Freshly molted L cristatus

[Martin H.]

Hi,

a little update on this topic:

I have not much time at the moment to explain it in details why I asked this quesion. The short version: The "Vitalius cristatus" in the pet trade is NOT the same species Bertani transfered in the genus Lasiodora.

Here are some elder mails from Lelle, me and Rogerio Bertani from the arachnid_world mailing list about this topic – hope it's ok to copy and paste them here.


#########################################

At 23:27 16.10.02 +0000, you wrote:

Hi all,

> > Im a bit confused. Some info says L. cristatus (Platnicks page) and some
> > L.cristata.
> > So whats the correct name for now?
> >
> > a slightly confused
> > Lelle
>
>My bad. I had a older version of Platnicks downloaded on the hard drive. I
>see
>the name is changed. L. cristata it is

Are you talking about the species described by Mello-Leitão in 1923 or about the one in the pet trade?

What about the pet trade "Vitalius cristatus/Lasiodora cristata"?
Baumgarten described a male as "Vitalius cristatus" in 1998 which is very likely the same as the "Vitalius cristatus" in the pet trade (because he introduced a species under this name in the pet trade). Bertani (2001) is of the opinion, that the male described by Baumbarten (1998) is not the same species of which Mello-Leitão described a female in 1923 as
Acanthoscurria cristata (transfered to Pamphobeteus cristatus by Schiapelli & Gerschman in 1964; transfered to Vitalius cristatus by Schmidt in 1998) and which was now transfered from the genus Vitalius to the genus Lasiodora by Bertani in 2001.

see the World Spider Catalog:
Vitalius cristatus Baumgarten, 1998: 1, f. 1-3 (Dm, misidentified per Bertani, 2001: 285).
Vitalius cristatus Peters, 2000b: 131, f. 383-385 (f, presumably misidentified m).
L. c. Bertani, 2001: 285 (Tf from Vitalius).


Does anybody in the meanwhile know, what species or even the genus the pet
trade "Vitalius cristatus/Lasiodora cristata" is?

all the best,
Martin

www.spiderpix.com

#########################################

#########################################

At 13:38 17.10.02 +0000, you wrote:


Hi Lelle,

>Well as long as I dont see another name for the pet trade cristata I just c=
>all it L. cristata.
>It never end does it?... ;-)

but Lasiodora cristata = Vitalius cristatus in the sence of Mello-Leitão 1923 is a different species!
=> I still call them "Vitalius cristatus" or "Vitalius" cristatus, but written in quotation marks because then everybody would know which species I am refering to and that it is not the real Lasiodora cristata (Mello-Leitão 1923) which would be a wrong label for them.
...imagine which confusion will be, when you call it Lasiodora cristata and sometimes in the future, the real Lasiodora cristata will be available!

BTW, a friend of mine, who is working with the genus Pamphobeteus told me, that he thinks the "Vitalius cristatus" in the pet trade is a member of the genus Vitalius.

all the best,
Martin

#########################################

#########################################

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:13:58 -0300
Subject: Re: [arachnid_world] Re: so.. cristatus or cristata?
Reply-To: arachnid_world@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <E182xAo-0007wr-00@mxng15.kundenserver.de>

Hi Lelle and Martin

Actually, the type of "Acanhoscurria cristata Mello-Leitão, 1923", which I have examined, has stridulating setae on the prolateral coxa of leg I and doesn't have the stridulating setae on the retrolateral face of the palpal trochanter. Along with the morphology of the spermathecae, it can be clearly included in the genus Lasiodora where it is now as Lasiodora cristata (Mello-Leitão, 1923). Whether it will be a valid species or not, it depends on the analysis of all available types of Lasiodora. I am presently reviewing this genus and examined all the available types. However, two are indispensable for the revision, L. klugi and L. striatipes, but, unfortunatly, I didn`t get the loan of these types from the BMNH.

Baumgarten, 1998 described the male of "Vitalius cristatus" on the assumption that it was the male of the species previously described by Mello-Leitão in 1923 which is discussed above. How did he reaches that conclusion is a mistery for me. Mello-Leiao's descrition is too poor and Schiapelli & Gerschman de Pikelin's paper transferring the species to the genus Pamphobeteus based the transferrence on the presence of stridulating setae on the trochanter of palps and spermathecae morphology (which have a similar morphology with species of Lasiodora).
It looks to me that he needed a name to give to the spider he began to sell in Europe. Systematics seemed no to be a real question for him.

However, the question involving the position of this species is not so easy. It shares characters with Vitalius, Lasiodora and Nhandu. Only a analysis including all species of these genera will demonstrate where it should be included. Together with the revision of Lasiodora, I am working on this question. I hope shortly to give an answer.

All the best

Rogerio

#########################################

Even BERTANI told SCHMIDT some weeks ago, when SCHMIDT contacted BERTANI to tell him that he (= SCHMIDT) plans to describe the species formerly known in the pet trade as "Vitalius cristatus / Lasiodora cristata", that he (= BERTANI) is working on the subject along with a revision of Lasiodora, it seems that this wasn't enough for SCHMIDT to reconsider his intention/plan. Now SCHMIDT has described the pet trade "Vitalius cristatus / Lasiodora cristata" as Nhandu chromatus sp. n.:

• SCHMIDT, G. (2004): Der Doppelgänger von Acanthoscurria geniculata (C.L. KOCH, 1841) heißt Nhandu chromatus sp. n. (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Theraphosinae). Tarantulas of the World 92: 6-11.

~ no comment ~

all the best,
Martin

 

[Mendi]

Thanks Martin! I just love having Ts

Just think of the mess of changes facing us when they finally revise Avicularia and finish describing Aphonopelma

 

[Steve Nunn]

it seems that this wasn't enough for SCHMIDT to reconsider his intention/plan. Now SCHMIDT has described the pet trade "Vitalius cristatus / Lasiodora cristata" as Nhandu chromatus sp.

A big thankyou to Schmidt for his total ignorance AGAIN. I really wish these folk would leave species and genus descriptions to those who really know how to do it. Gunter should have stuck to ecology (where his Phd is based). Incredible!! Someone buy this man the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" LOL

Thanks for the update Martin.

 

[xenesthis]

X. monstrosa

Steve all all:

Steve said: "Another quesion for you while I think of it. Has anyone been able to confirm what the Xenesthis 'black' species of Baumgarten's is? (re: your photographs on arachnid_pix). I know Todd Gearhardt believes it's X. monstrosa (which to me is ridiculous given he's only seen the photos and not the specimen itself). Has this been confirmed by anyone? Either way it's a beautiful specimen."

Believes? I have one. She's quite famous in the hobby. I've had her since 1993. She is now 9 1/4" in legspan and taxonomically different from any X. immanis - handsdown!

Ridiculous? Ridiculous would be the assumption you just made. Excuse me.

Todd

 

[Steve Nunn]

Believes? I have one. She's quite famous in the hobby. I've had her since 1993. She is now 9 1/4" in legspan and taxonomically different from any X. immanis - handsdown!

Ridiculous? Ridiculous would be the assumption you just made. Excuse me.

Well hello Todd,
You obviously misread what I wrote, let me clarify for you. I was talking about the specimen Martin posted on arachnid pix2 list, not your specimen. You stated that yours was the same therefore it was also a X.monstrosa. You were assuming based on the arachnid pix photograph that the two spiders in question are identical. You could not possibly KNOW based on a photo.

Now regarding your specimen, how can you be so sure that it is X.monstrosa?? To say this I'd assume you have checked it against the type specimen itself (not just the species description, we all know they are mostly outdated)?? If you haven't, then how did you come to the conclusion that it is without doubt X.monstrosa??

Even presuming you only checked it against the species description, can you tell me the "taxonomic" variation between yours and X.immanis for example??

Further more, last year you asked on arachnid pix2 about known morphological variance between described species of Xenesthis. You asked this question AFTER announcing you had X.monstrosa without doubt. Two and two are not adding up Todd, I hope you can clarify for us all. Maybe you should label it Xenesthis sp. "monstrosa"?????????? I would think that a more correct name.

No offense Todd, I'm not trying to upset you, just to clarify what your spider really is.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Joanie]

I have a spiderling that was sold to me recently as L. cristatus. Is it currently considered an N. chromatus, an L. cristatus or a V. cristatus? I would just like to know what to label to put on the terrarium. :?

EDIT--nevermind, I just read the other thread. I am now the proud owner of an N. chromatus, at least until the name is changed again.

 

[Mendi]

It's just too dern bad that I can't learn to use a pencil... I'm gonna note it in Excel but might just write large black, white banded with red rump on the new label

18 months and this poor species has had now 3 different classifications... It's embarrassing :8o