A. avicularia vs A. metallica

[viper69]

How would I, an every day tarantula collector, use that information to determine that the Avicularia metallica I bought was really that species?

Generally speaking you wouldn't. In the context you presented, that's never been my point, never. However, my drum beat for DNA is not about morphologically identical specimens, it never has been, and it never will be as it relates to the average owner.

 

[CEC]

The authors of the Avicularia revision acknowledge that the morphotypes of Avicularia avicularia could be a matter of cryptic species and that additional lines of evidence, including molecular data, are needed to make a more accurate determination on that matter. No one is arguing against the use of DNA as a valuable piece of evidence to delimit species and to identify a tarantula to species level. As you know, it has been used multiple times in spider taxonomy to great success.

The argument here is the lack of usefulness in using a gene sequence to average Joes like myself. Instead of arguing the point, I would like to hear from you how that would be possible. Hypothetically, lets say in some miraculous set of circumstances Avicularia metallica was no longer considered nomen dubium, was considered a valid species, and found to be morphologically indistinguishable from A. avicularia, but could be distinguished by a sequence of the CO1 gene which is published in GenBank. How would I, an every day tarantula collector, use that information to determine that the Avicularia metallica I bought was really that species?

Exactly...

DNA really only helps taxonomist determine a species not hobbyists seeking a label... Hobby material would have to be examined (which puts us right back where we started until all hobby material is examined). As you know, you're dreaming if you think that'll be done. So I find it irrelevant to the problem at hand.
At a hobbyist stand point, DNA usually makes IDing even more complicated. Comparing cladystics, locality, and color description can be accurate, but by adding DNA that separates species that are identical in cladystics, share locality and have similar color descriptions makes IDing that much harder.

 

[viper69]

The problem is many newly discovered tarantulas get into the hobby long before they are characterized either with cladistics, DNA or both.

 

[viper69]

Comparing cladystics

@advan He can spell Columbia correctly, but not cladistics Someone's been hitting the sauce too much

 

[CEC]

@advan He can spell Columbia correctly, but not cladistics Someone's been hitting the sauce too much

*Colombia lol

 

[viper69]

makes IDing that much harder.

I get all that, but science is still science, facts are facts.

 

[viper69]

*Colombia lol

That's what I get for doing 2 different things at the same time, typing about Ts, and typing an email to someone at Columbia University

 

[CEC]

I get all that, but science is still science, facts are facts.

I'm picking up what you're putting down and I completely agree, but it doesn't help any hobbyist figure out the differences between hobby material, which is the OP's question...

 

[CEC]

That's what I get for doing 2 different things at the same time, typing about Ts, and typing an email to someone at Columbia University

No one is perfect. Especially, when multi-tasking or not sober... lol

 

[viper69]

I'm picking up what you're putting down and I completely agree, but it doesn't help any hobbyist figure out the differences between hobby material, which is the OP's question...

I agree re: hobby. I've never not agreed there.

 

[Phases]

You dudes are well over my head lol. Nonetheless Eve has molted and measures at 5.5, I'm betting she can hit 6 when fully stretched.

Now I may be wrong, but to ME with my current understanding.. this makes me think shes definitely metallica vs regular avicularia, and ..likely a female(?). She's still relaxing post molt but here is what I thought was a really good shot that I got of her a couple days ago:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BdrFNeJhpHT/?taken-by=project_tarantula

 

[viper69]

You dudes are well over my head lol. Nonetheless Eve has molted and measures at 5.5, I'm betting she can hit 6 when fully stretched.

Now I may be wrong, but to ME with my current understanding.. this makes me think shes definitely metallica vs regular avicularia, and ..likely a female(?). She's still relaxing post molt but here is what I thought was a really good shot that I got of her a couple days ago:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BdrFNeJhpHT/?taken-by=project_tarantula

What I can say is that metallica has fiber optic setae and is a deep blue but bright similar to yours. A avic does not have white tipped setae, however other Avics do.

A full dorsal shot would be best

 

[Phases]

A full dorsal shot would be best

Does this help? Shot it for you:

 

[viper69]

Does this help? Shot it for you:

It does. They both look identical from a very gross morphological view of what used to be known as A. metallica. Which is now known as A. avicularia morphotype #6.

The traditional A. avic they are not. A. avic's have red setae on their abdomen once they are older. A. metallica's are white, as yours are, that very noticeable fiber optic setae. Also you commented on one being more black. That is not a distinguishing characteristic, the more black one simply has setae on its abdomen, whereas the other one has a bald spot.

 

[Phases]

Awesome, thanks so much, glad to have these ID'd finally. I had to wait for Eve to chill a while, molt, then chill a while again before shooting this.

Appreciate your help!

 

[viper69]

Awesome, thanks so much, glad to have these ID'd finally. I had to wait for Eve to chill a while, molt, then chill a while again before shooting this.

Appreciate your help!

I caution against saying these are actually metallica however. I only looked at a video and that's not enough to ID many Avics. As these are WC they could in theory be something else without further examination. I'm not an arachnologist.

 

[Phases]

True enough, but I'd say I'm a lot closer to a true ID than it was before. For a hobbiest like myself, metallica seems to be what i will put on my spreadsheet, - I'm getting comments on YT and messages in Insta saying Metallica, too.

One person said it looks like a good breeding pair but, who knows.

 

[viper69]

True enough, but I'd say I'm a lot closer to a true ID than it was before. For a hobbiest like myself, metallica seems to be what i will put on my spreadsheet, - I'm getting comments on YT and messages in Insta saying Metallica, too.

One person said it looks like a good breeding pair but, who knows.

You are closer for sure. The person that said that doesn't know what they are talking about. I saw your video too. Sure the general idea of body size w/males and females of Avic makes yours appear like a pair...However, my male A. metallica at times appeared female, but def. wasn't hah.

And my A. geroldi, while appearing male at times, is def. a female-- molt confirmed it myself.

 

[Phases]

Yea I mean who's to say they are even remotely near the same age. I do have a molt to read from the larger one, and it looks like soon enough I will the smaller. I'll do them together @viper69

 

[MSRT]

This thread was a fascinating read! I have a T that was sold just as a pink toe, so I've been referring to him as an A. avicularia, although he has similar white tipped setae like Phases's T, but with a greenish carapace... Might he be another morphotype of A. avicularia? Is there a page that has descriptions (or better pictures) of each time? I am finding nothing with my google search surprisingly.