A. avicularia morphotype? - MM

• 

  viper69

• Feb 17, 2019

Reluctant to ID Avics based on one picture with only a few species, because w/those species nothing else looks like them. If you don't know the species, don't breed it for god sakes. W/that that said, sure reminds me of A. avic, @cold blood has bred these.
Certainly not #6 aka, metallica. I've owned MMs.

 

• 

  cold blood

• Feb 17, 2019

@viper69 as you said, identification from a pic is hard enough....im afraid iding a MM is even harder by a pic.

 

• 

  viper69

• Feb 17, 2019

@cold blood Agreed, often I find it's a slightly easier to say what a T is NOT, as opposed to what it is when it comes to Avics, for me at least.

 

• 

  lostbrane

• Feb 17, 2019

@viper69 - I didn't get that far in my thought process. However, due to not knowing for sure what it is, I will not pair him. Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

@cold blood - thank you as well. Appreciated, as well.

Also, some slight apologies, I posted this right before going to bed in the wee hours of the morning. So, having looked deeper I see how much of a difficulty it can be. I'm going to see if the revision paper has any useful information that I can understand/come to understand that might help.

 

• 

  cold blood

• Feb 17, 2019

@lostbrane it may be possible to id it based on emboli...not sure though....but that would probably require a dead specimen.

 

• 

  CEC

• Feb 21, 2019

@cold blood Na... same species, same emboli.
If emboli were different, that'd probably be significant grounds to elevate to species status.
Concluded without DNA analysis, the only differences between the morphotypes is the urticating setae structure. Fukushima & Bertani thought this minor difference wasn't enough to consider them separate species, so instead they call them "morphotypes".

 

• 

  cold blood

• Feb 21, 2019

@CEC good point

 

• 

  viper69

• Feb 21, 2019

@CEC sounds so subjective at times too. DNA is needed