Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tarantula Chat' started by GoTerps, Apr 3, 2009.
Hahah, I like it.
some interesting points you mention there...
Wondering, if a peer reviewed journal would have accepted this paper or rather given it back to the author with some "homework" (e.g. to fill the gaps mentioned by you).
all the best,
Very interesting indeed. I read the paper a few days ago, and it looked to me that this synonymy has not many arguments to be backed up. And it's true also that does not mention the holotype examination of G. aureostriata. Just because the G. pulchripes type had yellow stripes and it's found in same location (Chaco Region, which is very extense region, the second largest forest in America) the author assumes it's the same as G. aureostriata.
Now, G. pulchripes could be yellow striped spider and G. aureostriata, another:
The real G. aureostriata, this same exact species was sent to Germany for the original description. The spider's owner Dr. Claudio Lipari. This spider grows very large.
And this one is the common ''G. aureostriata'' that I see more often around the hobby:
female (this picture is from the net)
Maybe they are just two forms, but maybe not.....
Pato, VERY beautiful speciment - even it is a southamerican species! =;-)
Yes Martin she really was! Southern spiders rules Died some years ago from old age. Never seen anymore of them since then! They were always really rare to find in the wild. A friend gave me some slings of what looks something similar to that one...at least in the picture I've seen, I'll have to check his spider out in real life soon
WOW!!! This is one huge Grammostola Specie! I hope someone out there will be able to breed these for it to spread around...
That's interesting Pato, thanks for sharing the photos.
No problem I just wish some day to see those beautiful giants in the wild.
Very nice spiders in your photos. It is also very interesting because I remember that a about 3-4 years ago, there were meant to be two different forms of G. aureostriata in the hobby.
A Paraguayan form that was said to have a covering of long pinkish hairs all over, and a different colored carapace. Also they had three stripes on the patella.
The other was said to be the Argentinean form, that lacked the pinkish hairs and only had the two stripes on the patella.
Going from these simple descriptions I would say that is what your photos show, these two different forms. All be it I do not know if they were ever proven to different forms of the same species or actual different species but I would have thought that paper may have cleared this up, however it makes no reference to them what so ever, which I feel is rather strange if you are going to synonymize this species with another.
Martin's point is very good about a peer reviewed journal as even if the article is true, without the gaps being filled in it is making for rather a poor argument I think.
How then is this sort of article accepted? Surely someone must review it at some stage before it becomes the accepted fact, otherwise you could just write a story for some nature magazine about how on holiday you found such and such a species and because it looks like another species found a few miles away, say they are the same thing and this then is fact just based on a location, if you can kind of understand what I mean.
I completely understand what you mean. My personal opinion is that they are different species. BOTH can be found in Argentina, that is for sure. Also, the type for G. aureostriata description is from Argentina. So, this Paraguay/Argentina forms, doesn't convince me much...
If they were only two different forms, then we should reconsider the term ''form''. As you might know, the problem in Grammostola genus is that their genital characters vary very little between species most of the time. Some authors consider that if they can mate with each other, showing very similar genitalia and somatic features, then they are the same species. This I do not agree. But in this particular case of Grammostola aureostriata, there are very evident differences between these two spiders, and the difference in size is impressive. The thing is that they are both from Chaco Region...so many authors assume that it's likely to be the same sp, and only local variations, but, as I've said before, Chaco is a HUGE region. I've explored a lot of this region and found Acanthoscurria chacoana, Acanthoscurria sp. ''musculosa'' and Eupalaestrus campestratus, unfortunately I still haven't found G. aureostriata. My next trip to the Region will be focused on this species only. The ''real'' one is very rare, while the other one seems to be more common. Lately someone collected specimens from Chaco, and a friend has two of them... from a photo I've seen they look similar to the real one, but really can't tell from just one pic, I will check them out soon. Also he gave me two slings to raise (thank's Gaston!!
Although I think G. pulchripes shouldn't be erased as it could be very well a valid species, I think G. aureostriata shoudn't be wiped out in synonymy until further research is done to see what's going on with this variations.
Sooo... does this mean everyone on the boards are listing their Aureo's as Pulchripes now in the "For Sale" section and from now on in other threads? :?
Not me. I'll still refer to mine as aureostriata.
Kinda stinks because now ya gotta search under two different names to find infromation on one species...
Have you measured specimens of both? According to Gabriel's paper, the holotypes of G. pulchripes and G. aureostriata are almost identical in size.
Yes males from both and females from the bigger form, haven't got in my hands any females from the 'smaller form'. But in any case, the G. pulchripes could be aureostriata and the other smaller variant another species (maybe it is that way, I really couldn't say and so far it looks like no one can until further research is done) But the picture of Gabriel's paper shows the classic smaller variant (at least for what I can see on the picture)
For sure, G. 'aureostriata' (the bigger one) is a big spider that would be rare to be discovered so recently, taking in consideration that the habitat is a explored area since decades and there were people in the past aware of this spider over here many years ago.
I'm not saying that the synonymy is wrong, just that the two different 'forms' should be studied to see if we are talking about two species or forms instead of one and how important this is for their biology/ecology
I know for sure that the type of G. aureostriata (Schmidt 2001) was the bigger form. I know the collector. Again, maybe this is the actual G. pulchripes, and the other form which is more common in the european hobby is the 'new' species... who knows. But so far there is no research done to evidence there are two different species, and I don't have the material needed to do it yet, so I won't claim there are two different yellow striped Grammostola species... just have the feeling for myself that they are other forms or species... And I think it's also important to know this for my breeding plans...
Thanks for the post and the information.
Wow, this has been a very informative read! My opinion (and that's all it is) is that we will eventually end up with G. aureostriata and G. pulchripes as two seperate species.
Thank you to all you hyper advanced arachno-people for this stimulating discussion. I quite prefer this to "my rosie doesn't eat" for breakfast-time reading.
The large and more rare 'form' Grammostola aureostriata from Chaco, Argentina. Adult female collected recently, I was lucky to get this girl and I managed to get a group of spiderlings for breeding
Wow!!! Congratulations Pato!!! Very very nice specimen! I hope to someday get a sling of that T that you intend to breed!