Euathlus sp. Red vs Homoeomma sp. fire

Ashley2070

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
41
Alright guys serious question here. I've been searching around to buy a Euathlus sp. red and I'm confused about something. Is Homoeomma sp. fire the same spider? or is it a completely different species? I've heard mixed things about this so I wanted to get your guys' thoughts on it. Thanks!
 

sdsnybny

Arachnogeek
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
1,334
Same T, its though that they will eventually be moved to Homoeomma. A lot of vendors in Europe/Canada already label them that way and some US vendors are following suit.
PM sent
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
12,371
Euathlus is a generic genus, a dumping ground of sorts for species that aren't classified scientifically. B. smithi was once a Euathlus.

A lot of people think E. sp. Red belongs in the Homoeomma genus (I don't know who these people are, scientist, breeders, hobbyists etc). When you see the syntax of Genus sp. Name, that too is a scientifically unclassified tarantula, such as H. sp. Columbia or A. sp. amazonica.

A few years ago, a person on the forum here told me he knew the people who had collected quite a few of these Chilean dwarfs or was down there himself, and he was pretty confident that E. sp. Red would eventually not be in the Homoeomma genus. I don't know his qualifications, so who knows.

The word "fire" and the word "flame" are both used in common names (which are not always helpful at all) for the E. sp. Red, Chilean Flame, Chilean Fire.

I wouldn't breed an E. sp. Red with a H. sp. Fire, it's a bad idea as one doesn't technically know if they are the same or not.

Ts are classified by more than just their looks.

Ts get routinely reclassified, thrown out of one genus into another, all the time. One current thought is that A. diversipes isn't an Avic at all, but may be put into a new genus (edit due to @AphonopelmaTX )

I do think that E. sp Red are getting sold as Homoeomma sp. "whatever" though...all of them?... maybe/maybe not.

It's entirely possible there are two Ts that look very similar but are really different species. Mexico and Chile have examples of this.

There is also E. sp. Yellow that were sold a few years back for which I have a MM of, while E. sp. Red was being sold too.

Some people think they are the same species, some subspecies, some a different species.

Many of the E. sp. Yellow's have a lighter color on their abdomen, a straw yellow.

Yet, others do not, and they look like E. sp. Red in terms of the color on their abdomen.

Also, early on, many E. sp. Red's abdomens appeared more red, as opposed to the more common red rust colors that I see now. Who knows what happened there (not even taking into account the nuances of digital photography).

Below is a E. sp. Red and a E. sp. Yellow.

In a thread I posted, I put up pics of an E. sp. Red, I didn't tell anyone what the T was. I asked them to guess which T was a Red vs a Yellow. Same camera and lighting too.

Not a single person thought the pics were all of a red if I recall. Some thought it was a Yellow. But I digress now.

 
Last edited:

Ashley2070

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
41
Euathlus is a generic genus, a dumping ground of sorts for species that aren't classified scientifically. B. smithi was once a Euathlus.

A lot of people think E. sp. Red belongs in the Homoeomma genus (I don't know who these people are, scientist, breeders, hobbyists etc). When you see the syntax of Genus sp. Name, that too is a scientifically unclassified tarantula, such as H. sp. Columbia or A. sp. amazonica.

A few years ago, a person on the forum here told me he knew the people who had collected quite a few of these Chilean dwarfs or was down there himself, and he was pretty confident that E. sp. Red would eventually not be in the Homoeomma genus. I don't know his qualifications, so who knows.

The word "fire" and the word "flame" are both used in common names (which are not always helpful at all) for the E. sp. Red, Chilean Flame, Chilean Fire.

I wouldn't breed an E. sp. Red with a H. sp. Fire, it's a bad idea as one doesn't technically know if they are the same or not.

Ts are classified by more than just their looks.

Ts get routinely reclassified, thrown out of one genus into another, all the time. One current thought is that A. diversipes is really an Iridopelma.

I do think that E. sp Red are getting sold as Homoeomma sp. "whatever" though...all of them?... maybe/maybe not.

It's entirely possible there are two Ts that look very similar but are really different species. Mexico and Chile have examples of this.

There is also E. sp. Yellow that were sold a few years back for which I have a MM of, while E. sp. Red was being sold too.

Some people think they are the same species, some subspecies, some a different species.

Many of the E. sp. Yellow's have a lighter color on their abdomen, a straw yellow.

Yet, others do not, and they look like E. sp. Red in terms of the color on their abdomen.

Also, early on, many E. sp. Red's abdomens appeared more red, as opposed to the more common red rust colors that I see now. Who knows what happened there (not even taking into account the nuances of digital photography).

Below is a E. sp. Red and a E. sp. Yellow.

In a thread I posted, I put up pics of an E. sp. Red, I didn't tell anyone what the T was. I asked them to guess which T was a Red vs a Yellow. Same camera and lighting too.

Not a single person thought the pics were all of a red if I recall. Some thought it was a Yellow. But I digress now.

Thanks Viper very helpful, really appreciate the info!
 

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,440
Euathlus is a generic genus, a dumping ground of sorts for species that aren't classified scientifically. B. smithi was once a Euathlus.

A lot of people think E. sp. Red belongs in the Homoeomma genus (I don't know who these people are, scientist, breeders, hobbyists etc). When you see the syntax of Genus sp. Name, that too is a scientifically unclassified tarantula, such as H. sp. Columbia or A. sp. amazonica.

A few years ago, a person on the forum here told me he knew the people who had collected quite a few of these Chilean dwarfs or was down there himself, and he was pretty confident that E. sp. Red would eventually not be in the Homoeomma genus. I don't know his qualifications, so who knows.
As far as the pet trade is concerned, I would agree that Euathlus is indeed a dumping ground for anything that obviously isn't a Grammostola species and is collected from Chile. Perhaps it's because the range of Homoeomma species hasn't been officially recorded for Chile. However, Homoeomma and Euathlus can be readily differentiated by the male papal bulb. Homoeomma males have a distinct tegular apophysis (described by Perez-Miles, 1996 as a digitform tegular apophysis) where-as Euathlus lacks this character. Also, I've noticed that Homoeomma males have a broad corkscrew shaped ebolus where Euathlus is long, slender, and the apex is directed retrolaterally (except E. truculentus; the real one, maybe not the pet trade one). Males have the clearer generic characters but if the two species in question here are regularly bred than males shouldn't be hard to come by. Females can be differentiated by the shape of the spermatheca. Euathlus females have a twin seminal receptacles with broad bases and a lateral nodule (except E. truculentus; again maybe not the pet trade one, but the real one nonetheless)where as Homoeomma females have a similar shape but with a nodule at the top of the receptacles. This is why I asked what the papal bulbs and spermatheca look like for E. sp. "red". Those two characters will pinpoint if it really belongs to Homoeomma.

I would also say "who knows" and question anyone who makes statements like "E. sp. Red" belongs in the genus Homoeomma or anything like it without any support for such a statement. More times than not in the tarantula hobby, it's the blind leading the blind as far as proper identification goes.
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
12,371
As far as the pet trade is concerned, I would agree that Euathlus is indeed a dumping ground for anything that obviously isn't a Grammostola species and is collected from Chile. Perhaps it's because the range of Homoeomma species hasn't been officially recorded for Chile. However, Homoeomma and Euathlus can be readily differentiated by the male papal bulb. Homoeomma males have a distinct tegular apophysis (described by Perez-Miles, 1996 as a digitform tegular apophysis) where-as Euathlus lacks this character. Also, I've noticed that Homoeomma males have a broad corkscrew shaped ebolus where Euathlus is long, slender, and the apex is directed retrolaterally (except E. truculentus; the real one, maybe not the pet trade one). Males have the clearer generic characters but if the two species in question here are regularly bred than males shouldn't be hard to come by. Females can be differentiated by the shape of the spermatheca. Euathlus females have a twin seminal receptacles with broad bases and a lateral nodule (except E. truculentus; again maybe not the pet trade one, but the real one nonetheless)where as Homoeomma females have a similar shape but with a nodule at the top of the receptacles. This is why I asked what the papal bulbs and spermatheca look like for E. sp. "red". Those two characters will pinpoint if it really belongs to Homoeomma.

I would also say "who knows" and question anyone who makes statements like "E. sp. Red" belongs in the genus Homoeomma or anything like it without any support for such a statement. More times than not in the tarantula hobby, it's the blind leading the blind as far as proper identification goes.
I wish I had that user's screen name or saved what he wrote to me. He didn't go into anatomy if I recall correctly, he seemed they were different for other reasons, unfortunately I cannot remember what they were. I'm almost positive it was due to collecting and geographical differences. Crap, I can't remember, it was prob over 3 years ago.

That is quite interesting information Apho. Thank you very much for providing it. I was hoping when I read your question above that you had some more info.

On that 1996 paper, are you referring to this one
Pérez-Miles F, Lucas SM, da Silva Jr PI, Bertani R. 1996. Systematic revision and cladistic
analysis of Theraphosinae (Araneae: Theraphosidae). Mygalomorph. 1:33–68.

I have a few other later papers from 2014 and 2015 he's on for Euathlus, but not that one.
 

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,440
One current thought is that A. diversipes is really an Iridopelma.
Who's thought? Among other characters in males and females, males of Avicularia diversipes have no tibial apophyses where-as males of Iridopelma have a tibial apophysis on both legs 1 and 2. It's more likely Avicularia diversipes will be eventually transferred to a yet-to-be-created genus than Iridopelma.
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
12,371
Who's thought? Among other characters in males and females, males of Avicularia diversipes have no tibial apophyses where-as males of Iridopelma have a tibial apophysis on both legs 1 and 2. It's more likely Avicularia diversipes will be eventually transferred to a yet-to-be-created genus than Iridopelma.
Now that is something I hadn't learned yet. I'll make an edit. I also hear the latter as well more recently re a new genus perhaps.
 

c.h.esteban

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
165
Hi,

after a review of some old and new material PERAFAN & PEREZ-MILES wrote;

"Euathlus and Phrixotrichus are sister genera, supported by their shared palpal organ morphology, especially at the ventral position of the distal prolateral inferior keel, also by spermathecal receptacles with a lateral chamber, and tarsal claws without teeth."

The "lateral chamber" was in this paper also described as "a lateral spheroid chamber".

Here are some pictures of a specimen, got them some years ago, labeld as "Euathlus sp RED / FIRE".

So make your own decision.

spermatheca ventral view

spermatheca dorsal view


tarsal claws leg I

by
 

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,440
Hi,

after a review of some old and new material PERAFAN & PEREZ-MILES wrote;

"Euathlus and Phrixotrichus are sister genera, supported by their shared palpal organ morphology, especially at the ventral position of the distal prolateral inferior keel, also by spermathecal receptacles with a lateral chamber, and tarsal claws without teeth."

The "lateral chamber" was in this paper also described as "a lateral spheroid chamber".

Here are some pictures of a specimen, got them some years ago, labeld as "Euathlus sp RED / FIRE".
Thanks for sharing those pictures. I would say there should be little doubt that Euathlus sp. Red/ Fire is actually a Homoeomma species. Comparing the pictures here with pictures included in Perafan & Perez-Miles (2014) and Ferretti (2015) of Phrixotrichus and Euathlus species, I don't think this "Red/ Fire" spermatheca is consistent with what those authors consider as having a "lateral chamber." And of course there is the matter of the tarsal claw teeth. :) Hopefully someone out there has pictures of the retro and pro lateral views of the papal bulb. I would be interested in comparing it with the drawings in Schiapelli & Gerschman (1972).
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
12,371
Thanks for sharing those pictures. I would say there should be little doubt that Euathlus sp. Red/ Fire is actually a Homoeomma species. Comparing the pictures here with pictures included in Perafan & Perez-Miles (2014) and Ferretti (2015) of Phrixotrichus and Euathlus species, I don't think this "Red/ Fire" spermatheca is consistent with what those authors consider as having a "lateral chamber." And of course there is the matter of the tarsal claw teeth. :) Hopefully someone out there has pictures of the retro and pro lateral views of the papal bulb. I would be interested in comparing it with the drawings in Schiapelli & Gerschman (1972).
Does the above contradict your below statement? I'm not as familiar w/the anatomy as you are, hence my questions.

"However, Homoeomma and Euathlus can be readily differentiated by the male papal bulb."
 

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,440
Does the above contradict your below statement? I'm not as familiar w/the anatomy as you are, hence my questions.

"However, Homoeomma and Euathlus can be readily differentiated by the male papal bulb."
Not at all. I provided a brief description of the spermatheca of Homoeomma females. Although, the spermatheca does vary between species and even in individuals. Of course I'm speaking broadly based on illustrations. I haven't examined any Homoeomma males or females myself. Have a look again at the link I posted to Radan Kaderka's Homoemma sp. picture. There you can clearly see that the shape of one of the spermathecae is an exact match for the one Steffen provided. If you want to really see images side by side, look up all the literature references in this thread at the World Spider Catalog and compare to Radan Kaderka's site as well as a site called Tarantulas de Chile. Textual descriptions make much more sense when you have photos or illustrations to look at.
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
12,371
Not at all. I provided a brief description of the spermatheca of Homoeomma females. Although, the spermatheca does vary between species and even in individuals. Of course I'm speaking broadly based on illustrations. I haven't examined any Homoeomma males or females myself. Have a look again at the link I posted to Radan Kaderka's Homoemma sp. picture. There you can clearly see that the shape of one of the spermathecae is an exact match for the one Steffen provided. If you want to really see images side by side, look up all the literature references in this thread at the World Spider Catalog and compare to Radan Kaderka's site as well as a site called Tarantulas de Chile. Textual descriptions make much more sense when you have photos or illustrations to look at.
Hi Apho.

I did look up the refs mentioned in the thread, in fact I have 2 of them. It's always nice to read and SEE what the experts are reporting from the field in a scientific journal. I know that T de Chile site, I love it.

I did compare the images previous to my post, which lead to my question. I too felt they were an exact match, at least to my untrained eyes.

When I read your follow up response to the Esteban post here's what caused my conversion "I would say there should be little doubt that Euathlus sp. Red/ Fire is actually a Homoeomma species."

Yet in the previous post you wrote ""However, Homoeomma and Euathlus can be readily differentiated by the male papal bulb.", so in the second sentence you wrote they can be differentiated, yet above, you wrote E sp Red and Homoeomma are likely the same species.

Hence the confusion for me, regarding those 2 statements.

Did you mean other Euathlus "species" are readily differentiated from Homoeomma, but not E. sp. Red?
 

KezyGLA

Arachnoking
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
3,033
It has been the same with Homoeomma sp. blue and Thrixopelma lagunas although both are different species.

Personally I haven't heard of Homoeomma sp. fire until right now.

All I can say is dont breed if unsure of species.

I have been looking for Euathlus sp. red as a present for my gf birthday. I can't seem to find any, so maybe I will search this Homoeomma sp. fire instead :rolleyes:
 

c.h.esteban

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
165
Hi Lonnie,

you know the pictures of Kaderka and the site Tarantulas de Chile (have a closer look HERE, the first part say all). So why do you looking around for more pictures of the bulb?
My pictures are only a additional explanation, which should show that Euathlus was the wrong genus for the "sp. RED / FIRE".

bye
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
12,371
Hi Lonnie,

you know the pictures of Kaderka and the site Tarantulas de Chile (have a closer look HERE, the first part say all). So why do you looking around for more pictures of the bulb?
My pictures are only a additional explanation, which should show that Euathlus was the wrong genus for the "sp. RED / FIRE".

bye
I wish this site had their information in English too. I've known about this site for a while, and find the info that it contains to be helpful. Google Translate isn't effective enough.
 
Top