"Haplopelma chrysotrix "

[Peter Grabowitz]

described as "Haplopelma chrysothrix"....

.
.

 

[IncyVinceySpiders]

that, is stunning...

:drool: where can i get one from??

vincent

 

[crpy]

Beautiful:clap:

 

[syndicate]

Hello Peter,
This spider looks alot like Haplopelma longipes to me.
-Chris

 

[GoTerps]

described as Haplopelma chrysotrix

The name "Haplopelma chrysothrix" (you spelled it wrong) was declared nomen nudum. That spider was then described properly as Ornithoctonus aureotibialis ... which the spider you depict here is clearly not. So, I would suggest that the name you provide here has nothing to do with the spider in your picture Unless I'm really missing something.

Eric

 

[seanbond]

i secound chris
-SeanB

 

[Peter Grabowitz]

The name "Haplopelma chrysothrix" (you spelled it wrong) was declared nomen nudum. That spider was then described properly as Ornithoctonus aureotibialis ... which the spider you depict here is clearly not. So, I would suggest that the name you provide here has nothing to do with the spider in your picture Unless I'm really missing something.Eric

hi,
maybe you're right maybe not....
did you seen the described specimens?
me yes....

 

[GoTerps]

So, your saying you've examined the specimens that Schmidt & Samm (2005) described as "Haplopelma chrysothrix" (they failed to deposit a type specimen AFAIK).

And that what they "described" as such is not what we now call Ornithoctonus aureotibialis?

Eric

 

[Scolopendra777]

He... He... Still a nice brown t,

 

[syndicate]

Haplopelma chrysothrix Schmidt & Samm, 2005: 5, f. 1-8 (mf, nomen nudum as no type depository was cited).
O. a. von Wirth & Striffler, 2005: 10, f. 8-18 (Dmf for same taxon).
Haplopelma chrysothrix Schmidt & Samm, in Schmidt, 2005g: 43, f. 1-8 (Dmf).
Haplopelma chrysothrix Peters, 2005b: 71, f. 229-234 (mf).

 

[crpy]

Yes, and i will be waiting with baited breath for the next post as well

 

[Peter Grabowitz]

So, your saying you've examined the specimens that Schmidt & Samm (2005) described as "Haplopelma chrysothrix" (they failed to deposit a type specimen AFAIK).
And that what they "described" as such is not what we now call Ornithoctonus aureotibialis?
Eric

hi Eric,

no, no... I saw the described specimens ALIVE..., talk with Mr. Samm, who saw my living specimens, and he told me "this look like H.chrysothrix...." nothing more...