Avicularia bicegoi vs Avicularia huriana

Anyone know the external physical differences between Avicularia bicegoi and Avicularia huriana. Anyone own adults of both species? Are the ones sold as Avicularia huriana today just Avicularia bicegoi under a different name?

No.
I don't own adults myself, but I have a A.Huriana sling, and had a Bicegoi juvie that recentley passed. I have seen their mothers - The Huriana is more "blonde", and has a blacker rump, where as the Bicegoi is more red all over, and has a very red rump. They both seem to have blueish "skin" or "undertones" if you like, but the Bicegoi is by far alot more red. Of course, if selective breeding works the same way in spiders as other animals, this could be a result of such. The physical traits of Avics, apart from colors, are generally very similar, and not easily distinguished.

Of course, you could argue that there are only a few actual species within Avicularia, and that most are simply color variations, but this is up to the individual, so far, as the research on this genus is so far inconclusive at the best..

Also, many believe that few, if any, of the Avicularia we have in the hobby are actually some that may be found in the wild. This genus seem to be very prone to hybrids.

AbraCadaver said:

No.
I have seen their mothers - The Huriana is more "blonde", and has a blacker rump, where as the Bicegoi is more red all over, and has a very red rump. They both seem to have blueish "skin" or "undertones" if you like, but the Bicegoi is by far alot more red.

Click to expand...

According to which images/documents are these descriptions based? As far as I know this is the case:

GoTerps said:

That's the same spider[Avicularia huriana] being sold as sp. "bicegoi" as well! Those 2 names are quite interchangeable for exporters/dealers.

Eric

Click to expand...

Sold as A. huriana:


Sold as A. bicegoi:


Overall size seems to differ as well with A. huriana being similar sized to my A. avicularia whereas A. bicegoi is up there with my A. braunshauseni.

JC said:

According to which images/documents are these descriptions based? As far as I know this is the case:

Click to expand...

They're based on sight of real live spiders.

And if you would please read the rest of my post, I think that would tell you my views on the matter of the genus.
And I think JMugleston illustrated the point nicely.

Found some more.

Sold as A. huriana. Freshly molt adult female:


2.5-3" sold as A. bicegoi:

Thank you Jmugleston for the pictures. You know, your "Avicularia huriana" in your first picture looks almost exactly like Jon's "Avicularia urticans" we were discussing back in February that he purchased from TarantulaCanada.(Note this one is in premolt.)

JC said:

A friend showed me a picture of his Avicularia female which was sold to him as Avicularia urticans.

Click to expand...

According to the drawn spermathecae illustrated by Galiano, 1984 and Stradling, 1978 provided by tarantulas.tropica.ru here, Avicularia huriana's spermatheca should look something like the one illustrated on line #4, 2nd across. If you have good molts of your Avicularia huriana, you might want to check that out and compare the two if yours is female.


Here is my 5.5'' female "Avicularia bicegoi". Wild caught from Peru:

Freshly molted:



No-flash Carapace:

No-flash abdomen:


Full-shot, 15 days post-molt:



Her last molt turned out great, but I need a bigger molt to get a better picture of her spermatheca for comparison. I'll post it as soon as she gives me one.

I think urticans and hurianas are alot more similar, in many ways, than the Huriana and bicegoi. I totally forgott about urticans, but they are indeed very similar to adult hurianas.
Stunning T's, whatever the hell they are =p

The lines between many of the Avicularia are so fine, it's very hard to keep your head on straight with this genus. I love it nevertheless, I can't resist those fuzzy pink toes!

AbraCadaver said:

I think urticans and hurianas are alot more similar, in many ways, than the Huriana and bicegoi.

Click to expand...

I personality don't think so. Here is my once owned adult female "Avicularia urticans", as Rick West calls it.

Rick West said:

"Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing from an image. This species 'appears' to be Avicularia urticans."

Click to expand...

Photo IDing spiders is never a good idea, but simply for the purpose of owning a spider for the average hobbyist to have on display in their home, its not so bad.

AbraCadaver said:

... it's very hard to keep your head on straight with this genus. I love it nevertheless, I can't resist those fuzzy pink toes!

Click to expand...

With that, I do agree!

Hmm, that looks nothing like any urtican I have ever seen, looks alot more like the bicegois I've seen.. But who know, maybe they're all really Avicularia Avicularia =p

Regardless, as Ive said, the lines are so fine between these species, that more with avics than any other genus, I think, photo ID's are useless.. I guess it all comes down to definitions of the seller, what they define them as. As of yet, there are too many unconfirmed Avicularia, complicating everything greatly. Their physical traits are very similar, making it hard to properly identify a living individual, and let's face it, not everyone has a biologists specializing in Avic and tarantula research in their backpocket, so odds of ever knowing for sure with many of our hobby avics are dismal at best..

But they are very intresting. From what I've come to understand, they very often mate between species in the wild as well, complicating things further.

AbraCadaver said:

I guess it all comes down to definitions of the seller, what they define them as. As of yet, there are too many unconfirmed Avicularia, complicating everything greatly. Their physical traits are very similar, making it hard to properly identify a living individual, and let's face it, not everyone has a biologists specializing in Avic and tarantula research in their backpocket, so odds of ever knowing for sure with many of our hobby avics are dismal at best.

Click to expand...

Again I disagree. The seller is responsible for knowing the species that he/she is advertising, just as much as breeders of hybrid species are responsible for knowing where the hybrid offspring they have produced are.

These are the things that hold back the progression of the hobby. For instance, here is an old case of a theraphosid species sold under a different name in order to make a quick buck.

Here is the response of one of the importers involved in that ordeal:

boidaddic said:

I'd just like to clear some things up for the dealers out their that made this mistake (and yes i'm one of them). When we get our animals in it is quite common that we get them in as something different then what they truly are and their is no way of us knowing, as we are not taxonomists. For example these came in from Europe and were labeled as bicegoi so thats what i sold them as, and I apologize to everyone who has bought them from me. We are not scam artists, we just made an honest mistake so those out their who have been caught up in this mistake dont take it personally, it certainly wasnt our intentions.
Regards,
Eric Weintraub

Click to expand...

And here are concerned hobbyist responses to that message:

Michael Jacobi said:

@ boidaddic - There are plenty of misidentifications that are reasonable due to similar species, but if these were the size Todd mentioned and a "dealer" didn't know the obvious difference between A. aurantiaca and what we know as A. bicegoi, it may be an honest mistake, but it is due to inexperience and little interest in verifying a species he or she may not be familiar with.

Click to expand...

GoTerps said:

Hi "boidaddic",

In this case, it doesn't take a taxonimist to realize you're not selling A. bicegoi.

And if it's that common to recieve things "as something different then what they truely are" maybe you should reconsider your source. You're still responsible for what you sell.

I really don't mean to be ignorant, but the "that's what I bought it as, so it's OK" bit is getting old.

Eric

Click to expand...

Both responses which I agree with. Import dealers hold a lot of power in this hobby, it is only reasonable that we hobbyist ask for proper identifiable procedures be followed before selling stock to ignorant masses. There is no reason why a responsible dealer should have both Grammostola rosea and Grammostola cala in their selling inventory when that problem has been solved for over decade ago. Also, if the dealers can't ID the specimen properly, they can always call it Avicularia sp., so misnaming is no excuse.

With avics, someone will ALWAYS disagree, so I'm curious as to what the "right" approach would be with a genus where no one really knows what's left and right. I would love to know what YOU would do, if selling a spider you "knew" where one species, and someone then disagreeing, calling you a hoax and a lier, and basically, a moron. Being wrong, making a mistake, doesn't make you neither an idiot nor inexperienced. EVERYONE can make a mistake, and let's face it, dealing with Avics on a big scale, you're prone to make more.

For example, I have never seen an urtican looking like the one you posted. MY judgement, going on pics and spiders I've seen in real life, would say that the one you pictured is not a urtican. Following your train of thought, your seller is automatically a hoax, to push it a bit, because he has labeled a spider, in MY opinion, wrongly. And this is the thing with Avics - there are alot of opinions flying around, but very little hard facts. And my point was, if your sellers has seen a spider similiar to your "urticans" called a "urticans", he will call it, a "urticans". Meaning, it's his definition of a urtican, while, in others, it may not be. Fact is, pretty much any Avicularia should be Avicularia sp. then, making the original discussion of this thread pointless.

And again, I wasn't talking about people who are trying to earn a quick buck, I was talking about people getting lost ine the confusion, which can happen with everyone within a hobby like this.

AbraCadaver said:

Well, with a murky genus like Avicularia, what do you do when you import something labeled A.Huriana, but someone disagrees on that? With avics, someone will ALWAYS disagree, so I'm curious as to what the "right" approach would be with a genus where no one really knows what's left and right.

Click to expand...

First off, IDing spiders is not a matter of opinion of "I think it looks more like spider x". The basis of identifying a species must be backed up with scientific evidence. For example, hair structure, leg proportions, spermatheca shape, and the pedipalps of mature males, and biological tendencies are some examples. I don't have a problem with people not know, its when people claim they know and have nothing to support their claim that is wrong.

AbraCadaver said:

I would love to know what YOU would do.

Click to expand...

Easy. Don't sell an unknown spider as species X unless I have all evidence pointing to such a species.

AbraCadaver said:

For example, I have never seen an urtican looking like the one you posted. MY judgement, going on pics and spiders I've seen in real life, would say that the one you pictured is not a urtican.

Click to expand...

May be true, but I was not the one calling them A.urticans.

AbraCadaver said:

Following your train of thought, your seller is automatically a hoax, to push it a bit, because he has labeled a spider, in MY opinion, wrongly.

Click to expand...

Again, it is not a matter of opinion. You have no right labeling a spider 'x' because it 'appears' as such. This is why we call the Avicularia sp. ? You post a picture of specimen 'X' and allow the buyer to make their own decision.

AbraCadaver said:

And this is the thing with Avics - there are alot of opinions flying around, but very little hard facts. And my point was, if your sellers has seen a spider similiar to your "urticans" called a "urticans", he will call it, a "urticans".

Click to expand...

And that is where the mistake lies. Monkey see, monkey do is not excuse someone for misrepresenting information.

AbraCadaver said:

Fact is, pretty much any Avicularia should be Avicularia sp. then, making the original discussion of this thread pointless.

Click to expand...

How so? Avicularia, or any spider, are not picture IDed, so how would it make this thread pointless? What was the original purpose of this thread? Do you know?

You asked if there was a difference between bicegoi and huriana. I said there was, you don't seem to agree.. We both know avics are a muddy genus, and since pretty much no hobby Avic can be properly identified, having many species similar to each other, no one should be sold as a specific species.

On another note, you seem to come to the most moronic conclusions, no matter what I say, not really giving me a fair chance. You pull what you want from my answers, twisting it to something I don't mean. You have made up your mind, I am wrong, I cant be bothered with you anymore. You're not inrested in discussion, your instrested in showing how much you know. Knowledge is all well and good, but it shouldnt be used as a tool for making others look moronic and feel stupid. Thus, I feel you use your knowledge, or theories, in the wrong way, making you quite unbareable in a discussion.

You can PM me if you want to say something to me, because I am giving up on this thread.

AbraCadaver said:

You asked if there was a difference between bicegoi and huriana. I said there was, you don't seem to agree.. We both know avics are a muddy genus, and since pretty much no hobby Avic can be properly identified, having many species similar to each other, no one should be sold as a specific species.

Click to expand...

Actually I agreed with your description, as they were mine as well. I only turned it down because there is no evidence for both of our descriptions. Our assertions have no supportive scientific to conclude either way.

AbraCadaver said:

On another note, you seem to come to the most moronic conclusions, no matter what I say, not really giving me a fair chance. You pull what you want from my answers, twisting it to something I don't mean.

Click to expand...

Don't see how I did this and don't remember misquoting you or misrepresenting your ideas.

AbraCadaver said:

You have made up your mind, I am wrong, I cant be bothered with you anymore. You're not inrested in discussion, your instrested in showing how much you know. Knowledge is all well and good, but it shouldnt be used as a tool for making others look moronic and feel stupid. Thus, I feel you use your knowledge, or theories, in the wrong way, making you quite unbareable in a discussion.

Click to expand...

The thread was not meant to make anyone feel stupid, simply information and argument you presented was weak and easily . The what little information I presented could be easily accessed through the net, and the mislabeling problem has plagued the hobby for years so nothing new has been presented.

I am looking for new leads. Eventually spermathecae images, documents,microscopic shots of the shape U hairs, some sort of new based from which I can rely. The reason I have started these Avicularia bicegoi is to inquire on Arachnoboards the limit of information on this species for breeding purposes.

They are different in some special ways! My cousin used to have a bicegoi 5in gal. She passed away due to old age. But I find the bicegoi is a more stunning species!