I have to say that the species in the pet trade are heavily hybridised and their type localities are mostly unknown; this is one of the main reasons that they are not mentioned in the descriptions for the new species. Regarding Pamphobeteus sp. Machala and other topographically close relatives, in nature, most tarantula species can be both allopatric and sympatric and species richness has seemed to be astonnishingly diverse (with even 5 species of Pamphobeteus in a single locality, this is the case for P. skis, P. urvinae, etc). Thus, what is called Pamphobeteus sp. Machala, or any nicknamed species for that matter, can be a single collection from one locality, yes, but is probably a hybrid because of crossbreeding in the hobby and crossbreeding from the collection itself (this local crossbreeding doesn't usually happen in nature but can happen in captivity a lot more often).
Considering tarantulas, the localities of Machala and Jama are very distant and are unlikely to be the same species. In fact, I have kept P. sp. Machala and can affirm, to a near certainty, that they are dissimilar.
We used a variety of morphological data, mostly external characteristics. Not haemolymph. In the paper, there is a key that can be followed to identify the described species of Pamphobeteus, however, it does require knowledge of some morphological aspects. There are reference images that can be helpful though.
If this is the case, we might have to completely kill off the entire genus from the hobby and start all over again to get rid of hybrids. A massive shame (as someone who keeps three individuals of two "species" from this genus), but given just how bad hybridization is in this hobby drastic measures are called from.
Taxonomy is done to understand the planet's biodiversity and not for any kind of hobby community. Lets be clear on that.
The comparisons of morphological characters, including spermathecae and palpal bulbs, in the genus Aphonopelma within the United States has already been completed using about 3,000 specimens collected from all over the country. The verdict is in, there are significant differences in some species but not in others. For many species of Aphonopelma, there are no differences significant enough to use as a reliable means of identification. When it comes to sorting out species relationships in tarantulas, and other mygalomorphae, one has to use multiple lines of evidence to find distinct evolving lineages to arrive at a firm conclusion as to what-is-what in a manner of speaking.
Yes and no. It is safe to assume that many of the classified and named species of tarantulas are inaccurate and will need further revisions to sort out. In the past 20 years or so, taxonomists are finding that the traditional means of classifying tarantulas- and other mygalomorphae- using morphology alone (including color) sometimes works and other times there is so much variation that it is useless. It is only when you examine hundreds or thousands of specimens and use another form of evidence, such as molecular analysis, combined with where they are found that one can arrive at that conclusion.
The latter part of your post,I'm totally an amateur,but some of their findings published in the Asian spiders leave me still with more research and input I really feel I need to have before ever thinking about moving in with any breeding involvement with this hobby.Taxonomy is done to understand the planet's biodiversity and not for any kind of hobby community. Lets be clear on that.
The tarantula keeping hobby will always be a mess because of the various difficulties in identifying them properly before they are sold to the general public. These are not creatures that you can simply look at to identify. Considering many species of tarantulas look identical as spiderlings- and how long many take to grow up- it could take someone years to figure out they were sold the wrong species.
The comparisons of morphological characters, including spermathecae and palpal bulbs, in the genus Aphonopelma within the United States has already been completed using about 3,000 specimens collected from all over the country. The verdict is in, there are significant differences in some species but not in others. For many species of Aphonopelma, there are no differences significant enough to use as a reliable means of identification. When it comes to sorting out species relationships in tarantulas, and other mygalomorphae, one has to use multiple lines of evidence to find distinct evolving lineages to arrive at a firm conclusion as to what-is-what in a manner of speaking.
When it comes to Pamphobeteus petersi, the research found it was misclassified in the wrong genus so that is why you see such a big difference between it and other Pamphobeteus species. I have no idea what is circulating in the pet trade so I can't comment further.
Yes and no. It is safe to assume that many of the classified and named species of tarantulas are inaccurate and will need further revisions to sort out. In the past 20 years or so, taxonomists are finding that the traditional means of classifying tarantulas- and other mygalomorphae- using morphology alone (including color) sometimes works and other times there is so much variation that it is useless. It is only when you examine hundreds or thousands of specimens and use another form of evidence, such as molecular analysis, combined with where they are found that one can arrive at that conclusion.
When you read new taxonomy research where new species are (re)classified and named, you have to take note of how many specimens were used to arrive at the conclusion the research came to. The issue I have with all of these nomenclature changes published by Sherwood and/ or Gabriel is that they are doing so with only one or two specimens mostly found in museums. Although they often acknowledge further research is needed in their works, the question must be asked whether it is better to go ahead and publish with weak evidence or to wait until field work can be done and more specimens can be collected and examined.
Yeah firstly I'd like to apologise my sentence did come out as that we(the hobby people) are the front page why they are doing it.Taxonomy is done to understand the planet's biodiversity and not for any kind of hobby community. Lets be clear on that.
The tarantula keeping hobby will always be a mess because of the various difficulties in identifying them properly before they are sold to the general public. These are not creatures that you can simply look at to identify. Considering many species of tarantulas look identical as spiderlings- and how long many take to grow up- it could take someone years to figure out they were sold the wrong species.
The comparisons of morphological characters, including spermathecae and palpal bulbs, in the genus Aphonopelma within the United States has already been completed using about 3,000 specimens collected from all over the country. The verdict is in, there are significant differences in some species but not in others. For many species of Aphonopelma, there are no differences significant enough to use as a reliable means of identification. When it comes to sorting out species relationships in tarantulas, and other mygalomorphae, one has to use multiple lines of evidence to find distinct evolving lineages to arrive at a firm conclusion as to what-is-what in a manner of speaking.
When it comes to Pamphobeteus petersi, the research found it was misclassified in the wrong genus so that is why you see such a big difference between it and other Pamphobeteus species. I have no idea what is circulating in the pet trade so I can't comment further.
Yes and no. It is safe to assume that many of the classified and named species of tarantulas are inaccurate and will need further revisions to sort out. In the past 20 years or so, taxonomists are finding that the traditional means of classifying tarantulas- and other mygalomorphae- using morphology alone (including color) sometimes works and other times there is so much variation that it is useless. It is only when you examine hundreds or thousands of specimens and use another form of evidence, such as molecular analysis, combined with where they are found that one can arrive at that conclusion.
When you read new taxonomy research where new species are (re)classified and named, you have to take note of how many specimens were used to arrive at the conclusion the research came to. The issue I have with all of these nomenclature changes published by Sherwood and/ or Gabriel is that they are doing so with only one or two specimens mostly found in museums. Although they often acknowledge further research is needed in their works, the question must be asked whether it is better to go ahead and publish with weak evidence or to wait until field work can be done and more specimens can be collected and examined.
Again I'm truly not trying to discount anyone or offend the work that people put inside the revision work to progress in defying what inhabitants our planet has, so I'm sorry about that. - It's purely the words of someone who isn't indirectly connected to the research of biodiversity - so I think I'm writing out the words of a lot of people on this forum and they can come out wrong.There is a lot to digest in this post, so I will address it using an analogy. First don't discount the value of all of those old dead specimens sitting in museums. Some of those things are the source of truth for whether you have a new species or not; it is called a type series. Other preserved specimens that have been collected over the decades are valuable records of what people have encountered and need examination to determine how many are new to science or the same species. It's all a part of the record of Earth's biodiversity.
I like to think of organismal classification and identification in the same way I sometimes get confused over writing utensils. If you find a writing utensil on the street, or in a junk drawer, how do you know you have a pen (tarantula species A) and not a marker (tarantula species B)? Well, you take it to the office supply store and carefully compare it to all the other writing utensils they have on the shelves (the museum collection) and determine what best to call it. If it is something the store doesn't have at all, you call it a brand new type of writing utensil (new species) and make up a name following some arbitrary rules a committee has made up (rules of zoological nomenclature). Using this analogy for tarantula taxonomy, what if your office supply store only has a few different types of writing utensils to compare with? Do you think your conclusion as to whether you have a pen or a marker- or something else entirely- is going to be precise? Probably not considering there are thousands of variations of both pens and markers. In that case you can either call it quits and call what you have a pen (or marker, or new writing utensil) or you can wait to draw your conclusion until you find more examples. Further complicating matters, what if your newly discovered writing utensil has characteristics of both a pen and a marker and you read on the label what looks to be "felt tip pen?" Oh boy, now you are going to have to use multiple lines of evidence to determine what you have. Time to break out the chemistry set and determine what kind of ink it has or what material the casing is made of and compare that with other examples (DNA barcoding).
The analogy I just made up is the best way I can explain the complications of tarantula taxonomy. It's not difficult to understand, it is just so convoluted that it gets real confusing real fast.
