New issue of Tarantulas of the World (TOW) from Germany

Henno

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
5
A new special issue of the "Tarantulas of the Wold" (TOW), ISSN 1431-7990, from Germany has been published in July 2010. Contents:

A female of Chilocosmia barensteinerae sp. n. from Kalimantan (Borneo) (Theraphosidae: Selenocosmiinae)
Günter Schmidt, Siegfried Hettegger & Jesko Matthes

An unusual shape of spermathecae in a Harpactira atra (Latreille, 1832) from South Africa (Araneae, Theraphosidae, Harpactirinae)
Günter Schmidt & Jesko Matthes

What is the correct name of Selenocosmia huwena WANG, PENG & XIE, 1993?
Günter Schmidt

What is the correct name of "Hapalopus" guianensis CAPORIACCO, 1954?
Günter Schmidt

Notes on Haplopelma SIMON, 1892, Melopoeus POCOCK, 1895 und Ornithoctonus POCOCK, 1892 (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Ornithoctoninae)
Günter Schmidt

Psalmopoeinae subfamilia nov. – a new subfamily of the Theraphosidae (Araneae)
Robert Samm & Günter Schmidt

Key to the identification of the females of the South East Asian genus of dwarf tarantulas, Yamia (Araneae: Theraphosidae: Selenocosmiinae)
Günter Schmidt

Contact: tow-redaktion@bluewin.ch

Kind regards,
Henno
 

Zoltan

Cult Leader
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
1,467
Hello Henno,
Psalmopoeinae subfamilia nov. – a new subfamily of the Theraphosidae (Araneae)
Robert Samm & Günter Schmidt
Is this a reprint of the article from 2008, or a new one?
 

Henno

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
5
Psalmopoeinae subfamilia nov.

Hi Zoltan,

it is a new article of course. What you can read there: The new name for the subfamily became neccessary because IZCN naming rules require that an existing genus must be chosen for the naming of the subfamily. This was not true for the former meaningful name "Sinurticantinae", nor for the sometimes proposed "Neoselenocosmiinae". Therefore the genus Psalmopoeus was chosen.

Hope this helps.
Henno
 

Mack&Cass

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,574
Does it outline which genera are in the subfamily? Other than Psalmopoeus, of course.

Cass
 

Zoltan

Cult Leader
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
1,467
Does it outline which genera are in the subfamily? Other than Psalmopoeus, of course.

Cass
Psalmopoeus and Tapinauchenius, at least those two were in "Sinurticantinae".
it is a new article of course. What you can read there: The new name for the subfamily became neccessary because IZCN naming rules require that an existing genus must be chosen for the naming of the subfamily. This was not true for the former meaningful name "Sinurticantinae", nor for the sometimes proposed "Neoselenocosmiinae". Therefore the genus Psalmopoeus was chosen.
Thanks for the answer. Compared to the 2008 article, is this the only change/addition?
 

billopelma

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
604
Seems like it could be more appropriately named (GSTW), "Gunter Schmidt's Tarantula World"...


Bill
 

Henno

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
5
Hi Zoltan,
yes, the new name is the only essential change, as far as I can see. The reasons for splitting off the subfamily, its definition as well as the identification key are still the same as in the article 2008.
 

Jorge M

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
8
Hi! What things I see here :?, But actually Sinurcantinae are invalid and Psalmopoeus & Tapinauchenius are include in Aviculariinae acording to cladistic analisis was performed by West et al. 2008.

West, R. C., Marshall, S.D., Fukushima, C.S. & R. Bertani. 2008. Review and cladistic analysis of the Neotropical tarantula genus Ephebopus Simon 1892 (Araneae: Theraphosidae) with notes on the Aviculariinae.
Zootaxa 1849: 35-58 [p. 39, fig. 21-22].

This is the Abstract.

The tarantula genus Ephebopus Simon 1892 is reviewed and includes the type species, E. murinus (Walckenaer 1837), and E. uatuman Lucas, Silva & Bertani 1992, E. cyanognathus West & Marshall 2000, E. rufescens West & Marshall 2000 and Ephebopus foliatus, sp. nov., from Guyana. Ephebopus violaceus Mello-Leitão 1930 is transferred to Tapinauchenius Ausserer, where it is a senior synonym of Tapinauchenius purpureus Schmidt 1995 new synonymy. Ephebopus fossor Pocock 1903 is considered a nomen dubium. Ephebopus occurs in northeastern South America where it is known only from Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. Spiders of the genus are generally fossorial; however, Ephebopus murinus has a developmental stage that is arboreal. A cladistic analysis of the Theraphosidae retrieves the Aviculariinae as monophyletic, including Avicularia Lamarck, Iridopelma Pocock 1901, Pachistopelma Pocock 1901, Tapinauchenius, Psalmopoeus Pocock, Ephebopus, Stromatopelma Karsch and Heteroscodra Pocock, having as a synapomorphy the well-developed scopulae on tarsi and metatarsi I–II that is very laterally extended.

Greetings!!!
 

John Kanker

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
52
This thread is quite funny really, I wonder if someone else had published "Psalmopoeinae" would this thread would be full of praise :rolleyes:
 

Henno

Arachnopeon
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
5
Hi Jorge M,
thanks for the hint. I will forward the article to the authors.
 

Zoltan

Cult Leader
Old Timer
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
1,467
Hi! What things I see here :?, But actually Sinurcantinae are invalid and Psalmopoeus & Tapinauchenius are include in Aviculariinae acording to cladistic analisis was performed by West et al. 2008.
We're not talking about Sinurticantinae now, but Psalmopoeinae. ;) If the new version of the articles conforms the ICZN, then technically the subfamily is valid, but perhaps it will be ignored by future authors.
 

sjl197

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
241
I would advise caution with certain nodes of the phylogeny in the 2008 Ephebopus paper, as again we are seeing another presentation of the character 'scopulae laterally extended' (character 9 there, state 1->2). This has been discussed in depth elsewhere. I want to instead add that there is only one other internal node of relavence to the placement of Psalm/Taps in that paper, which is also dubious in my opinion. While i respect that particular West et al. 2008 paper for a very nice revision of Ephebopus, i think an important caveat is that the grouping (Avicularia, Iridopelma, Pachistopelma, Heteroscodra, Stromatopelma = node 29) is based on a single character, which is loss of leg spination. = character 11 (or more specifically, the node in question is characterised by transition of spines only on ventral apices of tibiae and metatarsi to completely aspinose, state transition 1->2). The history of phylogenetics has often shown that caution should be taken before putting value on loss of characters as putative synapomorphies. Its often rather easy for species to loose characters, particularly if the such final loss comes as the end part of a wider reduction in said character through evolutionary time. Here i mean the authors themselves suggest that highly spinose legs are ancestral (in the outgroup and their basal Holothele), and then show reductive transition, and then loss provide putative synapomophies. I think most of us didnt really like the loss of urticating hairs as a synapomorpy of Sinuricantinae, etc. am i right? Here its clear that lack of urticating hairs is plesiomorphic, but im saying its also easy to understand that secondary loss to be a relatively easy transition, misinterpreted as synapomorphy.

In the discussion the authors more specifically say ..."..node 29, weakly supported by a single character change:" Its worth reading the subsequent paragraph to give this context. The word weakly is certainly worth note.

Personally, like others, i'm more in favor of several transitions to fully arboreal genera, and no need to create subfamilies (or other such monophyletic groups) based on so few characters so clearly associated with ecological transitions, instead say placing semi-arborial Ephebopus sister to fully arboreal Tapinauchenius and Psalmopoeus, and for example Encyocratella sister to fully arboreal Stromatopelma and Heteroscodra.

Or we could again favour other schemes, like Guadanucci 2007 presents Psalmopoeus alone with Poecilotheria, Lyrognathus and Phlogiellus in some cladistic analyses as 'Selenocosmiinae, or a paraphyletic Ephebopus, Psalmopoeus, Tapinauchinus, then Stromatopelma as sister to 'Aviculariinae' + 'Selenocosmiinae (minus Psalmopoeus)',

So, while i'm rather in favour of Psalmopoeus + Tapinauchenius forming a monophyletic group, excuse me if i dont feel the need to give it subfamily status as Psalmopoeinae. How is this different to Neoselenocosminae anyway, just the previous failure to explicitly define a type genus? When was that ICZN ruling made (was it 1999>?) and how does it apply to older higher-level names without a type genus explicitly defined? (looking through article 29 its not yet clear to me, though yes zoltan, reading my copy of judith Winston's excellent book suggests electing a type genus is now essential to define a family or other internal rankings). Well, now it seems that 'old names' at the level of families or below need to be reformalised with a type genus to be acceptable...erm, has this been done yet for Therphosinae or can authorX still change that in his grand finale publication in ToW? (it looks to me that Theraphosa is thankfully the nominative taxa for the family, but im not sure what the reference is.... is it Dr Schmidt by any chance>?) Well, i was under the impression that most higher-level groupings are not strictly subject to the ICZN names as those for genera/species, and to quote the great Jack Sparrow, that at the higher-taxonomic level, where i thought the ICZN code was actually 'more what you would call guidelines than actual rules'. Now it seems to me that ICZN rules apply DO stictly at the family level and below.

Well, despite all that taxonomy... does anybody want to use ecology or physiology to suggest why transition to arboreality might be linked to increased leg-hair length and density/and or increased scopulation?, and perhaps more interestingly linked to further loss of leg spination?

Erm... Has anyone elected a genus type for Aviculariinae anyway? Its not Avicularia is it by any chance..? Oh dear...

I wait to see if Psalmopoeinae conforms to the ICZN then.. and yes, i'm one of those who are really doubtful it warrants a subfamily classification..
 

pato_chacoana

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
789
Hi Stuart,

I think the ''transition to arboreality might be linked to increased leg-hair length and density/and or increased scopulation'' has something to do that those individuals with increased scopulation had better results climbing over trees surfaces...and took over those niches faster than less scoplated individuals... the dense setae on scopula is the most important reason for the ability to climb over most surfaces and lightning speed of arboreals!

Yes, I find this aspect you suggest by far more interesting than the naming bureaucracy!

Cheers,
Pato
 
Top