The TARANTULA BIBLIOGRAPHY :: late MARCH 2014 Release: no more brocklehursti - READ!

The Tarantula Bibliography :: late March 2014 release :: Acanthoscurria revision!

My Tarantula Bibliography has been updated for the second time in March. At present the family Theraphosidae is comprised of 943 species in 127 genera.

Major changes include: The genus Acanthoscurria has been revised. The lone new species is Acanthoscurria belterrensis/ Both A. brocklehursti and A. ferina are now considered junior synonyms of A. theraphosoides. Change your labels; brocklehursti & ferina are no more! (see bottom for further comment* though...). Also, A. transamazonica is a junior synonym of A. geniculata and A. xinguensis is a junior synonym A. juruenicola.

Paula, F.d.S., R. Gabriel, R.P. Indicatti, A.D. Brescovit & S.M. Lucas. 2014.
On the Brazilian Amazonian species of Acanthoscurria (Araneae: Theraphosidae).
ZOOLOGIA 31(1): 63–80, February, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702014000100008.

LINKS

• To visit The Tarantula Bibliography click here.
• To download the PDF species list click here.
• To subscribe to my email updates click here
• To visit Michael Jacobi’s SPIDERSHOPPE click here

*I'm not the only one who has long considered geniculata and brocklehursti to be the same spider. However, to be clear, this new paper has nothing to do with that. Apparently the type specimen of "brocklehursti", now determined to be synonymous with A. theraphosoides, is nothing like what we call "brocklehursti" in the hobby. In other words, get rid of your "brock" labels if you're keeping the spider - because that species name is no longer valid! - but what we have (I should say you have as I don't keep 'em!) is (probably, almost definitely) not A. theraphosoides either. Genics and "brocks" should still be kept separate and not interbred until the day someone works on our pet trade material. They may be different and another name needed. This is what keeps scientists employed [jk ]. Until then it would be more proper to call your "brocks" A. theraphosoides, regardless of accuracy. But, personally, I think the best label would be Acanthoscurria sp. 'pet trade "brocklehursti" '. YMMV.

Thanks for the heads up Michael, but the link doesn't work. Here is a direct link to a PDF of the article.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf

Very cool info. Thanks!

Hi Michael,
i remember an old thread from T-store forum, there was a post that the main difference between Acanthoscurria genicualta and Acanthoscurria sp "brocklehursti hobby form" is a keel on the male bulbus. In the work you linked here, this keel is a varity between single speciemen of Acanthoscurria geniculata, so im sure that most of the Acanthoscurria brocklehursti named spiders in European hobby are an local variety of Acanthoscurria geniculata, which i think should be kept for sure separeted, senseless if they are the same species.

On this documents there are two photos of a mature male Acanthoscurria brocklehursti and a female Acanthoscurria brocklehursti and labeling it as Acanthoscurria geniculata http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf Why I ask?
Same thing about the Acanthoscurria fracta http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v28n4/v28n4a15.pdf To this day I am still asking why? A photo of a spider that does not even come close to look like the Acanthoscurria fracta that we all have known.


Jose

jose said:

On this papers there are two photos of a mature male Acanthoscurria brocklehursti and a female Acanthoscurria brocklehursti and labeling it as Acanthoscurria geniculata http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf Why I ask?
Same thing about the Acanthoscurria fracta http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v28n4/v28n4a15.pdf To this day I am still asking why? A photo of a spider that does not even come close to look like the Acanthoscurria fracta that we all have known.


Jose

Click to expand...

Jose, the link you posted provided pages of info, but the 3rd page is questionable.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf

Why did they label what looks like pictures of a brock male and brock female as the "geniculata"?

http://i61.tinypic.com/20ab51w.png

http://i60.tinypic.com/34gn4bb.png http://i59.tinypic.com/w2dqa1.png





Brock female (below)



Genic female (below)




The 3rd page on that "in depth" article link seemed to have a pic labeled incorrectly.

I just keep large various Ts safe and healthy, but what do I know about tarantula politics...

sweetypie said:

Jose, the link you posted provided pages of info, but the 3rd page is questionable.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v31n1/08.pdf

Why did they label the brock male as genic?

Brock female (below)

Genic female (below)

The 3rd page on that "in depth" article link seemed to have a pic labeled incorrectly.

I just keep large various Ts safe and healthy, but what do I know about tarantula politics...

Click to expand...

This is exactly my point!


Jose

I forgot to point out both pics in that linked written paper look quite different than the picture's description states.
Is this paper's picture labeled wrong?
The picture of the male (left), and female (right) are being described as geniculata.

Are we all seeing the same thing when we look at the simple pencil lines of a brock vs. the fat marker lines of a genic?
Oh, well. :wink:

sweetypie said:

I forgot to point out both pics in that linked written paper look quite different than the picture's description states.
Is this paper's picture labeled wrong?

Are we all seeing the same thing when we look at the simple pencil lines of a brock vs. the fat marker lines of a genic?
Oh, well. :wink:

Click to expand...

I understand that the brocklehursti is being redescribed but I have a problem with the label. On why it was label geniculata for the description of the mature male and the female that are actually brocklehursti?


Jose

On "The 3rd page on that "in depth" article link seemed to have a pic labeled incorrectly."
No it isn't wrongly labeled. Such a thinner banded male (fig1 left) would likely have been wrongly called 'A. brocklehursti' in the hobby before this paper, the moderately banded female (fig2 right) is what might have been called A. brocklehursti, some might have called A.geniculata. Here the paper is saying both are A.geniculata. The band thickness varies, as does a certain keel on the bulb.
Here's the rub, the original female type specimen of A.geniculata (which the name was originally based on) has relatively thin leg banding. The issue then is that matches best with what is now in the hobby as "A. brocklehursti". Hence I guess maybe the authors chose live individuals with banding that closely approximates the original material, and that's not got the massive thick banding we see in some 'hobby geniculata'.


It goes back to some points where i disagree with Michael's interpretation of what the article says, so glad that is now linked so you can all look yourselves. On Michaels comments originally:

Your [what you have as brocklehursti]: "is (probably, almost definitely) not A. theraphosoides either."
I'd go for definitely isn't or almost definitely isn't. I'd agree though near enough right, but it's hinting at what seems to be confusion equating 'pettrade brocklehursti' to REAL A. brocklehursti. They're very different species, as shown in the paper. I'd like the take home message to be that sometimes pettrade-scientific names ARE completely the wrong scientific names when it comes to what was originally described by that name (and typically have a museum voucher/s) that can and often should be restudied.

Your: "Genics and "brocks" should still be kept separate and not interbred until the day someone works on our pet trade material. They may be different and another name needed. This is what keeps scientists employed [jk ]. "
I agree with the sentiment to try and continue keeping the hobby bloodlines separate, perhaps 'thick band' and 'thin band' forms, but (a) some are already mixed in the hobby, (b) there'll be arguments over 'how thick is thick' etc and rebranding - i expect banding tends to thicker with age regardless, and (c) the key point here is that some pet-trade material was involved in this taxonomic decision, i'm sure on that as i hand carried some specimens from UK to Brasil for the authors. However, i'd hope we can agree more study would be ideal on natural 'geniculata' variation an in relation to hobby material - and hope this helps more scientists be employed! [no jk!]

Your: "Until then it would be more proper to call your "brocks" A. theraphosoides, regardless of accuracy.
Here disagree, sorry mate. The species A. theraphosoides is 100% not what is in the hobby currently as 'brocklehursti'. It looks like you have it right for the taxonomy on the bibliography, but that doesn't mention these pettrade stock, where it would be proper to call such "brocks" Acanthoscurria geniculata.
It would be more proper to call many of the small brown hobby "Cyclosternum schmardae" as A. theraphosoides, but that's another can o' worms.

Your: "But, personally, I think the best label would be Acanthoscurria sp. 'pet trade "brocklehursti" '. YMMV."
Some way to keep the 'thin banded ones' separate in the hobby would be preferred from me too, i'm not greatly opposed to keeping hobby name 'brocklehursti' associated, it's now a name hidden from valid taxonomy, so doesnt matter. Much like Pamphobeteus sp 'platyomma' has nothing to do with REAL platyomma. The problem then is names get shortened along the way, so you get the erroneous 'Pamphobeteus platyomma' and such. If anything this should be Acanthoscurria geniculata 'broklehursti' or some such 'pet trade "brocklehursti". Again it will get shortened by some, then some buyer will post pics of their new spider on a forum/group and will get the reply "that's a 'brock' mate, etc". For me i think the Acanthoscurria geniculata 'thick' and Acanthoscurria geniculata 'thin' is the way i'd favour. KISS principle. However, in the hobby it's the trader/breeders and retailers who decide hobby names!

Thanks for the input, but this thread was really just to announce a new revision and the subsequent updates to my catalog. I tried to interpret it's significant impact on popular pet trade/hobby spiders, and I am grateful to Dr. Stuart Longhorn for taking the time to correct what I posted. His explanation is spot on and should be the final word here on the topic. I did not intend to resurrect a discussion that has been taking place for years ad nauseum in other threads, including the aforementioned T-store thread. I don't have any personal interest in Acanthoscurria and I am sure you can enter in this debate further elsewhere. (EDIT: I realize that I opened the can of words by my additional comments made in an attempt to interpret and clarify how this affects the hobby). This thread is simply an announcement, not the place to post images of pet trade material. As a cataloger of species through my Tarantula Bibliograpy, I just present the information, I don't review or discuss. I understand the interest of others and encourage you to see on topic threads to continue the discussion. Thanks again to Stuart for the clarification here.

EDIT: Thanks Michael. And I agree you have it correct in the Tarantula Bibliography for the actual underlying taxonomy.

I'd suggest best let's take further discussion of this elsewhere, e.g. other thread. Thanks for time of adding images for discussion sweetypie, hope to see those again elsewhere for further chat.


I wanted to also go back to Jose:

"Same thing about the Acanthoscurria fracta http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v28n4/v28n4a15.pdf To this day I am still asking why? A photo of a spider that does not even come close to look like the Acanthoscurria fracta that we all have known."

So, given that the one shown in the paper is based on a serious in-depth taxonomic study to clarify the true nature of A.natalensis (=A.fracta), who's got it wrong? Was it (a) these scientists who've done a serious fieldwork and study on characteristics, or (b) some exporter/s or even breeders who just assigned a name to hobbystock and never justified use of that name the buyers?

If he or others wants to discuss that further, let's perhaps take that to a new thread.

Thank you sjl197, but I'm just a simple collector with a persuaded eye that there is a huge variance in those stripes on whatever it may wind up being called someday.

I care for my girls, and sometimes chime in with some pics or screenshots.
Tarantula politics does not sway an eye for beauty.
They are both gorgeous and a very fun species to care for.

sjl197 said:

EDIT: Thanks Michael. And I agree you have it correct in the Tarantula Bibliography for the actual underlying taxonomy.

I'd suggest best let's take further discussion of this elsewhere, e.g. other thread. Thanks for time of adding images for discussion sweetypie, hope to see those again elsewhere for further chat.


I wanted to also go back to Jose:

"Same thing about the Acanthoscurria fracta http://www.scielo.br/pdf/zool/v28n4/v28n4a15.pdf To this day I am still asking why? A photo of a spider that does not even come close to look like the Acanthoscurria fracta that we all have known."

So, given that the one shown in the paper is based on a serious in-depth taxonomic study to clarify the true nature of A.natalensis (=A.fracta), who's got it wrong? Was it (a) these scientists who've done a serious fieldwork and study on characteristics, or (b) some exporter/s or even breeders who just assigned a name to hobbystock and never justified use of that name the buyers?

If he or others wants to discuss that further, let's perhaps take that to a new thread.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input! I have a big interest with the Acanthoscurria sp. in general. I felt that it needed to be pointed out so members as myself can have more of an understanding of it. I don't think this topic should be kept somewhere else since it was brought to our attention "In this Specific Discussion Section". I had to make a point of the labeling on page 65 of the document which is actually page 3 of the link to get a better understanding of the situation without arguments.
Also, the abstract papers were given to me sometime yesterday, and today I was given the link to this thread. I felt it needed to be pointed out.
Concerning the Acanthoscurria fracta, I'm supposed to be sending the molt of my 6" inch female to Rick West for further investigation. As far as I know of it is supposed to go to Dr. Rogerio Bertani for further studies. Until than, I'm uncertain what my spiders are since I have two females and one immature male that are supposed to be the Acanthoscurria fracta that is now in limbo.
I do appreciate your time for writing us your point of view. Thanks you for your time!



Jose

The main point seems to evade, but for those who feel that stripe width and other subtle pattern differences are speciation I thought this image might be illustrative. Four very different spiders in color, markings and adult size. One species. Haplopelma albostriatum. Image from Michael Scheller.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...289.1073741830.100000807794269&type=1&theater

They're called regional variations. Color forms. Geographical races. etc. Whether that is the case here I don't know. I'm just a bug dealer. A tarantula breeder. I'm not a taxonomist or scientist and don't fancy myself one. Again, I just catalog. If a paper describes the hobby form that people have been calling a now invalid name I will be the first to add it to my database. Stuart is one of my unofficial advisors and a scientist. I defer to him.

I encourage discussion and debate. My only point about hijacking this thread was that this discussion (genic vs. "brock") has taken place elsewhere and continuing it here will result in a duplicate thread that a moderator will have to spend time merging with the existing ones. That's all folks.

If anyone can, please direct us to that specific brock vs genic post, so we all can keep that thread going.

In the end, we as buyers, are going to buy the "pretty one", whichever that may be.
Thick, thin lines, dark form, light form, lowland, highland....

You can name it bubblegum poptart form and I'd still choose the one I thought was "cool".

Anyways, thanks Jose, for letting me reference your pics of those matured males (genic/brock).
By next year, we will see what had all came of this.

Your pics along with Papillo are some of the ones that keep me involved in the photography.
I like how Jose keeps his pics organic without a camera flash.

A second question.
Why do people refer to the "pet trade" when some of these are wild caught?
Oh well, it is what it is.
They all got stolen from the wild sometime or another, then called a "pet trade", correct?

I'm just in it for the love of keeping some "cool" Ts, as most of us are.

sweetypie said:

If anyone can, please direct us to that specific brock vs genic post, so we all can keep that thread going.

In the end, we as buyers, are going to buy the "pretty one", whichever that may be.
Thick, thin lines, dark form, light form, lowland, highland....

You can name it bubblegum poptart form and I'd still choose the one I thought was "cool".

Anyways, thanks Jose, for letting me reference your pics of those matured males (genic/brock).
By next year, we will see what had all came of this.

Your pics along with Papillo are some of the ones that keep me involved in the photography.
I like how Jose keeps his pics organic without a camera flash.

A second question.
Why do people refer to the "pet trade" when some of these are wild caught?
Oh well, it is what it is.
They all got stolen from the wild sometime or another, then called a "pet trade", correct?

I'm just in it for the love of keeping some "cool" Ts, as most of us are.

Click to expand...

Hi Thad! No problem for you using my photos. It was done for a good cause.
Pet trade or not, wild caught females and males were brought into the US.......Under the names of geniculata and brocklehursti.


-J

sweetypie said:

A second question.
Why do people refer to the "pet trade" when some of these are wild caught?
Oh well, it is what it is.
They all got stolen from the wild sometime or another, then called a "pet trade", correct?.

Click to expand...

First of all, that YouTube video linked in your signature is funny. Even features my review of the infamous scammer!

Secondly, "pet trade" just means hobby. "pet trade" and "hobby form" are synonymous. It has nothing to do with wild caught or captive bred. It is a term that means forms kept by amateurs as "pets", as opposed to scientific specimens, especially those that have locality data, etc. and have been examined by an arachnologist, etc. There are a lot of purposes for and uses of the term "pet trade". For example, selective (inbreeding) resulting in a form unlike the wild form (e.g, "wild type C. brachycephalus" vs. "hobby form" or "pet trade" C. brachycephalus). I won't belabor the point with additional examples, but here in the case of "pet trade" "brocklehursti" it would mean the spider that hobbyists/amateurs/pet keepers have called "brocklehursti" for years, as opposed to the spider that science matched with type and declared a junior synonym.

I will try to find other threads to post some pics I took today.
One is below.

brock vs genic by LandedInMyEye, on Flickr

Not sure if this helps. From the author...I guess all of my Acanthoscurria brocklehursti's are all really Acanthoscurria geniculata. Good to know...

http://www.tarantulas.co.za/forum/a...anthoscurria-brocklehursti-is-no-longer-valid