Arachnid Addicted
Arachnoprince
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,572
Really long text below.
Before I start this, let me clear up a few things:
1- This wasnt something created/invented/noticed by hobbysts. A couple researchers noticed it after re-reading the currently articles on the genus.
2- This thread wasnt created to take offense at any person not even to tell people to change their species names labels. So please, dont be rude, or ironic.
3- No revision was made at all, these researchers just read the articles over and over again. Maybe they are thinking about working on a future revision but at the moment, there are none.
That said, lets try to explain this mess, starting by what happened in pet trade.
Grammostola grossa is a species that've been spread and circulating in pet trade for years (or even decades). These individuals were first found in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil).
Back in 2010, 2011, another individual was found in another city called Farroupilha. These individuals were visually similar to the already stablished Grammostola grossa (the first one, found near Mountain Regions) but, since at that time no one was actually sure about these individuals, a couple were wc, bred in captivity and spread in pet trade as Grammostola sp. "Farroupilha". These individuals, couple of years later, were known to be a G. grossa variation so, until these days, there are two individuals from different regions of Rio Grande do Sul, named Grammostola grossa, in pet trade.
Grammostola iheringi, is known in pet trade for its coloration, which is black, with red setae on its abdomen.
Turns out, this species have been put in doubt by a few hobbysts, saying that this is a pet trade name, even though its a valid one, but there wasnt any confirmation about this.
End of pet trade (hi)story. Lol.
Now, heres the story that was noticed by those researchers I mentioned before:
Grammostola iheringi was described by Keyserling, in late 1800. Its description said (pretty basically, I'm gonna use scientifical words here) that it was a big black spider with REDDISH setae all over its abdome.
Grammostola gigantea was described by Mello-Leitão, in early 1900s. Its description said (again, pretty basically) that it was a big black spider with RED setae all over its abdome.
Both species were described and they were valid until the 1950s, when Bücherl synonymized them. However, the researchers I mentioned before noticed some odd things about this synonym. Apparently, Bücherl used poor/unreliable characters to made it, but it was accepted anyways.
End of scientifical (hy)story. Lol.
Now, I said above that there are two different individuals from different regions of Rio Grande do Sul, they both were known as G. grossa. Thing is, the individuals that were found first (near mountain regions), are the same individuals that were found in Uruguay. But in Brazil, they were known as G. grossa and in Uruguay, they were known as G. iheringi. Based on all the data they collected and all the articles they read, theoretically, both brazilian and uruguayan individuals, plus the ones that were known as "Farroupilha", are supposed to be the real G. iheringi, the scientifical one.
G. grossa, however, was described in 1871 but, its type was put in a lab (I think) in Germain. From what I got, no one really know if this type is still viable to be used so, at the moment, even though its description is valid, no one really knows how exactly the real G. grossa looks like.
In other words, to prove all of these issues it will take a lot of time and someone really will have to step up and start a revision of the genus. Not only that, as I always say, when it comes to Grammostola spermatheca analysis, isolated, is not reliable. As far as I know, researchers will have to check lots of taxonomical characters plus, make a molecular analysis to get reliable data on these species.
Somehow, this whole mess got to pet trade, and spread quickly and wrongly. There were some keepers saying a new revision was published, others were saying this a true fact that was proven even without a revision and there were others stating that G. gigantea was reinstated as valid species.
Only fact here is, at the moment, some researchers are dealing with the (high) possibility of what keepers known as G. grossa being the real G. iheringi, and the hobby G. iheringi is a Grammostola sp.
Either way, I'm just hoping to be alive when this possible revision comes out. Lol.
Before I start this, let me clear up a few things:
1- This wasnt something created/invented/noticed by hobbysts. A couple researchers noticed it after re-reading the currently articles on the genus.
2- This thread wasnt created to take offense at any person not even to tell people to change their species names labels. So please, dont be rude, or ironic.
3- No revision was made at all, these researchers just read the articles over and over again. Maybe they are thinking about working on a future revision but at the moment, there are none.
That said, lets try to explain this mess, starting by what happened in pet trade.
Grammostola grossa is a species that've been spread and circulating in pet trade for years (or even decades). These individuals were first found in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil).
Back in 2010, 2011, another individual was found in another city called Farroupilha. These individuals were visually similar to the already stablished Grammostola grossa (the first one, found near Mountain Regions) but, since at that time no one was actually sure about these individuals, a couple were wc, bred in captivity and spread in pet trade as Grammostola sp. "Farroupilha". These individuals, couple of years later, were known to be a G. grossa variation so, until these days, there are two individuals from different regions of Rio Grande do Sul, named Grammostola grossa, in pet trade.
Grammostola iheringi, is known in pet trade for its coloration, which is black, with red setae on its abdomen.
Turns out, this species have been put in doubt by a few hobbysts, saying that this is a pet trade name, even though its a valid one, but there wasnt any confirmation about this.
End of pet trade (hi)story. Lol.
Now, heres the story that was noticed by those researchers I mentioned before:
Grammostola iheringi was described by Keyserling, in late 1800. Its description said (pretty basically, I'm gonna use scientifical words here) that it was a big black spider with REDDISH setae all over its abdome.
Grammostola gigantea was described by Mello-Leitão, in early 1900s. Its description said (again, pretty basically) that it was a big black spider with RED setae all over its abdome.
Both species were described and they were valid until the 1950s, when Bücherl synonymized them. However, the researchers I mentioned before noticed some odd things about this synonym. Apparently, Bücherl used poor/unreliable characters to made it, but it was accepted anyways.
End of scientifical (hy)story. Lol.
Now, I said above that there are two different individuals from different regions of Rio Grande do Sul, they both were known as G. grossa. Thing is, the individuals that were found first (near mountain regions), are the same individuals that were found in Uruguay. But in Brazil, they were known as G. grossa and in Uruguay, they were known as G. iheringi. Based on all the data they collected and all the articles they read, theoretically, both brazilian and uruguayan individuals, plus the ones that were known as "Farroupilha", are supposed to be the real G. iheringi, the scientifical one.
G. grossa, however, was described in 1871 but, its type was put in a lab (I think) in Germain. From what I got, no one really know if this type is still viable to be used so, at the moment, even though its description is valid, no one really knows how exactly the real G. grossa looks like.
In other words, to prove all of these issues it will take a lot of time and someone really will have to step up and start a revision of the genus. Not only that, as I always say, when it comes to Grammostola spermatheca analysis, isolated, is not reliable. As far as I know, researchers will have to check lots of taxonomical characters plus, make a molecular analysis to get reliable data on these species.
Somehow, this whole mess got to pet trade, and spread quickly and wrongly. There were some keepers saying a new revision was published, others were saying this a true fact that was proven even without a revision and there were others stating that G. gigantea was reinstated as valid species.
Only fact here is, at the moment, some researchers are dealing with the (high) possibility of what keepers known as G. grossa being the real G. iheringi, and the hobby G. iheringi is a Grammostola sp.
Either way, I'm just hoping to be alive when this possible revision comes out. Lol.
