Avicularia morphotype identification

[CEC]

Avicularia variegata M#1
(Manaus, Brazil)

Sling .5"


Sling .75"

Sling 1"


Juvenile 1.5"


Juvenile 2"


Sub-Adult 3"


Pen-Ultimate Male 4"


Female 4"


Mature Male 6"


Mature Female 6"

 

[Matt Man]

so glad I used the search function. Thanks all this is an awesome thread

 

[liquidfluidity]

Avicularia juruensis as identified here on the boards. I bought a lot of 4 Ts recently and was under the idea that it was a normal Pinktoe. I got around to a rehouse and took a good look and this girl is stunning!

 

[RHawk]

View attachment 369770 Avicularia juruensis as identified here on the boards. I bought a lot of 4 Ts recently and was under the idea that it was a normal Pinktoe. I got around to a rehouse and took a good look and this girl is stunning!

This doesn’t really look like juruensis to me.. if it were morphotype 2, it would have an abundance of dense white tipped setae, just like hobby A. metallica.. There is one way to differentiate A. avicularia from A. juruensis, but you would need an exuvia (molt).. measure the very back leg and measure the very front leg.. if leg I is roughly the same size as leg IV, then it’s juruensis, if leg IV is around 10% longer than leg I, it’s A. avicularia.

 

[CEC]

View attachment 369770 Avicularia juruensis as identified here on the boards. I bought a lot of 4 Ts recently and was under the idea that it was a normal Pinktoe. I got around to a rehouse and took a good look and this girl is stunning!

Why would the "boards" identify that as juruensis? Just goes to show ya, it doesn't matter where you ask, it's who you ask. This certainly has the classic characteristics of a regular ol' Avicularia avicularia. So don't get too excited cuz there's no reason to suspect it's anything special. Appearance-wise it's identical to a common pink toe (morphotype #1). Measure the front and back pair of legs if you must. lol You might not need a molt in order to get decent measurements. The %10 difference in leg length should be pretty noticeable by that size & being all spread out & on the glass like that would be the perfect measurement opportunity.

 

[liquidfluidity]

I'll try and get some pics in the next few days. I am really liking Avics but at this rate I'm afraid to order when identification is all over the place...

Just generally looking, I'd say that the rear legs are longer...

I also have a M1 and they look very different although the M1 is quite a bit younger and smaller, juvenile/sub adult

 

[Kitara]

I keep saying I don't want another arboreal, but whenever I see Avic threads those pink toes just pull at my heartstrings lol. They are SO cute! I'm going to fold one of these days I just know it.

 

[JohnDapiaoen]

Need some advice, I'm curious if this female is an Avicularia variegata M2. I purchased her as a sling a couple years back with no further morphotype classification simply "A. variegata" I believeshe was part of a European import. Now I'm expecting some slings to come in but they are "Manaus" and the mother of those slings have a blue hue. Would it be unethical to eventually breed them given that they are the same species?

 

[Edan bandoot]

Need some advice, I'm curious if this female is an Avicularia variegata M2. I purchased her as a sling a couple years back with no further morphotype classification simply "A. variegata" I believeshe was part of a European import. Now I'm expecting some slings to come in but they are "Manaus" and the mother of those slings have a blue hue. Would it be unethical to eventually breed them given that they are the same species? View attachment 394957 View attachment 394958

Yes.

 

[JohnDapiaoen]

Yes.

That's a blunt answer, care to elaborate? "Yes"? So you'd say my female is in fact an M2 and countering the op's claim that they don't exist in the hobby? I bought her as a sling with possible hundreds of her siblings being imported to the us along with her.

 

[Edan bandoot]

That's a blunt answer, care to elaborate? "Yes"? So you'd say my female is in fact an M2 and countering the op's claim that they don't exist in the hobby? I bought her as a sling with possible hundreds of her siblings being imported to the us along with her.

Yes, it's unethical to breed different morphs and locales of avics.

 

[USNGunner]

@DaveM , go for it! Any day you learn something is not a wasted day!

 

[Arachnophobphile]

Wait....there's actually people in the hobby that refuse to believe the scientific research done by arachnologist? Or do I have that wrong, I'm confused.

I tried reading some scientific papers and for me they were difficult to get through as I'm not use to reading them.

Is there any site that helps in breaking them down and helping me to read through them? Or is it that I need to spends days on end until I figure it out?

 

[JohnDapiaoen]

Yes, it's unethical to breed different morphs and locales of avics.

Sure... anyways do you think its is an M2 or not?

 

[Edan bandoot]

Sure... anyways do you think its is an M2 or not?

if i knew that i'd've answered it. There's been some decent hobbyist keys passed around in the past you can use.

You can also message viper, he's an avic guy.

 

[JohnDapiaoen]

if i knew that i'd've answered it. There's been some decent hobbyist keys passed around in the past you can use.

You can also message viper, he's an avic guy.

I wonder if you can understand my confusion. It's unethical to breed my spider which means you're saying it is, in fact, a different morphotype, but now at the same time you say have no idea if it is a different morphotype. What was the point in commenting then .

 

[Edan bandoot]

I wonder if you can understand my confusion. It's unethical to breed my spider which means you're saying it is, in fact, a different morphotype, but now at the same time you say have no idea if it is a different morphotype. What was the point in commenting then .

read what i wrote.

 

[l4nsky]

Need some advice, I'm curious if this female is an Avicularia variegata M2. I purchased her as a sling a couple years back with no further morphotype classification simply "A. variegata" I believeshe was part of a European import. Now I'm expecting some slings to come in but they are "Manaus" and the mother of those slings have a blue hue. Would it be unethical to eventually breed them given that they are the same species? View attachment 394957 View attachment 394958

So, I'm red/green colorblind so I can't really offer a definitive opinion one way or another. What I can do is link pictures from the revision paper for people to better judge.

Here's M1:
https://zookeys.pensoft.net/lib/aja...=zoom_figure&instance_id=116&article_id=10717

And here's M2:
https://zookeys.pensoft.net/lib/aja...=zoom_figure&instance_id=117&article_id=10717

To my eye, your specimen looks more like Figure 73 under the M1 morphotype then the pictures for the M2 morphotype, but once again, I'm handicapped here.

As far as breeding, if you can't 100% ID the morphotype, please don't do it. Avicularia are a mess, taxonomy wise, and they need further work. This last revision did lump a lot of species together using morphotypes because the type specimens were missing or didn't exist so there was nothing to compare them to except other, known Avicularia. There's a good chance there will be further revisions in the future and we need to try and keep localities (especially ones who will in all likelihood never be legally exported again) pure in case they do gain full species status.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

Sure... anyways do you think its is an M2 or not?

@CEC
@Venom1080
@RHawk

I believe they can help you.

You can also create an account in the WSC and download the article in the link below:

NMBE - World Spider Catalog

Detailed taxonomic information about the spider families

wsc.nmbe.ch

Besides this thread, which I think explain pretty much everything, there is also this one, that is good as well, from 2019:

Avicularia morphotypes

I made my thread about Avicularia care before the revision was published and so didn't include any of the new taxonomic updates. Here they are. almost two years later. I apologize if someone has already done this, but just recently it seems like some members could use some help on the subject...

arachnoboards.com

Hope this could be helpful.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

This last revision did lump a lot of species together using morphotypes because the type specimens were missing or didn't exist so there was nothing to compare them to except other, known Avicularia. There's a good chance there will be further revisions in the future and we need to try and keep localities (especially ones who will in all likelihood never be legally exported again) pure in case they do gain full species status.

There's a note on this matter in the revision.

But I think what really got the hobby into a mess, were hobbysts trying to figured out which morphotype is which.

A. braunshauseni, taxonomically speaking, became nomen dubium (or nomina dubia, never remember the correct one, lol), and yet, we have A. avicularia morphotypes #2 and #7 that looks a lot like what pet trade had as A. braushauseni, however, supposedly, M7 is not in the hobby. But how can one guarantee 100% that?

I appreciate the efforts that all hobbysts took to understand the morphotypes and compared them to hobby individuals, but at the same time, this cause more fuzz around hobbysts specially because most of us, aren't into taxonomy at all.

Chances are, in the future, all these morphs, or some/most of them will probably change again, specially because molecular analysis is becoming more popular.

But now, this all we got, (un)fortunately. Lol.