- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,092
Maybe I'm wrong then and I just haven't heard of the GBB baboon?
The hobby's Great White Whale
- Thread starter l4nsky
- Start date
Minty
@londontarantulas
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 488
No, that’s not what I was referring to. Give me a few minutes to find it.
http://arachnoboards.com/threads/ba...-similar-to-gbb-discovered-in-namibia.307382/
Here you go.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 18,076
Thanks I remember that one, I have 10
Minty
@londontarantulas
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 488
*shakes fist angrily*Thanks I remember that one, I have 10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 953
Chad's skeptical for a reason... According to the Chilean hobbyist that know their native species well, Phrixotrichus scrofa has never been exported nor have I seen any outside of their photos... So I think it's safe to say, they have never been in the US. Hobby labels of Chilean species are all goofed up and have been for a long time. We are just now starting to correct the labeling mistakes. Here is what I have been told...
Hobby P. scrofa = E. manicata or E. parvulus or E. sp. Metropolitana
Hobby E. parvulus = E. manicata
Hobby E. pulcherrimaklaasi or E. sp. Blue or green = truculentus
Hobby E. truculentus = E. manicata
Phrixotrichus scrofa (the real one) Showing dual urticating patches:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126073513@N08/36835063433/in/album-72157686934664560
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126073513@N08/37246264430/in/album-72157686934664560/
Last edited:
MetalMan2004
Arachnodemon
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 676
Now that’s the coolest looking tarantula I’ve seen in a long time.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,092
Agreed. Anyone want to fill me in on the details? Is there a Chilean ban on export like Brazil or is there another reason these haven't entered the trade?
PanzoN88
Arachnodemon
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 713
Great now I'm wondering what my so called P. scrofa sling really is now.
As for a species I'd like to see here in the states, I would like to se Harpactira gigas. If @JoeRossi or @Austin S. Had them, I would buy some right now, minimal questions asked.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2014
- Messages
- 13,308
MMYou've never had one. Unless you can come up with pics of your spider having twin urt patches.
Looks like 2
But obviously a very different t than what CEC posted....that t is really neat.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 953
Only one urticating patch... that is undoubtedly an Euathlus sp.MM
Looks like 2
But obviously a very different t than what CEC posted....that t is really neat.
Vanessa
Grammostola Groupie
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,423
I went back and forth for days with Nico over trying to identify my Euathlus parvulus and Euathlus pulcherrimaklaasi. He identified them as Euathlus manicata and Euathlus truculentus.
I enjoy his photos so much and they have helped me to understand just how screwed up the naming is in the hobby for all those Euathlus species.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 1,217
How about an albino tarantula! I know they technically can’t be albino in that they don’t have hair and skin and the same types of pigments, etc. There is an “albino” millipede so maybe it could be possible in a tarantula? It would be amazing to see!
- Joined
- May 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,838
I will make the argument that the E. sp. blue and green are not E. truculentus or at least should not be referred to as such until more information is presented. Comparing the pictures of the palpal bulb and spermatheca from the Tarantulas of Chile web site of these species and comparing with the images from Legendre and Calderón 1984, the identification can't possibly be conclusive. The palpal bulb morphology is the same with E. sp. blue and green, E. truculentus, and a fourth... E. sp. "Valparaiso". The spermathecae from E. sp. blue and green and E. sp. "Valparaiso" do not match the drawing of E. truculentus. Perafan and Perez-Miles (2014) state that one difference between male E. truculentus and all other Euathlus species is "few labial cuspules(<20)." I have an adult female of the E. sp. "blue" and an immature of E. sp. "green" and they both have far more than 20 labial cuspules. Same with the male and females of Euathlus sp. "Valparaiso" which I have one of each gender in alcohol. I can't think of a tarantula species where males and females have a vastly different number of labial cuspules so I will assume the number for females is the same for males.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 953
Valid argument... At least, from an outsider looking in. I have never owned nor extensively researched any of these Chilean species, so I can counter with nada... I will relay your indifference to some peeps, see if any one is up to the challenge...
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 953
@AphonopelmaTX
Got a reply...
"The document of legendre and calderon contains errors, serious errors like some specimens of E.tructulentus collected in cerro aconcagua, habitat incompatible with said species, specimens of Paraphysa scrofa collected in the north of the V region, being that neither of the two species confused with current Paraphysa scrofa has such a northern distribution, E.manicata south of the fifth region, and Phrixotrichus scrofa conception eighth region of Chile, the differences to which you refer are minor, the labial cuspulas differ between specimens of the same population, these should not be taken as a taxonomic character, in fact it is even more complex, the strong taxonomic characters such as the palps and embols of the males are all identical, Euathlus truculentus blue green sp valparaiso sp negra, sp caverna, sp viridi, sp hermosa, sp parda and others, this group of giant Euathlus are a similar case to the grammostola genus, little anything can be done with classical taxonomi, just show some minor differences in their espermatecas, some as the E.sp parda is the most different by external characteristics, but internally it does not stop being equal to E.tructulentus, good and with everything you comment you can reach the conclusion that it is impossible to know which is the true truculentus, because no, it is enough to see the collection site of the Holotypo paratypes and others, and all are blue E.tructulentus mostly and some green, but for the rest of species that I mentioned, except for its spermatheca and only in some, have almost no weight differences for the classical taxonomy, so they must be subjected to molecular analysis to have weight differences to describe them as different species."
Got a reply...
"The document of legendre and calderon contains errors, serious errors like some specimens of E.tructulentus collected in cerro aconcagua, habitat incompatible with said species, specimens of Paraphysa scrofa collected in the north of the V region, being that neither of the two species confused with current Paraphysa scrofa has such a northern distribution, E.manicata south of the fifth region, and Phrixotrichus scrofa conception eighth region of Chile, the differences to which you refer are minor, the labial cuspulas differ between specimens of the same population, these should not be taken as a taxonomic character, in fact it is even more complex, the strong taxonomic characters such as the palps and embols of the males are all identical, Euathlus truculentus blue green sp valparaiso sp negra, sp caverna, sp viridi, sp hermosa, sp parda and others, this group of giant Euathlus are a similar case to the grammostola genus, little anything can be done with classical taxonomi, just show some minor differences in their espermatecas, some as the E.sp parda is the most different by external characteristics, but internally it does not stop being equal to E.tructulentus, good and with everything you comment you can reach the conclusion that it is impossible to know which is the true truculentus, because no, it is enough to see the collection site of the Holotypo paratypes and others, and all are blue E.tructulentus mostly and some green, but for the rest of species that I mentioned, except for its spermatheca and only in some, have almost no weight differences for the classical taxonomy, so they must be subjected to molecular analysis to have weight differences to describe them as different species."
RezonantVoid
Hollow Knight
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2018
- Messages
- 1,357
While not really a tarantula, Xamiatus Magnificus is one I wish I could get. It's just so rare that nobody has been able to collect them, or if anybody has they've kept a lid on it so others don't work out where they got it. While it's a wishbone spider, it's size is almost equivalent to a small adult Selenotypus sp. T.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 953
Don't exactly know what you are asking here but if I understand correctly...
Phrixotrichus vulpinus is a different but similar species to scrofa, these have been in the hobby but were still quite rare and mainly kept outside of US. Their old hobby name was "Euathlus vulpinus" but transferred to Phrixotrichus because they also have two lateral (separate, side by side) urticating setae patches along with some other key characteristics for the genus.