A little confused with names

[Crone Returns]

"they" who? Who are you referring to?

The pp who list the Ts in journal articles. The pp who list the spiders on the net, like Wikipedia.

 

[viper69]

The pp who list the Ts in journal articles. The pp who list the spiders on the net, like Wikipedia.

There are many primary scientific journal articles with photographs of Ts. I cannot think of a recent one I have read that didn't.

As for Wikipedia, anyone can add content, if you think it's so important, volunteer to be an editor!

 

[Jeff23]

No you didn't. It's been a mess from the beginning, most of what you 'knew' was false. There's a long-term revision underway by Caroline Fukushima, and an interim paper has been published. To give you an idea of the crap that's been dumped into Avicularia over the decades: one species was moved to Grammostola and another to Euathlus! That's why I totally disregard the two 'official' tarantula species lists; there's so many bad names from old, vague descriptions. No one knows how many tarantula species there are. Don't quote the lists.

Fukushima has invalidated 18 bogus and duplicate species, and as it stands now there's 14 valid Avic species, with 8 still under review, so a potential max of 22; Jacobi's 'official' list has 47 Avic species! Prior to this Avicularia had been split into Iridopelma, Pachistopelma, and Typhoclaena. 4 new genera will be added:

- versicolor, by itself
- laeta, by itself
- diversipes, gamba, & sooretama
- minatrix, hirschii, & one other species

Interesting stuff.

What about amazonica?

Edit* Does it stay in Avic.?

 

[_scorpio_]

@Bread
http://www.thespidershop.co.uk/avicularia-guyana-p-1107.html#.V_acSfkrKM8
I think this is being described this way due to the recent Avicularia confusion over changes, though it does indicate in the description that it is what is currently known as A. avic.
Send Lee@TSS a message and he should be able to confirm this and pick out a AF too.

 

[Haksilence]

You know it really would help rank amateurs like myself if they'd show you a pic alongside name. Grrr.

honestly pictures wont really help, since Avic cant really be reliably identified by pictures

 

[Bread]

@Bread
http://www.thespidershop.co.uk/avicularia-guyana-p-1107.html#.V_acSfkrKM8
I think this is being described this way due to the recent Avicularia confusion over changes, though it does indicate in the description that it is what is currently known as A. avic.
Send Lee@TSS a message and he should be able to confirm this and pick out a AF too.

That is the where I got my MM (that exact advert when he was a SA) he's exactly that, pure black pink toes.

Spoiler

 

[Jeff23]

What about amazonica?

Edit* Does it stay in Avic.?

I see no mention of Amazonica anywhere in that Taxonomical Revision Document. So maybe it has a generic name or is being moved as well.

The genus Avicularia consists of 14 morphologically very similar species: A.
avicularia (type species), A. juruensis, A. purpurea, A. rufa, A. taunayi, A. variegata
comb. nov., A. velutina, A. aymara, Avicularia sp. nov. 1, Avicularia sp. nov 2,
Avicularia sp. nov. 3, Avicularia sp. nov. 4, Avicularia sp. nov. 5 and Avicularia sp.
nov. 6, which occurred in the Caribbean to Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela,
Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname and Brazil.

Edit* Or maybe it is a mix between two species?

 

[Poec54]

It has been long suspected that a number of Avic species were so similar to Avic avic, that they were probably just regional variants of that species. As she goes thru. Fukushima is eliminating those.

 

[creepa]

Nice huh common names...

I vote for a world wide ban on common names with the death penalty as punishment for anyone who uses them...!

 

[Hydrazine]

Versicolor is being moved out of Avicularia into it's own genus. Same thing's happening with laeta. What was once Avicularia is soon to be 8 genera.

Ah, yes. It's been soon™ ever since I joined AB, and I believe it's going to be soon™ for a couple more years at least.

 

[Jeff23]

I suppose Amazonica could be one of those "sp. nov." versions.

But let's suppose it is found that Amazonica which is a favorite among people who love Avic's is not a recognized species. The scientific species name then goes away and we have a hobby form. One must wonder what will happen on the popularity of this tarantula. One would wonder if anyone will continue to breed it. I still love it hybrid or not, and may buy a couple more to insure I have a female before they disappear. Although I try to only buy pure forms, this would be an exception in my interest.

 

[viper69]

I suppose Amazonica could be one of those "sp. nov." versions.

But let's suppose it is found that Amazonica which is a favorite among people who love Avic's is not a recognized species. The scientific species name then goes away and we have a hobby form. One must wonder what will happen on the popularity of this tarantula. One would wonder if anyone will continue to breed it. I still love it hybrid or not, and may buy a couple more to insure I have a female before they disappear. Although I try to only buy pure forms, this would be an exception in my interest.

Amazonica was indeed collected from the wild is not a hybrid.

The central question to an Avic revision is the following:

Avic A looks very different than Avic B, both are declared the same species. What will people do regarding future breeding in such a case?

Preserve the phenotype or dilute the phenotype by breeding A and B?

That's the real question. I suspect people will do both :/

I sent my male amazonica out for breeding- fingers crossed!

 

[Poec54]

Amazonica was indeed collected from the wild is not a hybrid.

Well, not a man-made hybrid anyways.

 

[viper69]

Well, not a man-made hybrid anyways.

Are you aware of any data to suggest it's a hybrid? If so, that would be news to me, and worth reading.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Lets be realistic for a minute. Out of the number of species descriptions published with illustrated ID keys, or well written keys, how many pet keepers are actually using them to get an idea of what their tarantulas are? Not that many I would assume. Lets say Fukushima finishes her revision of the genus Avicularia and provides a well illustrated and written species key. We will still see questions like "what is my Avicularia sp. "whatever" with responses like "post a picture" because not many take the time to understand and use species keys to determine what they really have in their collection.

For an example using another genus. The revision of the genus Aphonopelma in the USA was perhaps the best written and illustrated generic revision of a tarantula taxon and yet I still see people replying to "what species is this?" questions with names it couldn't possibly be. The science of taxonomy and systematics provides insight to species diversity and evolutionary relationships and isn't there to help you figure out what tarantula to breed with what. It is ultimately up to pet keepers to use the science to figure it out for themselves.

 

[viper69]

The science of taxonomy and systematics provides insight to species diversity and evolutionary relationships and isn't there to help you figure out what tarantula to breed with what

On its face that statement is accurate. Scientists are not publishing their findings for hobbyists.

However, the product of that research is useful information to people who do breed and take what they are breeding seriously. It is indeed there for people to use if they choose to help them figure out things.

An Avic revision like Jason and Chris's would be very useful, and the question I posted in #32 will be a very serious one. What will people do once they know A=B, what will popular consensus turn into at that point? Only time will tell.

 

[Jeff23]

Are you aware of any data to suggest it's a hybrid? If so, that would be news to me, and worth reading.

That is the big question. I hope they don't stop with just a classification adjustment of what they keep and still leave people in the dark. It would be nice to also see them examine any specimens that have supposed scientific names that disappear in this process. If they say it is found in the wild then could it not be some color variant based on a recessive gene like Neoholothele incei gold and olive?

EDIT* I need to correct my last sentence. On that last line I don't mean that specifically since it would show up in egg sacs in that case, but I mean something slightly different on the genes with predetermination of coloration.