1. Important Announcement - Upcoming Downtime - Software Upgrade

    Please see here for more details.
Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.
Hoxter

Aphonopelma bicoloratum? [2/2]

I'm trying to make sure seller wasn't wrong and it actually is an Aphonopelma bicoloratum and not B. boehmei. It's still pretty small, about 5cm long, molted about week ago. Phone camera zoom allowed me to suspect it's also a female.

Aphonopelma bicoloratum? [2/2]
Hoxter, Jul 6, 2019
RezonantVoid likes this.
    • Hoxter
      First picture of same tarantula.
      Ungoliant likes this.
    • AphonopelmaTX
      I’m going with this one being correctly labeled as Aphonopelma bicoloratum. One difference between Aphonopelma and Brachypelma is the shape of the carapace. With Aphonopelma, the carapace is longer than wide, with Brachypelma the carapace is more square (length and width about equal).

      This one has a carapace longer than wide.
    • Patherophis
      @AphonopelmaTX We see carapax slightly from side.
      And what about these features of specimen ? :
      - long hairs on legs (absent in bicoloratum)
      - black markings around eyes (not always present in boehmei but never present in bicoloratum)
      - darker "flame" on patela (uniform coloration in bicoloratum)
      - black stripe on metatarsus (absent in bicoloratum)

      bicoloratum is overaly differently looking animal.
    • AphonopelmaTX
      @Patherophis All of the characters you listed are highly variable and not useful for identification. We are looking at a picture of a juvenile specimen after all. Carapace length and width ratio is stable in this circumstance when comparing Brachypelma and Aphonopelma, but not a useful character to make a more general generic ID.
    • Hoxter
    • AphonopelmaTX
      @Hoxter I don’t think any additional pictures are necessary. This one is good. If you would like to remove all doubt though, a picture of the spermatheca from its next molt would make a positive ID possible. Aphonopelma and Brachypelma spermatheca are very different.
    • Patherophis
      @Hoxter I would be thankful for more detailed photo of carapax directly from above, if possible.

      @AphonopelmaTX While I agree that these single characters are quite weak and wouldnt be useful for serious taxonomy, I find combination of them all to be more than suggestive. Yes, carapax schape is good character, but I insist that it cannot be reliably read out of this photo. This photo is not showing specimen from above but from side. Try to rotate this photo to see how much off vertical axis it is.

      @Exoskeleton Invertebrates May I ask You for opinion?
    • AphonopelmaTX
      @Patherophis The characters you listed, even in combination, are not useful since Aphonopelma bicoloratum possesses many of them while B. boehmei doesn't posses one or two.

      A. bicoloratum does in fact posses these characters:
      long hairs on legs (absent in bicoloratum)
      black markings around eyes (not always present in boehmei but never present in bicoloratum

      While B. boehmei doesn't always have the black stripe on the metatarsus.
      black stripe on metatarsus (absent in bicoloratum)

      Instead of looking at and comparing photos of pet trade specimens which can be misidentified, search iNaturalist for these two species. iNaturalist is a great resource since the photos are of first-hand observations of wild specimens. There are several of B. boehmei and just one of A. bicoloratum.

      For an authoritative source of using the carapace shape to differ Aphonopelma from Brachypelma, see the this CEC publication.
    There are no comments to display.
  • Category:
    Tarantula Identification
    Uploaded By:
    Hoxter
    Date:
    Jul 6, 2019
    View Count:
    278
    Comment Count:
    9

    EXIF Data

    File Size:
    1.2 MB
    Mime Type:
    image/jpeg
    Width:
    1657px
    Height:
    2207px
    Aperture:
    f/1.6
    Make:
    OnePlus
    Model:
    GM1910
    Date / Time:
    2019:07:05 14:41:11
    Exposure Time:
    1/33 sec
    ISO Speed Rating:
    ISO 250
    Focal Length:
    4.755 mm
     

    Note: EXIF data is stored on valid file types when a photo is uploaded. The photo may have been manipulated since upload (rotated, flipped, cropped etc).

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.