New species of Poecilotheria? P. srilankensis.

[Arachnid Addicted]

Hi all.

I just heard about that, apparently a new species of Poecilotheria, P. srilankensis, was described in 2019. WSC still not updated it (nor Tlitocatl, lol) so I'll let the Tarantupedia link in here.

https://www.tarantupedia.com/poecilotheriinae/poecilotheria/poecilotheria-srilankensis

Question is, this article is reliable? I'm asking that cause recently, P. chaoji was synonimized with P. tigrinawesseli, and its description was kinda new.

Thanks.

 

[mack1855]

Reliable..who knows,but I think being Sri Lankan,a lot of us will never see it.And could end up being a cf of....
who knows.But,wonderful letting us know.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Hi all.

I just heard about that, apparently a new species of Poecilotheria, P. srilankensis, was described in 2019. WSC still not updated it (nor Tlitocatl, lol) so I'll let the Tarantupedia link in here.

https://www.tarantupedia.com/poecilotheriinae/poecilotheria/poecilotheria-srilankensis

Question is, this article is reliable? I'm asking that cause recently, P. chaoji was synonimized with P. tigrinawesseli, and its description was kinda new.

Thanks.

Now that this article is available from the WSC, I have been able to read it. The authors did a decent job of distinguishing it from other Sri Lankan Poecilotheria species (except P. subfusca), but one aspect of it that stood out was that this new species wasn't compared to all species of Poecilotheria for a more comprehensive diagnosis. It reads like the authors were rushing to publish. I can't answer your question as to whether it is reliable by way in that the new species could be found to be a synonym of another species, because I am not familiar with all of the types sitting in jars of alcohol in museums, but as I said it is definitely distinct from other Sri Lankan Poecilotheria.

The only complaint I have is that it is another species description published in the BTS journal. That is not a criticism of the quality of work published in that journal or of the BTS as an organization. It just seems so wrong to publish species descriptions in a publication that also contains advertisements for people selling tarantulas. I would think the target audience for new species descriptions would be the academic community and not the people who would regularly buy and sell the very same organism.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

The only complaint I have is that it is another species description published in the BTS journal. That is not a criticism of the quality of work published in that journal or of the BTS as an organization. It just seems so wrong to publish species descriptions in a publication that also contains advertisements for people selling tarantulas. I would think the target audience for new species descriptions would be the academic community and not the people who would regularly buy and sell the very same organism.

I think I know what you mean, its like we were talking few months ago, pet trade and science should be kept separated, or something like this.

About the article, I think we'll have to wait and see then. Thanks for your replies, you and @mack1855

 

[Arthroverts]

Fascinating. I agree with @AphonopelmaTX; a species description should be published in a reputable academic magazine so that it gets the proper exposure and criticism, not a publication where many of the readers will just be waiting for the species to hit the market, legally or no.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[lostbrane]

If you read the paper for P. chaojii, you knew it wasn’t going to stand for long. I was legitimately surprised it took so long for the synonymization.

I agree about the comparison to all Poecilotheria. I don’t get why you wouldn’t compare it to the known species. I think I’ll dive through papers and take a look at some papal bulbs just for my own curiosity (well I hope there are decent photos but I digress) some time soon.