- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 604
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Identification: "Bought as Hysterocrates hercules"
- Thread starter Tugbay Yagci
- Start date
Anothr less than lucid answer?
BillS,
Also, FYI...I was after a certain color phase of the Ornate Nile Monitor for quite a long time. I looked high and low for years to no avail, the reason being that the habitat where this variety occurs was right in the middle of very unstable, dangerous territory in Cameroon. So an animal being scarce to nonexistent in the hobby due to conditions in it's home habitat is hardly unprecedented, even in my own direct, limited experience.
Also, FYI...I was after a certain color phase of the Ornate Nile Monitor for quite a long time. I looked high and low for years to no avail, the reason being that the habitat where this variety occurs was right in the middle of very unstable, dangerous territory in Cameroon. So an animal being scarce to nonexistent in the hobby due to conditions in it's home habitat is hardly unprecedented, even in my own direct, limited experience.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 2,114
Whatever dude. You just want someone to give you want you want to hear.
You start a thread on another board, and bash the response you got here.
You can't ask about a spider you bought as H. hercules and not expect folks to discuss the problematic nature of this name, and the spiders which have been sold as such.
Best answer... it looks like a Hysterocrates species. There are very few individuals in the world who could comment any further than that by looking at your pictures... and actually have a solid basis for their comments.
You were linked to Richard's post about the nature of Hysterocrates in captivity, and despite being quite few years old now, I doubt much has changed. Maybe he will respond to your post on the BTS forum.
Take care,
Eric
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 604
I'm getting pretty far off of the Id thread here,:8o
Not that I mind a good pissing contest once in a while but I feel that I have made my point and you seem to refuse to either acknowledge or understand it. Many of the points you are making are perfectly valid but have little to do with what I am obviously failing to convey and appear to me as simply sidestepping. That's a game with no end and is just too reminiscent of arguing with my girlfriend, might be she's right, it is me...
Sorry if this is what you were going to say about me, but you already used that one anyway.
I also apologize for my apparent shortcoming in lucidity and bow to your superior talent for deflection and tenacity.:worship:
Bill
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,168
I would listen to Eric, he knows this kind of stuff better than most people on these boards.
I would just label it as: "Hysterocrates sp. (purchased as hercules)" and let it be for now.
I would just label it as: "Hysterocrates sp. (purchased as hercules)" and let it be for now.
I do understand your point. The more difficult it is to access the animal, the rarer it is likely to be in captivity. But that doesn't make it impossible. And to follow up on this using your example - a friend of mine, a herpetologist, has been doing field work with the Goliath frog in Cameroon. Yes, there are difficulties in that region. But people do go there.
Well, since the ID issue is tied in with determining whether the animal exists in the hobby, and you suggest that it doesn't - I'll stretch this aspect of the thread a little further. (But I can't help you win arguments with your girlfriend.)
You may be right that the animal does not exist in the hobby. But your arguments have not supported that claim, at least in what I can see in them. I'll try to summarize why I think you have failed to support the argument - and you can point out where I have misunderstood. And maybe fill in the blanks.
You started off with "as far as I know Richard Gallon still maintains they are not in the hobby". OK - does "as far as I know" stem from recent communication with him? Or just a rumor you once heard? Big difference, but you haven't clarified.
You seemed to be under the impression that people can't just go to a museum and look at type specimens - but that's not true. I've done it myself in several institutions in several countries.
You indicated that if someone did manage to look at type specimens they would have published something. Why? I've not had any reason to publish on any type specimens I've examined, and doubt that most people do.
If someone compared a specimen they had with a type specimen and were then able to identify it as that species - there's still no reason (in most cases) to publish a paper on it. Most of the people I know who use type specimens or other known specimens to identify something in their own collections do not publish a report on it - they just make their own notes and label their own specimens.
I gather from other posts here that the original description for H. hercules left a lot to be desired. Unfortunate, but certainly not unheard of. However, that does not mean that other people haven't made notes, sketches or descriptions based on the type specimen. Can you be certain that during the 110 years since the original description that NOBODY has done this?
I'm not trying to have a pissing contest with you - but trying to pin down how valid your claim is that the animal doesn't exist in the hobby. You've avoided direct straight answers and brought in smilies, girlfriends and deflections.
So I'll ask one last time (perhaps a little more clearly this time?) - what actual evidence do you have that nobody has made comparisons of privately collected animals with the type specimen?
And if it will help - if you have an answer like "the museum has a list of everyone who has looked at the specimen in the past 50 years and the reasons for which they looked at it, and that list was made public on such-and-such a date" - that would certainly qualify as a lucid, meaningful answer.
If you have no such answer - then maybe we can both drop this line.
Picture...
Tugbay,
Found a photo of H. hercules that might help you........it's in the species link...
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/spiderchris/
Tugbay,
Found a photo of H. hercules that might help you........it's in the species link...
http://www.angelfire.com/anime/spiderchris/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 2,114
Holy crap that is a brutal website.
Does that mean it's good or bad?
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 604
Again apologies for continuing the thread hijack...
A simple yes or no would be fine here, though I doubt that’s likely or even possible so…
Guess I’ll waste a bit more time then, still feel that this is (and will be taken as) more or less redundant to what I’ve previously stated.
With my (likely somewhat flawed) impression of how the process of validating (a spider in this case) as a particular species works, you’re the one (or anyone actually) who has the obligation to provide evidence that someone has done it. Until then I can rightly state that “it doesn’t exist in the hobby!”
Assuming your premise that someone could have already done it, they would then have go through a process, sounds like you would be more familiar with it than I. It would probably consist of things like having to document the findings, publish in a peer reviewed journal, address any questions, etc. Once it is accepted by whoever does these things, it becomes “official”, or however you’d like to call it. Then and only then can you say your material is H. hercules. Until that time you can say what you have is “similar to H. hercules”, “possibly H. hercules”, “looks like H. hercules” or even “probably is H. hercules”. You can call it whatever you want but that does not make it “officially accepted”, meaning for all (except your, obviously) intents and purposes no one can claim it currently exists. You can't really think that just anyone can claim anything they want with no peer review and be taken seriously?
Well, maybe some people in some cases but not this one…
If you’re real point through all of this is only that there may well be a spider somewhere out there that really is the same as the originally described one then that’s true. However, no one can rightfully use the name H. hercules until all the official hoops have been jumped through. I see it as being similar to a registered trademark, you’re infringing/bootlegging if not officially sanctioned.
So… You still cannot claim a spider by that name exists anywhere except the one in the BMNH.
Now lets hear again how vague my point is and is again totally lost to you, I have great faith that you will have the last word in this.
Bill
Let me first get something clear here, before I waste any more time on this. You’re saying that because I can’t prove with documentation that no one has compared material to the type at the British museum then I can’t be correct in saying “H. hercules doesn’t exist in the hobby”?
A simple yes or no would be fine here, though I doubt that’s likely or even possible so…
Guess I’ll waste a bit more time then, still feel that this is (and will be taken as) more or less redundant to what I’ve previously stated.
With my (likely somewhat flawed) impression of how the process of validating (a spider in this case) as a particular species works, you’re the one (or anyone actually) who has the obligation to provide evidence that someone has done it. Until then I can rightly state that “it doesn’t exist in the hobby!”
Assuming your premise that someone could have already done it, they would then have go through a process, sounds like you would be more familiar with it than I. It would probably consist of things like having to document the findings, publish in a peer reviewed journal, address any questions, etc. Once it is accepted by whoever does these things, it becomes “official”, or however you’d like to call it. Then and only then can you say your material is H. hercules. Until that time you can say what you have is “similar to H. hercules”, “possibly H. hercules”, “looks like H. hercules” or even “probably is H. hercules”. You can call it whatever you want but that does not make it “officially accepted”, meaning for all (except your, obviously) intents and purposes no one can claim it currently exists. You can't really think that just anyone can claim anything they want with no peer review and be taken seriously?
Well, maybe some people in some cases but not this one…
If you’re real point through all of this is only that there may well be a spider somewhere out there that really is the same as the originally described one then that’s true. However, no one can rightfully use the name H. hercules until all the official hoops have been jumped through. I see it as being similar to a registered trademark, you’re infringing/bootlegging if not officially sanctioned.
So… You still cannot claim a spider by that name exists anywhere except the one in the BMNH.
Now lets hear again how vague my point is and is again totally lost to you, I have great faith that you will have the last word in this.
Bill
Does that mean that you do not believe the picture at the link I posted earlier is H. hercules?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 604
Couldn't say one way or the other whether it is the same sp. spider as the one originally described as such. What I do believe is that they can't legitimately call it H. hercules...
Bill
Bill
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 604
Yup, people believe what they want to believe, seems to be an underlying theme in this thread.
Actually I didn't even bother to look at the picture, it wouldn't have mattered what the picture was of or who took it for me to conclude what I did.
I can see why most of those who could clear this up here, don't bother anymore, kind of unfortunate...
Here is a link to a thread where there is a picture of one that I do believe is real.
Bill
Actually I didn't even bother to look at the picture, it wouldn't have mattered what the picture was of or who took it for me to conclude what I did.
I can see why most of those who could clear this up here, don't bother anymore, kind of unfortunate...
Here is a link to a thread where there is a picture of one that I do believe is real.
Bill
- Joined
- May 9, 2008
- Messages
- 995
totally agree!
Im originally from s.korea and i think none of ppl back home know about that Hysterocrates hercules are not in T hobby now.
tons of Hysterocrates gigas are being sold as 'Hysterocrates hercules '(common name =hercules baboon tarantula).
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 927
You can tell by the long narrow carapace and the enlarged rear legs that it's
not H.Hercules.But going by the pictures you posted I would guess it's a
H.Gigas.But I can't be 100% sure by looking at a picture.It would be a lot
easier to ID if I had it in front of me.The last and only time true H.Hercules
came into the United States was in 1995.Thay were imported by Glade Herp
and only 5 came in.I would almost bet there isn't a live specimen in the US at
this time.Unless 1 of Glades Herp import are still alive.The last and only time I
ever saw a H.Hercules was in Germany in 1997.It was a large female a little
more than 8".I tried to buy it.But he would not sell it at any price.It had a
large almost round carapace and large abdomen.But what I remember most
it was the olive sheen on it's legs.One truely impressive TARANTULA.When I
returned to Germany a couple of years later I found out that it died.He told
me while he was feeding it bolted and fell off his table and died a few days later.Over the last 25 years I bought H.Hercules 25 different times and never
received a real H.Hercules.That 1 T i'll never forget.
not H.Hercules.But going by the pictures you posted I would guess it's a
H.Gigas.But I can't be 100% sure by looking at a picture.It would be a lot
easier to ID if I had it in front of me.The last and only time true H.Hercules
came into the United States was in 1995.Thay were imported by Glade Herp
and only 5 came in.I would almost bet there isn't a live specimen in the US at
this time.Unless 1 of Glades Herp import are still alive.The last and only time I
ever saw a H.Hercules was in Germany in 1997.It was a large female a little
more than 8".I tried to buy it.But he would not sell it at any price.It had a
large almost round carapace and large abdomen.But what I remember most
it was the olive sheen on it's legs.One truely impressive TARANTULA.When I
returned to Germany a couple of years later I found out that it died.He told
me while he was feeding it bolted and fell off his table and died a few days later.Over the last 25 years I bought H.Hercules 25 different times and never
received a real H.Hercules.That 1 T i'll never forget.