Chinese Black Earthtiger just in

[invertepet]

Any ID ideas? Martin?

I've heard theories of Selenocosmia hainana, but the ceph doesn't look right. Other sources put it as an unspecified Haplopelma...

 

[Hamadryad]

Recently obtained one of these

Invertepet,
I just recently obtained one of these and I thought that it was Haplopelma schmidti ? I would appreciate any information you might have as to the husbandry requirements for this species...I am currently maintaining my specimen at about 80-82 degrees/ 80 per cent humidity...this is a truly awesome spider and is one of my personal favorites...I was looking for one of these for almost two years before I finally managed to find one at Arachnocenter out here in Los Angeles.

The Evil Spider Hunter

 

[LaRiz]

Bill,

Between Selenocosmia hainana and Haplopelma schmidti, I've seen many color variations. I've seen some, like yours, of Selenocosmia hainana, and some Haplopelma schmidti, with very dark, but not black legs.
This is why many in the hobby, believe that they are of the same species and geographical "morphs", or one is a sub-species of the other. I believe Volker von Wirth is figuring this out.
It's understood that coloration is a poor characteristic to go by, when ID'ing tarantulas.
I used to think that the two were one in the same, but I have doubts now. They just look like two different spiders to me, especially the chelicera, but I know nothing of tarantula taxonomic systematics and phylogeny, so I trust Volker and whomever else comes up with a solution to this.
Looks like a Black Chinese Earth Tiger to me
john

 

[dilleo]

I wonder how many haplo threads will be posted about schmidti, or paganus, or whatever and have the same answers over and over. No offense to anyone, I'm just getting a little to impatient for this matter to be clarified, and is Volker the only one who can solve this problem? JEEZ.

-Jeremy

 

[MrDeranged]

Originally posted by dilleo
I wonder how many haplo threads will be posted about schmidti, or paganus, or whatever and have the same answers over and over. No offense to anyone, I'm just getting a little to impatient for this matter to be clarified, and is Volker the only one who can solve this problem? JEEZ.

-Jeremy

Jeremy,

You better get used to it taking time dude. First off, redoing a Genus is not something that occurs overnight. Second of all, you're much better off with only one person doing it unless the other person doing it is with the first. If you have two different people doing revisions to the same Genus, and they come to different conclusions regarding species, then you have a nice big mess until the next person comes along and does another revision deciding which one is right about the disputed species.

The problem today is that some of the people doing tarantula taxonomy don't follow the rules and get peer reviewed before publishing. The problem with this is that once published, it's taken as fact until someone revises it and publishes their findings. To break it down to it's most basic form, I could find some T, publish that it's an Aphonopelma schericum or some other equally inane name, and it would have to stay on the books until someone else publishes that I'm full of poop and that it's a A. whatever....

At least I think that's how it works, I'm sure that Martin or Volker would be able to give you a much better description, but I think I got the basics in there....

Be happy it's taking this long for Volker to finish, it means he's really doing the work needed for an accurate revision. Now we just need to wait for him to get peer reviewed and published....

Scott

 

[dilleo]

Scott,

Don't you think it'd be better to have 2 people working on the same genus so 1) if they come to the same conclusions thank God, and 2) if they don't they can work together with their data and information to make a more complete description. I think only good can come from 2 people working on the same genus. Two minds are better than one. I think I've heard that somewhere before.


-Jeremy

 

[MrDeranged]

Heh heh heh. What makes you think any taxonomists want to work together? To be honest with you, I agree to a point. It would be better for two people to work together on a revision, but only if they can work with each other and only if neither one of them have their head up their ass. One person doing a good job is alot better than 1 person doing a good job and one person doing a half assed job. The problem with 2 people working on the same revision but seperately, is (if I have this right) that whomever publishes later takes precedence. If the person publishing later is the half assed one, it wipes out all the good the first person did. That's really why it depends on the two people and if they're actually working together or just two separate people working on the same revision that will come to their own conclusions....

Scott