- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 672
Ephebopus rufescens 
It looks like some sort of Ephebopid to me.
john
It looks like some sort of Ephebopid to me.
john
Can anyone ID this
- Thread starter Martin H.
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 454
Martin - You are so cruel!
I know that You can't identify a spider from photo. I send Hysterocrates sp. photo for identification (LOL). No one knows what this can be...
I know that You can't identify a spider from photo. I send Hysterocrates sp. photo for identification (LOL). No one knows what this can be...
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Messages
- 864
Hi FryLock,
et voilà! =
Ok, I could now tell any species which hasn't been mentioned yet 'cause nobody could prove it =;-)
At the time when I made the photo (in 2002) (and when I didn't mix up the folders/labels – I photographed a lot of species at this day which I have never seen before) it has been introduced to me has Hemiercus sp. (that what my notes say).
It has been collected in Venezuela and has been IDed by someone who has a deeper interest in the taxonomy of southamerican theraphosids, among others also in those small (brown) jobs – he has a lot of such boring uniform stuff! =;-) He only gave me the genus name – maybe it is a new species, maybe he does not know if it is already described or maybe because he is always very reserved naming species even he has a good idea what it probably is. He prefers to ID them till genus name and give them a number (each locality where he has found spiders has a own number, this one is in his system "Hemiercus sp. 18")
Peace, health, wisdom and wealth. Live long and prosper.
Martin
et voilà! =
have I really ruled out Hemiercus in this thread?FryLock said:
Ok, I could now tell any species which hasn't been mentioned yet 'cause nobody could prove it =;-)
At the time when I made the photo (in 2002) (and when I didn't mix up the folders/labels – I photographed a lot of species at this day which I have never seen before) it has been introduced to me has Hemiercus sp. (that what my notes say).
It has been collected in Venezuela and has been IDed by someone who has a deeper interest in the taxonomy of southamerican theraphosids, among others also in those small (brown) jobs – he has a lot of such boring uniform stuff! =;-) He only gave me the genus name – maybe it is a new species, maybe he does not know if it is already described or maybe because he is always very reserved naming species even he has a good idea what it probably is. He prefers to ID them till genus name and give them a number (each locality where he has found spiders has a own number, this one is in his system "Hemiercus sp. 18")
Peace, health, wisdom and wealth. Live long and prosper.
Martin
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
Well fun as the chase has been this is perhaps not the best way to show hobbyists they cant ID any thing from pictures seeing as next to no one has any Hemiercus sp ”18” after all if you were to have shown all the pictures I suggested even the likes of Dr Raven and Rick West would have gotten the genus only (unless they had material of there own) BTW bad netiket from me but i thought you ruled out Hemiercus when you ruled out H.inflatus on a other forum.
after all if you were to have shown all the pictures I suggested even the likes of Dr Raven and Rick West would have gotten the genus only (unless they had material of there own) BTW bad netiket from me but i thought you ruled out Hemiercus when you ruled out H.inflatus on a other forum.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Messages
- 864
Hi,
Freely translated it means: For nothing humans use as much energy as for inventing excuses! =;-)
=> you wish a different example? Try it with the attached photo! It's easy – or maybe it's not!? =;-)
Cheers,
Martin
"Für nichts verwendet der Mensch so viel Energie wie für das Erfinden von Ausreden!" =;-)FryLock said:Well fun as the chase has been this is perhaps not the best way to show hobbyists they cant ID any thing from pictures seeing as next to no one has any Hemiercus sp ”18”
Freely translated it means: For nothing humans use as much energy as for inventing excuses! =;-)
=> you wish a different example? Try it with the attached photo! It's easy – or maybe it's not!? =;-)
did I really, or was it someone else who did! =;-)~FryLock said:
Cheers,
Martin
Attachments
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
True Martin true but but you also said this
Also i should not have read so much of your silence on Hemiercus else were.Martin H. said:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,914
Picture number two, is it an Aphonopelma species... yet another convoluted and completely messed up family?
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Messages
- 864
far away!MizM said:
Cheers,
Martin
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,914
THAT WAS A CLUE!!! It sure is a beaut, the coloring reminds me of an Apho, but the body style... maybe a Haplopelma? :?Martin H. said:
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
Ok in for a penny.. Coremiocnemis (no idea of species)
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Messages
- 864
it's a different genus!FryLock said:
Cheers,
Martin
Holy ZOMBIE JESUS, Martin!
I was just about to guess Hemiercus! I just couldn't decide between sp. 17 and sp. 18!
By the way, are you 100% sure it's not a 17?? Because it appears to be a penultimate male, and I have a group of 10 females looking for some ACTION!!!
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
G1 Mr Rourke ok if its not that then it could be Lyrognathus but as i cant see the under side of the met of leg 4..
ok if its not that then it could be Lyrognathus but as i cant see the under side of the met of leg 4..
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
BTW Mr Rourke he has no male's left all this thread was of course in part to drum up trade for Hemiercus sp “18” seeing as Martin has 23 sac’s at N2
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2003
- Messages
- 4,914
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to "I.D. That TarRANtula" with your host, Martin Huber. On today's show, see the contestants guess the genus & species of a stunning brown and tan tarantula as Martin pops off clues.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2003
- Messages
- 790
LOTFLMSAO!!!
Martin - I think you are a wee bit rough with the "pupils" ;-p
Well since this picture actually has a taxonomically relevant character I will try and make an educated guestimate to which species it might be ;-) Well - the character is - that metatarsus IV is fully scopulated ventrally along the whole lenght of the segment. This key character is found in Xenesthis species, Lyrognathus species and in one Selenocosmia species - namely - Selenocosmia peerboomi. It's clearly not a Xenesthis (lacks urticating hair patch). I have examined Lyrognathus specimens at Oxford and usually their leg IV are more incrassate than that of your spider, but the spider in the picture could be a juvenile specimen. The general appearance also do fit with a juvenile specimen of Selenocosmia peerboomi, but without more specific locality data I'd say either a Lyrognathus spp. or S. peerboomi.
Knowing you - I would place my bets on the latter species, firstly because I know you have this species in your collection, secondly because if you had one of the true indian Lyrognathus species I am sure we would know by now and thirdly it would be very Huber'ish to show a specimen you have already told how to distinguish (but you forgot about Lyrognathus' leg IV scopulation - didn't you?) in the same thread, but that would be a guess that have absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy ;-)
Overall - I can only comply with Martin that most picture ID's from the "experts" (bautiful word for self claimed specialists - a friend put it like this "ex" is former "spert" is a drop released under pressure (spurt) ... get the picture?) are merely noise that confuses more than it enlightens. In particular if the guy asking doesn't know much about spiders, taxonomy - or perhaps even more important in this regard - who to trust in the world of taxonomy and identification. Usually the name they leave the board with is the result of democracy (3 Haplopelma minax, 1 Brachypelma smithi and 4 Psalmopoeus cambridgei - arh well P. cambridgei it is ...) - or - the name the guy that "shout" the highest and longest put forth ... but ...
Taxonomy and identification is not about democracy or how well you put forth your arguments. And usually you will not get any definite answers from a real taxonomist unless he has examined a skin or a spider from you that has a locality label (I can reveal to you that this is not the adress of the pet shop that sold you the spider) and compared that with a type specimen (or knowing the type specimens of a genus so well as to be able to key out your specimen - very few can actually do this reliably) pictures are nice to show to friends, like we usually do on this board, but in general very poor tools for identification. Though I will admit that some species can be guestimated with some certainty from a picture, it doesn't make a rule out of it - on the contrary it's the few exceptions that underlines the rule.
Very best regards
Søren
Martin - I think you are a wee bit rough with the "pupils" ;-p
Well since this picture actually has a taxonomically relevant character I will try and make an educated guestimate to which species it might be ;-) Well - the character is - that metatarsus IV is fully scopulated ventrally along the whole lenght of the segment. This key character is found in Xenesthis species, Lyrognathus species and in one Selenocosmia species - namely - Selenocosmia peerboomi. It's clearly not a Xenesthis (lacks urticating hair patch). I have examined Lyrognathus specimens at Oxford and usually their leg IV are more incrassate than that of your spider, but the spider in the picture could be a juvenile specimen. The general appearance also do fit with a juvenile specimen of Selenocosmia peerboomi, but without more specific locality data I'd say either a Lyrognathus spp. or S. peerboomi.
Knowing you - I would place my bets on the latter species, firstly because I know you have this species in your collection, secondly because if you had one of the true indian Lyrognathus species I am sure we would know by now and thirdly it would be very Huber'ish to show a specimen you have already told how to distinguish (but you forgot about Lyrognathus' leg IV scopulation - didn't you?) in the same thread, but that would be a guess that have absolutely nothing to do with taxonomy ;-)
Overall - I can only comply with Martin that most picture ID's from the "experts" (bautiful word for self claimed specialists - a friend put it like this "ex" is former "spert" is a drop released under pressure (spurt) ... get the picture?) are merely noise that confuses more than it enlightens. In particular if the guy asking doesn't know much about spiders, taxonomy - or perhaps even more important in this regard - who to trust in the world of taxonomy and identification. Usually the name they leave the board with is the result of democracy (3 Haplopelma minax, 1 Brachypelma smithi and 4 Psalmopoeus cambridgei - arh well P. cambridgei it is ...) - or - the name the guy that "shout" the highest and longest put forth ... but ...
Taxonomy and identification is not about democracy or how well you put forth your arguments. And usually you will not get any definite answers from a real taxonomist unless he has examined a skin or a spider from you that has a locality label (I can reveal to you that this is not the adress of the pet shop that sold you the spider) and compared that with a type specimen (or knowing the type specimens of a genus so well as to be able to key out your specimen - very few can actually do this reliably) pictures are nice to show to friends, like we usually do on this board, but in general very poor tools for identification. Though I will admit that some species can be guestimated with some certainty from a picture, it doesn't make a rule out of it - on the contrary it's the few exceptions that underlines the rule.
Very best regards
Søren
Martin H. said:
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
I too thought of Selenocosmia for the following reason the spider shown could also be a Chilobrachys.sp but Martin well knows that Selenocosmia and Chilobrachys differ on the stridulating organ something that can not be seen on the picture I will stick with it being a Lyrognathus.sp (tho iv only owned one) and for all we know the picture was taken in situ
I will stick with it being a Lyrognathus.sp (tho iv only owned one) and for all we know the picture was taken in situ Lyrognathus is what I was originally going to guess, though for no better reason than that it looks like a spider I once had from Kelly Swift which was sold as "Lyrognathus capizi."
I have no idea if that epithet is, or was ever, valid.
I have no idea if that epithet is, or was ever, valid.
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,656
The one I had was sold as L.robustus but was clearly not (ceph close to 4 times length as wide very odd spider) iv cheated and looked at S.peerboomi adults online (iv only seen slings myself) but the back legs still don’t seem right but is that because its not mature as Søren is thinking humm.