Theraphosa spinipes

[Grimmothy]

Does anyone actually have a T. spinipes? I'd love to see one if you do

 

[Wolfram1]

Its not clear that it even is its own species.

The species was reactivated when the Lasiodora review found the type specimen of Lasiodora spinipes to be a Theraphosa.

It has not been compared to the existing Theraphosa species and may well be one of them.

Further 'review pending' basically.

 

[Grimmothy]

Its not clear that it even is its own species.

The species was reactivated when the Lasiodora review found the type specimen of Lasiodora spinipes to be a Theraphosa.

It has not been compared to the existing Theraphosa species and may well be one of them.

Further 'review pending' basically.

Ah I see, how do they determine taxonomical changes? Like how did they find that the type specimen wasn't Lasiodora but instead Theraphosa?

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

Its not clear that it even is its own species.

The species was reactivated when the Lasiodora review found the type specimen of Lasiodora spinipes to be a Theraphosa.

It has not been compared to the existing Theraphosa species and may well be one of them.

Further 'review pending' basically.

Is it even in the hobby ? It’s essentially the fourth Theraphosa.

Does anyone actually have a T. spinipes? I'd love to see one if you do

I don’t know if there in the hobby anywhere. Maybe Europe?

 

[Grimmothy]

Is it even in the hobby ? It’s essentially the fourth Theraphosa.

I don’t know if there in the hobby anywhere. Maybe Europe?

I cant find anything on them except some posts on here from 2010 and I'm just not sure that is actually T. spinipes

 

[Wolfram1]

i dont remember which it was but one of the three Theraphosa sp. (T. stirmi i think) doesnt have a proper description or the type specimen was lost or something like that.

you can check on the "World Spider Catalog" yourself which it is and thus the reexamined type specimen of "Lasiodora spinipes" could not be fully compared with all of the existing ones.

So they simply transferred it to the correct genus but didn't finish the analysis as a full comparison was not possible at that time.

once the genus Theraphosa gets a proper review they will be able to compare the type specimens and determine if it is indeed a new species or if it is rather a synonym of one of the others.

If it is a synonym, then the older name is adapted as the species.

You can check all those details on the WSC after a free subscription...

happy research

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

i dont remember which it was but one of the three Theraphosa sp. (T. stirmi i think) doesnt have a proper description or the type specimen was lost or something like that.

It is Theraphosa blondi that doesn't have a proper description. Judging by the taxonomy research where T. blondi is described, no one author agrees with what it is exactly which becomes apparent when one authority describes the presence of a character while others don't. Specifically whether it has a stridulatory organ between legs 1 and 2 which is important considering that one character- in combination with genital morphology- has been used to define the genus Theraphosa.

I cant find anything on them except some posts on here from 2010 and I'm just not sure that is actually T. spinipes

The old posts referring to Theraphosa spinipes is actually T. stirmi. A long time ago before T. stirmi was described, people got word that the arachnologist Rogerio Bertani from Brazil was working on the revision of the genus Lasiodora in which the species Lasiodora spinipes was going to be transferred to the genus Theraphosa forming the new combination Theraphosa spinipes. At the time, everyone became aware that their bald-kneed T. blondi wasn't actually T. blondi and some just decided it should be called T. spinipes for no good reason. It wasn't until the publication of the species T. stirmi that everyone became aware that their misidentified pet trade T. blondi with bald knees was T. stirmi.

It would seem that now the revision of the genus Lasiodora has been published, people are interested in Theraphosa spinipes again, but as @Wolfram1 has previously stated, it doesn't have a description and hasn't been compared to other Theraphosa species so no one knows what it is exactly. The only take-away from the revision of the genus Lasiodora is that a tarantula was found in a museum somewhere with a label "Lasiodora spinipes" that was found to be misplaced in the genus Lasiodora and actually belongs to the genus Theraphosa. Since we don't know how to identify a T. spinipes, some people may have one already in their collections and just not know it, or it could be eventually found to be another one of the three described Theraphosa species.

 

[The Spider House]

Until full taxonomy on Theraphosa, as far as I am concerned, no such thing as a Theraphosa spinipes (yet).

So at time of writing there is still "The big 3" (apophysis, blondi, and stirmi).

I have also seen the pic of the "spinipes" in the gallery here and it sure as hell looks like T stirmi to me. I am not a scientist so can only go from pics but I own over 30 Theraphosa and bred them so I have a pretty good eye for these big brown beauties.

 

[Wolfram1]

Since we were at the topic

 

[The Spider House]

Since we were at the topic

It's like the stars aligned. Got my signed DVD on its way at the end of next week. I supplied some photos that I hope made it to the final cut.