Chromatopelma spp.

[Mojo Jojo]

Get a Kleenex and wipe the drool off of your chin because to the best of my knowledge, a new species in this genera hasn't been discovered yet. I've been waiting for about ten years hoping someone would discovers GBBs long lost cousin, but it just hasn't happened, and that makes me a sad panda. Its just not fair!








(Everyone is allowed to start one fluff thread and one emo thread. I'm killing two birds with one stone.)

 

[mcluskyisms]

Well you could always buy yourself some nice big bright crayons and colour yourself in a nice little Brachypelma and pretend you have a Chromatopelma crayoler...



Only one Chromatopelma man.

 

[JC]

Gen. Chromatopelma Schmidt, 1995 [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidergen:00205]

C. Schmidt, 1995f: 25, type Avicularia cyaneopubescens (Strand, 1907).

mf cyaneopubescens (Strand, 1907) *....................Venezuela [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:001912]
Eurypelma c. Strand, 1907l: 35 (Dmf).
Delopelma c. Petrunkevitch, 1939a: 252.
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 1995f: 25 (Tmf from Eurypelma=Avicularia per Roewer).
C. c. Schmidt & Herzin, 1997: 12, f. 1-2 (m).
C. c. Schmidt, 1997g, 1998h: 15, f. 23-24 (m).
C. cyanopubescens Vol, 1999a: 11, f. C (f).
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 2000a: 11, f. 1 (f).
C. c. Peters, 2000a: 95, f. 310 (m).
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 2003l: 124, f. 87-89 (mf).
C. c. Peters, 2003: 139, f. 558, 561-563 (mf).
C. c. Peters, 2005a: 14, f. 10 (f).

http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/THERAPHOSIDAE.html

 

[mcluskyisms]

Gotta love The World Spider Catalogue JC ;P

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Please forgive me, as I've never really looked at naming rules. Is this a list of every time the this species description has been confirmed?

 

[mcluskyisms]

Please forgive me, as I've never really looked at naming rules. Is this a list of every time the this species description has been confirmed?

Its a list of every time its been moved about etc.

 

[JC]

Gotta love The World Spider Catalogue JC ;P

Of course!


And for Chromatopelma fans, there is also a rarer Chromatopelma color look-alike:

Aphonopelma mooreae

m mooreae Smith, 1995....................Mexico [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:001749]
A. moorei Smith, 1995: 123, f. 508-517 (Dm; N.B.: patronym for Barbara Moore).
A. moorei Peters, 2000b: 146, f. 441-442 (m).
A. m. Peters, 2003: 61, f. 231, 235 (m).

 

[mcluskyisms]

Of course!


And for Chromatopelma fans, there is also a rarer Chromatopelma color look-alike:

Aphonopelma mooreae

Never had chance to see one in the flesh although who has? Beautiful nonetheless.

Certainly win.

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Gen. Chromatopelma Schmidt, 1995 [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidergen:00205]

C. Schmidt, 1995f: 25, type Avicularia cyaneopubescens (Strand, 1907).

mf cyaneopubescens (Strand, 1907) *....................Venezuela [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:001912]
Eurypelma c. Strand, 1907l: 35 (Dmf).
Delopelma c. Petrunkevitch, 1939a: 252.
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 1995f: 25 (Tmf from Eurypelma=Avicularia per Roewer).
C. c. Schmidt & Herzin, 1997: 12, f. 1-2 (m).
C. c. Schmidt, 1997g, 1998h: 15, f. 23-24 (m).
C. cyanopubescens Vol, 1999a: 11, f. C (f).
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 2000a: 11, f. 1 (f).
C. c. Peters, 2000a: 95, f. 310 (m).
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 2003l: 124, f. 87-89 (mf).
C. c. Peters, 2003: 139, f. 558, 561-563 (mf).
C. c. Peters, 2005a: 14, f. 10 (f).

http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/THERAPHOSIDAE.html

Its a list of every time its been moved about etc.

I want to check my understanding of how the catalog works using this species. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The species was first described by Strand in 1907. He called it Eurypelma cyanopubescens.

The species was described again by Petrunkevitch in 1939 as Delopelma cyanopubescens. He didn't realize that this species was already described by Strand.

Then in 1995, Roewer comes along as says, "Hey guys, Eurypelma is the junior synonym for Avicularia and we're going with Avicularia." Schmidt said, "Well this spider clearly doesn't belong in Avicularia. Lets create Chromatopelma and put it there."

Then in '97, '98, '99, '00, '03, and '05, someone was doing housekeeping on the catalog and saw this C. cyaneopubescens listed elsewhere and said, "I'm gonna move you over here where you belong."

Is this about right?

 

[mcluskyisms]

Yeah man that's about the top and the bottom of it, got it in one. Now go and have a look through Avicularia...

Haha :?

 

[Zoltan]

I want to check my understanding of how the catalog works using this species. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The species was first described by Strand in 1907. He called it Eurypelma cyanopubescens.

The species was described again by Petrunkevitch in 1939 as Delopelma cyanopubescens. He didn't realize that this species was already described by Strand. This is not true, see below.

Then in 1995, Roewer comes along as says, "Hey guys, Eurypelma is the junior synonym for Avicularia and we're going with Avicularia." Schmidt said, "Well this spider clearly doesn't belong in Avicularia. Lets create Chromatopelma and put it there." It was actually Raven in 1985 (Eurypelma=Avicularia), I think the "per Roewer" here means that Roewer didn't follow Petrunkevitch and listed the species as Eurypelma in his Katalog der Araneae.

Then in '97, '98, '99, '00, '03, and '05, someone was doing housekeeping on the catalog and saw this C. cyaneopubescens listed elsewhere and said, "I'm gonna move you over here where you belong." See below.

Is this about right?

I'll try to break it down. Some of this is on the Catalog's "Intro" page(s). In Platnick's 'citation lists', D means a(n original) description. In this case:

Eurypelma c. Strand, 1907l: 35 (Dmf). - Strand in his 1907l article (see Bibliography) describes Eurypelma cyaneopubescens on page 35 based on the male and female.

Delopelma c. Petrunkevitch, 1939a: 252. - Petrunkevitch doesn't (re)describe E. cyaneopubescens, there's no (D), like above. It looks what he did in this publication is he moved the species from Eurypelma to Delopelma, although transfers are usually indicated by (T), like in the next one:

C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 1995f: 25 (Tmf from Eurypelma=Avicularia per Roewer). - in 1995 Schmidt creates the genus Chromatopelma placing A. cyaneopubescens in it, i.e. Avicularia cyaneopubescens is transferred to Chromatopelma. There's also mf after T indicating that both sexes are transferred. There are cases where the male and female of two different species get described as one species, and e.g. a new species is created for the non-holotype specimen(s), so only the male or female would be transferred to another taxon.

C. c. Schmidt & Herzin, 1997: 12, f. 1-2 (m).
C. c. Schmidt, 1997g, 1998h: 15, f. 23-24 (m).
C. cyanopubescens Vol, 1999a: 11, f. C (f).
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 2000a: 11, f. 1 (f).
C. c. Peters, 2000a: 95, f. 310 (m).
C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 2003l: 124, f. 87-89 (mf).
C. c. Peters, 2003: 139, f. 558, 561-563 (mf).
C. c. Peters, 2005a: 14, f. 10 (f).

The rest of the citations mean these authors have published figures/photos of the female spermathecae (f) or the male palpal bulb (m) in the respective articles. How the species is truly involved in those works would have to be checked in the articles themselves. You can also notice Vol and Schmidt (twice) misspelled the specific name.

 

[JC]

Nice breakdown Zoltan.

 

[ZergFront]

Now go and have a look through Avicularia...

Haha :?

No thanks! My brain would turn into a slushie...

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Thank you Zoltan. Let me make sure I understand.

Eurypelma c. Strand, 1907l: 35 (Dmf). - Strand in his 1907l article (see Bibliography) describes Eurypelma cyaneopubescens on page 35 based on the male and female.

1907 - Strand described Eurypelma cyaneopubescens based on male and female specimens. So far so good.

Delopelma c. Petrunkevitch, 1939a: 252. - Petrunkevitch doesn't (re)describe E. cyaneopubescens, there's no (D), like above. It looks what he did in this publication is he moved the species from Eurypelma to Delopelma, although transfers are usually indicated by (T), like in the next one:

1939 - Petrunkevitch most likely transfered the species from Eurypelma to Delopelma, though not properly notated with (T). From what I understand, this transfer was ignored because as you stated in 1985, Eurypelma was was made synonymous to Avicularia by Raven and because I'm guessing Avicularia is older than Eurypelma, the species became known as Avicularia cyaneopubescens.

C. cyanopubescens Schmidt, 1995f: 25 (Tmf from Eurypelma=Avicularia per Roewer). - in 1995 Schmidt creates the genus Chromatopelma placing A. cyaneopubescens in it, i.e. Avicularia cyaneopubescens is transferred to Chromatopelma. There's also mf after T indicating that both sexes are transferred.

1995 - Schmidt created Chromatopelma and then transfered the species to it from Aviclaria.

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

This was supposed to be a fluffy thread.

I reserve my right to create another fluffy thread in the future based on this thread derailing into something useful.

 

[Zoltan]

Thanks JC.

1939 - Petrunkevitch most likely transfered the species from Eurypelma to Delopelma, though not properly notated with (T). From what I understand, this transfer was ignored because as you stated in 1985, Eurypelma was was made synonymous to Avicularia by Raven and because I'm guessing Avicularia is older than Eurypelma, the species became known as Avicularia cyaneopubescens.

The article in question is this:

Petrunkevitch, A. (1939a). Catalogue of American spiders. Part one. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 33: 133-338. (From: http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/BIB3.html)

Since this looks to be a catalog rather than a taxonomic revision, I'm guessing Petrunkevitch simply listed Strand's Eurypelma cyaneopubescens as Delopelma cyaneopubescens without giving any reason why it should be included in Delopelma, but I haven't seen this article, so I'm just guessing. I also don't have access to Roewer's Katalog der Araneae, but I think why it says "Tmf from Eurypelma=Avicularia per Roewer" is because Roewer listed the species in Eurypelma and Schmidt followed Roewer instead of Petrunkevitch, otherwise it would have been "Tmf from Delopelma=Aphonopelma" (in 1985 Delopelma was synonymised with Aphonopelma by Raven). About the Eurypelma - Avicularia synonymy see Raven (1985: 146, 153), but I also tried to explain it here and here.

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Appreciate the explanations.