B. ruhnaui=Brachypelmides ruhnaui=A. albiceps=Brachypelmides albiceps=B. albiceps?!?

[Michael Jacobi]

Got your labeler handy? Got some aspirin. Read on.

Brachypelma ruhnaui is a junior synonym of Brachypelma albiceps.

Brachypelma albiceps was described by Pocock in 1903 and transferred to Aphonopelma by Andrew Smith in 1995. Schmidt referred to it as Brachypelmides albiceps in 2004, but if you look elsewhere in this forum you will discover that many don't give a hoot what Schmidt says. The most recent version of Platnick's catalog has it listed as Aphonopelma because Smith (1995) declared Brachypelmides a junior synonym of Brachypelma. (However, subsequent authors continued to "resurrect" Brachypelmides).

Platnick's listing for Aphonopelma albiceps:

f albiceps (Pocock, 1903)....................Mexico
Eurypelma pallidum F. O. P.-Cambridge, 1897a: 21, pl. 1, f. 17 (f, misidentified).
Brachypelma a. Pocock, 1903b: 103 (Df).
A. a. Smith, 1995: 70, f. 76-82 (removed f from S of A. pallidum).
A. a. Peters, 2000a: 23, f. 43 (f).
A. a. Peters, 2003: 32, f. 107 (f).
Brachypelmides a. Schmidt, 2004f: 4, f. 1 (T to synonymized generic name; N.B.: might belong to Brachypelma).

********************************************************

There have been rumblings that Brachypelma ruhnaui is not a Brachypelma and this species was actually described (enter Herr Schmidt again) as Brachypelmides. (I have been told that ruhnaui should be an Aphonopelma more than once, but I can't recall by whom).

Platnick's listing for Brachypema ruhnaui:

mf ruhnaui (Schmidt, 1997)....................Mexico
Brachypelmides r. Schmidt, 1997d: 205, f. 1-4 (Dmf).
Brachypelmides r. Schmidt, 1997g, 1998h: 19, f. 199-201 (mf).
Brachypelmides r. Locht, Yáñez & Vázquez, 1999: 196, f. 3 (m).
Brachypelmides r. Peters, 2000a: 76, f. 250-252 (mf).
Brachypelmides r. Peters, 2003: 133, f. 542, 545-547 (mf).

A 2005 paper that described a new species of Aphonopelma (A. anitahoffmanae) has also considered "Brachypelmides ruhnaui" to be a junior synonym of the revalidated Brachypelma albiceps.

Locht, A., F. Medina, R. Rojo & I. Vázquez. 2005.
Una nueva especie de tarántula del género Aphonopelma Pocock 1901 (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Theraphosinae) de México con notas sobre el género Brachypelma Simon 1891.
Boletín de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 37: 105-108.

My thanks to Fabian Vol for bringing this paper to my attention.

So, at least for today :wall: , "Brachypelma ruhnaui", which I have heard is not a Brachypelma and may be an Aphonopelma, stays in Brachypelma but becomes a junior synonym of Brachypelma albiceps.

I would appreciate any comments or corrections.

Cheers, Michael

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Can't see this paper, but Norman still do not list it as well as a description of the new Aphono in Catalog...
As far as I know soon we will haopefully have a new revision of Brachypelma.. so... just wait!

 

[MindUtopia]

Very interesting, Michael. Thanks for posting that (even if it does give me a headache just thinking about it! :wall: )

 

[David Burns]

Does this mean that Brachypelma ruhnaui isn't/shouldn't be listed in CITES?

 

[Michael Jacobi]

Does this mean that Brachypelma ruhnaui isn't/shouldn't be listed in CITES?

ALL Brachypelma are CITES listed and this revision retains "ruhnaui" in the genus Brachypelma as B. albiceps. Since there is dissention regarding its place among the genus, perhaps it will eventually be removed and then become unprotected by CITES.

Cheers, Michael

 

[Scorpiove]

Well my "B. ruhnaui=Brachypelmides ruhnaui=A. albiceps=Brachypelmides albiceps=B. albiceps" should be here on tuesday , although I do have a headache now.

 

[TheDarkness]

pic of the new Aphonopelma anitahoffmanae

here a pic of the new sp...

is a pic in color of the b&w of the papper....

 

[bananaman]

Edit: CITES protected tarantula species with listings: www.cites.org/common/com/NC/NC05/X-NC2005-07.pdf
A. albiceps? B. ruhnaui? No B. albiceps?

here a pic of the new sp...

is a pic in color of the b&w of the papper....

That looks a LOT like my Aphonopelma serratum...
A. serratum is listed on Rick C. West's site like this: Aphonopelma serratum (Simon, 1891)...
Check here: http://www.birdspiders.com/archive/984C610AG3048G23A9G27A44BBAE38CF4D2.html

Here's some pics of mine:

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Hello!

Really nice pics Bananaman and nice spider...
But I believe that identification is very difficult... unfortunately

Michael!
Did You've red the paper Yourself and also do You compair it with the last Arturo Brachypelmides=Brachypelma paper?
I wonder, is it only me who found this very strange and poor concerning the last synonymization basis?
Anybody else?

I also suppose that new descriptions in Aphonopelma genus species makes it even more tangled than Avicularia without revision of already described species... the same if somebody described a batch of new Avicularia naowadays... ;(

 

[Vys]

Good at least that the spiders themselves don't have this built-in need to classify and rationalize

 

[Easyout58]

How am I going to break the news to my little Ruhnaui?

 

[bonesmama]

Can someone explain what "junior synonym" means? Thanx

 

[psionix]

Can someone explain what "junior synonym" means? Thanx

it means someone tried to name a species something new after someone else has already named it.

the senior name stays in this case.

 

[Michael Jacobi]

Can someone explain what "junior synonym" means? Thanx

If a reclassification finds two species to be synonymous, the earlier described name (senior synonym) takes precedence over the more recent name (junior synonym). Of course, the concept isn't restricted to the species level.

Cheers, Michael

 

[angelarachnid]

I dont have to change my labels........................................i dont keep pet rocks :} :} ;P

Ray

 

[Steve Nunn]

If a reclassification finds two species to be synonymous, the earlier described name (senior synonym) takes precedence over the more recent name (junior synonym). Of course, the concept isn't restricted to the species level.

Hi Michael,
This is true, however there are one or two exceptions (as there is to any rule ), if the first person reviewing the material has reason to change a species epitah, he/she can under the "principles of the first reviser" rules and regs. Additionally, if the author can show that the jun. syn. makes more sense to keep (eg: that name be be in many publications and the name change may cause all sorts of missconceptions), then there may be an exception to the rule, this will most certainly be the case when the genera Hadronyche (1873) are synonymised with Atrax (1877). Was also the case when Main (1985) synonymised Ischnocolus lucubrans with Phrictus crassipes. I.lucubrans was described same year (1874), although one page before P.crassipes in the same publication, according to the laws, the sen. syn. was I.lucubrans, however Main explained because of the widespread use of the name "crassipes", it made more sense to keep it.

Of course these are the exceptions to the rule, Michael's post covered it very well.

Cheers,
Steve