Pamphobeteus sp "insignis" (Ecuador) vs Pamphobeteus sp insignis (Colombia)

[Matt W]

I'm simply pointing out that aside from a passing resemblance based on the original description there's no reason to equate the Ecuadorian species with the original Columbian animal.

Hey sorry to resurrect this old thread. I just want to be sure I understand this--I'm fascinated by taxonomy. Are you saying that hobbyist Pamphobetus spiders labelled as P. sp. Ecuador or P. cf insignis (Ecuador) or even P. machala, all with common name Ecuadoran Purple Bloom, only exist in the hobby and are probably cross-bred mixes? Danniella Sherwood (a British arachnologist and taxonomist) did a survey of Pamphobetus using museum type specimens in 2022. She included geographic locales for these spiders identified by holotype location. Ecuador includes P. urvina, P. augusti, and possibly P. ultramarinis. P. insignis is from the Cauca Valley region of Columbia, which is a couple of hundred miles from the Ecuadoran border. There is no P. machala listed as a described Pamphobetus species at all (though there are two orb weavers from Ecuador listed as species machala.)

So, like, this is all made up? It would be interesting to figure out when and who offered the first Ecuadoran Purple Bloom for sale. Who coined the species name machala? Interestingly, in 2023, Sherwood published a second paper adding several new species to genus Pamphobetus, including two (P. gangotenai and P. jamacoaque) from Ecuador which are closely typed to P. insignis (i.e. the taxonomic diagnosis chart Sherwood provides has P. insignis as the closest to these two species.) Maybe the sp. Ecuador or P. machala specimens in the hobby are from one of those species?

 

[Matt W]

I guess in general I have the question: who is deciding these spiders are new species? Where are they getting their names? How do we know geographic origin? There are dozens and dozens of Pamphobetus species available in the hobby; far more than the 18 formally described in scientific literature. Most of them have the P. sp. designation, followed by a name that comes from ??? They're hard to tell apart, not well identified in the first place, and it seems to be the wild west with naming conventions.

In formal open nomenclature, Pamphobetus sp. would mean a specimen positively identified as belonging to genus Pamphobetus, but with unknown species. And sp. nov. if it's identified by a specialist taxonomist as belonging to a new species. In the hobby it seems to mean "we're not sure what this is but we're gonna give it a name so we can sell it." It's no surprise that buying these spiders is a bit of a crapshoot.

 

[A guy]

I guess in general I have the question: who is deciding these spiders are new species? Where are they getting their names? How do we know geographic origin? There are dozens and dozens of Pamphobetus species available in the hobby; far more than the 18 formally described in scientific literature. Most of them have the P. sp. designation, followed by a name that comes from ??? They're hard to tell apart, not well identified in the first place, and it seems to be the wild west with naming conventions.

In formal open nomenclature, Pamphobetus sp. would mean a specimen positively identified as belonging to genus Pamphobetus, but with unknown species. And sp. nov. if it's identified by a specialist taxonomist as belonging to a new species. In the hobby it seems to mean "we're not sure what this is but we're gonna give it a name so we can sell it." It's no surprise that buying these spiders is a bit of a crapshoot.

Welcome to the dumpster fire that is the Pamphobeteus genus. First time? Don't worry we've all been there

Wait until you see that it's not just Pamphobeteus

 

[Matt W]

Lol, yeah, I definitely seen it. It's fascinating how taxonomy is done. I get why they use emboli and spermatheca shape as type characteristics. They're sexual organs, sexual selection is a huge driver of evolution, and sexual compatibility depends on their shape. They're also easy to examine under a microscope from preserved type specimens (unlike coloration, which is often not preserved.) But surely there are other, more obvious, morphological differences between most species. Coloration may have significant intraspecific variation, but pair it with size, sling coloration, hair distribution, behavior etc and you should be able to pair the species diagnosis using sexual organs with the more obvious characteristics. Certainly that's what hobbyist breeders are trying to do when they use names for these species: "This one is large and has purple femurs and purple radial patterns on its carapace." But that's what common names are for and maybe it would be better to use those than these pseudo-scientific ones.

 

[Brewser]

Mish Mash of Miss Matched Mix