With slight variations in appearance?
Yes, B. smithi was renamed B. hamorii, while what was previously known as B. annitha became the new B. smithi.
I have to wonder why the names were changed! We purchased a B. smithi juvenile a few months ago, this is what we got. Was the company accurate?
I am pretty certain that's a B. hamorii. The carapace is too dark and the lower orange banding is not bright enough for a B. annitha.
You'd need to get a clearer photo of the chelicerae in better lighting for me to feel confident in saying, from what I understand looking for chelicerae banding is the easier way to tell - present on B. hamorii but not B. smithi. You'd want to take that clear image and throw it up in the Tarantula Identification gallery.
Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently you can't use the carapace to tell them apart as there's too much variation between specimens.
More than slight IME. There are others more difficult to tell apart in this genus.
If the seller is reputable and knows their stuff then there's a good chance you got what you were sold, there's no cheliceral banding (see the hamorii pic below) or black strips through the patella markings so I'm inclined to believe it's smithi
You are right, I have seen specimen with very light carapaces. But in combination with the banding on the leg, I think it is quite unlikely to be a B. annitha.
That's not very accurate. Both were valid described species, B. smithi was described in 1897 while hamorii was described in 1997. It was determined that specimens that were imported in the hobby as B. smithi are in fact B. hamorii based on the location where they were collected.
Dumb question time - is the cheliceral banding ALWAYS present on B. hamorii, or does that vary too?If the seller is reputable and knows their stuff then there's a good chance you got what you were sold, there's no cheliceral banding (see the hamorii pic below) or black strips through the patella markings so I'm inclined to believe it's smithi
Yes, as was clarified above. I was aware the two species were previously described, i'm just tired and used poor wording in my initial post.
I've not personally seen a hamorii without it but I wouldn't explicitly rule out the chance of there being some sort of variation
I have heard that B harmorii was always a seperate spricies, just B annitha thst is synomous with B smithi
Seller was backwater reptiles. Reputable, but we paid for a 4 in and they sent us 2 3/4 inIf the seller is reputable and knows their stuff then there's a good chance you got what you were sold, there's no cheliceral banding (see the hamorii pic below) or black strips through the patella markings so I'm inclined to believe it's smithi
. I love her though. Her little personality is amazing. I wouldn't trade her for any other T
no, they are not. and i am not even in the states to know that.
Ok that definitely sounds right to me. I was disappointed to say the least and they didn't want to help fix the situation at all.
But I wouldn't trade her for the world at this point