Malaysian Brown?

[phormingochilus]

Nope - then the discussion would be which DNA sequence to use as marker for genus or species etc ;-) Nothing is simple ;-)

Søren

I just found this thread.
Let me pose this question..

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

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi Steve!

Good morning Volker

I'm still waiting to hear why you think our material does not belong to this genus, polyphyletic or not

Do I have said anywhere that your Material doesn't belong to Phlogiellus? I only have asked you for the characters which defines Phlogiellus in your opinion and I also gave a hint, which is the real Type of Phlogiellus. Nothing more. So, I haven't disagreed to your opinion that Phlogiellus is maybe available in australia! The fact that I haven't examined Phlogiellus Material from australia until now, does not mean necessarily that there is no Material from that Genus in Australia. You live there, and if you say that Raven, who has obviously examined the real Type from Phlogiellus, has identified australian Selenocosmiinae belonging to Phlogiellus, I have to believe this!

(the Selenocosmiinae are paraphyletic

Uhhhh, what a "hot" assumption!

So I still disagree with you being critical of my diagnosis (which follows Raven)

Again, I haven't said that I disagree with you concerning your annotations! I've just asked for characters!

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.

Your statement above is absolutely right, but believe me, Steve, I have examined A LOT of Material from all over asia (besides the Types). Within my personal collection there are more than 1000 Specimen from asian Theraphosids (not mentioned the lots of unidentified Material I have examined in the different Museums). So, if I give statements about characters, I HAVE examined the stability of this character! I'm sure I have examined more different Material from all over asia, than you have!
Anyway, we've cleared up the situation concerning the division of Tarsi IV and for the time being we agree in the presence of Phlogiellus in Australia! So, I think the situation is fine then!

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

For ME it's also a very successful situation in having a so intense debate about phylogenetic/taxonomic opinions concerning asian Theraphosidae with you. :clap:
Remember, there are not much tarantula keepers which are interested in Systematic and which are erspecially interested in systematic of asian Theraphosidae (usually it's only Sören, Martin and Boris). I've enjoyed the discussion, but for now we should wait untill we receive more informations from Dr. Raven to have a future "discussion base"!

Cheers, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

Do I have said anywhere that your Material doesn't belong to Phlogiellus? I only have asked you for the characters which defines Phlogiellus in your opinion and I also gave a hint, which is the real Type of Phlogiellus. Nothing more. So, I haven't disagreed to your opinion that Phlogiellus is maybe available in australia!

Hi Volker

Actually, no, you haven't said that, perhaps I just got the feeling that's what you were thinking, I see now

Again, I haven't said that I disagree with you concerning your annotations! I've just asked for characters!

I see, cool beans

Your statement above is absolutely right, but believe me, Steve, I have examined A LOT of Material from all over asia (besides the Types). Within my personal collection there are more than 1000 Specimen from asian Theraphosids (not mentioned the lots of unidentified Material I have examined in the different Museums). So, if I give statements about characters, I HAVE examined the stability of this character! I'm sure I have examined more different Material from all over asia, than you have!

Oh yes, most definately you have!! But, concerning the Javan Phlogiellus material, the type in question, how many specimens of this species have you seen?? Then, what about geographic variations of that species?? Then how many congenerics have you seen to map the variation in those to give a character such stability for the Phlogiellus?? I'm sure you get my point. I know of a work in progress whereby 50 conspecifics have been collected and put into research, exactly to map the variation see in the one species, the researchers consider this a minimal number to accurately (as close to as humanly possible anyway) map the variation too. The numbers were required due to the variation seen among spiders in the same area, so geographical aspects and ranges were considered, specimens collected and logged into a database. This work is still very much in progress, but will yield some interesting results, given the number of specimens used. Of course this work will carry into other analysis too (phylogenetic, etc), but, like all major research work, this will take time to fully complete.

This is my point, we are limited by constraints that don't allow collection of such large numbers, hence an innacurrate result can take place. That said, I do understand that we need to work with something, so we make do with what we can, we still need to remember that all this type of work is flawed in human limitation. Knowing the variation I've seen in sternal sigilla morphology, I'm quite curious as to your findings on this character!! However I understand this isn't really the place to discuss unpublished (and therefore unprotected!!) work.

For ME it's also a very successful situation in having a so intense debate about phylogenetic/taxonomic opinions concerning asian Theraphosidae with you.
Remember, there are not much tarantula keepers which are interested in Systematic and which are erspecially interested in systematic of asian Theraphosidae (usually it's only Sören, Martin and Boris). I've enjoyed the discussion, but for now we should wait untill we receive more informations from Dr. Raven to have a future "discussion base"!

Yes, I don't often bump into people who can go on and on about taxonomy and phylogeny like I'm eager to do!! For most it seems either uninteresting or beyond comprehension, perhaps even not worth the effort to them, for me though, it's a passion I have. I'm really no expert, but I'm trying and learning a lot, it's people like you (and Raven, as you know ) who really teach me the most, thanks again :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :worship:

I agree, we will wait for Raven's work to be published, then, we will have a great time!!!! I allways remember systematic work is subjective and nobody's work is ever set into stone, for me, obtaing perspective from both sides of the planet puts me in a fantastic postion to obtain varied points of view, all worth understanding as best I can!!! There's no doubt in my mind the systematic of the Asian Theraphosidae is about the hardest clade in all mygalomorph analysis to figure out, I commend those of you that are attempting it!!!

Cheers,
Steve

 

[FryLock]

Yes, I don't often bump into people who can go on and on about taxonomy and phylogeny like I'm eager to do!! For most it seems either uninteresting or beyond comprehension, perhaps even not worth the effort to them, for me though, it's a passion I have. I'm really no expert, but I'm trying and learning a lot, it's people like you (and Raven, as you know ) who really teach me the most, thanks again :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :worship:

Well said Steve, although in my case I feel the same way about your post's and many others who say they have much to learn from Volker and others with his level of expertise.

But I think for many people (as iv learned myself at least) even at the most basic level in Theraphosid taxonomy i.e. trying to familiarise one’s self with what makes any given taxon a member of it’s genus subfamily ect, let alone far more complex phylogeny/systematic work is a whole boat load of legwork both intellectual and otherwise, i.e. with having to read one thing here but keeping in mind that part of what you have just read is no longer correct because of something you not long read elsewhere .

Of course that is unavoidable when knowledge is constantly growing and changing, but at the lower levels I think it may come down more to the disjointedness of sources of information then purely the complexly of the subject or esoteric terminologies (only at the lower levels I might add, If it’s to hard I cant understand it for sure) most people that have a interest but not a burning passion won’t bovver with the “legwork” be it paying for papers on interloan/translating works/sifting out of date work’s for the few scraps that are useful ect, but until there’s a “Complete Theraphosid Taxonomy for Dummies” I don’t see many way’s round it.

That could be put down to laziness but I think that would be unfair I don’t think that will be an easy one to over come as it’s just to much time (and possibly money) for many people to get involved even at a “lower” level but of course that’s not to say “normal” hobbyists can’t make huge contributions to knowledge (but I’m not talking about the few bad “Hobby taxonomists” in that statement), but I can understand anyone finding things perhaps to deep or daunting to even dip a toe in.

But all the same I think we should all be grateful to all those who share there info and there time on public fora be they those that have done more legwork then most in the form of book reading or the hard work of writing the book's we will refer to in time, because without them many of us would know bugger all to frank :worship:.

There's no doubt in my mind the systematic of the Asian Theraphosidae is about the hardest clade in all mygalomorph analysis to figure out, I commend those of you that are attempting it!!!

Don't go forgetting the Ischnocolinae, how many characters there are from shared ancestry and how many just coincidences (i bet some smarty arse knows) but they read like a grab bag if there ever was.

Oh no it’s getting to hard now im off .

 

[David_F]

But all the same I think we should all be grateful to all those who share there info and there time on public fora be they those that have done more legwork then most in the form of book reading or the hard work of writing the book's we will refer to in time, because without them many of us would know bugger all to frank :worship:.

Yep, I have to agree with this (and everything else you posted but that was one long quote! ). These discussions often go way, way over my head but they give me more to look up and learn. The deeper I get (and I'm still just barely scratching the surface ) the more interesting it becomes. So, thanks.

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Good Morning Steve!

Oh yes, most definately you have!! But, concerning the Javan Phlogiellus material, the type in question, how many specimens of this species have you seen??

Only the Typematerial!

Then, what about geographic variations of that species??

No geografic variations, because only the Typematerial is known to me.

Then how many congenerics have you seen to map the variation in those to give a character such stability for the Phlogiellus??

A lot, most Material I have examined comes from Malaysia and Singapure and belongs to Phlogiellus inermis. But I have a lot of further (probably undescribed) Material from the Philippines and a lot of Yamia Material from Taiwan, Thailand and Philippines examined.

I'm sure you get my point. I know of a work in progress whereby 50 conspecifics have been collected and put into research, exactly to map the variation see in the one species, the researchers consider this a minimal number to accurately (as close to as humanly possible anyway) map the variation too. The numbers were required due to the variation seen among spiders in the same area, so geographical aspects and ranges were considered, specimens collected and logged into a database. This work is still very much in progress, but will yield some interesting results, given the number of specimens used. Of course this work will carry into other analysis too (phylogenetic, etc), but, like all major research work, this will take time to fully complete.

Wow, that sounds very interesting and good, because such a work will bring definitely one more piece of the puzzle! Is it possible to hear which person is working on such an amazing study?

Knowing the variation I've seen in sternal sigilla morphology, I'm quite curious as to your findings on this character!! However I understand this isn't really the place to discuss unpublished (and therefore unprotected!!) work.

No, it's not so interesting as it sounds. It's simply the fact that Phlogiellus atriceps and Phlogiellus inermis (which are definitely related to each other - won't tell anymore here) have distinctly smaller posterior Sternallsigilla than it is the case in the whole Phlogius Material I have examined (mostly from New Guinea). Well, maybe this character distinction doesn't fit for all Phlogius, especially for those from Australia, but I think we agree in our opinions, that Phlogiellus is something different than Phlogius.

There's no doubt in my mind the systematic of the Asian Theraphosidae is about the hardest clade in all mygalomorph analysis to figure out, I commend those of you that are attempting it!!!

Well, that's another point in which we are absolutely disagree!;P

Good Night, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

Wow, that sounds very interesting and good, because such a work will bring definitely one more piece of the puzzle! Is it possible to hear which person is working on such an amazing study?

Hi volker!!
Raven, B.H.Baehr (from your neck of the woods, although she's here at the moment ) and Mark Harvey. I'm not sure if Martha Yánez is working on this project too, she might be... I'm presuming this work will be released as part of the Australian theraphosid monograph.

Well, that's another point in which we are absolutely disagree!;P

Besides the Ischnocolinae, what would you think is more complex then the phylogeny of the Selenocosmiinae??? Any mygale clade would be fine Given they are unresolved to this day, I'm quite curious!! Now this may open the discussion again and is something we have discussed, I know in yours and Raven's (1985) strict sense of phylogeny the Psalmopoeus readliy fit into the Selenocosmiinae, based on the lyra morphology. But, given the numerous examples of convergent evolution regarding this character in the mygalomorph clade (look at Barychelidae and particularly Dipluridae, worldwide I might add), what is your opinion on a typical case of obvious multiple convergence in such a clade (Mygalomorphae)???? Does this not tell you (particularly from a biogeographical aspect) that numerous cases of convergence are seen with the maxillary lyra in many mygales?? And how do you explain this to still support the Psalmopoeus in the Selenocosmiinae (even though it's on a lower hierarchical level)???

Thanks,
Steve

 

[M.F.Bagaturov]

Cos I'm still here but not so wise as You are, masters, but as for the systematic of theraphosids in general I think that asiatic groups are easier than newworlders at least...
This is clearly show by the fertile hybrids (albogans) and even inter-general hybrids known (Schultz) in wide range...
This is we not see among asian theraphosidae - this group is more stable and developed evolutionary than others as per my lawyer's opinion, even the close relative species hybrids are not vital (von Wirth)...

Do not pretend to be any realistic in this, just some my thoughts from the person really interested in all those, but not professionally...

As for Psalmopoeus - some stamina inside me (I call it "biological flair") tells me this is the sole group realted to selenocosmiinae but "must be" it's own group. This is only my personal opinion not based on deep study as Yours, Volker, Steven, so... just 5 cents...

 

[Boris Striffler]

Hi Steve,

didn't know that Mark is also working with such big arachnids as theraphosids ;-), thought he is restricted to the "minor" arachnid orders.

I would expect that the statistic work is published separately before the monograph, as a through statistic analysis would "cost" too many pages of the monograph. I'd rather think they will "only" include a short summary of that work in the material & methods section.

Coming to your biogeographic remark on Selenocosmiinae and Psalmopoeus, there are several examples of strange distribution patterns within arachnids: Take for instance the scorpion genus Heteronebo, which is found only on the Soqotra archipelago, offshore the Horn of Africa, and the Caribbean.

Regarding the complexity of Selenocosmiinae, I guess we have a lot of good characters to use for taxonomy and phylogenetic reconstructions (see stridulating organ, genitalia, spines, setae etc.) compared to other subfamilies like Aviculariinae, which lack e.g. stridulating organ and spines.


Cheers,
Boris

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Regarding the complexity of Selenocosmiinae, I guess we have a lot of good characters to use for taxonomy and phylogenetic reconstructions (see stridulating organ, genitalia, spines, setae etc.) compared to other subfamilies like Aviculariinae, which lack e.g. stridulating organ and spines.

Hi Chief,

not only spines and stridulating Organ are lacked in Avicularia. Avicularia possess urticatin hairs, which are not available in Psalmopoeus (and in the rest of the Selenocsmiinae) => Another character which supports the polyphyletic character of this Genus within the Aviculariinae!
Steve, if you code the stridulating Organ between Chelicerae and coxa of Palp as "present", then you are right in your statement that some other mgalomorphae have a "similar" Stridulating Organ like the Selnocosmiinae there, but if you take a nearer look at the groundplan of this structure, you'll recognise that they have nothing to do with the Selenocosmiinae, but that Psalmopoeus fits to this groundplan! Whenever you have to code characters for an analysis, you have to code the characters as exact as possible!
Remember Raven's work from 1985 (The Spider Infraorder..). He coded character 5 (page 38) as: Lyra present beween maxillae and chelicerae [absent]. As you can see in his cladogram, this characterstate defines a clade consisting of Thrigmopoeinae, Selenocosmiinae and Ornithotoninae as monophyletic, so this character is a synapomorphy of this terminal taxa in the sense of Raven. In reality it is not, of course, because the groundplan of the stridulating Organ of the three Taxa is TOTALLY different and they obviously didn't derived from the same structures/Setae during evolution! This Group is highly polyphyletic to my opinion! So, you see, this can happen if you code a characterstate superficially!
BTW, I've asked for myself why this characterstate No. 5 was not mentioned as a homoplasy within the Harpactirinae clade, because Harpactira also possess this characterstate sensu stricto!

With best regards, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

didn't know that Mark is also working with such big arachnids as theraphosids ;-), thought he is restricted to the "minor" arachnid orders.

Hi Boris,
Mark does work with other arachnid orders, this is true, however his geographical position (WA) aids in collection of specimens, among other things...

I would expect that the statistic work is published separately before the monograph, as a through statistic analysis would "cost" too many pages of the monograph. I'd rather think they will "only" include a short summary of that work in the material & methods section.

Ahh, then the work will be published separately, thanks. You could mention it to Rob next time you talk with him, I'm sure he wouldn't mind me mentioning it

Coming to your biogeographic remark on Selenocosmiinae and Psalmopoeus, there are several examples of strange distribution patterns within arachnids: Take for instance the scorpion genus Heteronebo, which is found only on the Soqotra archipelago, offshore the Horn of Africa, and the Caribbean.

Hmm, that's an interesting range Albeit you must admit unusual, how do you explain it?? I do not dispute there is a valid argument here to support the current placement of Psalmopoeus (due entirely to morphological traits, true), however the geographical issue cannot simply be ignored, but best explained. How would you do that??

Regarding the complexity of Selenocosmiinae, I guess we have a lot of good characters to use for taxonomy and phylogenetic reconstructions (see stridulating organ, genitalia, spines, setae etc.) compared to other subfamilies like Aviculariinae, which lack e.g. stridulating organ and spines.

Yes, I know we have a plethora of "good" characters to work with, however none yet to solve the riddle completely, if you know of some, then I would suggest you publish!! Can you give a testable monothetic definition for the subfamily?

I confess to knowing very little of the Aviculariinae, I'm sure you do though, knowing your current project, which I really hope will shed some light on a muddled situation

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi Chief,
Steve, if you code the stridulating Organ between Chelicerae and coxa of Palp as "present", then you are right in your statement that some other mgalomorphae have a "similar" Stridulating Organ like the Selnocosmiinae there, but if you take a nearer look at the groundplan of this structure, you'll recognise that they have nothing to do with the Selenocosmiinae, but that Psalmopoeus fits to this groundplan! Whenever you have to code characters for an analysis, you have to code the characters as exact as possible!

Hi Volker, I do not dispute that at all, however one would immediately expect more "similarities" intra-family then intra-Infraorder (given genetic properties within the clades). Regardless the "groundplan" is established well in other families and while the morphology of the character state in Psalompoeus best "fits" Selenocosmiinae, it is also extremely close to that seen in both certain Barychelidae and Dipluridae in morphology. There are a LOT of questions that still need to be answered, there are examples of convergence in higher clades, the geographical issue is still unanswered hence no solid explanation, other then morphological characters that fit well into a cladogram.......which I must state would become but one theory to best answer the question with what we have, shame IMO, because it does not really answer the question at all.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

... the geographical issue is still unanswered hence no solid explanation

Cheers,
Steve

Hi Steve,

I agree with you that there are still a lot of questions to be answered concerning Psalmopoeus and its Stridulating Organ. Of course there are some other Mygalomorphae which have a similar looking stridulating Organ like the one from the Selenocosmiinae on Coxa of Palp! Especially Trechona shows a resembling arrangement and structure of Spines. It is always difficult to decide whether a character is homologous or not. Unfortunately I haven't examined a Trechona until now, so that I can't say anything nearer to the microstructure of the Stridulating Spines!
The differences in geographical distribution from Psalmopoeus and the rest of the Subfamily Selenocosmiinae is explainable to my opinion. Before round about 110 Million Years ago, during jurassic time, there was a contact between todays South America, Northern Africa and India in Gondwana land. As far as we know, Theraphosid Species were very common at that time. Furthermore, the most experts agree in the opinion that the Selenocosmiinae and the Ischnocolinae are the phylogenetic oldest Theraphosid groups. After Gondwana was broken apart, I'm sure there were Selenocosmiinae available in todays South America, North Africa and India (later Asia). In North Africa the environment changes rapidly, especially for arboreal living Selenocosmiinae, so I think they were died out in Northern Africa. I think - and that's what the phylogenetic results shows us - in South America there survived a little group which belongs to the Pan-monophylum of Selenocomiinae (= Psalmopoeus), whereas in Asia the former Selenocosmiinae could evolved to todays species! That's only speculation, but the whole Systematic is speculation in some way.
BTW, comming back to the usability of the sternal sigilla as a taxonomic tool. If I understand you right, you have your doubts that this structure is usable for taxonomic statements:

Knowing the variation I've seen in sternal sigilla morphology, I'm quite curious as to your findings on this character!!

I've read your very nice Article about Selenotypus sp. "Glenelva" in the actual ARACHNOCULTURE Magazin. There you've stated:
Sigillae: (...)The posterior pairs is largest and oblong in form,"pointing" to the posterior base of coxae III (closer to the borders of the sternum than in Selenocosmia). So, obviously you've used the sternal sigilla even so as a taxonomic tool! :clap: But you are right, the sigialla are one character of many and there are really better characters to use!

Good Night, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

I agree with you that there are still a lot of questions to be answered concerning Psalmopoeus and its Stridulating Organ. Of course there are some other Mygalomorphae which have a similar looking stridulating Organ like the one from the Selenocosmiinae on Coxa of Palp!

LOL I know, where to place a theraphosid from the new world with a selenocosmiine lyra??? I know

Especially Trechona shows a resembling arrangement and structure of Spines. It is always difficult to decide whether a character is homologous or not. Unfortunately I haven't examined a Trechona until now, so that I can't say anything nearer to the microstructure of the Stridulating Spines!

I understand, best to wait for more analysis then to hypothesize....I am glad that you've examined a Trechona sp.!! That was the genus in particular (from the Dipluridae) I was thinking of. From the size, count and morphology of the bacillae to the "typical" setal row dorsal to the bacillae, this state replicates that of the Selenocosmiine condition, almost precisely.

The differences in geographical distribution from Psalmopoeus and the rest of the Subfamily Selenocosmiinae is explainable to my opinion. Before round about 110 Million Years ago, during jurassic time, there was a contact between todays South America, Northern Africa and India in Gondwana land. As far as we know, Theraphosid Species were very common at that time. Furthermore, the most experts agree in the opinion that the Selenocosmiinae and the Ischnocolinae are the phylogenetic oldest Theraphosid groups.

Hmm, nice hypothesis Yes, the continental plate drift would fit well with your explanation!! Additionally it seems there "may be" some interesting similarities in the Selenocosmiinae/Eumenophorinae (Rich Gallon, public comm.), which would support your hypothesis. However it is strange a "relic" group would be left without many relatives. I have the feeling this, however, may be explained sooner rather then later

BTW, comming back to the usability of the sternal sigilla as a taxonomic tool. If I understand you right, you have your doubts that this structure is usable for taxonomic statements:

It's not that I doubt the use of it, particularly in taxonomic work, however I would suggest a large cross section of material be examined within certain groups to ascertain the "typical" morphology.

I've read your very nice Article about Selenotypus sp. "Glenelva" in the actual ARACHNOCULTURE Magazin. There you've stated:
Sigillae: (...)The posterior pairs is largest and oblong in form,"pointing" to the posterior base of coxae III (closer to the borders of the sternum than in Selenocosmia). So, obviously you've used the sternal sigilla even so as a taxonomic tool!

Yes I have But only as a guideline (as stated), AND, the specimen used was considered "typical" after examining several conspecifics to determine the stability of the state.

Contraindications occur in the best of many phylogenetic analyses, here is another example citing the Theraphosidae and one of the strongest characters supporting the node Theraphosiodea, the pronounced anterior lobe of the maxillae. The same character is found in the Stasimopus, from the Ctenizidae!! This is a good one considering the node that first separates the two groups is the FORNICEPHALAE/TUBERCULOTAE, these spiders could not be further related in the Mygalomorphae!!

So yes, there are still many questions to be answered and the Psalmopoeus "group" (including others you already know of) may work, particularly if you can associate other groups more closely to the Selenocosmiinae But, then the question may be raised, are we dealing with a group that should be considered separate to the Selenocosmiinae?? I'm also keen to see how this group relates, if at all, to the the Aviculariinae.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[FryLock]

Ah Steve the posterior sternal sigilla are interesting in Psalmopoeus (yes and the "group" we won't name here) as in the few sp iv seen they are quite large like 4-5 Selenocosmiinae genera iv seen (myself and drawing's/pictures).

but they are placed very close is the margins of the sternum iv seen this placement in both Aviculariinae (few sp and only two genera il add) and new world Ischnocolinae (again tho i only know of two genera off the top of my head, could check out a few more tho) this placement almost on the margins of sternum was not right for Selenocosmiinae or Eumenophorinae (again all ttbomk).

Volker's idea could well be right (not trying to sound a smart arse but Volker's explanation was always took my me to be the logical one although when I stuck to that idea I only knew of the lyra as an important character), but there could well be a bunch of other things that muddy the picture, i can think of a few now but not knowing all i should about the Selenocosmiinae im sure il get it wrong , so il leave it there.

 

[Steve Nunn]

Ah Steve the posterior sternal sigilla are interesting in Psalmopoeus (yes and the "group" we won't name here) as in the few sp iv seen they are quite large like 4-5 Selenocosmiinae genera iv seen (myself and drawing's/pictures).

Hi Bill,
You're one of the most informed folk on these boards, don't be so bloody humble ;P The posterior sigilla in particular are extrememly pronounced in many Selenocosmiinae, this is true.....

but they are placed very close is the margins of the sternum iv seen this placement in both Aviculariinae (few sp and only two genera il add) and new world Ischnocolinae (again tho i only know of two genera off the top of my head, could check out a few more tho) this placement almost on the margins of sternum was not right for Selenocosmiinae or Eumenophorinae (again all ttbomk).

Yes, the posterior sigilla are closer to the center then the boarders of the sternum in many Selenocosmiines then most subfamilies, if the placement of the sigilla is closer to Aviculariinae, that would be interesting I still think the variation in sigilla morphology is extreme in several cases, but the overal placement of the sigilla would be an interesting thing to see in several conspecifics, congenerics (Psalmopoeus and their nearest relatives in particular) even moreso.

Volker's idea could well be right (not trying to sound a smart arse but Volker's explanation was always took my me to be the logical one although when I stuck to that idea I only knew of the lyra as an important character), but there could well be a bunch of other things that muddy the picture, i can think of a few now but not knowing all i should about the Selenocosmiinae im sure il get it wrong , so il leave it there.

LOL, get it wrong, You've got an excellent overview of what's happening!! The lyra IS without doubt an essential character within and for the Selenocosmiinae, I don't dispute that for one second. It's just that when dealing with a geographically isolated member of a group the explanation gets a whole lot more complex and can hardly ever be answered so easily. Given other examples of convergence, the fact the genus stands alone at present and comparison of other characters to those in the same geogrpahic region, the review of this genus will be a good one!!!

Steve

 

[David Burns]

I feel as though this thread is telling me how to turn lead into gold, but I don't understand the terminology. Is there a link to a glossary or a book I could purchase that would help me understand ,more fully, what is being said here?

Maybe someone could write such a glossary or book?

 

[FryLock]

LOL Steve i will have to find some total crap to post now after you saying that about me (won't take to long im sure ).

Ok if my old books are right the posterior sternal sigilla look rocky in the old world Ischnocolinae (useful on a species level within a genus maybe) still unsure about all of the New world Ischnocolinae (I know there considered at least part separate to the old world groups) and the Aviculariinae.

But another interesting thing with Psalmopoeus is the lack of any real strikers bar a few long spines at the base of the chelicerae that again seems to conflict with all iv seen myself on Selenocosmiinae (alyrate one's i don't know about tho only have baby's) makes me wonder if lyra are a new thing for Psalmopoeus or a old character in reversal, as I don’t think iv ever heard a pslamo stridulate nor as anyone else i know?, if they do then they do it with out any real movements and it's not for human ear's (could be a link with pokes there as can't say i remeber a hissy pokie as i tend to leave them in peace), But im happy to see what Volker and Boris do over this too as they know much more then I for sure.

BTW: David this is one of the best glossary's iv seen for Systematic terms >Here< and no i don't understand half of that site .

 

[phormingochilus]

Thank You !!! for that link ;-) I have needed something like this for a while ;-)

Søren

BTW: David this is one of the best glossary's iv seen for Systematic terms >Here< and no i don't understand half of that site .

 

[David Burns]

BTW: David this is one of the best glossary's iv seen for Systematic terms >Here< and no i don't understand half of that site .

Thanks, anything helps.