New Species - Hmmm is it really? Guess what WHO KNOWS - Controversial Thread enter at your own risk

[AbraxasComplex]

I'm good thanks... I'd rather have another adult H.villosella run up my shirt and all over my back than test a T.blondi's urticating hairs. Eight legs running over your bare skin is a more pleasent, though odd, kind of tickling.

 

[Kris-wIth-a-K]

I think it makes it easier on EVERYONE who is buying or selling, at a reasonable size, to try and get pictures of what it looks like if they arent really sure.. Then again if you are selling or buying something, you should have the knowledge of what sp. it actually is......

 

[robd]

The reason i mentioned that though is I recently saw an almost positive antonious sold as a "chicken spider" with little regard to if it really was one and little evidence also. Once again I apologize if that was offensive and like I said this is not geared at you at all or any one individual out there really.

Were you referring to one of the two Pampho sp chicken spider postings that were on the For Sale/Trade section this past Sunday? I thought it was very interesting how all of this time over the history of this forum you never saw a Pamphobeteus sp. chicken spider available on the For Sale/Trade market. And then low and behold within about 12 hours of each other, there's 2.

I'm not even going to ponder how that just... came to be.

 

[Moltar]

Very well put Ken. I appreciate both the points you've made and the discussion that has followed.

Please continue speaking truth like this, I think some less experienced members (and some more experienced ones) really benefit from this reading kind of discussion.

 

[KenTheBugGuy]

Were you referring to one of the two Pampho sp chicken spider postings that were on the For Sale/Trade section this past Sunday? I thought it was very interesting how all of this time over the history of this forum you never saw a Pamphobeteus sp. chicken spider available on the For Sale/Trade market. And then low and behold within about 12 hours of each other, there's 2.

I'm not even going to ponder how that just... came to be.

I was actually referring to a customer of mine that showed me an animal that came from me originally and was sold as a chicken spider. I am pretty sure it was just one of my Antonious dressed like a chicken

 

[AzJohn]

I think it makes it easier on EVERYONE who is buying or selling, at a reasonable size, to try and get pictures of what it looks like if they arent really sure.. Then again if you are selling or buying something, you should have the knowledge of what sp. it actually is......

Pictures aren't any good. How many aphonoplemas and Pampho look very much alike. It is also very hard to give a name for a tarantula if the species is in question or unkonown. So sellers give a location, for example Aphonopelma Sp "New River". The real problem happens when people are inventing, or changing names just for the sake of a buck. Really this is nothing but bad for the hobby.

I've mentioned earlier that I've got two eggsacks from what is all most certainly A. schmidti, based on location. If I sold one sack as A. schmidti,and the other as Aphonoplema sp " Superior" that would just confuse everyone. When people change the names that's basically what they are doing.


John

 

[miarachnids]

Thanks Ken for another good thread.
I have to agree with you on the Aphonopelma. I have all the sp. you mentioned at various sizes. They all look pretty much the same.

Now as a breeder I feel it is important to know what I am breeding. Especially if I wholesale to dealers. I want dealers and customers to be able to trust they are getting the spider they are paying for.

Wild caught are the worst. you never know what your getting. Some importers will call a spider anything to move it.

 

[cacoseraph]

not all pics are bad. i use my camera and magnifying glasses to take diagnostic shots to key out native mygs. a full on picture of the spider is going to help determine genus for some stuff, but species is never good to try to magic up out of a non-diagnostic picture... much less some of the 400x300 pixels pics i have seen posted in ID threads =P

in fact, Kris might be one of the ppl i ask to help out with taking GOOD pics for a photo key guide to native CA mygs


the real issue is having access to the spiders, the lit nec. to make the ID conclusive... and the big one is having the lit be *right*. that last one is going to be a sticking point for many of the genera. and i suspect that genera that are not known to need revision just haven't been looked at closely enough yet =P



i'm pretty sure scabies has sent at least a few tarantulas off to *some* kind of official project. i don't remember what it was, though

 

[sharpfang]

Interesting...

Not sure how this could be controversial, seems pretty dead on to me.

Later, Tom

Yes ! Ken I think you make a good point.

And here is the contreversal part I mentioned.....I believe that the new river, flagstaff and chalcodes are all the same tarantula just labled that way to have more tarantulas....have I changed it no, but I have thought about makeing them all chalcodes on my list. I do mention to people that try and order more than one of these species that they are probably ordering the same tarantula in my opinion.

I think it makes it easier on EVERYONE who is buying or selling, at a reasonable size, to try and get pictures of what it looks like if they arent really sure.. Then again if you are selling or buying something, you should have the knowledge of what sp. it actually is......

Very well put Ken. I appreciate both the points you've made and the discussion that has followed.

Please continue speaking truth like this, I think some less experienced members (and some more experienced ones) really benefit from this reading kind of discussion.

I Completely Agree w/ ALL these quotes :clap:
At the same time.....My OPINION about the Aphonopelma Sp. is:

That different Locales, could and maybe Should, be noticed/appreciated and
bred within Own localities.......Like RosyBoas, Same species - Different canyon
i.e. "knook-N-cranny" appearences. My "New River" female, is One of my Most favorite tarantulas......and is Noticably unique in appearence, when compared w/ the "classic" A. Chalcodes from Arizona.

Even though I "hear-it" verbally, for experimenting w/
B.Vagans X B.Albopilosum mating - No sack Yet
I would Not breed my "New River", to anything But a "Rust-Butt".
Conversely, I would Not crucify someone for doing So.
Locale specific Sp. are Fun to breed Long-Term...brings out traits - Like Rosies.

- Jason

 

[Anastasia]

Thanks for the stab at me. I'm sorry, but if one type has different urticating hairs than another extremely similar species it's the start of a qualitative characteristic that can help differentiate between a proposed species and a current one. Actually read my thread on the chicken spider.

From a chat transcript with Rick West and Martin Nicholas on the BTS site:



http://www.thebts.co.uk/chat_martin_nicholas.htm

Edit: To clarify I never defined the chicken spider as a specific species. Just that it was not P.antinous. Hence the Pamphobeteus sp. chicken spider (arana polito). The whole thread was to help differentiate between the two. Macro photos coming soon of both P.antinous and P. sp. chicken spider.

If your mention of it "makes me itch" was not geared towards me I apologize.

This whole mess with chickens gave folks idea to take advantage to make quick buck, unfortunately
folks happens to assume of possibility been desirable species slap a fat price on it
just making a point

 

[Bill S]

That different Locales, could and maybe Should, be noticed/appreciated and bred within Own localities.......Like RosyBoas, Same species - Different canyon i.e. "knook-N-cranny" appearences. My "New River" female, is One of my Most favorite tarantulas......and is Noticably unique in appearence, when compared w/ the "classic" A. Chalcodes from Arizona.

I completely agree. Especially since the whole A. chalcodes group is being looked at for reclassification. And even if the host of different regional variants all turn out to be A. chalcodes, there is no harm and some potential positive value to indicating the region or variant you are selling/buying/keeping. More information is always better than less information, especially if that "less information" is in the process of being challenged.

 

[cacoseraph]

Ken was nice enough to post this thread in a number of forums. While on the ATS i read a really good post (and got permission to copy it over to here). The interesting thing is it is from Bill S... but from a different town in AZ. are there two Bill Sesses? i don't know =P


Bill S (ATS) said:

The simple answer is to ignore the dealer name and correctly identify the animal. As Ken pointed out, "sp" simply indicates that full and accurate identification has not been done, and the collecting locality name is just that. It may serve to help with the identification, but is not a "registered trademark".

I should add that a lot of us will use the "sp" notation as a form of shorthand, without intention of it being a full identification. If I were to send you a local tarantula, for example, I might simply label it Aphonopelma sp, or even Aphonopelma sp "Vail". It's probably A. chalcodes, but pending completion of Brent's work I may choose to decline a full identification.

As Ken says, this does not mean it's a new species, or a rare one. Or different from anyone else's A. chalcodes. It's just a naming convention when the full ID might be less than certain.

As for what we can do if it enters the hobby - find out it's accurate identification and call it that.

I'd like to add that Id rather have someone use the "sp 'location'" convention than to give me a wrong identification. If the collecting source is correct and the limited information provided is accurate, I can choose whether to leave it at that or look for more complete ID. And in some cases (Aphonopelma comes to mind) the sp/location might be more useful.

http://www.atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24972

i think he wrote a very good, concise, clear explanation of a major problem with in hobby species... especially native species. this was my post, in part responding to his:

bill has the only really workable solution... and it ain't exactly that workable


considering some dealers suggest sell the heck out of their stock i think some of them are willing to play fast and loose with collection info and names and what not... to make it appear they have something that they can charge $20 extra for




really, any hobbyist looking to breed should ID out their species. this would require a HUGE effort on the part of the whole hobby to essentially build a correct dicho key for tarantulas... and i suspect a purely morphological approach might not even be 100% doable. this type of effort would be complicated by the relative unavailability of many of the actual descriptive papers for many of the species.

further... most hobbyists just don't seem to be as academically inclined as i would hope.






also, i think this kiiinda bumps against a human nature thing. it seems to me that a lot of ppl are inclined to want to pigeonhole something and then keep it in that hole forever. it seems like some ppl are uncomfortable with the fact they have a spider that is not actually ID'ed and that they probably need to be REALLY REALLY careful getting an opposite sex for it... cuz they might not be trying to mix the actual exact same species. from talking to so many ppl it seems like a significant minority basically don't want to hear that Avic and Aphono are both in a state of giant mess and need to be desperately revised. they don't want to hear that the avics they are getting are almost certainly NOT whatever species name has been pinned on them... and might not even be described yet! it seems like most ppl just want a clean, easy, and simple answer... and that is not what tarantula taxo *is* currently!




edit:
hey Bill, do you have the intention of posting your reply to any other forums? if not, could i have your permission to quote post with a link back to this thread? it is a REALLY good reply that clearly explains the major problem with species designations in the hobby today!

 

[KenTheBugGuy]

I completely agree. Especially since the whole A. chalcodes group is being looked at for reclassification. And even if the host of different regional variants all turn out to be A. chalcodes, there is no harm and some potential positive value to indicating the region or variant you are selling/buying/keeping. More information is always better than less information, especially if that "less information" is in the process of being challenged.

I don't see it as bad having a location next to the name either.

Why are some labeled chalcodes without location and some labeled like they are a different tarantula though? I think that was started by someone trying to make more money on them. Before someone posted them like that they were all just chalcodes which is what I am almost positive the research will prove. Pretty much if you collect a chalcodes anywhere but in Flagstaff and New River it is just a chalcodes but if you collect it in those 2 places it has a magic aura around it that makes it more special and it gets a special "SP" name. Now that is my opinion from seeing tons of them but I could be wrong.

 

[cacoseraph]

I don't see it as bad having a location next to the name either.

Why are some labeled chalcodes without location and some labeled like they are a different tarantula though? I think that was started by someone trying to make more money on them. Before someone posted them like that they were all just chalcodes which is what I am almost positive the research will prove. Pretty much if you collect a chalcodes anywhere but in Flagstaff and New River it is just a chalcodes but if you collect it in those 2 places it has a magic aura around it that makes it more special and it gets a special "SP" name. Now that is my opinion from seeing tons of them but I could be wrong.

i certainly can't speak for anyone but myself (and suspect you are at least partially correct in the $ motivation)... but i have never EVER said what any tarantula i have found is, species-wise. there is just too much work to be done, i have never read the original species descriptions or seen a key... much less actually keyed out a tarantula as best i could. so i have caught Aphonopelma sp. "Rancho Cucamonga", "North Los Angeles County", and helped catch "North San Diego County" and "Glendora". I am currently on the trail of "Azusa" with some buddies. we try to send at least 1.1 from every location off to science, but that is not always possible

 

[KenTheBugGuy]

i certainly can't speak for anyone but myself (and suspect you are at least partially correct in the $ motivation)... but i have never EVER said what any tarantula i have found is, species-wise. there is just too much work to be done, i have never read the original species descriptions or seen a key... much less actually keyed out a tarantula as best i could. so i have caught Aphonopelma sp. "Rancho Cucamonga", "North Los Angeles County", and helped catch "North San Diego County" and "Glendora". I am currently on the trail of "Azusa" with some buddies. we try to send at least 1.1 from every location off to science, but that is not always possible

Now that is different and you are not collecting mass amounts for resale as far as I know either.....its probably better that way but I think with maybe a "possibley name" after it would give better indications and atleast let a buyer know what it is similiar too. I actually think I might do that on those now

 

[cacoseraph]

as has been said on the thread before... more info is almost never a bad thing!




i wouldn't be surprised if 5 years down the road we find out there are a TON of muddle bloodlines in the hobby for Avic and Aphon. i wouldn't be surprised if the really anal retentive ppl are the only ones who have bloodlines that are even remotely pure... but even they might not have enough data to make everything work well





to be honest, i have always considered just line breeding "cryptic" species to be the most conservative approach... or restricting my personal breeding efforts to spiders from the same mini-valley. i deal with a ~trapdoor called Aptostichus that is fully cryptic. adult females can not be morphologically distinguished to species at this time... what the heck do you do there!?


p.s. sorry if the thread is veering away from the original topic... you seem to start threads that get too interesting to confine themselves to one specific topic =P


edit:
also, no i don't collect for mass resale. scabies is trying to get breeding of a bunch of native species down. i suspect if we get good we might need a dealer to vector our offsprings through... *nudge*nudge*

 

[cacoseraph]

also, for the record i know areas where there are something like 10 myg species, including at least one tara species that live on the same HILL! so just a location is not enough... but it is a danged site (sic) better than NOT having one!

 

[AzJohn]

Hi cacoseraph, where are you sending your native tarantulas to for IDs? I've got a few I'd like to confirm the species on.

I think messed up blood lines are inevitable when dealing with AZ natives. I hope that people breeding them are at least sticking with the collection info for breeding purposes, but even then I could see how you could screw that up. For instance most A sp "flagstaff" are acutally collected near Sedona, about fifty miles away and more like New River as far as habitat goes. Or A "cochisei" half of which aren't collected in chochise county but in central AZ 100's of miles away, and the central Az ones are twice as big as the chocise county ones. Location info is only correct if it's acurate.




Lets hope everything ends up being chalodes. Personally I wouldn't breed any Az aphonoplemas unless I collected the breeding stock myself.




John

 

[KenTheBugGuy]

Brent I am sure

http://www.atshq.org/articles/found.html
.
.
.
.

 

[cacoseraph]

i think Ken is right

what *i* personally do is just give them to my friend and he sends them in. he's really big on it and always tries to find new taras to send in



and for the record, the first female you send in is the hardest... but after that it is almost more exciting to send it to science than to keep it! iirc, science might just pop a leg off and keep the spider alive... they no longer have to pulverise the whole bug to DNA scan it