Malaysian Brown?

[Theraphosid Research Team]

But then again I personally do not think that one should consider Chilobrachys grouped too closely with the rest of the present Selenocosmiinae due to the structure of the retrolateral cheliceral strikers ;-)

SÖÖÖÖREN, PLEASE!!!!!

 

[Steve Nunn]

sorry for that, but I'm ABSOLUTELY NOT of your opinion.

Hi Volker,
I disagree with you here my friend I disagree in that the tarsal scopula division is indeed taxonomically informative, so long as you are examining adult specimens!! But, you must know, this is an ontogenetic condition, as with all apomorphic characters, this state only appears as the spider matures. This is typical ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny and is well covered and documented For this reason alone any and all phylogenetic examination should involve ONLY mature adult specimens, to reflect the true phylogentic nature of the group. To do otherwise is a mistake. Any examination of any juvenile specimen will point out plesiomorphies which will not exist on mature specimens, the reverse is also true for apomorphic characters.

Also, many characters do NOT BEHAVE WELL, even homologous characters. All is never as black and white as you may believe Remember crossover species?? They do exist in nature and cannot be ignored. More on them soon

Additionally, as you said, this character only shows it's true form when the spiders are mature, well, this was the point of the work presented at the last International Congress of Arachnology!! So, there is work (in press, Ghent 2004) to show this (tarsal scopula division) is unequivocally taxonomically informative Now you mentioned a Chilobrachys sp. with undivided scopula on met IV, you tell me, should that fact alone refute the evidence found in higher clades??? Please remember crossovers and character behaviour when thinking of this. All is not so black and white.

Furthermore, on the subject of this "genus", there are many characters that work very well in the entire group of Selenocosmiinae, with the exception of this "genus" lumped as it is. Look at the tarsal claw morphology of this genus, the spermethecal morphology and lastly, yes, the striker/lyra formation. I believe the biggest problem with this genus are the "crossover" species. Finding the line here is VERY difficult and as a result the monthetic defintion of this subfamily remains unresolved, to this day. If you can show me, uneqivocally, that you can present a true monothetic defintion for the Selenocosmiinae based on your findings, then I will recant. Until then, I beg to differ In all honestly, I would not be surprised at all to see the Chilobrachys sorted in a more orderly fashion, because right now as it stands, this genus is a mess.

I am not ignoring any of the other characters you mentioned, but, I am considering the bigger picture (see Ghent, in Guadanuchi 2004), you yourself said the character shows as "mostly" divided, even in mature specimens. You cannot forget ontogeny when looking at phylogeny, the two concepts work hand in hand. Synapomorphies are the "golden egg", as we all know, well, synapomorphic characters are NOT stable in juveniles!!!! This was the problem at the turn of the century when so many juvenile specimens were incorrectly described. I don't need to state the obvious, there are dozens of examples in this regard.

So, at this stage, I will disagree with you because of the above points.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi Steve,

nice explanation of onthogeny and phylogeny. Reminds me on Haeckel - but Haeckel is dead for a long time! To my opinion (based on my examinations) the more larger a tarantula will become, the more undivided the scopula on Tarsi IV will be! That is what I wanted to say, when I've mentioned that: "In young but not full-grown but matured females of Chilobrachys species, you can often find a division of the scopula on Tars. IV. In large matured females of the same Species, the scopula is mostly undivided!"
In one and the same genus you can often find smaller Species in which the females will have divided scopula on Tarsi IV during their whole live, wheras the females of larger Species will become more and more undivided scopulation on Tarsi IV. So, obviously there is a coherence between bodylength and scopula division (which would explain why juveniles ever have divided scopula on Tarsi IV). In this case this character has NO phylogenetical signal for the Selenocosmiinae (BTW, this means something else than a taxonomical signal). This is the case in Chilobrachys, which is a well defined genus, with some good synapomorphies of their species. This Genus is definitely no mess (how much Chilobrachys Species have you examined, that you come to the conclusion that this genus "is a mess"? - I have examined Typematerial of 15 Species). A Tribe named Phlogieae with Coremiocnemis, Phlogius and Phlogiellus (please define this genus for me based on the characters of the Typespecimen! ) is - concerning my preliminary and unpublished analysis of the Selenocosmiinae - paraphyletic! The division of scopula on Tarsi IV is homoplastic within the Selenocosmiinae!
I've made a little phylogentic analysis for you with 11 characters and 8 Species (based on the examination of the Type Material) which is shown below. I've used characters concerning the stridulating organ, division of Scopula, genital morphology, abdominal markings, Labium characters and Setae characters (can send you the NDE-file if you like).
Especially character 1 is interesting, because he defines the fimbriatus/dyscolus/nitelinus clade. This character is "our" "Scoplua on Tarsi IV: 1= divided; 0= undivided". As you can see, a group which is named Phlogiae and which should include all the Species with divided scopula in my analysis is Paraphyletic (see arrow with questionmark)! A Paraphyletic group isn't a natural group! So, if there will be a resurrection of the Phlogieae and Selenocosmieae, then hopefully it will defined by more and better characters than the division of Scopula on Taris IV! If a group which is named Phlogieae will really consist of the above mentioned genera, then this would mean that a lot of good and homologous characters within the stridulating organ and genital morpholgy are definitely ignored!
If you don't ignore such characters, you will receive an analysis which resembles that one below, with TWO different main branches (Sel. effera/Phlogius vs. Chilobrachys).
At least: I am a person which really doesn't think in "black or white" - otherwise I wouldn't use so many different characters and haven't read so much literature of so different phylogenetic and taxonomical theories. There is one person here in germany which comes to his conclusion following the "black and white"-principle! You know who I mean! And I will never hear that I work in his way!
BTW, I will meet Jose Guadanuchi on the comming Weekend. Then I will talk with him about the usability of the division of Scopula IV as a phylogenetic character!

 

[Steve Nunn]

nice explanation of onthogeny and phylogeny. Reminds me on Haeckel - but Haeckel is dead for a long time!

Hi Volker,
Yes, it is "Heackel's law", do you disagree with this principle??? If you do I know some folk who would beg to differ After all, you know the old story to cite this law, how we all have gills as unborns, lose those as we mature, etc...

To my opinion (based on my examinations) the more larger a tarantula will become, the more undivided the scopula on Tarsi IV will be! That is what I wanted to say, when I've mentioned that: "In young but not full-grown but matured females of Chilobrachys species, you can often find a division of the scopula on Tars. IV. In large matured females of the same Species, the scopula is mostly undivided!"

Mostly undivided?? Tell me, can it still be noted that the tarsi is even "weakly" divided??

In one and the same genus you can often find smaller Species in which the females will have divided scopula on Tarsi IV during their whole live, wheras the females of larger Species will become more and more undivided scopulation on Tarsi IV. So, obviously there is a coherence between bodylength and scopula division (which would explain why juveniles ever have divided scopula on Tarsi IV). In this case this character has NO phylogenetical signal for the Selenocosmiinae (BTW, this means something else than a taxonomical signal).

This is an interesting response In that you can relate an apomorphic character (clearly defined as so based on examination with rellevant sister groups), yet your findings contradict Heackel's law. Or, do they?? See my above question

This is the case in Chilobrachys, which is a well defined genus, with some good synapomorphies of their species. This Genus is definitely no mess (how much Chilobrachys Species have you examined, that you come to the conclusion that this genus "is a mess"? - I have examined Typematerial of 15 Species).

So you agree on the placement of all spiders in this genus?? Given the variation in spermethecal morphology, lyra morphology, etc??? I'm a bit surprised you would say this???

A Tribe named Phlogieae with Coremiocnemis, Phlogius and Phlogiellus (please define this genus for me based on the characters of the Typespecimen! )

What I can do is define the genus for you based on all types within the genus As you would be aware, males are needed for strong support for placement in this genus. Third claw leg IV, cracked tarsus IV, divided scopula tarsus IV, reduced to absent lyra and a keeled embolus (which you may not know was ammended by Raven in 1990 to suit his 1985 work). The finding of the keeled embolus was not one of Schmidt and Haupt and could not be confined to their "Yamia" group. Yamia belong in the Phlogiellus, the keeled embolus is a very solid character state for this genus and other Selenocosmiines show the reduction in the lyra Other characters need be eliminated from this group if working only with females (such as intercheliceral spines, etc). How'd I do???

is - concerning my preliminary and unpublished analysis of the Selenocosmiinae - paraphyletic! The division of scopula on Tarsi IV is homoplastic within the Selenocosmiinae!
I've made a little phylogentic analysis for you with 11 characters and 8 Species (based on the examination of the Type Material) which is shown below. I've used characters concerning the stridulating organ, division of Scopula, genital morphology, abdominal markings, Labium characters and Setae characters (can send you the NDE-file if you like).
Especially character 1 is interesting, because he defines the fimbriatus/dyscolus/nitelinus clade. This character is "our" "Scoplua on Tarsi IV: 1= divided; 0= undivided". As you can see, a group which is named Phlogiae and which should include all the Species with divided scopula in my analysis is Paraphyletic (see arrow with questionmark)! A Paraphyletic group isn't a natural group!

I think this is a quick answer to a larger problem though without a monothetic defintion for the subfamily, results like this continue. Have you resolved the issue in the bigger picture, homology for the Selenocosmiinae?? I can see the paraphyly with your cladogram, but in this I am getting way out of my league!!! I enjoy systematics Volker, but cannot perform them well enough to come to my own conclusions!! Besides I do NOT have access to the types or programs you do I will recant and revert to yourt opinion for now

So, if there will be a resurrection of the Phlogieae and Selenocosmieae, then hopefully it will defined by more and better characters than the division of Scopula on Taris IV! If a group which is named Phlogieae will really consist of the above mentioned genera, then this would mean that a lot of good and homologous characters within the stridulating organ and genital morpholgy are definitely ignored!

Depends on what is the most parsimonious conclusion for the group (as you know convergence is common and usually found in even the most homologous group ), of which I am again out of my league and cannot do the number crunching myself.

If you don't ignore such characters, you will receive an analysis which resembles that one below, with TWO different main branches (Sel. effera/Phlogius vs. Chilobrachys).
At least: I am a person which really doesn't think in "black or white" - otherwise I wouldn't use so many different characters and haven't read so much literature of so different phylogenetic and taxonomical theories. There is one person here in germany which comes to his conclusion following the "black and white"-principle! You know who I mean! And I will never hear that I work in his way!

Oh no, I know that!!!! My point is that convergence does not always rule out a character, it depends on what is most parsimonious for the group (for example we know parrallel evolution exists and is an obvious explanation in many cases, despite the homoplasy!!). Even homologous characters do not always behave well, and the bottom line is at present there is NO solution to the Selenocosmiinae, so, many questions remain unanswered to this day

BTW, I will meet Jose Guadanuchi on the comming Weekend. Then I will talk with him about the usability of the division of Scopula IV as a phylogenetic character!

Now that would be a great conversation, let me know what he says, please

Thanks for the time Volker, I always learn a thing or two from you!!

Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Good Morning Steve,

Hi Volker,
Yes, it is "Heackel's law", do you disagree with this principle??? If you do I know some folk who would beg to differ After all, you know the old story to cite this law, how we all have gills as unborns, lose those as we mature, etc...

Yes, I do in your strict way! The problem with using the ontogeny is, that you can't decide whether a character, which is devoleped during ontogeny, is a recapitulation or a caenogenesis. You can use the onotegny as ONE further feature to come to a phylogeny, but not as the only one! If so, it wouldn't be neccessary to create phylogenetic trees with the help of computer programs based on the parsimony principle! But everyone is doing that in this way! By the way, my opinion to that is not based because of my "intuition"! It's based of what I have read in my numerous books about phylogenetic systematic!

Mostly undivided?? Tell me, can it still be noted that the tarsi is even "weakly" divided??

Decide for yourself. Below you'll see a picture of the Tarsi IV from Chilobrachys dyscolus!

This is an interesting response In that you can relate an apomorphic character (clearly defined as so based on examination with rellevant sister groups), yet your findings contradict Heackel's law. Or, do they??

No! Let's comming back here to the basic of our discussion: Sören mentioned some characters by which the Chilobrachys "burmensis" can be identified. He mentioned the undivided scopula of Tarsi IV, which seems to be not so common within the Genus Chilobrachys, because a lot of other Species of this genus - especially not so large growing species - have a divided scopula. So, in this case, this seems to be ONE good taxonomical(!!!) feature on SPECIES-level to differentiate the SPECIES/Species-groups of this Genus! Then you came in and purported that a divided Scopula on Tarsi IV is obviously a phylogenetical(!!!) key feature (=autapomorphy) for a Tribe named "Phlogieae". The rest of the discussion is history.
So,
A) Sören is right in stating that the division of Tarsi IV could be ONE(!!!) taxonomical feature to distinguish this Chilobrachys species from a lot of other Species within this Genus!
B) You are right in stating that the division of Scopula on Tarsi IV is obviously a plesiomorphy - but not for a hypothetical group named "Phlogieae". Following your argumentation AND my short analysis (s. above), it is a plesiomorphy of the Selenocosmiinae, and the changing into the character state "undivided Scopula" obviously took place several times independently, namly in large females of Selenocosmiinae, like Chilobrachys dyscolus and Selenocosmia javanensis for example (you won't really suppose that both Species belong to one monophylum?!)! Again, if the didvided scopulation of Taris IV is a typical character of juvenil Selenocosmiinae (to my opinion it is!), then it is the plesiomorphic character state for this character-complex, but then you can't state it as a autapomorphy of the "Phlogieae", because in this case, the other "monophylum" would be the Species with undivided scopulation and should be named as "Selenocosmieae". But as you can see in my little analysis with SEVERAL characters which seems to be homologous, this "Selenocosmieae" would be Paraphyletic, because, DON'T FORGET TO ANALYSE AND BRING IN AS MUCH HOMOLOGOUS CHARACTERS AS YOU CAN FIND AND DON'T WEIGHTING THEM BEFORE THE PHYLOGENETICAL ANALYSIS!!!!!
I have nothing against ontogeny, but it's only one possibility to support or reject a phylogentic hypothesis. To my opionion (and I'm obviously really not allone with that ) you can't base a phylogenetic hypothesis ONLY on ontogeny! In every case I would first made a phylogenetic computer analysis and then I would compare my results with biogeografic facts, with palaeontological facts, with the ontogeny and so on!
Because of my analysis with several characters I will be still of the opinion that Coremiocnemis valida and Coremioscnemis cunicularia have NOTHING nearer to do with Species from Australia like "Coremiocnemis tropix"! That's my opinion based on my examinations and analysis! But we should wait until Raven's work is out, because then I also know the "technical facts" - the basics - of his analysis! In this Forum here, it doesn't make any sense to discuss about "opinions"!

So you agree on the placement of all spiders in this genus?? Given the variation in spermethecal morphology, lyra morphology, etc??? I'm a bit surprised you would say this???

Absolutely, following my temporary analysis of this Genus based on the Material I have examined! If the genus Chilobrachys should be divided into more "genera" or whatever, because of some "variation", I had to accept paraphyletic groups - never can do that!
BTW, what is so variable in Chilobrachys, that you think of splitting this genus?

What I can do is define the genus for you based on all types within the genus

So, you have examined the Holotype of the Type-Species Phlogiellus atriceps? You have examined - for example - also the Types from Phlogiellus aper and Phlogiellus bicolor? When? If you have, then please tell me into which genus Phlogiellus aper in reality belongs to (it's very easy to find out)!

As you would be aware, males are needed for strong support for placement in this genus. Third claw leg IV, cracked tarsus IV, divided scopula tarsus IV, reduced to absent lyra and a keeled embolus (which you may not know was ammended by Raven in 1990 to suit his 1985 work). The finding of the keeled embolus was not one of Schmidt and Haupt and could not be confined to their "Yamia" group. Yamia belong in the Phlogiellus, the keeled embolus is a very solid character state for this genus and other Selenocosmiines show the reduction in the lyra Other characters need be eliminated from this group if working only with females (such as intercheliceral spines, etc). How'd I do???

I understand, but think of my words above: don't weighting a character BEFORE an analysis. Because of this, I would be careful in saying that intercheliceral pegs should be eliminated! Maybe you are right, maybe not! Who knows, we will see!
BTW, Schmidt is an old grandpa, so, please don't mention his "fairy tales" here!

I think this is a quick answer to a larger problem though without a monothetic defintion for the subfamily, results like this continue. Have you resolved the issue in the bigger picture, homology for the Selenocosmiinae??

Of course, but what has this to do with the question whether the Selenocosmiinae can be divided into two monophyletic groups (Phlogieae, Selenocosmieae) by a plesiomorphic character (see my opinioin above)?

Depends on what is the most parsimonious conclusion for the group (as you know convergence is common and usually found in even the most homologous group ), ...

Right, and that is exactly the reason why it is not so good to prefer or weighting characters BEFORE an anlysis - although a character should be evaluated concerning the homolgy criterions. If a character is developed analogous, a good analysis will show it, because it will be a homoplastic character.

... and the bottom line is at present there is NO solution to the Selenocosmiinae, so, many questions remain unanswered to this day

Really? Let's wait until the first analysis came out. Then we have a hypothesis (and nothing more is a phylogenetic tree) to discuss about!

I have the impression that we are alone in this Threat here!
Hello...? Heeeelllooo...??? Nobody there! Maybe to complicated!

With all my very best and have a nice day, Steve

Volker

 

[AR-Tarantula]

Thanks

Actually I have quite enjoyed this thread and would like to see more of this type of discussion. Very enlightening.

 

[Socrates]

Hello...? Heeeelllooo...??? Nobody there! Maybe to complicated!

Yep, WAY too complicated for me. But I certainly learned a whole lot.

(Sitting here with god-knows-how-many online dictionaries open so that I hopefully understand all of it. )

---
Wendy
---

 

[phormingochilus]

Chilobrachys dyscolus:


Pet trade C. sericeus:


Supposed indian species (I have my doubts if this truly is from india):


Pet trade C. andersoni:


All is from large adult females.

I have no recent shots of tarsus IV in adult females of C. fimbriatus, hardwicki or nitelinus, but all of the different Chilobrachys pet trade and localotype specimens I have examined none but the "burmensis" has had undivided tarsal scopula on leg IV which is why I included this to distinguish this species from the other Chilobrachys types in the hobby in the intial reply. I know Volker have found a better way but that is his way ;-)

And at last a not so often seen species in the hobby: C. nitelinus ;-) Thanx Volker for the confirmation of the initial identification ;-)



Regards
Søren

 

[Steve Nunn]

Yes, I do in your strict way! The problem with using the ontogeny is, that you can't decide whether a character, which is devoleped during ontogeny, is a recapitulation or a caenogenesis. You can use the onotegny as ONE further feature to come to a phylogeny, but not as the only one! If so, it wouldn't be neccessary to create phylogenetic trees with the help of computer programs based on the parsimony principle! But everyone is doing that in this way! By the way, my opinion to that is not based because of my "intuition"! It's based of what I have read in my numerous books about phylogenetic systematic!

Hi Volker,

Of course, I agree totally, ontogeny is only one aspect of determining phylogeny, I just wasn't sure on your stance regarding Haeckel

No! Let's comming back here to the basic of our discussion: Sören mentioned some characters by which the Chilobrachys "burmensis" can be identified. He mentioned the undivided scopula of Tarsi IV, which seems to be not so common within the Genus Chilobrachys, because a lot of other Species of this genus - especially not so large growing species - have a divided scopula. So, in this case, this seems to be ONE good taxonomical(!!!) feature on SPECIES-level to differentiate the SPECIES/Species-groups of this Genus! Then you came in and purported that a divided Scopula on Tarsi IV is obviously a phylogenetical(!!!) key feature (=autapomorphy) for a Tribe named "Phlogieae". The rest of the discussion is history.

Hmm, yes, I did say that the tarsal scopula division in adults was a phylogenetic key feature, but I didn't say it was an autapomorphy. what about a character that's symplesiomorphic in this clade?

B) You are right in stating that the division of Scopula on Tarsi IV is obviously a plesiomorphy - but not for a hypothetical group named "Phlogieae". Following your argumentation AND my short analysis (s. above), it is a plesiomorphy of the Selenocosmiinae, and the changing into the character state "undivided Scopula" obviously took place several times independently, namly in large females of Selenocosmiinae, like Chilobrachys dyscolus and Selenocosmia javanensis for example (you won't really suppose that both Species belong to one monophylum?!)!

No

Again, if the didvided scopulation of Taris IV is a typical character of juvenil Selenocosmiinae (to my opinion it is!), then it is the plesiomorphic character state for this character-complex, but then you can't state it as a autapomorphy of the "Phlogieae", because in this case, the other "monophylum" would be the Species with undivided scopulation and should be named as "Selenocosmieae".

Yes, but could you consider this character symplesiomorphic?? Therefore a strong character for phylogeny, as opposed to typical plesiomorphy??? Bear with me, I'm trying to learn and you teach well

And, it of course depends on the clade as to the determined polarity of the character, but, that is not in question here, we are looking at "Phlogieae" within the Selenocosmiinae .

But as you can see in my little analysis with SEVERAL characters which seems to be homologous, this "Selenocosmieae" would be Paraphyletic, because, DON'T FORGET TO ANALYSE AND BRING IN AS MUCH HOMOLOGOUS CHARACTERS AS YOU CAN FIND AND DON'T WEIGHTING THEM BEFORE THE PHYLOGENETICAL ANALYSIS!!!!!

Agreed, yes I understand this...

I have nothing against ontogeny, but it's only one possibility to support or reject a phylogentic hypothesis. To my opionion (and I'm obviously really not allone with that ) you can't base a phylogenetic hypothesis ONLY on ontogeny! In every case I would first made a phylogenetic computer analysis and then I would compare my results with biogeografic facts, with palaeontological facts, with the ontogeny and so on!

Of course, I understand basic phylogenetic principles Volker

Because of my analysis with several characters I will be still of the opinion that Coremiocnemis valida and Coremiocnemis cunicularia have NOTHING nearer to do with Species from Australia like "Coremiocnemis tropix"! That's my opinion based on my examinations and analysis! But we should wait until Raven's work is out, because then I also know the "technical facts" - the basics - of his analysis! In this Forum here, it doesn't make any sense to discuss about "opinions"!

I agree totally, but the idea of the Phogieae being a distinct group is mine, so there is no concern here But, it is true, it is very difficult to come to any real argument (good one ) without any form of either yours or Raven's finished reviewed work. Opinions mean literally nothing here, and that is my reasoning, so I will shut up for now

Absolutely, following my temporary analysis of this Genus based on the Material I have examined! If the genus Chilobrachys should be divided into more "genera" or whatever, because of some "variation", I had to accept paraphyletic groups - never can do that!

Ahh, very cool then, did not know you had a nice tight group discovered through analysis, very cool, I would like to see it!!

BTW, what is so variable in Chilobrachys, that you think of splitting this genus?

I'll answer this one in private if you don't mind

So, you have examined the Holotype of the Type-Species Phlogiellus atriceps? You have examined - for example - also the Types from Phlogiellus aper and Phlogiellus bicolor? When? If you have, then please tell me into which genus Phlogiellus aper in reality belongs to (it's very easy to find out)!

You know I have not Have you examined Simon's old type P.aper, very cool I bet you and Borris are the only ones so far to have seen P.bicolor too But this is unimportant really, isn't it??? I gave you the characters I know of and you did not disagree with me, can you name any that are more important, and why this is so?? Were you expecting me to not know that most true Phlogiellus males possess the keeled embolus??? ;P That's no big secret!

I understand, but think of my words above: don't weighting a character BEFORE an analysis. Because of this, I would be careful in saying that intercheliceral pegs should be eliminated! Maybe you are right, maybe not! Who knows, we will see!
BTW, Schmidt is an old grandpa, so, please don't mention his "fairy tales" here!

Yes, quite true, it is hard to eliminate characters without an anylsis, silly boy me!! Schmidt?? OK, best not to start

Of course, but what has this to do with the question whether the Selenocosmiinae can be divided into two monophyletic groups (Phlogieae, Selenocosmieae) by a plesiomorphic character (see my opinioin above)?

Well, like I said, is there a possibility this is a symplesiomorphic character???

I have the impression that we are alone in this Threat here!
Hello...? Heeeelllooo...??? Nobody there! Maybe to complicated!

LOL, this is too complicated for me too!!!:worship:

But I do learn as we move on

Thanks Volker,
Steve

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Believe me friends, Your little russian friend is always where You are, Volker, Steve, Rafn!
Thanks for such a useful discussion!
Always like to hear a lot from You

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi Steve,

my sarcastic comment concerning Haeckel "he's dead" was meant in that way, that there are some further developed theories at the moment which based on Haeckel (for example Nelson 1978) and which seems to be a bit better than the "recapitulation dogma". But I see, we agree in that the ontogeny is one aspect of phylogeny!

Hmm, yes, I did say that the tarsal scopula division in adults was a phylogenetic key feature, but I didn't say it was an autapomorphy. what about a character that's symplesiomorphic in this clade?

Well, if you support the theory that there are two monophyla within the Selenocosmiinae, which should named as "Phlogieae" and "Selenocosmieae", you need autapomorphies, which defines them as two seperate monophyla, and you need synapomorphies which defines them as sistergroups. As I've showed within my arguments and within my little analysis (above), the division of the scopula on Tarsi IV is a symplesiomorphic character [it's available in the outgroup (BTW, outgroup is Plesiophrictus), the Phlogius/Selenocosmia Clade and in the Chilobrachys calde]. A symplesiomorphy has no phylogenetic value for the queston whether there are natural groups within the Selenocosmiinae (=Phlogieae/Selenocosmieae), because it is available in the outgroup an it can not define one or the both groups, because it's available within the most species of both groups, so it's clearly not an autapomorphy of the Phlogieae (between you and me, I think that it is yet a plesiomorphy of the Theraphosidae)!

I agree totally, but the idea of the Phogieae being a distinct group is mine, so there is no concern here

Ahh, can you tell me which genera/species should belong to your Phlogieae and by which characters this Tribe should be defined?

I'll answer this one in private if you don't mind

No problem! I'll wait for your e-mail!

You know I have not Have you examined Simon's old type P.aper, very cool I bet you and Borris are the only ones so far to have seen P.bicolor too

Boris doesn't have examined the Type from P. bicolor. It was only examined and documented by me!

But this is unimportant really, isn't it??? I gave you the characters I know of and you did not disagree with me, can you name any that are more important, and why this is so?? Were you expecting me to not know that most true Phlogiellus males possess the keeled embolus??? ;P That's no big secret!

It's not the question of disagreement concerning the characters you've mentioned. It's another problem: you've mentioned some interesting characters of which I believe - at he moment - that they are useful for a taxonomic and/or phylogenetic work. Obviously you've recognised this characters within a group of Species which are presumedly related to each other. You've used the name "Phlogiellus" for this group of Species. I've asked you concerning the Typeexamination of the Typespecies Phlogiellus atriceps, because this is the so called "name bearer" for this Species AND for the Genus! This means, if you call a group of species "Phlogiellus", it should be clear, that they are really related to Phlogiellus atriceps! Is this the case for the australian "Phlogiellus"? If yes, why?

It seems that there is indeed still folk in this Threat!:clap:

Cheers, Volker

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Ha-ha... Volker, Steve...
==========
Quote: I agree totally, but the idea of the Phogieae being a distinct group is mine, so there is no concern here
>Ahh, can you tell me which genera/species should belong to your Phlogieae >and by which characters this Tribe should be defined?
===========
Having being thinking a lot recently and took a general look at all theraphosid groups I've found some thoughts inside that stuff which is at the end the neck : firstly, I proposed myself that there must be different subspecies for Cyrio's and Phormingochilus if both are considering valid at the end of Your findings and second - Let's remove Psalmopoeus from Selenocosmiinae but it is not belonging to Avics as well I think, but maybe the different independent group...
I believe this makes some little sence (but only a *little* because at least I'm not professional biologist but a lawyer) since it borns inside my mind

Your above quoted words remind me about those thoughts

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

I also wonder Steve!
What is this white-banded (legs) tarantula covering the whole Aussie in Your avatar? or it's just a trick of the monitor? (no white bands on legs?)

 

[Aviculariinae]

YAWN, when do we start talking about the difficult stuff.

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi,

as I've told before, I've met Jose Guadanucci yesterday and we've talked about the usability of the divided scopula on Tarsi IV as a synapomorphy within the ingroup of Theraphosidae. He agreed with my opinion, that the divided Scopula on Tars IV is obviously a plesiomorphy of the Theraphosidae and therefore it can't be used as an autapomorphy of a hypothetical group like the "Plogieae" within the Selenocosmiinae. He stated that the undivided characacter state of this character could be possibly used as an autapomorphy for a monophyla within the Theraphosidae, but concerning that assumption, I've showed above that this character state is not stable and not useful as a homologous character, because it creates paraphyletic or even polyphyletic groups.
BTW, Steve, what's with answering my question in my last posting concerning the "Phlogieae" and the genus "Phlogiellus" in australia?

Cheers, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi Volker,
Thankyou for clarifying the divided scopula issue for me So the character has toxonomic use, but most likely not phylogenetic in the Theraphosidae.

Well, now I must recant on the tribus Phlogieae for now, given that the other character states I know of are also found in many of the Selenocosmieae, it would therefore not make any sense at all to continue thinking the Phlogieae are valid, for now anyway (I cannot claim to therefore know of an autapomorphy, synapomorphy or symplesiomorphy to support a homologous tribus separate to other Selenocosmiinae).

As for Phlogiellus, the type for the genus is known as P.inermis, not P.atriceps, so I'm not sure what you are saying!! However, I do know that Pocock's genus Phlogiellus was errected in 1897, when he first described P.atriceps and in the same paper, nominated Ischnocolus inermis as the type for the genus (or are we all wrong and he actually nomiated P.atriceps as the genotype????). If the type was lost (which as I understand it, it is not, just a little bruised ), then a new genotype would need to be described in a complete subfamily revision. Therefore, I would not be comparing our material to P.atriceps as it is only one species in the group, but the type for P.inermis would be of more important comparison. If I am incorrect and P.inermis is lost, then there is still no type designated to represent the genus (it cannot be taken for granted that the other species described in 1897 would then immediately become the genotype, for that would be an assumption outside of a revision!!)! Anyway, given the descriptions and revisions over the years, P.inermis and P.atriceps have always remained in the Phlogiellus and there is not one shred of published material to say otherwise. So, for me to compare the Australian material to the known Phlogiellus that I have would seem quite acceptable. Can you say otherwise?? And if so, why?? Also, as you know I have not examined the types and don't claim to have, but there is sufficient material and publications for me to base this assumption on, not one publication being an original description (hence, written in the ice age!!). After all, I am not publishing these findings in a peer reviewed work, just doing some basic taxonomy and classification and discussing such on this public forum

Now, why would you ask this anyway??? I've mentioned the characters I believed rellevant to the genus Phlogiellus, of which you agreed. I've examined our material and in agreement with Raven have placed it in the Phlogiellus.

Perhaps a better question might be, what do you believe differentiates described Phlogiellus from what will become the genus Phlogius??? Once you tell me this, I can then answer based on your thoughts Additionally, you may be interested to know we have a species or two here (females, not just males) with teeth on the STC IV, but no third claw!! They fit readily into the Phlogius group Thought you may be interested, I know you haven't seen this character state in other theraphosids Whether or not the teeth remain plesiomorphic in the group I cannot say, I know the loss of the third claw is apomorphic, but has very little value in phylogenetic analysis, will wait on Raven's conclusions before I assume.

Also, sorry for no private mail yet, I've been very busy finalising my export paperwork!! As you can imagine the difficulty in getting legal export of any live animal out of Australia for commercial purposes is almost impossible. However, my approval is through, just waiting on the final paperwork

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi Steve,

... As for Phlogiellus, the type for the genus is known as P.inermis, not P.atriceps, so I'm not sure what you are saying!!

Phlogiellus inermis is NOT the Typespecies of Phlogiellus! Don't believe the catalogs in all cases! Ask Raven, he has examined the Type from Phlogiellus in the beginning of the 80's in BMNH, but Phlogiellus inermis is deposited in NMW! Only Phlogiellus atriceps is deposited in BMNH and that's moreover definitely the Type-Species of this Genus following the rules of ICZN and Pocock's original description [see Huber, S. (2005): Arachnologische Bemerkungen I: Die wirkliche Typusart der Gattung Phlogiellus Pocock, 1897 (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Selenocosmiinae). Arthropoda 13(1), pp. 2 - 4]

However, I do know that Pocock's genus Phlogiellus was errected in 1897, when he first described P.atriceps and in the same paper, nominated Ischnocolus inermis as the type for the genus (or are we all wrong and he actually nomiated P.atriceps as the genotype????).

Definitely wrong! As you stated, he described Phlogiellus atriceps in his Paper from 1897 for the first time. In this Paper her described the Genus Phlogiellus, gave a generic definition, decribed the one and only - at that time - Species for this genus (namely atriceps) and gave the hint, that it could be, that Ischnocolus inermis belongs to that species. But this was only a hint, characterizes by a questionmark. So, because of the fact that Phlogiellus atriceps is still a valid species, it is undoubtedly the Type Species of this Genus. BTW, in Pocock's "Fauna of british India" he stated concerning his genus Phlogiellus within a gloss "Based upon a Javan Species, P. atriceps ..." (page 202). So, it's very clear, that as long as Phlogiellus atriceps is a valid Species and not really synonymized with Phlogiellus inermis, it is DEFINITELY the Type-Species and ALL questions concerning the characters of Phlogiellus has to be answered by the examination of the Type from Phlogiellus atriceps, which is deposited in London!
So, again: Which characters does the australian "Phlogiellus" share with the Type of Phlogiellus atriceps which has his distribution in JAVA?

So, for me to compare the Australian material to the known Phlogiellus that I have would seem quite acceptable.

NO!

Can you say otherwise??

YES!

And if so, why??

Because, every identification has to be based on the examination of the Type Specimen of the contemplable Species. Otherwise you'll work like a well known hobby "taxonomist" here in Germany! If you are on generic level, you have to examine the Type Specimen of the Type-Species! Especially, if you are working within a non revised group, as it is the case for Phlogiellus!
My own - unpublished - examinations on Phlogiellus Species showed, that Phlogiellus is a kind of "trash can" for a lot of small Selenocosmiinae, but which have nothing nearer to do with each other. In most cases the "Phlogiellus" Species seems to derive from a well known genus, became smaller, Tarsi IV became "cracked and bent" and a reduction of the Stridulating spines took place. For example, concerning genital morphology and shape and arrangement of Stridulating Spines (compare Phlogiellus subarmatus and Phlogiellus inermis), the most Phlogiellus Species are so different => poloyphyletic!!!! In most cases they only share the divided scopula on Tarsi IV= the plesiomorphy for the Theraphosidae, hahaha!
So, because of the heterogeniety of the Phlogiellus Species, you should always verify "your" australian "Phlogiellus" on the Type of Phlogiellus, namely Phlogiellus atriceps, because this is the only REAL and for SURE Phlogiellus Species, because it's the so called "name bearer" of this Genus!

Perhaps a better question might be, what do you believe differentiates described Phlogiellus from what will become the genus Phlogius???

You mean, what differentiates the Phlogiellus atriceps (Type Species) from Phlogius crassipes (Type Species)?
I will give here only an overview, because I don't want to feed my enemies with informations (maybe Schmidt reads this). Both Species are very different in genital morphology, especially from the males, in structure, number and shape of Stridulating spines, in division of the scopula from the Tarsi of all legs and in size of sternalsigilla behind.


@Aviculariinae:
Was this difficult enough??? ;P

Cheers, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

Phlogiellus inermis is NOT the Typespecies of Phlogiellus! Don't believe the catalogs in all cases! Ask Raven, he has examined the Type from Phlogiellus in the beginning of the 80's in BMNH, but Phlogiellus inermis is deposited in NMW! Only Phlogiellus atriceps is deposited in BMNH and that's moreover definitely the Type-Species of this Genus following the rules of ICZN and Pocock's original description

Good morning Volker

Then you have indirectly answered my question as Raven placed our specimens with keeled emboli in the Phlogiellus and he has examined both P.atriceps and P.inermis (along with most of the genus) for that matter. Considering that he definately examined the male of P.atriceps, this would be very hard to argue against without additional data To top it off he has published the result!!

So, again: Which characters does the australian "Phlogiellus" share with the Type of Phlogiellus atriceps which has his distribution in JAVA?

I've given you the characters I know of for Phlogiellus already, yes, they still support Raven's examination of P.atriceps!! I'm still waiting to hear why you think our material does not belong to this genus, polyphyletic or not (the Selenocosmiinae are paraphyletic, but we still work from that base, because nothing else is published to say otherwise!! Same with the Phlogiellus.), it's irrellevant at this stage, the group remains as is and until they are sorted, our fauna best fit into that group!! If I do ignore these facts, then firstly I am not following published results (right or wrong ) and secondly I would be unable to place them accurately in any other group, to which they obviously would not belong.

Because, every identification has to be based on the examination of the Type Specimen of the contemplable Species. Otherwise you'll work like a well known hobby "taxonomist" here in Germany! If you are on generic level, you have to examine the Type Specimen of the Type-Species! Especially, if you are working within a non revised group, as it is the case for Phlogiellus!
My own - unpublished - examinations on Phlogiellus Species showed, that Phlogiellus is a kind of "trash can" for a lot of small Selenocosmiinae, but which have nothing nearer to do with each other. In most cases the "Phlogiellus" Species seems to derive from a well known genus, became smaller, Tarsi IV became "cracked and bent" and a reduction of the Stridulating spines took place. For example, concerning genital morphology and shape and arrangement of Stridulating Spines (compare Phlogiellus subarmatus and Phlogiellus inermis), the most Phlogiellus Species are so different => poloyphyletic!!!! In most cases they only share the divided scopula on Tarsi IV= the plesiomorphy for the Theraphosidae, hahaha!
So, because of the heterogeniety of the Phlogiellus Species, you should always verify "your" australian "Phlogiellus" on the Type of Phlogiellus, namely Phlogiellus atriceps, because this is the only REAL and for SURE Phlogiellus Species, because it's the so called "name bearer" of this Genus!

I answered this above, the diagnosis was made from examination of most Phlogiellus spp., including but not limited to P.atriceps. So the group is, according to your unpublished (and therefore, untested and not reviewed!!) results, polyphyletic, it does not matter. Until the group is sorted (which I agree with you, another waste basket for small theraphosids), there are NO results to say otherwise, despite your findings!! ;P In support of my conclusion, again, Raven examined the material you mention and he was the first to name some of our fauna as Phlogiellus, all I have done is follow the recently published findings to determine that is indeed where our fauna best fits. In this regard I had no other option!! So I still disagree with you being critical of my diagnosis (which follows Raven)

Both Species are very different in genital morphology, especially from the males, in structure, number and shape of Stridulating spines, in division of the scopula from the Tarsi of all legs and in size of sternalsigilla behind.

Yes, I agree, although determination of sigilla morphology is a difficult one, due to the known variation in species from even the same location!! Sigilla vary greatly among species of the Asian fauna, something you will not determine looking at types alone!! To determine the morphology of the sigilla accurately, you would need a very large cross section of local fauna for comparison, along with identified specimens of the type you would be examining. You cannot look at the type alone in many cases (due to morphological variation), but identify conspecifics to support the morphology of the type and determine stability of the character state! This I fear you may not have done.

Cheers,
Steve

P.S. It's nice to have a good healthy debate, even though we are in disagreement on some issues, I always learn something from you, thankyou

 

[Crotalus]

I have the impression that we are alone in this Threat here!
Hello...? Heeeelllooo...??? Nobody there! Maybe to complicated!

No just too...euhmm..boring
Sorry but this aint my cup of tea but for those who enjoy taxanomy im sure they have a blast

/Lelle

 

[Nerri1029]

I have the impression that we are alone in this Threat here!
Hello...? Heeeelllooo...??? Nobody there! Maybe to complicated!

I just found this thread.
NO. It's not too complicated.
But I have done only about 5% of what I feel it would take for me to participate

Let me pose this question..

If DNA fingerprinting becomes the norm for genotyping T's won't many of these arguements be mute?

I would still imagine that finding/ being certain of holotypes would create some heated discussions.

anyway.. please continue.. this is educational.