Genus Ischnocolus

[tarcan]

Got these cuties a few years ago, I really like them... the golden coloration is absolutly gorgeous.

I mated one female so far and have a few more to go, so hopefully I might have the chance to get a sac.

They were given to me as Chaetopelma adenense. This species has been synonymised with Ischnocolus jickelii. Who knows what they really are, but until anything new comes up, I keep them labelled as such.

Here are female and mature male

Hope you like em

Martin

 

[tarcan]

Here is another picture of a female showing a little bit better the abdominal pattern.

 

[tarcan]

Here is another species, maybe some off you have seen the picture on my site.

It is a female of another Ischnocolus sp. from Tunisia

 

[Koh_]

Hi Martin.
i'd like to know what differences are between Ischnocolus and chaetoplema.
Thanks!

 

[tarcan]

Koh,

You are asking me? LOL, you have the wrong guy, I am no taxonomist, just a hobbyist.

Take care

Martin

 

[syndicate]

Nice looking spiders there Martin!Pretty uncommon to!Best luck producing them
-Chris

 

[fartkowski]

Very nice Martin
I'm guessing it's a smaller species?
I hope the breeding process goes well

 

[tarcan]

Chris,

Oups, never answered you, yes they are small, females are about 1.5" to 2" legspan max.

I had three sacs eaten, at the fourth I got fed up and removed it right away. I opened it earlier this week. About half was no good, but still a few babies in there. Hopefully they make it to second instar.

Martin

 

[AlainL]

They look very good Martin, congrats for your egg sac:clap:

 

[fartkowski]

That's pretty cool Martin
You can already see a bit of the abdomen pattern.

 

[Zoltan]

Hi Koh,

Males are easy to distinguish, as Ischnocolus males don't have a tibial apophysis on leg I, while Chaetopelma males have two tibial apophyses on leg I. Females are a bit of a harder subject, I don't have any recent literature on Ischnocolus (and there isn't much anyway), but the recent revision of Chaetopelma by Guadanucci and Gallon gives some clues. The fovea (or thoracic groove) in Ischnocolus ranges from procurved to straight, in Chaetopelma it ranges from straight to recurved. Furthermore, in Ischnocolus the tarsal scopulae on all legs are divided, but in Chaetopelma - according to Guadanucci and Gallon's description - only divided on legs II-IV by a band of thick setae. Hope this helps.

Martin, really nice spiders! It's a pity they aren't really popular and available in the trade.

 

[Koh_]

Hi Koh,

Males are easy to distinguish, as Ischnocolus males don't have a tibial apophysis on leg I, while Chaetopelma males have two tibial apophyses on leg I. Females are a bit of a harder subject, I don't have any recent literature on Ischnocolus (and there isn't much anyway), but the recent revision of Chaetopelma by Guadanucci and Gallon gives some clues. The fovea (or thoracic groove) in Ischnocolus ranges from procurved to straight, in Chaetopelma it ranges from straight to recurved. Furthermore, in Ischnocolus the tarsal scopulae on all legs are divided, but in Chaetopelma - according to Guadanucci and Gallon's description - only divided on legs II-IV by a band of thick setae. Hope this helps.

Martin, really nice spiders! It's a pity they aren't really popular and available in the trade.

Thanks Zoltan!
really appreciate it. it was such a big help.

i've never seen any Ischnocolus species in person, and it seemed Chaetopelma and Ischnocolus from the pics above are nearly indentical as im not an expert. (i've kept some chaetopelma olivaceums).
Thanks for the good info again Zoltan.:clap:

 

[tarcan]

Zoltan,

Thanks for the info.

Just wanted to add that Richard has accepted to have a look at some specimens and molts I will send him, so we might get more information on them in the future!

Martin

 

[Zoltan]

i've never seen any Ischnocolus species in person, and it seemed Chaetopelma and Ischnocolus from the pics above are nearly indentical as im not an expert.

Initially Chaetopelma was merely a subgenus of Ischnocolus, so they are obviously very closely related. According to the 2008 revision, in addition to the two tibial apophyses on males, Chaetopelma differs from all other ischnocoline genera (except Nesiergus), by having "clavate trichobothria* in two rows on the tarsi, maxillary serrula** absent, paired tarsal claws of both sexes without teeth". You won't be able to check these features without a microscope, except maybe the third. Also, I'm not completely sure if each of these characters is unique to Chaetopelma or the combination of them makes separation from other genera possible, but based on the text, I'd say it's the former. I'd also like to add, don't base the identification on tarsal scopulation when working with immature specimens, as this can change with age, and it can be different in immature specimens than in adults.

*sensory structures on the legs.
**the maxillae are the modified first segments of the pedipalps (as far as I know, more precisely called gnathocoxa[e]), which form the sides of the mouth parts. The inner part of the maxillae may be serrated (formed like little saw-like teeth), this is to help cutting the prey.

Here's a full reference to the article:
Guadanucci, J. P. L. & Gallon, R. C. 2008. A revision of the spider genera .Chaetopelma Ausserer 1871 and Nesiergus Simon 1903 (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Ischnocolinae) Zootaxa 1753: 34–48.