New Theraphosid Species discovered from the Philippines!

[Theraphosid Research Team]

The team led by Dr. Leonardo A. Guevarra Jr. and Darrell C. Acuña from the University of Santo Tomas, which I am fortunate to be a part of, has published a new paper describing two new Orphnaecus species from the Philippines and the rediscovery of Orphnaecus pellitus. Orphnaecus pellitus was identified as the first Asian tarantula species with a troglomorphic lifestyle. It also shows how important genetic analysis can be in relation to the phylogenetic relationships of tarantulas compared to a purely morphological view, because morphologically, the small new species Orphnaecus tangcongvaca sp. n. would hardly be recognized as belonging to the genus Orphnaecus.

-> Acuña DC, Ragasa LRP, Santiago-Bautista MR, von Wirth V, Guevarra Jr LA (2025). Revisiting and rediscovering the tarantulas (Araneae, Theraphosidae) of Culapnitan (Libmanan) Caves in the Philippines: troglomorphism, taxonomy, phylogeny and ecological niche. Subterranean Biology 52: 143-186. https://doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.52.142334

 

[viper69]

I knew there were more over there!

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

I knew there were more over there!

There will be a lot of descriptions of new Species from the Philippines coming in the future.

 

[jennywallace]

Excellent, thanks for sharing.

 

[viper69]

There will be a lot of descriptions of new Species from the Philippines coming in the future.

If only genetics was used more so than it is, like for Avics.

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

If only genetics was used more so than it is, like for Avics.

It would be sufficient to explain the relationships using phylogenetic analyses with computer-assisted morphological analyses (using PAUP, TNT, etc.). Similar to genetic analyses, this is quite time-consuming, but much more reliable and better than purely morphological descriptions based on a few characters, which are ultimately “weighted” at the discretion of the author to explain and define new species or genera. One must be aware that every description of a new species is always a statement about its relationship to the next most closely related species. So if species are still described as they were 100 years ago, only with slightly better characteristics, this does not make the description and its purpose any better than it used to be! But quick fame is guaranteed, of course!

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

It would be sufficient to explain the relationships using phylogenetic analyses with computer-assisted morphological analyses (using PAUP, TNT, etc.). Similar to genetic analyses, this is quite time-consuming, but much more reliable and better than purely morphological descriptions based on a few characters, which are ultimately “weighted” at the discretion of the author to explain and define new species or genera. One must be aware that every description of a new species is always a statement about its relationship to the next most closely related species. So if species are still described as they were 100 years ago, only with slightly better characteristics, this does not make the description and its purpose any better than it used to be! But quick fame is guaranteed, of course!

What are your thoughts on those taxonomists that describe new species, or make nomenclature changes, based on a single (or a few) old alcohol preserved specimens found in museums? I'm conflicted on the matter. On one hand it is good thing to examine and publish what is stored in museum collections so they are known to the scientific community; but on the other hand I feel like attempts to conduct field work for the collection of more specimens should be done for more complete research.

 

[viper69]

It would be sufficient to explain the relationships using phylogenetic analyses with computer-assisted morphological analyses (using PAUP, TNT, etc.). Similar to genetic analyses, this is quite time-consuming, but much more reliable and better than purely morphological descriptions based on a few characters, which are ultimately “weighted” at the discretion of the author to explain and define new species or genera. One must be aware that every description of a new species is always a statement about its relationship to the next most closely related species. So if species are still described as they were 100 years ago, only with slightly better characteristics, this does not make the description and its purpose any better than it used to be! But quick fame is guaranteed, of course!

I completely agree!

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

What are your thoughts on those taxonomists that describe new species, or make nomenclature changes, based on a single (or a few) old alcohol preserved specimens found in museums? I'm conflicted on the matter. On one hand it is good thing to examine and publish what is stored in museum collections so they are known to the scientific community; but on the other hand I feel like attempts to conduct field work for the collection of more specimens should be done for more complete research.

I see it similarly to you. However, museum specimens should then also be made available to other scientists if, for example, they want to compare their collected material with the museum type specimens. This works quite well in many natural history museums, but not in all of them. Another problem is the individual and intraspecific variation of characters, which of course can be assessed on a single museum specimen only with many years of experience. However, I consider the fact, that the relationships between many newly described species, which are based on only one or a few specimens, are often determined by a rather typological approach to be a significant problem. For example, some characters are defined as species- or genus-distinguishing without knowing their variation and without really being able to assess whether the characters used really have a phylogenetic signal. To prevent this, it would be important to use at least a computer-assisted phylogenetic analysis of the morphological characters. However, this is of course much more time-consuming and labor-intensive than a simple species description. On the other hand, in today's age of biodiversity destruction, we are losing a lot of time then that could be spent indexing unknown taxa. For this reason, genetic analyses are very helpful here, when possible, because they work even better and faster than phylogenetic analyses based on morphological data sets. Genetic analyses are also often no longer that expensive. However, some amateurs find this very difficult, as they can hardly afford such analyses on their own. In such cases, it is always a good idea to put your ego aside and work with relevant university research teams, as was done in this case.

 

[Spifdar]

That's really cool. I had to look up "troglomorphic" lol, and now I'm curious--what do cave-dwelling adaptations look like in tarantulas? I glanced over the included images, but nothing popped out! (Also if you guys do edit these as you go/republish, I saw a typo on #8's graphic--the cricket on the right says "arhtropods")

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

That's really cool. I had to look up "troglomorphic" lol, and now I'm curious--what do cave-dwelling adaptations look like in tarantulas? I glanced over the included images, but nothing popped out! (Also if you guys do edit these as you go/republish, I saw a typo on #8's graphic--the cricket on the right says "arhtropods")

On page 153 ff of our publication, you will find information on troglomorphism in Orphnaecus pellitus. Thank you for your correction.

 

[Spifdar]

On page 153 ff of our publication, you will find information on troglomorphism in Orphnaecus pellitus. Thank you for your correction.

Thank you, that's some fascinating stuff! From a novice viewpoint, "increased sensitivity to movements, and better predation drive" got me (in a humorous way)--they already seem to teleport as it is, so extra-responsive teleporting tarantulas is a fascinating concept