PanzoN88
Arachnodemon
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 713
Just wondering if taxonomy has changed for any species in recent weeks? since taxonomy can change
Suddenly without warning.
Suddenly without warning.
That doesn't sound right, Theraphosidae is the family name for all tarantulasI think it's Acanthoscurria theraphosphidae (did I spell it right?) now but don't bet your rent on it.
Sadly that pages isn't always correct, either:
Dr. Longhorn has hinted at those possibly being Homoeommo species.
Maraca pulcherrimaklassi has never been in the hobby to my knowledge. It's best to label them as Euathlus sp. 'blue femur' until further notice.
The way I understand that, neither one of them are wrong. E. pulcherrimaklaasi was moved to Maraca, and the blue femur spider the hobby sometimes calls E. pulcherrimaklaasi is not that spider , and best labelled Euathlus sp. 'blue femur' as Chad mentioned. I'm i missing something ? :?Sadly that pages isn't always correct, either:
"07 MAY 2014 - Update the genus Euathlus, removed genus Paraphysa and resurrected the genus Phrixotrichus and transferred E. pulcherrimaklaasi to Maracaas per the new revision of Andean tarantulas by Perafán & Pérez-Miles"
E. pulcherrimaklaasi is not Maraca pulcherimaklaasi now (the paper said Paraphysa pulcherimaklaasi btw...) - that's exactly what I asked Chad after I saw that paper and his answer was:
To my knowledge:The way I understand that, neither one of them are wrong. E. pulcherrimaklaasi was moved to Maraca, and the blue femur spider the hobby sometimes calls E. pulcherrimaklaasi is not that spider , and best labelled Euathlus sp. 'blue femur' as Chad mentioned. I'm i missing something ? :?
Later, Tom
It is M. pulcherklaasi. Schimdt first described it as Paraphysa pulcherklaasi in 1991. It was moved to Euathlus by Peters in 2003. I have explained the move to Maraca here>>>Sadly that pages isn't always correct, either:
"07 MAY 2014 - Update the genus Euathlus, removed genus Paraphysa and resurrected the genus Phrixotrichus and transferred E. pulcherrimaklaasi to Maracas per the new revision of Andean tarantulas by Perafán & Pérez-Miles"
E. pulcherrimaklaasi is not Maraca pulcherimaklaasi now (the paper said Paraphysa pulcherimaklaasi btw...) - that's exactly what I asked Chad after I saw that paper and his answer was:
I'm not seeing why you say Jacobi's site is not always correct in this respect? His site stays update to date a soon as new articles and material are released. WSC is a great source but it is very slow at updating. Maybe since the host change it will get quicker? Not sure but I do like the new format.Schmidt described E. pulcherrimaklaasi from two specimens, male and a female. The female described was actually E. truculentus. The spider in the hobby is not a Maraca species. Best to keep them labelled as Euathlus sp. 'blue/blue femur' for now.
Blurp from: The Andean tarantulas Euathlus Ausserer, 1875, Paraphysa Simon, 1892 and Phrixotrichus Simon, 1889 (Araneae, Theraphosidae): phylogenetic analysis, genera redefinition and new species descriptions (Perez-Miles and Perafan, 2014)The male holotype lacks palpal organs and the original figures are not clear enough to identify it (Schmidt 1991). However, given the presence of a retrolateral node on the palpal tibiae, the presence of the urticating setae type III and IV, and besides other characters of the generic significance, the male holotype seems to be Maraca, consequently is transferred to the genus. Hence Maraca pulcherrimaklaasi comb. nov. is proposed. The female paratype (with no further information, deposited at SMF, not examined) is not congeneric with the male(based on the original description), and is identified as E. truculentus in this paper(see above).
I think that's what I was saying lol.(Also, I think that's pretty much what you said, Tom? )
Right. Like Platnick's list, he's just repeating what's been published regardless of validity or where it's been published. His list is a scorecard of recent taxonomy, but it's a moving target and from what I can tell, it doesn't seem to be current. Jacobi's showing Avic fasciculata as a separate species from diversipes; I thought they were merged a while ago. Same goes for Avic caesia and laeta. I believe hirsuta isn't recognized as a valid Avic anymore. With the 47 species of Avics that Jacobi has listed, it doesn't seem to be clearing up much with that genus. I think it would be more helpful if he noted which species were questionable and likely to be merged, moved or invalidated based on what the top taxonomists are saying. Give us a head's up, something more than a list that includes every species with a vague or dubious description.Jacobi's site is just citing literature, there's really nothing to get wrong. The papers he is citing may have flaws, but that's got nothing to do with him.
In 2009 A. diversipes was redescribed, and it was found to be the same spider the hobby was calling A. fasciculata That doesn't make A. fasciculata a invalid species, that just means the hobby had the wrong name again. Until a published article comes out saying they are or are not the same thing, its still a valid species. If they are found to be the same thing, the name A. diversipes would stick being the senior synonym. I don't know enough about the other Avic's you mentioned to comment on them, but I would imagine its a similar situation going on with them as well.Jacobi's showing Avic fasciculata as a separate species from diversipes; I thought they were merged a while ago.
I think it would be more helpful if he noted which species were questionable and likely to be merged, moved or invalidated based on what the top taxonomists are saying. Give us a head's up, something more than a list that includes every species with a vague or dubious description.