Grammostola iheringi discussion thread

[bliss]

I have heard that the actaeon/iheringi/mollicoma may actually all be the same species....sigh.

i've talked to people both in the US and outside the US, who think it's just the Inheringi and the mollicoma that are the same. many believe that acteon is one in its own.

i've owned inheringi, one sling. about 1". very nice little bugger. was a male though molted, and went from 1" to 1.75", almost doubled in size. molt confirmed male.

i've also owned mollicoma (southern variant) as well as acteon. both of those species seemed pretty calm.

(whispers to himself) **wish i hadn't sold the mollicoma :wall: **




dan

 

[Aubrey Sidwell]

i've talked to people both in the US and outside the US, who think it's just the Inheringi and the mollicoma that are the same. many believe that acteon is one in its own.

i've owned inheringi, one sling. about 1". very nice little bugger. was a male though molted, and went from 1" to 1.75", almost doubled in size. molt confirmed male.

i've also owned mollicoma (southern variant) as well as acteon. both of those species seemed pretty calm.

(whispers to himself) **wish i hadn't sold the mollicoma :wall: **




dan

So what you are saying is that the G. iheringi may be renamed at a later date and is the mollicoma considered a Grammastola or what genus is it?

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

This is not right.
The G. iheringi is a distinctive species resembling G. grossa.
And the hobby G. iheringi has nothing with the real one in common. It is most possibly G. mollicoma of one of the form.
The same story is about the hobby G. acteon.
See my comments here long ago...

 

[bliss]

This is not right.
The G. iheringi is a distinctive species resembling G. grossa.
And the hobby G. iheringi has nothing with the real one in common. It is most possibly G. mollicoma of one of the form.
The same story is about the hobby G. acteon.
See my comments here long ago...

yep. i was referring to the hobby form in my post, guess i should've mentioned that. never heard of Acteon being a "shaky" species in the hobby, but i guess it's very possible

hey MFbagaturov, you have any clue on G doeringi or Fossor? i've been waiting for those to hit the hobby, but i haven't seen them for sale anywhere, i've seen a Male Fossor for sale here in the US, but no females :?

dan

 

[sick4x4]

come on people, do we have to go down this road again:wall: mollicoma and inheringi are two separate species!!!!!!!! and look nothing alike:wall: there was at one time, some confusion with mollicoma and alticeps but that clearly has been dealt with....and a Grammostola iheringi looks nothing like a rosie:wall: :wall: where do you all get your info from????????????

and BF don't quote that Uruguayan archaeologist..because from taxomonist i have talked too, they got it wrong...sorry dude..
wayne

 

[GoTerps]

To the OP, sorry your thread has gone a little off course. Hopefully others will chime in to help you.

Hi Wayne,

and BF don't quote that Uruguayan archaeologist..because from taxomonist i have talked too, they got it wrong...sorry dude..
wayne

Who exactly are these "taxonimists" you've talked to that claim Pérez Miles and associates "got it wrong"? The genus needs work, but I'm sure Fernando would like to hear about this! Maybe someone could enlighten him when he presents at the BTS conference in a few weeks.

How many of these "G. iheringi" we see sold have a silver sheen covering the carapace? Oh, but maybe Bertani has is wrong too

G. iheringi looks very similar to G. grossa.

The "hobby" G. iheringi looks a lot like G. mollicoma (they look different throughout their natural range)

Mikhail has wise words on this subject.

Eric

 

[sick4x4]

eric,
it wasn't Perez they(he) was refuting and it dealt with id's of specimens found at different locations(some looking like the model and others looking like darker variants or hybrids)...

wayne

 

[sick4x4]

im sorry if it seems like i was saying mikhail wasnt knowledgeable about the subject..as seen on the other thread, i didnt want it to be without possibility that the hobby form, couldn't be a variant or hybrid of the model form...thats all..

 

[GoTerps]

eric,
it wasn't Perez they(he) was refuting and it dealt with id's of specimens found at different locations(some looking like the model and others looking like darker variants or hybrids)...

wayne

Hi Wayne,

Ah ok... no worries. When you said "Uruguayan archaeologist"... I expected you where refering to one of the folks responsible for THIS SITE... where you can see a "real" G. iheringi.

Eric

 

[sick4x4]

no worries eric,
i should of chosen my words alittle better....:8o

 

[pato_chacoana]

This is G. iheringi or G. actaeon. Both are similar, but not the same I believe. I have 4 slings, when they grow I'll post again to see what these turned out to be!

Pato.

 

[pato_chacoana]

here it is


pato

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Hi!

im sorry if it seems like i was saying mikhail wasnt knowledgeable about the subject..as seen on the other thread, i didnt want it to be without possibility that the hobby form, couldn't be a variant or hybrid of the model form...thats all..

It doesn't matter what You've said as I knew exactly that all these uncorrectly ID'ed G. iheringi and G. acteon are come in hobby from WC specimens and no way they're hybrids or so...
On another hand, it is no way a form of the real G. iheringi that it does belong to another different "type" or complex-species if You wish, and reseblece G. grossa very much in appearence.

And I never said anything here on at any other place in the net about the subject if I don't study it before or knew about the study from the valid source.

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Hi Mr. Cavallo!

This is G. iheringi or G. actaeon. Both are similar, but not the same I believe. I have 4 slings, when they grow I'll post again to see what these turned out to be!

You ain't right here Patricio.

As for the G. actaeon I'm not sure, but that this doesn't have anything in common with the G. iheringi - it is absolutely true.
If anyone is interested one more time - here You can find some of the original papers regarding the species as well as images and discussion (it's in russian, use on-line translators):
http://tarantulas.tropica.ru/forum//index.php?showtopic=689

 

[pato_chacoana]

Hi Mikhail! How are you doing?

I don't know which real G. iheringi are you talking about. Similar to G. grossa? G. grossa is an endemic to Quebrada de los Cuervos, Uruguay, as far as I know. I think that none of us or in the entire world has ever studied the Grammostola genus properly. So there are many mistakes and many people that has no idea that they're making mistakes because they import WC and don't know where they come from, or just never seen distribution papers and don't know that are many Grammostola in synonymy (don't always trust all that the Platnick catalog says), etc.
So about this photo I posted, could be G. actaeon, iheringi, or just another one. But according to the description paper and distribution should be one of those two.
The paper you're saying is wrtitten by who? Tell me more about this tarantula that you think is real G. iheringi.

regards,

Pato.

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Hello Pato!

I'm doing well! Very nice since all those years You have finally found this board. Hope, You'll also encourage Claudio to do the same.

Back to topic. As You asked the question I suggest You still did not put Your eyes on the link I provide above, so... there You can find Pocock, 1903 paper which contains keys and description of G. actaeon as new species.
If You need to knew how the real G. iheringi should looks like I would suggest You to contact Fernando Perez-Miles or Mario Lalinde or other arachnologists who study the native species in Uruguay if you don't believe the site me and Eric had reffered above.
So, the above foto You've post maybe or not may be G. acteon or some any other undescribed tarantula, but CAN'T be G. iheringi in any case.
In the link above You'll also will find the link to the papers in Iheringia journal.
So, please, my friend, before You'll ask another one question like this one - read the russian thread carefully.

 

[pato_chacoana]

Ok. I did put my eyes in the forum you said, but I can't read russian...it's not that I don't believe you. But do not be so sure about these things. According to the original iheringi paper (Keyserling, 1891), my spider could be that one.
I know what Perez-Miles and Uruguayan arachnoligists think about it. But I don't think that the real G. iheringi is from Uruguay.
Well, Mikhail remember that even the professionals makes mistakes...or just have different opinions! (especially in taxonomics...)
We have to respect different opinions.

Pato.

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Hi Patricio!
Sure, my friend, "never mistakes only the person who never do anything" - as russians says.
But...
I strongly belive that the arachnologists who study the regional or the current group most possibly not mistaken (not including the universal arachnologists "a-la Schmidt").
And any opinion have to be based on something to be in any respect or attention to the others.
Here, YOu'll find the original Keyserling's description of Eurypelma iheringi (= Grammostola iheringi) from his "Brasilianischen Spinnen", so, if anyone here from Germany or with some German language knowledge may chime on in the thread and point us to any decriptive character which allows us to tell via the pic on possible species ID...
Unleass, all this discussion is in vain.
page 1.

page 2.

page 3.

 

[border]

Fellow: I have some G.ihgeringi and really are very "special" gramostola...In some oportunities yo can handle without problem and after that,if is possible
a "flick" attack...absolutly crazy!!!

 

[border]

Fellow: Another point some friends from Buenos Aires found G.ihgeringi in Gualeguaychu area,and-before Botnia-in Fray Bentos.(Certainly the T's not use Passport)but never in BA province..