Difference between Selenocosmia crassipes v "kuttabul" locality?

[Ghat99]

So I know the kuttabul locality are giants but what are the visual differences between them, if any? I have a kuttabul sling and a normal crassipes 5.5" female, I'm wondering how to know if my female is a kuttabul as she seems darker than most normal crassipes I see.

 

[Paul Osullivan]

I think if you comment this question on one of his clips, he will answer. He's got a good variety of Australian tarantulas.

 

[arthurliuyz]

@RezonantVoid might be able to help with this one.

 

[RezonantVoid]

@RezonantVoid might be able to help with this one.

Aussie T's are a mess, it's very hard to distinguish the differences between species in each genus, and while I do keep kuttabul I wouldn't really know the differences between them and crassipes. The only Phlogius species I've kept that has a kind of unique appearance is Phlogius rubiseta.

This is a big part of why I've shifted out of tarantulas here and only keep a couple now; lots of identical overpriced species that look and behave no different from each other, and take up lots of shelf space that could house more unique spiders

 

[tarantulastuff]

Don't look like a crassipes to me, the dark coloration makes me think of Selenocosmia javanensis

 

[RezonantVoid]

Don't look like a crassipes to me, the dark coloration makes me think of Selenocosmia javanensis

Pretty much any Australian tarantula in this genus can look identical to that, from chocolate brown to jet black. Colouration isn't really a viable method of distinguishing Phlogius/Selencosmia

 

[CJJon]

So I know the kuttabul locality are giants but what are the visual differences between them, if any? I have a kuttabul sling and a normal crassipes 5.5" female, I'm wondering how to know if my female is a kuttabul as she seems darker than most normal crassipes I see.

Just rehoused my S. crassipies and it looks like a sack mate to yours.

 

[NaychaBoi]

Yes, many of the Ts look similar, it looks like a Kuttabul to me, they have the brownish colour on the femur, while most Phlogius have the dark brown/black femurs. It's important to remember that with Australian Ts often what we are talking about locales/colour forms of the same species. Kuttabul and Proserpines are the same species, but have a different colouration, but that doesn't mean we should breed different locales as we'd lose those subtle colour differences. One of my hopes is that there is some form of key brought out to define all the hobby forms, and their morphological features, as it's likely a taxonomic revision isn't coming out soon, and when it does it won't extend as far as the different colour forms in the hobby.

 

[dragonblade71]

A very interesting discussion here and that's a stunning crassipes adult. Remember though that the Selenocosmia genus is no longer valid in Australia. It has effectively been replaced by Phlogius.

 

[curtisgiganteus]

A very interesting discussion here and that's a stunning crassipes adult. Remember though that the Selenocosmia genus is no longer valid in Australia. It has effectively been replaced by Phlogius.

Do they not honor the WSC?

 

[dragonblade71]

Do they not honor the WSC?

I'm not familiar with the WSC. Who would they be?

 

[curtisgiganteus]

I'm not familiar with the WSC. Who would they be?

International governing body on Taxonomy of arachnids

NMBE - World Spider Catalog

Detailed taxonomic information about the spider families

wsc.nmbe.ch

 

[dragonblade71]

Actually, I think I should clarify. It seems that Selenocosmia is still current. So yea we can still use that genus name. Though from what Ive heard, it will be replaced by Phlogius in the future. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I recall reading that Selenocosmia will continue to be used for some tarantulas that are native to Asia and possibly Papua New Guinea (that are already in that group.)

International governing body on Taxonomy of arachnids

NMBE - World Spider Catalog

Detailed taxonomic information about the spider families

wsc.nmbe.ch

Ah thank you. I know that Dr Raven is doing the taxonomy revision of the Australian theraphosids. When his work is complete, I assume that the WSC will update their information.

I remember quite a few years ago when the Australian Tarantula Association was around, Raven was very close to completing the revision. Though my assumptions are that he is still working on it.

 

[NaychaBoi]

The tarantula revision has been 20 years in the works, not sure if it will ever get finished. I do know that there are no true Selenocosmia in Australia, they have very different morphology, specifically looking at the spermathacae. I believe there was a revision years ago that was refuted trying to transfer Selenocosmia to Phlogius. But yeah once the revision comes out it Selenocosmia will finally be referred to officially as Phlogius. Some recent papers (R. Castro) refer to crassipes as Phlogius, so it’s not just hobbyists, but used within the scientific community as well.

 

[RezonantVoid]

We call them Phlogius here, all online stores and basically all keepers refer to anything in Selencosmia as Phlogius

 

[NaychaBoi]

"Further compounding the complex taxonomic status of Phlogius crassipes are
several changes in its generic placement over the past few decades. Originally described
as Phrictus crassipes, it was soon transferred to Phlogius. Phlogius crassipes was
transferred to Selenocosmia by Hogg (1902), which was later followed (notably by Main
1982, 1985), but Schmidt (1995) restored the species to Phlogius. Raven (2000) showed
the material interpreted by Schmidt as the presumed holotype of the type species of
Selenocosmia was actually collected well after the species had been described and thus
incorrect, and returned the species to Selenocosmia. Later, Raven (2005) acknowledged
the difference of bristles on the maxillary lyra between Selenocosmia javanensis (the type
species of Selenocosmia) and that of Phlogius and implicitly restored the genus Phlogius
and its type species Phlogius crassipes. In Australia, the species is formally named
Phlogius crassipes (AFD, 2009) but remains in Selenocosmia in the World Spider Catalog." -
Tarantulas of Australia: phylogenetics and venomics - thesis
Renan Castro Santana

 

[phatspidey]

What is the best way to settle the phlogius vs Selenocosmia debate? I feel like people have been using morphology on these for decades and are still not getting anywhere.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

What is the best way to settle the phlogius vs Selenocosmia debate? I feel like people have been using morphology on these for decades and are still not getting anywhere.

The quote provided by @NaychaBoi from the PHD thesis of Renan Castro Santana outlines the history of taxonomic changes for the Australian species Phlogius crassipes, but practically speaking the only way to settle what genus it really belongs to is to examine the ones circulating in the global pet trade and look for the characters also outlined in the Santana PHD thesis (page 55). The primary difference between species of Selenocosmia and Phlogius is the shape of stridulatory bristles appearing on the inside of the maxillae. In Selenocosmia, they are short and shaped like spines, in Phlogius they are long and paddle shaped. The stridulatory bristles of Phlogius crassipes would resemble those of Coremiocnemis tropix, but P. crassipes does not have the intercheliceral pegs that C. tropix has.

As an American who has never examined a specimen of the Australian S. crassipes, but experienced with identifying tarantulas in general, I can see where this gets really confusing. The Santana PHD thesis pretty much did all the work for you guys and gals over in Australia and determined that the proper placement is in the genus Phlogius, not Selenocosmia. However, since there has yet to be any studies that would make nomenclature changes (a PHD thesis doesn't count as valid publication), the World Spider Catalog is keeping this tarantula in the genus Selenocosmia. So the question to be asked by the lay person who buys and sells Australian tarantulas for the pet trade is "what authority do I follow? The World Spider Catalog or a grad student's PHD thesis?" To answer that question, the lay person would have to examine what they have and determine for themselves to which genus it best fits. In my humble opinion (if it is worth anything), based on all available information, there is shouldn't be a debate. The species known as Selenocosmia crassipes best fits the genus Phlogius. Someone just needs to finish up a taxonomic study and publish it so the nomenclature changes can become accepted by all.

 

[curtisgiganteus]

The tarantula revision has been 20 years in the works, not sure if it will ever get finished. I do know that there are no true Selenocosmia in Australia, they have very different morphology, specifically looking at the spermathacae. I believe there was a revision years ago that was refuted trying to transfer Selenocosmia to Phlogius. But yeah once the revision comes out it Selenocosmia will finally be referred to officially as Phlogius. Some recent papers (R. Castro) refer to crassipes as Phlogius, so it’s not just hobbyists, but used within the scientific community as well.

Iirc spermathacae structure is being refuted as a valid way to ID taxon due to the large variance seen in many species. Ybyrapora sooretama for instance.

 

[phatspidey]

Thanks so much @AphonopelmaTX and @NaychaBoi, I definitely need dig into that PhD thesis now!
Do you guys know if anyone is Australia is currently working in the Australian tarantulas since that thesis or has the research kind of stopped?
I know the USA species got a huge revision a few years ago and am hoping that the Australian ones go the same way.