Cambodgian T`s: for Volker, Soren, Martin H.

[No name]

surly if this were true then no one would know what this tarantula is?

Well said!

Regards,
nn

 

[Michael Jacobi]

Well said!

Regards,
nn

Actually, it wasn't. The above is an example of recognizing a species from a photo, not identifying it. If you show me a photo of a Burmese python I will be able to tell you what species it is, but if you show me of a photo of a blind snake I won't be able to tell you what species it is unless it is in my hands and I have reference material such as diagnostic keys to help me accurately identify it. A photograph would likely be of little use. Verstehen Sie? MJ

 

[No name]

Actually, it wasn't. The above is an example of recognizing a species from a photo, not identifying

Right! Recongnizing and identifying is entirely different. I should have been more careful using these terms. I think we are talking about IDENTIFYING here.

Cheers,
nn

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

surly if this were true then no one would know what this tarantula is?

Hi,

Are you sure that the tarantula on the picture is that Species you believe? I think you are of the opinion that the shown tarantula is Brachypelma smithi, right? If so, what makes you so sure? Coudn't it be also Brachypelma annitha? Have you ever examined the Typeseries from Brachypelma smithi and annitha to verify to which Species your Specimen on the picture belongs to. Do you know whether the describers from Brachypelma annitha, Tesmoingt, Cleton & Verdez, have examined the Holotype from Brachypelma smithi?* What is, if Brachypelma annitha is only a phenotypic variation of Br. smithi? Has anybody proved this? You see, it is not possible to identify a Tarantula without examining the neccessary Holotypes of the considered Species.
BTW, are you able to say to which Subfamily, Genus and Species the following Specimen belongs to?

Cheers, Volker


*They didn't examined the Holotype from Brachypelma smithi, of course!

 

[metallica]

smithi? annitha? i thought it was B. hamorii!

 

[grockl]

first one

Certainly appears to be chilobrachyus andersoni. Burmese giant brown. Nice pictures. I always respect a person who can reach in and hold an old world tarantula like that. I've been acussed of screaming like a little girl when confronted whith a Lividium on a welding glove. As for the second set of T's I'm unsure. I've only worked with the schmitti that has chevrons on it's rump.

 

[grockl]

after reading the rest

Holy cow. Is it nessesary to belittle people. The guy wasn't asking for a court certified document. Your all right, but can't you give him a good guess. As for splitting hairs on taxonomy. The reason taxonimists exist is to confuse those of us who do the real science. lol just kidding.

 

[metallica]

Holy cow. Is it nessesary to belittle people. The guy wasn't asking for a court certified document.

first, nobody is being belittled here. second, Mikhail is a serious Russian T hobby-ist. last time we spoke he didn't want a guess on a species, he wants to be sure.

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Certainly appears to be chilobrachyus andersoni. Burmese giant brown. ...

Hi,

no, wrong! ;P
BTW, listen to what the taxonomists say and you can learn a lot!

Cheers, Volker

 

[Malkavian]

(warning Taxonomy newbie ahead)
Just out of curiousity what IS that T? It looks similar to an asian species I saw in my petstore of choise a few months ago but it was labeled only as "vietnam velvet" or something similar. It seems its leg proportions are wrong to be a G.pulchra, which is the only other velvety black T i can think of offhand

Hi,

BTW, are you able to say to which Subfamily, Genus and Species the following Specimen belongs to?

 

[Aviculariinae]

Hi,

no, wrong! ;P
BTW, listen to what the taxonomists say and you can learn a lot!

Cheers, Volker

An absolute classic answer, i think ill go to the BTS Lectures now it will be worth the flight!

Cheers
Brendan

 

[phormingochilus]

I would hazard a guess on something as vague as abdominal patterns, your preferences and my experience ;-p

Ornithoctoninae: Haplopelma minax

The Cambodian ornithoctoniinae species are superficially like some strange "aureopilosum" - and furthermore looks a bit juvenile - but then again who would know? How certain is the locality ie. the country of origin Michael?

Regards
Søren

Hi,

BTW, are you able to say to which Subfamily, Genus and Species the following Specimen belongs to?

Cheers, Volker


*They didn't examined the Holotype from Brachypelma smithi, of course!

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

I would hazard a guess on something as vague as abdominal patterns, your preferences and my experience ;-p

Ornithoctoninae: Haplopelma minax
...

Hahaha, I'm not surprised that you know what it is! But the "normal" Tarantula keeper is not able to distinguish this Species for example from a dark Sel. javanensis!

See you in Stuttgart!

Cheers, Volker

 

[phormingochilus]

Think outside the box: The "normal" keeper wouldn't know the look of S. javanensis, and according to the statistics displayed on this site I reckon that the most likely candidate would be deemed Grammostola pulchra ...

See you (and all you other guys) at the dinner on the 29th!

Søren

Hahaha, I'm not surprised that you know what it is! But the "normal" Tarantula keeper is not able to distinguish this Species for example from a dark Sel. javanensis!

See you in Stuttgart!

Cheers, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

Do you know whether the describers from Brachypelma annitha, Tesmoingt, Cleton & Verdez, have examined the Holotype from Brachypelma smithi?* What is, if Brachypelma annitha is only a phenotypic variation of Br. smithi? Has anybody proved this?
*They didn't examined the Holotype from Brachypelma smithi, of course!

Hi Volker,
No, yes and yes

Hopefully one day peer review will be compulsory for species descriptions, but I'm not holding my breath! Of course these are one and the same species, you and I both believe that, colour variation and minor spermethecae variation just isn't enough to suggest (and NEVER prove, that isn't what systematics are about, let alone taxonomy) a new species. These two cross and I'm told the offspring are indeed fertile, R.West has said they can even be found in the same eggsac (just like the various morphs of G.rosea). I'm just waiting for the day some jerk determines that the red morph is in fact a subspecies!! Guns will blaze on that sad day.

So, the photo of B.smithi/annitha is more then likely just that. What I'm looking forward to see is the day someone posts a photo of B.albopilosum and can more appropriately call it B.vagans! OUCH, sorry guys, "they don't look the same do they, therefore they can't be the same species". How many times have I heard that statement here?? Too, too many times One day everyone may understand looks mean nothing in the big picture and this is why Volker says what he does about pictures, with good reason too ( I know I just had fun on another thread regarding this, but Volker is right).

This has absolutely nothing to do with breeding two morphs of the one species and losing both original forms, that is not the argument here (even though this is the best defense of the lay person). Whether both forms are bred together or not I couldn't care, irrelevant. What is important is species designation and correctly determining FIRST whether or not two morphs can breed and produce fertile offspring (and if they can, then there is indeed solid suggestion of one and the same species, depending on which concept you follow). Then, crossing of morphs can be debated.

Species is the only solid hierarchical level in science, all levels above (and in some cases, below) are "best guesses", determined through phylogenetic study to show relationships between certain clades. This is why it is so important to determine correctly whether or not a species really is valid and why looks are totally irrelevant in Most (but not always all) cases.

Clear as mud, isn't it?
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi Steve,

well said! You are so right!
BTW, I have VERY much to do at the moment, so I'll answer your private Mails later (but you are not forgotten )!

Cheers, Volker

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Hello ALL!

Nice talk people...
I`m waiting on something like this discussion but it gives me some clues...
I think the species is not common as minimum but as well maybe undescribed yet as I know Cambodgian material is a less in hobby.
THis is makes me contacting the persons and asking for more tarantulas from Cambodgia.
The locality for both, Haplos and Chilobrachys, is Pnom-Bokor mountain near Sianukvil.
I can send a cast exuvium for Id when it happens. Address for posting, please.
To Volker - I well know about the identification of tarantula by photo.
Thanks.
If it is interestung for somebody I will tell about the new tarantulas from Cambodgia and also can post fotos.

By the way, what about the Chilobrachys species - is any known from Cambodgia?

 

[Steve Nunn]

BTW, I have VERY much to do at the moment, so I'll answer your private Mails later (but you are not forgotten )!

Hi Volker,
No problem, I know you're very busy at present

Thanks,
Steve