kellygirl's pictures

[littlefoot]

Wow, those are amazing pictures! Your mature male A. versicolor is gorgeous, such great colors on him! *drool*

 

[FryLock]

that last pic looked like a classic close call to me

 

[Ker]

Gorgeous pics !! I am beginning to wonder if the legless thing is the new trend in Cobalts.. my poor girl is missing TWO

 

[DnKslr]

Nice hair clip you have there. Where can I get one of those?

 

[RichardDegville]

I'm sorry but in my opinion your Avicularia azuraklaasi TESMOINGT, 1996 just looks like a plain Avicularia avicularia in the photos granted a nice spider but I didn't notice any orange hairs on tarsus they are clearly pink in the photographs in Marc Tesmoingts original description orange tarsus and thicker orange hairs on on the third and fourth pairs of legs is the defining characteristic separating azuraklaasi from its subjective synonyms ( mind you he did describe from 2 exuviums that in my opinion could have faded)
This is one genera that needs a close look at as most of us hobbyist just don't know what we are keeping/labelling any more with the pet trade the way it is.
still fantastic photos!!!

 

[word]

great pics! do you do anything to calm your t's down before you handle them? i'm quite sure mine would flick hairs at me the whole while!

 

[Pterinochilus]

Hi!

How do you handle your Haplopelma's ? , My Sub-Adult H.Albostriatum is a bit unpredictable , sometimes when i only touch her tank she allready rears-up but when i bought her and placed here in her new home she was calm and even non-defensive

Greets
Tom.

 

[Gene]

Sweet!

Thanks for sharing the pics. I have got to find a camera with good macros so that I can start sharing nice pics too. Mostly my digicam is just good enough to make the T look small. I have some slings that I want to take pics of too and they are so tiny I need macros.

 

[Steve Nunn]

I'm sorry but in my opinion your Avicularia azuraklaasi TESMOINGT, 1996 just looks like a plain Avicularia avicularia in Marc Tesmoingts original description orange tarsus and thicker orange hairs on on the third and fourth pairs of legs is the defining characteristic separating azuraklaasi

And that's the problem when people like Testmoingt try to describe a species. I haven't read the paper, but if that's what he believes are the defining characters for the species then it shouldn't even be a species in its own right. Colour is just not stable enough to prove a new species. And if someone ever gets around to an Avicularia revision, this species should be synonymised. Sorry guys, but it could well be just another A.avic, A.azuraklaasi shouldn't even exist, a taxonomist would never had described it based on those characters alone.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Gene]

Maybe they are only "sub-species" of Avicularia avicularia but there are distinct differences. Not everyone has to appreciate them, but I do. -Kelly

Me too. I couldn't care less what they are called as long as I know what to look for when purchasing. Avics are one of my all time favs regardless.

 

[Steve Nunn]

Not everyone has to appreciate them, but I do.

-Kelly

Hi Kelly,
I agree. What you have may indeed be slightly different to a 'standard' A.avic, but probably the same species, just found in a different location to what is more commonly known as A.avicularia. A single species can vary greatly in colour, take G.rosea as a classic example. There is the standard colour and the red phase. Same species, but they look quite different. In fact, these two colour phases can be found in the one egg sac.

Either way I agree your spider is beautiful.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Martin H.]

Hi Steve,

In fact, these two colour phases can be found in the one egg sac.

I am curious if these eggsacks in which this has been observed (by whom?) have been eggsacks from CB bred or CB mated specimens or from WC specimens which have been mated in the nature.

all the best,
Martin

 

[FryLock]

Kelly there both beautiful avic's anyold way, but Steve A.azuraklaasi must be a real species iv seen at least 3 differnt spiders under that name

 

[RichardDegville]

And that's the problem when people like Testmoingt try to describe a species. I haven't read the paper, but if that's what he believes are the defining characters for the species then it shouldn't even be a species in its own right. Colour is just not stable enough to prove a new species. And if someone ever gets around to an Avicularia revision, this species should be synonymised. Sorry guys, but it could well be just another A.avic, A.azuraklaasi shouldn't even exist, a taxonomist would never had described it based on those characters alone.

Cheers,
Steve

I whole heartedly agree with you Steve its a sad shame but some taxa is based
on differences like a few additional leg spines, slightly variation
to the genitalia, etc. ... all normal variations found in any given
species and population ... even individuals from the same eggsac.
One of the biggest problems with theraphosids (and mygalomorph
taxonomy) is that their anatomical structures are so primitive and
variable and require enormous population and range sampling ... not
one or two specimens ... to determine if you have a new species.
DNA profiling is more exact but complicated and requires working
with an additional expert in that field. With some Taxonomists described new species based on exuvia ... needless to say,
specimens continue to grow and change and moults crumble in museum thus rendering the 'type' useless (west 2004)
I have said this before look at Eskimos and Europeans take for instance the skulls they are different does this mean we are a separate sp? I think not geographical and geomorphologic regions where theraphosids are found are indeed very diverse thus leading into slight evolutionary differences but does a slight difference denote a news sp? I would say a synonym yes or maybe a ssp but sp no I have been reading the Avicularia avicularia (Linne 1758) description this morning ( thanks Martin and Brendan for that ) but in all honesty it has no real meat to it and is utterly useless if I would like to compare with say Avicularia braunshauseni etc etc and I would imagine the Avicularia avicularia 'type' has been lost so back to square one.

 

[Steve Nunn]

I am curious if these eggsacks in which this has been observed (by whom?) have been eggsacks from CB bred or CB mated specimens or from WC specimens which have been mated in the nature.

Hi Martin,
Info from Rick West (personal communication). I don't know if the offspring were CB or not.

@ Frylock, I'm not really surprised you've seen at least three different looking spiders under that name.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Cooper]

Awesome, I really need a p. regalis!

 

[DnKslr]

Awesome photos Kelly! That's incredible those P. regalis actually live peacefully together. I've heard of some avics being kept that way but I've never seen poecs together.

 

[Cooper]

From what I have heard, poecilotheria are even more communal(and I use "communal" lightly) than avicularia.

 

[Rico]

Is it just me or do some people just get a little bit too anal when it comes to the proper name of a specific T??? No matter what the exact name is, does that make it any less beautiful.

If my name was Noah, lets say I was builiding a big azz boat and had to have 2 specimens of every living organism in the entire world in order to repopulate the earth after the flood came and wiped everything out...well then I might care what was getting on board. As it turns out I'm just some guy who really likes tarantulas and could actually care less about all of that. As long as it catches my eye I'll add it to my collection. Am I alone in this line of thinking??

 

[kellygirl]

To help AB save some space, I'm putting all my tarantula photos here:

http://community.webshots.com/user/princessarachne

Enjoy!

-Kelly