Can anyone ID this

[smalltime]

Annandaliella species maybe, it seems small.... And it may seem stupid
But you probably took a rather common spider to make your point so I was thinking E. cyanognathus as well, maybe male :?

 

[blombo]

just for fun here's my guess,
possibly a holothele but who knows.. ;-)
is that specimen adult?

hm another guess would be Cyclosternum kochi, i think thats what it looks like

 

[Robert Seliger]

Maybe Neochilobrachys spp. ???
Or Coremiocnemis spp. ???

Greetings.
Robert

 

[genious_gr]

Citharacanthus livingstoni???

That must be a REAL pet-rock

 

[Martin H.]

Hi,

Annandaliella species maybe

nope

But you probably took a rather common spider to make your point so I was thinking E. cyanognathus as well, maybe male :?

nope, and it's not a common one. But if you wish we can play this game also with a common species or a look-alike of a common species!

just for fun here's my guess,
possibly a holothele but who knows.. ;-)

auch die ist es nicht! =;-)

is that specimen adult?

not sure, but I guess it is.

hm another guess would be Cyclosternum kochi, i think thats what it looks like

it's no Cyclosternum!

Maybe Neochilobrachys spp. ???
Or Coremiocnemis spp. ???

auch Du hast es nicht getroffen! =;-)

Citharacanthus livingstoni???

and it's also not this one!



...I always love those photo ID threads!

all the best,
Martin

 

[brgn]

Metriopelma spp.?

Robert

 

[FryLock]

This could be Cyriopagopus dromeus (used to be Melognathus dromeus) if its from the Philippines (id ruled out Phlogiellus because of the transverse foveal groove)

 

[Martin H.]

Metriopelma spp.?

nope.

This could be Cyriopagopus dromeus (used to be Melognathus dromeus) if its from the Philippines (id ruled out Phlogiellus because of the transverse foveal groove)

nope and it is also not from the Philippines (even I have some material from overthere).



BTW, how many genera are left!? =;-)

Cheers,
Martin

 

[Aviculariinae]

>>>Click Here<<< for my answer. LOL

 

[Martin H.]

Hi,

I had an idea thats what you were up to I couldn,t see you contradicting what you have being preaching ever since i can remember
Very good move though

if I would have a species to ID, I would never post a photo on a public message board and ask which species it is. IMHO it is more likely to hit the correct genus/species if one picks out one species name by random from the WSC than to ask for it on a public board (just see all the different suggestions you get in all these "please ID threads")! ;P
[FLAME RETARDANT: sensitive and thin-skinned people shouldn't read the following paragraph 'cause there will be some direct and 'harsh' words (but that's my personal opinion on this topic)]
In those threads on public fora there are IMO way too many people who throw in their "uneducated commentaries" (= which seems do have absolutely NO background knowledge on the taxonomy of theraphosids) and which do more confuse with their comments than help! – Or how should one explaine, when there is a photo of a species with an obvious patch of urticating hairs and those guys throw in names of old world species!? :? Or you can see tibia apophysis and they throw in names of species which lack tibia apophysis!? :? Or... :? => IMO if one even don't know some basic characters which can be seen on photos (tibia apophysis, patch of urticating hairs, etc.) I think one should better stay quite than throw in such useless "noise".

If I have a species I like to get an ID for (and which I can't ID myself or want to get a second opinion on it) I send a cast skin or dead specimen to someone who is working with genera I think the species in question belongs to.


And some general words on species IDs based on photos:
In general overall colouration has no importance in taxonomy even some species are described only by colour differences, but in most cases this has been done by "layman taxonomists". Colour is a poor indicator of anything 'cause it is a very variable issue – especially on a computer screen as well as in print as there are so many factors that influence the colours on a pix: the condition of the spider (premolt or postmolt or subadult male or juvenile or adult or etc etc (see e.g. the thread "What difference a moult makes" >>click here<<), the conditions under which one keeps them (cold/hot, humid/dry), the ligth intensity while shooting, the colour temperature of the light or the flash, the sensibility of the film, the quality of the image enhancement (dependent on both program and user), the quality and degree of the compression of pictures to web use, and lastly the settings and quality of your own monitor and graphic card. Plus a lot more I probably have forgotten rigth now...

And in most cases on the photo you can't see the taxonomic relevant characters like placement and arrangement of the stridulating organ, shape and structure of spermathecae and palpal bulb, spination, leg length relations, scopulation, type of urticating hairs and in lesser degree clypeus and ocular arrangement. All these characters and some others more specific to some specimens has to bee seen in relation to each other and have to be compared with the type material and a good array of congeners if not all congeners to be of any real value.

This is why a certain positive ID in most cases cannot be made from a picture alone. One can rule out some genera or even species (e.g. patch of urticating hairs => can't be an old world species and some new world genera which lack urticating hairs) but not make a valid ID.

I know, it is hard to believe/swallow respectively something the average hobbyist does not like to hear, especially when he is used to see a lot of "please ID" threads and a lot more people who post their "IDs" (maybe one better should call it guesses or lottery) on those threads. Years ago when someone gave me a photo and asked me what species it is, I said it is species XY. But in the last years I have red and discussed a lot about theraphosid taxonomy and I think I have learned some basics (see e.g. above) + at "Taxonomy Teaching Days" (see >>click here<<) I have seen too many species which have been sold as species "XY" change their name to species "ZW" (e.g. a spider which has been sold as Brachypelma has been exposed to be an Aphonopelma species, another one which has been sold as T. blondi and which looked on the first glance like a T. blondi has beend IDed as Pamphobeteus sp., etc.) => all this made me to change my view on photo IDs (see above).

just my two cents!
Martin

 

[JJJoshua]

Very enlightening, interesting and informative. If I ever want anything ID'd I will send you every molt the T ever had, just so you have enough information on it. BUUTT I was wondering if you could ID this for me

Hehe, nevermind you don't have to, I already know its a T. BLondi :} :}


Best of Luck,
Joshua

 

[Martin H.]

Hi,

Selenocosmia sp. (maybe peerboomi?) or Chilobrachys sp.?

just a little hint for the next time when you have S. peerboomi on the shortlist: ask for a close up photo of metatarsus IV! S. peerboomi does have a prominent scopula on metatarsus IV (like Xenesthis). See the photo below of a specimen with about 2,8 cm bodylength.
If the specimen in question does have such a prominent scopula it might be S. peerboomi (but does not have to). If it lacks such a prominent scopula, you can rule out S. peerboomi!

all the best,
Martin

 

[FryLock]

Martin as valid as many points you raise are I sense this may provoke a backlash that the mod’s will have fun having to deal with, so I will offer a few gentle counterpoints #1 clearly some species that are both distinct in there appearance and common in the pet trade can be ID’ed from a good picture i.e. many of the Brachypelma species, #2 although a lot can not be seen on a picture it is possible (thanks to macro) to take clear shots of carapace/eyes/labium/sternum/chelicerae/scopulae of the of tarsal/metatarsal pads/male tibial spurs so given the right material to go on some one viewing those pictures MAY be able to give a positive ID, #3 tho it can be very hard to give a ID as to what something is one can rule out some things which in its self could help to stop someone wasting a good male with the wrong female or making (unknowingly) hybrids you and other on this board have used pictures too show what something is NOT on quite a few occasions.

 

[Rourke]

#1 clearly some species that are both distinct in there appearance and common in the pet trade can be ID’ed from a good picture i.e. many of the Brachypelma species, #2 although a lot can not be seen on a picture it is possible (thanks to macro) to take clear shots of carapace/eyes/labium/sternum/chelicerae/scopulae of the of tarsal/metatarsal pads/male tibial spurs so given the right material to go on some one viewing those pictures MAY be able to give a positive ID, #3 tho it can be very hard to give a ID as to what something is one can rule out some things which in its self could help to stop someone wasting a good male with the wrong female or making (unknowingly) hybrids

Quite capably and diplomatically set forth, FryLock!
Martin's major point, as I see it, remains. The positive identification of a spider from one or a few pictures is fraught with difficulties, many of which are not acknowledged (or even understood) by some of the folks who--quite carelessly and without hesitation--make such "positive" IDs. While one doesn't like to criticize good intentions, in some cases these semi-random proclamations can lead to confusion, with undesirable consequences! Since arachnoculture as a hobby (and, arguably, arachnology as a science) is still in its infancy, a forum such as this can become an important source of useful, valid, and often new information. As such, we should all take care, politely and tactfully, of course, to discourage the proliferation of erroneous information by those who have little or no experiemce, knowledge, or credibility. I think it can be useful to post a picture of an unidentified arachnid and ask for information. Those who respond should (we can all hope) be knowledgeable, experienced, and would clearly state any caveats behind statements they might make toward genus or species identification.

 

[FryLock]

Mr Rourke again im in awe of your way with words I did not touch on the stuff in Martins post that I did agree with (about 90% which I know is hard to believe) for want of sounding insulting to anyone, but all of this raises a much larger problem how do we as hobbyists and even breeders/dealers know 100% that the animals we have be they W/C or C/B are what we think they are, now while people are breeding there spiders from within there own stock the risks are limited so long as that stock is all of one species (or race of a certain species in some cases) and of one providence and the founder stock has been ID'ed as such but when some one buys in stock of that species from different sources how do we know there the same not very similar species being sold under the same name, of course we can send material to experts who can ID it but what if every hobbyist wanted to get there stock checked out?, even if the experts doing the work are paid for there time can you imagine the time it would take them, plus some genera are in such a bad state that 100% answers could not be given add to this also the fact the are very few people working on genera such as avic (plus C/B stock often has no solid providence as to were it was collected and in fact could have hybrid back grounds) the answers lie in both helping people to better understand how to ID there own animals as Martin has said and the hobbyist having access to actuate and concise books that they can use to check there own stock against, like the best ever book on Asian Theraphosid’s that Martin and Volker will bring out in a few years .

 

[Rourke]

...the answers lie in both helping people to better understand how to ID there own animals as Martin has said and the hobbyist having access to actuate and concise books that they can use to check there own stock against...

Very true. Availability and dissemination of good information will be the key factor in the evolution of the hobby, and the integrity of the trade for the future.

One other very positive aspect of these forums, which I failed to mention explicitly before: There are enough knowledgeable users of the board (with more certainly to come) that when someone does post bogus and lunatic garbage it will usually get sorted out promptly. I think we can all agree, however, that this is not an argument against being cautious when preaching what we think we know.

 

[Rourke]

Oh, and I'm still waiting--we all are--with bated breath to know the ID of the spider in the pic which started this thread. I feel that to prove his point, Martin must have chosen an example which will surprise us all. Probably an arboreal.

.....or a scorpion.....

 

[Rourke]

Psalmopoeus?

Tapinauchenius??

 

[Rourke]

Tapinauchenius purpurea.

That's my final answer, Regis.....

 

[WYSIWYG]

Hi,

can anyone ID this species?

I'll just give a very general guess as to where
it came from - It looks like an Asian species to me.

On the other hand, the legs on it remind me of a
Thrixopelma photo I saw, but I'd still go with Asian.

Will be interesting to find out what it is. (I haven't
read all the way through the thread yet so if the
answer is there, I haven't seen it yet).

Wysi