Any US native T other than Aphonopelma?

Merfolk · Apr 20, 2009

The title says all...

I know that they are some introduced Brachys and Avics, but are ALL US t species Aphonopelma, or do we have some obscure little known variety of others families?

Moltar · Apr 20, 2009

As far as I've heard Aphonopelmas are the whole show. There could be a few Brachypelma skulking around in southern Texas or California but seems to me they'd probably have been noticed by now.

upwith inverts! · Apr 20, 2009

There are rumors of avics and phormictopus in florida, and some introduced Brachypelma vagans there.

Mina · Apr 20, 2009

I agree, unless you count the Florida B. vagans and A. avics, I don't think anything other than Aphonopelmas occurs in the US naturally.

Aschamne · Apr 20, 2009

You tend to forget that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are part of the US.

Art

ThomasH · Apr 20, 2009

Aschamne said:
You tend to forget that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are part of the US.

Art

I wouldn't call them part of the U.S. Quite contradictory to the abreviation. They are just territories. Puerto Rico, besides sharing currency and laws is nothing like the U.S.
TBH

Kirk · Apr 20, 2009

Aschamne said:
You tend to forget that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are part of the US.

Art

Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, they were probably referring to the contiguous US (including the District of Columbia). And, as they were specifically asking about 'native' species, this would not include introduced species in Florida.

GoTerps · Apr 20, 2009

For now that's it.

In the long run, there will be NO "Aphonopelma" from the U.S. There may end up being more than 1 genera here, but for the time being everything is "Aphonopelma".

Eric

Kirk · Apr 20, 2009

GoTerps said:
For now that's it.

In the long run, there will be NO "Aphonopelma" from the U.S. There may end up being more than 1 genera here, but for the time being everything is "Aphonopelma".

Eric

That's why I always laugh at the purists who claim stability is important in biological systematics nomenclature.

What · Apr 20, 2009

I would say there is a decent chance that Grammostola exist somewhere in the SW United States. I have seen a few photos that would support this claim as well...

Merfolk · Apr 20, 2009

This could be possible. They are species within a genus that are in separate areas very far apart elsewhere in the world. I would'nt be surprised!

GoTerps · Apr 20, 2009

Hey Kevin,

What said:
I would say there is a decent chance that Grammostola exist somewhere in the SW United States. I have seen a few photos that would support this claim as well...

Did you really mean Grammostola, or did you by chance mean to type Brachypelma? Either way I don't think so, but just curious

!

Considering Grammostola don't even exist in Central America, I doubt you meant to suggest they existed in the U.S.

Eric

pato_chacoana · Apr 20, 2009

Wow Grammostola in North America, that's interesting

...hehe
It is curious that only one Genus can be found in such huge country as the United States.

Pato-

What · Apr 21, 2009

GoTerps said:
Hey Kevin,
Did you really mean Grammostola, or did you by chance mean to type Brachypelma? Either way I don't think so, but just curious !
Eric

From some of the photos I have seen(I can look them up and send them off to you) I would say it is possible... Maybe transplants from Spanish colonization or something, the area the photos are from is near a mission that was established in the late 1700s/early 1800s.

metallica · Apr 21, 2009

GoTerps said:
For now that's it.

In the long run, there will be NO "Aphonopelma" from the U.S. There may end up being more than 1 genera here, but for the time being everything is "Aphonopelma".

Eric

OMG! next thing you know Brachypelma vagans is not a Brachypelma

GoTerps · Apr 21, 2009

metallica said:
OMG! next thing you know Brachypelma vagans is not a Brachypelma

Hehe, one thing at a time

Moltar · Apr 21, 2009

GoTerps said:
In the long run, there will be NO "Aphonopelma" from the U.S. There may end up being more than 1 genera here, but for the time being everything is "Aphonopelma".

Eric

You are referring to some ongoing work that will split Aphonopelma into 2 or more seperate genera? Can you elaborate or is it like, top secret?

metallica · Apr 21, 2009

look at the type species of Aphonopelma: A. seemanni. then look at all the other Aphonopelma species. not a big secret i would say.

Moltar · Apr 21, 2009

metallica said:
look at the type species of Aphonopelma: A. seemanni. then look at all the other Aphonopelma species. not a big secret i would say.

Oh, right, I hear ya. I always figured that A seemani was the odd man out in that one. When you look at American spp like A. anax, A. hentzi, A. sp "Paysoni", etc they're obviously very similar.

I wonder if all US species will be reclassified or if A seemani and it's ilk will be? (Goes to look at the Platnick list...)

metallica · Apr 21, 2009

etown_411 said:
I wonder if all US species will be reclassified or if A seemani and it's ilk will be? (Goes to look at the Platnick list...)

from the World spider catalog:

mf seemanni (F. O. P.-Cambridge, 1897) *

the * means that the genus was described from this species. so all the other species need to be re-classified. seemanni will remain Aphonopelma.

Any US native T other than Aphonopelma?

Arachnoprince

ArachnoGod

Arachnobaron

Arachnoking

Arachnobaron

Arachnoprince

Arachnodemon

Arachnoking

Arachnodemon

Arachnoprince

Arachnoprince

Arachnoking

Arachnoangel

Arachnoprince

Arachnoking

Arachnoking

ArachnoGod

Arachnoking

ArachnoGod

Arachnoking