Hybrid?

[_bob_]

Here's a picture of their spermatheca for later on.

http://tarantulas.tropica.ru/files/images/spermatheca.jpg

 

[DrAce]

Once again, I don't even use common names, I don't like them either. But I remember in an old ATS magazine that there was an ''official'' common names list, so that if the cientific name changes (or miss label, bad ID's, etc), you have the other name ONLY as a reference. Only this I could think as an advantage.
I know how taxonomy studies are done. But it depends who is doing the work, taking different characteristics into consideration to classify species. For example, one scientist could put the Grammostola genus within 6 species only, an another could say there are 30 different species. Grammostola's genitalia are identical in many species and very similar in somatics as well.
Do you get my point?

Pato.

Pato, you have missed the point completely.

Common names are completely informal, and are based on nothing more than the colour of the tarantula. If an ATS group were trying to set up an 'official' list of common names, then they are doing nothing more than trying to rename the scientific ones.

Species are actually classified a little more rigorously than you think, apparently.

 

[_bob_]

i just found one of her molts from a long time ago... i'll see if i can produce any pictures.

 

[Stylopidae]

Hi,

a picture of it's Stridulation organ may be usefull as well.
They are quite different in both species.

Cheers,
Tom

I actually just came here to add that.

I have a P. irminia female who just moulted. I could totally get a pic of her stridulators up sometime tonight.

 

[pato_chacoana]

That's not what I mean, on how are named, name them by numbers if you want! or whatever, it's just as a reference, to know the spider you are talking about, well nevermind... Of course the official names are scientific.
Yes are classified so rigorously, that's why there are hundreds of synonymy haha, just kidding. But well, take a look at Schmidt's works, that's scary...like 20 new species per year! or maybe 0? (till someone corrects......)

Pato

Pato, you have missed the point completely.

Common names are completely informal, and are based on nothing more than the colour of the tarantula. If an ATS group were trying to set up an 'official' list of common names, then they are doing nothing more than trying to rename the scientific ones.

Species are actually classified a little more rigorously than you think, apparently.

 

[_bob_]

Psalmopoeus cambridgei


Heres the best I could do... Its really small so I had to use my scope.

 

[Stylopidae]

Looks like cambredgei to me.

 

[_bob_]

Same here... I'm trying to get one of the stridulating organ right now

 

[DrAce]

Based on the diagram we had before, that's cambredgei, without doubt.

 

[_bob_]

Psalmopoeus cambridgei


This is the best I could do

 

[Larkin]

From Strid organ it looks like P.cambridgei, too.

There should be another difference -the shape and location of the Sternal sigillen. But this feature is less exposed.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[dtknow]

all this being said...what would it look like if it was a hybrid? did anyone preserve molts from any hybrid cambridgei? You'd think that the spermathecae would be intermediate in form...though with traits like that in crosses its not always the case.

She's a looker for sure.


Also just because they may or may not be the same species(look different enough to me) does not mean we should cross them. Their is no/very little gene flow between them in the wild.

 

[MalevolentScorp]

I believe it would be a possibility that p.irminia / p.cambridgei hybrid offspring could have been accidental, since in many cases (atleast some that i have seen in pictures and in person) that mature males of both species look identical. They are hard to tell apart, especially if the mature male was mis-identified to startoff with.

 

[lewisskinner]

Pato, you have missed the point completely.

Common names are completely informal, and are based on nothing more than the colour of the tarantula. If an ATS group were trying to set up an 'official' list of common names, then they are doing nothing more than trying to rename the scientific ones.

Species are actually classified a little more rigorously than you think, apparently.

I can see both sides of this debate, but I have an example for you.

Since the age of around 5, I've known that I wanted a Mexican red-knee tarantula (I saw them in Indiana Jones, and then at my local zoo).

If I had looked up the scientific name then, I'd have found Euathlus smithi. Nowadays though, this is actually less useful than the common name, Mexican Red-knee!

Of course, this is only one example. The "Chinese bird spider" refers to at least three species, H. hainanum, H. huwenum and H. schmidti. "Earth Tiger" may related to all of the above, as well as many Cyriopagopus and Lampropelma spp.

Sorry. Point being, both can be useful.

 

[DrAce]

...
If I had looked up the scientific name then, I'd have found Euathlus smithi. Nowadays though, this is actually less useful than the common name, Mexican Red-knee!

Of course, this is only one example. The "Chinese bird spider" refers to at least three species, H. hainanum, H. huwenum and H. schmidti. "Earth Tiger" may related to all of the above, as well as many Cyriopagopus and Lampropelma spp.
...

Wouldn't looking it up give you Brachypelma smithi? And B. smithi is just as useful as Mexican Red-Knee, which also refers in some places to other Brachypelma species.

 

[lewisskinner]

I'm just making a point Dr Ace. I notice you have lept upon the point that opposes yours, rather than commenting on those which agree with you. Are you unable to accept that some people have different points of view to yourself? Even worse, that some people can see both sides of the argument? I was not jumping in to argue, rather to mediate, but you're aparently too self-engrossed to realise that.

How about Chilean Rose? Or Curly-hair? Or Pink-toe (Martinique or Guyana)? Or red-leg? Goliath Birdeater? These spiders are well-established in the pet trade, so their names are not changing (nor indeed changable). By the same token, their scientific names are very unlikely to change, but I have already highlighted at least one which has in my lifetime.

For something like the Singapore blue, the common name is very useful. Some are calling it a Cyripagopus sp. "blue", and others say it is actually the original Lampropelma violaceopes, but at least two other species have been misidentified (and sold) under this latter name in the past 20 years or so. For those two species, the scienftific name was wrong. For this current species, even it's genus is unknown/unconfirmed! At least a common names lets us all be certain we're talking about the same spider - no point me sending my MM to someone who think he has a corrisponding female, only to find they're different species!

Now as I have said, something like "Chinese Bird Spider", or "Mombasa golden starburst" are not very useful, but aer you telling me that if I said OBT, GBB or Cobalt Blue, you'd not instantly think Pterinochilus murinus, "green bottle blue"/Chromatopelma cyanopubescens and Haplopelma lividum?

 

[DrAce]

Lewis,

I have no need to comment on points that I agree with. I agree with them.

MY point is that there has never been a consensus within common namings. You suggest Chilean Rose, but I know that has existed under other names. Pink toes are often used for any Avic, and 'red-leg' equally so.

I appreciate the offer of mediation, but I really don't see it is required. Scientific names have been misassigned, but the point of this discussion is that they are largely set in fast-drying cement, unless there is a very good reason for altering the name. Common names come and go with the store, including the ones you suggested above.

And if there was a poor classification of a genus or species, it CAN be ratified under the conventions for species naming. That is also not to say that someone can give the spider the wrong name when identifying it... but that's not a fault with the system. It's a fault with the biologist.

 

[lewisskinner]

So is the point here not that both the common names and the sacientific names are useful, if not valid?

"Mexican red-knee" will mean something to the majority of people,(even those who do not know Tarantulas can picture this) whereas B. smithi may not. That said, as a newbie, I am trying to learn scientific names.

It is like learning a new language. When most people here hear the term Brachypelma smithi, they think of a 4-6" terrestrial spider, mostly black, but with red patellae, and occasionally prone to kicking its setse. the ammateur/newbie, will think "B. smithi... Ooh, that's a Mexican red-knee ain;t it?" and will then recognise both.

To simplify, we need the "English" names, to allow newbies to convert fro their "latin" names, but both are equally valid and changable.

 

[pato_chacoana]

Lewis,

Exactly my point about the Cyriopagopus sp. blue/ Lampropelma violaceopes. That is just what I meant, and nothing else!! You expained it much better with that example.

Dr.Ace, do you understand now? that SOMETIMES a common it can bue useful?

case closed.

Pato.

 

[DrAce]

The point you keep glossing over is highlighted below. Red-knee means something to most people. B. smithi is concrete. Even if it doesn't help the newbies, it's a concrete indentification.

I am unfamiliar with the reasons why the Lampropelma violaceopes name was incorrectly attached to some tarantulas. Is that because the species didn't actually exist, or is that because someone in the hobby miss-identified something and so starting giving the wrong name to something.

If it was an actually scientific error, then the process exists to change it.

And I completely disagree with you on the last portion of your statement... Scientific names and common names are not equally changable. They may be equally changable by the layman, but not in proper usage.

So is the point here not that both the common names and the sacientific names are useful, if not valid?

"Mexican red-knee" will mean something to the majority of people,(even those who do not know Tarantulas can picture this) whereas B. smithi may not. That said, as a newbie, I am trying to learn scientific names.

It is like learning a new language. When most people here hear the term Brachypelma smithi, they think of a 4-6" terrestrial spider, mostly black, but with red patellae, and occasionally prone to kicking its setse. the ammateur/newbie, will think "B. smithi... Ooh, that's a Mexican red-knee ain;t it?" and will then recognise both.

To simplify, we need the "English" names, to allow newbies to convert fro their "latin" names, but both are equally valid and changable.

...
Dr.Ace, do you understand now? that SOMETIMES a common it can bue useful?
...

Common names are useful to the newbie. I agree with that. However, they are severely limited, because - as described more than once above - they are interchangable and they often double-up for some species. For that very reason, scientific names are given to organisms where (in theory) one species will have one name.
There are mistakes made in both systems, but there are actually rules to protect the scientific ones. Nothing similar exists for the common names.