down the legs like a "traditional" A. seemanni.


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

Mature male seemanni do not have leg striping from what I've seen.


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

I have found out that A.Seemani have 2 Tibial hooks and a.Borealis has only one.....rob


----------



## crpy (Sep 22, 2008)

robc said:


> I have found out that A.Seemani have 2 Tibial hooks and a.Borealis has only one.....rob


so yours is A. seemanni?


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

so what is yours?


----------



## crpy (Sep 22, 2008)

Katy_green said:


> so what is yours?


hey I asked first


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

;P either way, inquiring minds want to know and Rob is slow to answer!


----------



## Drachenjager (Sep 22, 2008)

GOMER113 said:


> Is yours also a male?  Robc has a male that looks like these as well AND has matured and still doesn't have the stripes down the legs like a "traditional" A. seemanni.


mines female


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Katy_green said:


> ;P either way, inquiring minds want to know and Rob is slow to answer!


I was just making you wait  it is a ?????


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

Aww come on Rob!


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Katy_green said:


> Aww come on Rob!


Okay, but I had to  I believe A.Seemani


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

woohoo no more suspense.


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Katy_green said:


> woohoo no more suspense.


According to this link it is A.Seemmani:

http://tarantulas.tropica.ru/en/evol...Acanthoscurria


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Well the link isn't working???


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Here this one does work LOL:

http://tarantulas.tropica.ru/en/evolution/Theraphosinae/Acanthoscurria


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

haha good to know!  Thanks for the link, and send me your A. seemanni to have his way with my big girl.  


PS: $10 sent to you.    Thanks.


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Katy_green said:


> haha good to know!  Thanks for the link, and send me your A. seemanni to have his way with my big girl.
> 
> 
> PS: $10 sent to you.    Thanks.


Got it 10 slings sent to you But I can't send Balboa, but you can send over your female....


----------



## equuskat (Sep 22, 2008)

We shall discuss this further.


----------



## robc (Sep 22, 2008)

Katy_green said:


> We shall discuss this further.


PM me....


----------



## Snipes (Jan 12, 2009)

Did you ever figure it out? Here is what it says from the Tarantula Identification and classification guide, but it doesnt have specifics for A. boreus

Generic key
Aphonopelma
Anterior side of coax of leg 1 thickly clothed with hairs, most of which have stout bases and tapered filiform ends. No scopulae on the inside of the femorae and no plumose scopulae on the posterior side of the trochanter of palp, merely simple hairs. This is also the case of the anterior side of the trochanter of leg 1.

Generic Key
Acanthoscurria
Male, tib of leg 1 with 1 or 2 spurs. Tib of leg 1 with one spur on inner sied. A spur on the tip of the palp. Female, Leg 4 not thicker than leg 1. Tib much thinner than femur. Met slender, cylindrical. Stridulating bristles on trochanter of palp and leg 1. No stridulating bristles on coxae of palp and leg 1.

Specifics of seemanni
Length of carapace slightly longer than pat + tib of legs 1,4. Width slightly less than pat + tib of leg 2. Legs 4 , 1, 2, 3. Pat + tib of leg 1 slightly longer than pat + tib of leg 4, almost equal. Met (metatarsus) of leg 4 less than the pat + tib of leg 3. Met of legs 1,2 scopulate to base. Met of leg 3, apical half scopulae. Met of leg 4, apical one third scopulate. Leg 3 is three times longer than the carapace.


----------



## Travis K (Jan 12, 2009)

Snipes said:


> Did you ever figure it out? Here is what it says from the Tarantula Identification and classification guide, but it doesnt have specifics for A. boreus
> 
> Generic key
> Aphonopelma
> ...



LOL, no the Grandkid of my co-worker had his B-day long ago and I don't really have access to the T in question any more, but it sure was a cute little guy.  I guess he has made quite a few tunnels with 3 openings.


----------



## Travis K (Feb 23, 2009)

*Bump*

I got interested again and this thread has more information than the current ID thread.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=146684

This keeps coming up so often that we/(I) need to figure out a way of telling them apart.


----------



## GoTerps (Feb 23, 2009)

Am I the only one who doesn't feel these 2 spiders look all that much alike?  

A. seemanni is quite larger with much more prominent (and different!) leg striping than the presumed Acanthoscurria borealis.

Eric


----------



## ph0bia (Feb 23, 2009)

A.seemanni are highly variable. The pictures are both A.seemanni.
They're not all black with striking white stripes.


----------



## Travis K (Feb 23, 2009)

GoTerps said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't feel these 2 spiders look all that much alike?
> 
> A. seemanni is quite larger with much more prominent (and different!) leg striping than the presumed Acanthoscurria borealis.
> 
> Eric


Can you post pics of Seemanni vs Borealis?


----------



## metallica (Feb 23, 2009)

GoTerps said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't feel these 2 spiders look all that much alike?
> 
> A. seemanni is quite larger with much more prominent (and different!) leg striping than the presumed Acanthoscurria borealis.
> 
> Eric


Gowd Eric, you might as well tell the folks here that they have Cyclosternum pentalore in stead of Cyclosternum fasciatum.

cheers

Eddy


----------



## nichjohnsson (Feb 23, 2009)

Look,I'm not an expert,but the cefalo. shape is veri similar with the acanthoscurria cefalo.:drool:


----------



## GoTerps (Feb 23, 2009)

metallica said:


> Gowd Eric, you might as well tell the folks here that they have Cyclosternum pentalore in stead of Cyclosternum fasciatum.
> 
> cheers
> 
> Eddy


Sheesh Eddy!!  It's too early in the day here to get all wined up!

Funny thing is I had something along those lines typed, but then deleted it as I figured it better to stay on topic! It seems likely that the spiders showing up in pet shops WC as "A. seemanni" and "C. fasciatum" are probably being exported together, from Guatemala (Maybe Honduras too, hell I don't know)... and almost always sold as "Costa Rican" zebras/tiger rumps.  



ph0bia said:


> The pictures are both A.seemanni.


The pictures at the very beginning of this thread?  Are you so confident?

Take another look at Eddy's post HERE.  Are the 2 spiders pictured there the same species?  



> A.seemanni are highly variable.


While variation is expected, are you sure you're not making this statement because you've been "told" that you were looking at "color forms", when in fact you were looking at 2 different species?  

I'm not arguing that _A. seemanni_ isn't variable in color... but I'm not talking about color.  That being said, I haven't mentioned taxonomic differences either, but just LOOK at the spiders.   But wait, it has orange/tan spinnerets, so it MUST be _A. seemanni_!!   Sorry, don't mean to get cheeky.

Hey Travis,


> Can you post pics of Seemanni vs Borealis?


I think Eddy's post does a better job than I could.  I don't keep these itchy things anyway.  

Eric


----------



## Travis K (Feb 23, 2009)

If eddy is correct then A. borealis was pictured at the top of that post and A. Seemanni at the bottom, right?

In that case the T I pictured at the begining of this thread would be A. borealis.  It would still be nice to have articles on taxonomy for ech of these species.

Thanks for the help, I had seen that post before but for some reason I gave too much credit to those who didn't know what they were talking about.


----------



## Travis K (Aug 25, 2010)

M.F.Bagaturov said:


> This is maybe not a big secret for everyone, but i suggest you one character which is definately distinguish Aphonopelma from Acanthoscurria 200% - it is a shape (type) of the spermatheace.
> Aphonopelma seemanni has typical Aphonopelma-type spermathecae and Acanthoscurria borealis according the Schmidt's illustrations in description has typical Acanthoscurria-type spermatheace...


Mine molted out male and died a short while ago.  I can get palp pics if anyone is interested.


----------



## brian abrams (Aug 27, 2010)

*A Seemani vs A Borealis*

Interesting thread!  I have a large, fully grown beautiful adult A Seemani girl, with dark contrasting color and very prominant leg stiping.  I also have a much drabber, not fully grown girl that I THOUGHT was A Seemani, mostly because of the orange spinnerettes and light colored underbelly.  I looks very much like the A Borealis pictured, being a ligher colored brownish-gray, with the knee rings, but little contrast with the vertical leg striping.  The temperaments of the 2 spiders are also as diferent as night and day.  My "ugly" Seemani girl is much flightier, a pscho-feeder, much more hyper aggressive, and will readily bite. i'm still not compeltely convinced that she IS a Seemani.  Any input on the temperament of the A Borealis?


----------



## Ms.X (Aug 27, 2010)

brian abrams said:


> Interesting thread!  I have a large, fully grown beautiful adult A Seemani girl, with dark contrasting color and very prominant leg stiping.  I also have a much drabber, not fully grown girl that I THOUGHT was A Seemani, mostly because of the orange spinnerettes and light colored underbelly.  I looks very much like the A Borealis pictured, being a ligher colored brownish-gray, with the knee rings, but little contrast with the vertical leg striping.  The temperaments of the 2 spiders are also as diferent as night and day.  My "ugly" Seemani girl is much flightier, a pscho-feeder, much more hyper aggressive, and will readily bite. i'm still not compeltely convinced that she IS a Seemani.  Any input on the temperament of the A Borealis?


You might want to read this very informative article on _A. seemanni_:
http://www.atshq.org/articles/stop_who_goes_there.pdf
It should explain common misconceptions and misidentifications.


----------



## brian abrams (Aug 31, 2010)

*Eddy Hijmensen article*

Interesting article.  Thank you so much for posting!  After reading it, I immediately compared the leg striping with my pale spider with that of my high contrast known Seemani girl.  This makes me again lean more heavily towards A Seemani. The temperament was also causing me to have my doubts also.  In the meantime, after pouring over many photographs, I was also considering Accanthoscurria Insubtillis, the Bolivian White Knee, aka Chaco Mousy Brown as another possibility.  They also strongly resemble both the Borealis and my spider. Love these forums.  I learned something new today!


----------



## Travis K (Apr 16, 2011)

robc said:


> I have found out that A.Seemani have 2 Tibial hooks and a.Borealis has only one.....rob


Been too long, after reading through this thread I decided to pull the carcass out of the drawer.  I knew there was a good reason to save these things.

Only one hook, but where is the documentation to support the 1 v 2 statement above???

Sorry about the lack of sharpness to these pics, best I can do ATM.


----------



## NikiP (Apr 16, 2011)

Travis, did this tarantula have tan zagged stripes on the metatarsus?

I also have one of these mystery T's. Have been told it's A. burica, A. sp. Guatemala, & I know there's the possibility of A. borealis. Then there's the question of if any of them are the same, since we don't know if all of what is being imported is the same or if we have 1-3 different species being imported.


----------



## robc (Apr 16, 2011)

Travis K said:


> Been too long, after reading through this thread I decided to pull the carcass out of the drawer.  I knew there was a good reason to save these things.
> 
> Only one hook, but where is the documentation to support the 1 v 2 statement above???
> 
> Sorry about the lack of sharpness to these pics, best I can do ATM.


This was actually in a discription from someone on ATS might have been "eddie" (Metalica forgot the rest of his user name LOL!!) It has been a while!


----------



## sjl197 (Apr 17, 2011)

I'm going to jump in before mr eddy 'complicated surname' gets here...., but we could just try the correct spelling of metallica  

Yes Acanthoscurria tend to have one prominent tibial spur, BUT there is huge variation in form of the spur across the multiple species. The spur as a whole should generally be facing prolaterally (ie leaning to the front rather than underneath, so doesnt touch the metatarsus when the leg is folded, rather it sticks out). I suggest more critically you should look for the 'apical cluster of spines' on the distal end of the spur of Acanthoscurria, as in the description of A.borealis, where Schmidt says 'it bears a comb of 7 spines''.

I can see neither in the pictures, but especially in pic4 i can see the smaller second spur which is found in Aphonopelma and many many other genera. Look again people at pic4, where the legs are turned so the smaller spurs face upward. The front legs are rather mangled, and this is the only reason the spurs seem to stick out forward and only the large spur is obvious (i suspect you bent the legs to show the spurs on the photo). Also the large spur is very curved, as typical for Aphonopelma, not Acanthoscurria where the spur tends to be stubby and straight, and again the lack of the terminal spine cluster is the key here. More easy to tell, the bulb shape is just like other central american Aphonopelma. If you looked at the bulb under a microscope i expect you would see small denticulations on the underside.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN ITS A.SEEMANNI  !!!!

It does mean it shares many features with Aphonopelma seemanni, and none of importance with Acanthosucrria sp,

If this spider is one of the guatemala exports, with thin leg stripes, then several of us have openly said for a while that these are an Aphonopelma sp, and this was because other preserved spiders have had their taxonomic features looked at in depth. But travisK, i think its really great you did the best thing and preserve the male so it specific characters can be looked at properly (though its limited what can be said from a few photos and no closeups of key features). Im glad you chose to look at key features rather than continue with repeated speculation and assumption.

NikP  - Happy you asked about the metatarsus flash. Fyi, many of those sold as A.burica in europe are a much smaller sp, and have metallic blue on the chelicerae. Both males are much smaller than most other species. Not sure whats sold as A.burica in USA these days, but it used to be the same small species with metalliic blue on chelicerae, they also have very thin leg striping in females, which are much smaller and much less skittish and aggressive than the large 'Aphonopelma sp guatemala'.  

? Can we drop calling so many of these spiders Acanthoscurria borealis now? After seeing so many with definative Aphonopelma features, can we move on? According to Schmidt there is a true Acanthoscurria borealis in central America, but these are not that.

Now, i would be grateful to see more photos of live adult males of these various species, and what is thought to be true A.seemanni (the ones with thick leg stripes). I'm interested to know how the leg markings differ in adult males, as the adult males of these here 'Aphonopelma sp guatemala' dont seem to have much if any leg markings at all.... anyone can help?

P.s. As with eddy, the documentation to support my comments on features is basically the primary scientific literature, like the original species descriptions of Aphonopelma sp, Acanthoscurria sp (inc Schmidt 1995 for A.borealis). Schiapelli and Gerschman de Piklin did an excellent review of Acanthoscurria in 1964, and there are several much more recent excellent papers published and more on their way.


----------



## Travis K (Apr 18, 2011)

Thanks, both of you.  Looks like a I have some more reading to do.  I just got a 60x scope too so that might come in handy when looking at my dead specimen and cross referencing it against both genuses.  Looks like I still have more work to do....

Cheers,


----------

