G. porteri was synonymized with G. rosea.

[Arachnid Addicted]

Here's the link.

https://wsc.nmbe.ch/reference/16610

Enjoy.

 

[Dorifto]

So now the rosea it's called... Araña pollito?

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

So now the rosea it's called... Araña pollito?

Wait!. Wasnt it Pamphobeteus?

 

[Dorifto]

They call araña pollito to every big T

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

They call araña pollito to every big T

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Dorifto]

I was being sarcastic.

Recently woke up

 

[Marcostaco]

So rosea was just a color form? Or locality?

 

[Wolfram1]

It is a little confusing, but i think it just said that G. porteri is a junior synonym of G. rosea. So in essence G. porteri no longer exists.

The type specimen for G. rosea was lost but the neotype for G. rosea (collected based on the recorded collection site of the type speciemen) does not differ from the type specimen of G. porteri, which in contrast does not have a formal diagnosis.
Since G. rosea is the older name, it is the one proposed.

so, now we can finally go back to sort them by locality/form again

 

[NMTs]

I think it should go back to Grammostola spatulata, because then we could call it G-spat for short...

 

[cold blood]

I personally think they are making a mistake doing this.

 

[LucN]

I personally think they are making a mistake doing this.

Agreed. It made more sense to separate the two color forms to different species. Now it'll just get confusing again... Oh well, I may have to change my label, but I'll wait a bit just in case they change their minds and bring it back as it was.

 

[Marcostaco]

I think they should've at least separated them locality wise

 

[cold blood]

Agreed. It made more sense to separate the two color forms to different species. Now it'll just get confusing again... Oh well, I may have to change my label, but I'll wait a bit just in case they change their minds and bring it back as it was.

Here is the reason I see them as not the same...if they were synonymous, you could breed the two and get both, or breed either and potentially get the other...like the incei golds and olives....that doesnt happen with these species,

 

[Wolfram1]

Perhaps, they certainly did not do this for the sake of the spiders in our collections. Rather than that, they did much needed comparison of the two type specimens. So now we need to recalibrate our understanding of these animals based on their findings. Who knows, maybe the old G. rosea will get a new name in time?


We should consider getting ahead of the stampeding heard and create a new uniform naming sheme for our collections that follows the new nomenclature but also keeps them distinct so people don't just start crossing them willy nilly or get confused by different names.

Locality would be ideal, but lets be honest the vast majority, me included, doesn't have spiders with known locality data, sadly.

 

[LucN]

Here is the reason I see them as not the same...if they were synonymous, you could breed the two and get both, or breed either and potentially get the other...like the incei golds and olives....that doesnt happen with these species,

Could've sworn I read somewhere off the TKG 3rd Ed. that it was discovered that both color forms were found in the same sac during a successful breeding or more. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I'm pretty sure there was something along those lines, which makes it all the more confusing !

 

[Marcostaco]

Could've sworn I read somewhere off the TKG 3rd Ed. that it was discovered that both color forms were found in the same sac during a successful breeding or more. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I'm pretty sure there was something along those lines, which makes it all the more confusing !

Really? I've never heard of that one because

 

[Wolfram1]

Could've sworn I read somewhere off the TKG 3rd Ed. that it was discovered that both color forms were found in the same sac during a successful breeding or more. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I'm pretty sure there was something along those lines, which makes it all the more confusing !

Well in the case of N. incei it is clearly just a recessive mutation of 1 chromosome, suppressing the usual pattern.

If you crossed G. rosea and the old G. porteri on the other hand, whether they are one species or not, you would expect to see a range of colours, basically anything inbetween should be present.

 

[Arthroverts]

We should consider getting ahead of the stampeding heard and create a new uniform naming sheme for our collections that follows the new nomenclature but also keeps them distinct so people don't just start crossing them willy nilly or get confused by different names.

We could use Hebrew in keeping with using very old languages for that sort of thing...

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[cold blood]

Could've sworn I read somewhere off the TKG 3rd Ed. that it was discovered that both color forms were found in the same sac during a successful breeding or more. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I'm pretty sure there was something along those lines, which makes it all the more confusing !

I have ever heard of any actual evidence of this. I think at best this is unsubstantiated assumption or guess.

Well in the case of N. incei it is clearly just a recessive mutation of 1 chromosome, suppressing the usual pattern.

Right, which is why those two are the same species...the color forms are the result of varied genetics within the same species.

If this existed, we would have, at some point, seen porteri coming from rosea pairings or rosea coming out of porteri pairings...while they aren't bred all too often, its not like they haven't been bred, in fact, they have been bred for a long time and when you see porteri pairings, you always get porteri offsring....when you see rosea pairings you always see rosea offspring.

Conversely, I have several times bred incei olives and just as genetics would suggest, when I had one of the parents carrying that recessive gene, I got 25% of the sac to be golds....when this happens with rosea and porteri, i will re-think things, but to the best of my knowledge, it has yet to be documented,

 

[Terrovax]

Agreed. It made more sense to separate the two color forms to different species. Now it'll just get confusing again... Oh well, I may have to change my label, but I'll wait a bit just in case they change their minds and bring it back as it was.

Why? New species can not be classified based on colouration alone. This is not only true with tarantulas, but with nearly all (if not all) animals. You can just look at our own species, Homo sapien, to understand why this is quite flawed. Researchers have to consider an animal's finer morphology when classifying` a new species. Colour is simply not one of those major features. If the designated neotype of G. rosea had identical morphology to the G. porteri holotype, then there's likely no reason to separate the two just because of colour.