Haplopelma Confirmation

Martin H.

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
868
Originally posted by Big Dragonfly

With this in mind, if I want an H. sp. "aureopilosum", and I order H. sp. "aureopilosum, is that what I will get?
There is always the chance to get a missIDed spider. But if the dealer already knows the differences between H. minax and H. sp. "aureopilosum" and offers H. sp. "aureopilosum" I think the chance to get a different spider than H. sp. "aureopilosum" is very low. I also have never heard of any case where it wasn't H. sp. "aureopilosum" when someone ordered one. On the other hand there are hundreds of cases, where someone ordered H. minax and got something different, like H. sp. "aureopilosum" or even H. sp. "longipedum".

all the best,
Martin
 

Haploman

ArachnoEarthTiger
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
160
sorry

I already got a male and he will be mating my female cyriopagopus paganus
 

LaRiz

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
672
Originally posted by Martin H.
LaRiz,
If he did this, I am quite sure only with the addendum "pet trade", but I can't imagine that he recommanded to call it just Cyriopagopus paganus.
Yup, yup. I'm sure it was all in the name of better identification of the pet trade species.

Originally posted by Martin H.
Yep, it's the same with Haplopelma minax and Lampropelma violaceopes. For several years only H. sp. "aureopilosum" was sold as H. minax. Now some dealers have the real H. minax and others still sell the H. sp. "aureopilosum" as H. minax. So you never can't be sure what you'll get if you order a H. minax.
Same with L. violaceopes. For years H. lividum was sold as L. violaceope(de)s. Then it was described as H. lividum by Andrew Smith in 1996. Some years ago, the first real L. violaceopes where imported and sold as Haplopelma robustum. Now they are IDed as L. violaceopes sensu Abraham, 1924. You still can buy them as H. robustum, but some have started to label them correct as L. violaceopes. But there are some dealers which still sell the greenish colour morph of H. lividum as L. violaceope(de)s.
=> you never know what the next import will bring. Perhaps a big load of the real C. paganus or the real C. thorelli, or... the mess would be perfect! =;-)
I hear ya, what a mess it is. I was kinda disappointed when Volker explained the Cyriopagopus schioedtei vs. C. thorelli. Both, obviously a great spider, but I was hoping it was indeed a thorelli.

Originally posted by Martin H.
I am quite sure you used Haploeplma longipedum or/and Haplopelma aureopilosum without the "sp." and the quotation marks and he corrected you, that these species aren't described yet and are working names.
Yes, that was when he schooled me on the subject, and thanks to him, I'm versed in the comprehension of the genus' Haplopelma and Cyriopagopus. At least, better off now, than before.
Later Martin,
john
 
Top