Homoeomma sp. "Blue vs Thrixopelma lagunas

[LailaQ]

Ignore common names...theyre just made up... label it Thrixopelma sp. blue.

When you see a species named sp. somethingORother...it means its a known species, not yet described by science.

Oh, rad! What a neat explanation! Thank you!

 

[Vanessa]

So, to update this a bit, this is what I am currently sitting with.
0.2.0 Homoeomma sp. Blue (spermathecae above, but still waiting for more deveoped sample)
2.0.0. Thrixopelma sp. Blue (probably close to maturing judging by the size of my other Thrixopelma males)
0.1.1. Thrixopelma lagunas (spermathecae is really too small to compare to the Homoeomma sp. Blue)
I am suspecting that I might actually have 0.2.0 Thrixopelma lagunas.

Backlit

 

[Astroman6400]

So I guess the main problem I just studied from this whole post, is it would seem they are the same species but people all around the world seem to have multiple common names, and multiple scientific names and we can't agree on them?? Cause my only problem is the people arguing The Homeoemma is misidentified or that the Thrixopelma is misidentified is that goes both ways, Yeah I see people declaring they are certain there's is one species and that ours was misidentified. But the whole species is messed up I feel its safe to say they are all misidentified and we might have to diff species or we might have one that people are taking pics of at all diff stages of i'ts life. Because some have this red rump and some don't but I also noticed some of the photos are of slings, some are of juvis and some are adults, so the molts are going to make all their patterns look very diff. For example my P.Metallica's honestly were both white as as slings and juvis, now they are moving into sub adults and they both are finally showing that blue that really pops and the yellow and white bands on its legs. So I am just saying we all know that many tarantulas change quite a lot throughout their Life cycle. Caribena and Avicularia are 2 other perfect examples of tarantulas that literally look nothing like their slings when they are adults. Avicularia/Caribena also seemed to be pretty messed up haha specially with all the diff Morph's which IMO aren't a real thing (have a few supposed Morph 1,2 and 6 Avicularia's they all look the same, seems like a way to jack up prices ) but that's just me. Some humans are tall some are short, I think that is all these morphs are, if you look at 100 baby slings they don't all look the same, some have slightly diff shades, its just genetics IMO!

 

[Vanessa]

So I guess the main problem I just studied from this whole post, is it would seem they are the same species but people all around the world seem to have multiple common names, and multiple scientific names and we can't agree on them??

Yes, it is best to do an identification of full grown adults, although there are some species who have very specific physical traits at the smaller sizes. Even spermathecae is better used when they are mature, as it can change throughout their lives. Scientific papers are going to be using adults, so you really should try to compare an adult to the information in the scientific paper, or understand that they might not be identical.
Yes, we've always known that common names are problematic and basically worthless when identifying a species. People have been making up common names to sell more spiders forever. There are lots of species who are not yet identified and we do have to be careful of people who used unidentified names on identified species to make it look like a new species as well.
Yes, the people who are taking them out of the wild are often not qualified to identify even full grown adults properly and can misidentify them for various different reasons. They could be completely guessing based solely on the majority of species in the area coming from one genus. That is where you get comments like "Euathlus is the dumping ground for unknown Chilean species", because there are areas where the vast majority of species are Euathlus and people assume that the spider they have taken out of the area is a Euathlus when it might not be.
When you take this hobby as a whole, only a very small portion are going to care that much about what species they have outside of liking the way it looks. Many of these spiders never reach adulthood, because people lose interest. Not identifying a spider properly doesn't impact sales overall, so there is really no advantage for them to go to that much effort to do so.

 

[Jess S]

I bought a Homoeomna sp blue Peru 2 / "Midnight Blue Bird eater" sling from The Spider Shop last year. A Facebook post from them said it was not to be confused with Thrixopelna lagunas, as although they look identical the males had different shaped bulbs and the females different shaped spermathecae.

Few weeks ago I noticed they are selling slings of Thrixopelma lagunas. The listing says it is one of 2 species that has been sold as Homoeomma sp blue but now are known to be Thrixopelmas.

The most common is Homoeomma sp blue small = now is Thrixopelma cyaneolum.

Homoeomna sp blue large / also sold as Euathlus pulcherrimaklassi = now Thrixopelma lagunas

As I've seen H. sp blue Peru 2 sold under both that name and E. pulcherrimaklassi before does this mean that it is the same as blue/large and should now be called Thrixopelma lagunas? Or is blue Peru 2 a different variant than blue/large and does indeed have different reproductive organs to lagunas? I have emailed TSS for clarification but havent heard anything back yet so was wondering if anyone can shed some light on this.

Edit:. Just found this thread ( https://arachnoboards.com/threads/w...blue-peru-vs-homoeomma-sp-blue-2-peru.303829/ ) and I think it's helped me to answer my own question.

Looks like Homoeomma sp blue/large/ Homoeomna sp blue Peru 2 / Euathlus pulcherrimaklassi are all different names for the one species that should be now called Thrixopelma lagunas. It is a larger species than the below.

Homoeomma sp blue small / blue Peru 1 again are all one smaller species that should be now called Thrixopelma cyaneolum.

Please correct me if any of that is incorrect.

 

[c.h.esteban]

I can just say still the same as in 2015.

...The best way is compare every single specimen. ...

A Facebook post from them said it was not to be confused with Thrixopelna lagunas, as although they look identical the males had different shaped bulbs and the females different shaped spermathecae.

And to this i will only note, ist there any proof that their lagunas stock is the same like the specimens which was described as T. lagunas?

 

[Jess S]

@c.h.esteban thanks for responding. Although I'd hoped for clarity, it does seem that we are still in need of comparing each specimen!!

And to this i will only note, is there any proof that their lagunas stock is the same like the specimens which was described as T. lagunas?

Good question, and unfortunately one that I don't know the answer to..