Has taxonomy changed recently?

Just wondering if taxonomy has changed for any species in recent weeks? since taxonomy can change
Suddenly without warning.

Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
-Robert C. Gallagher

Invariably, taxonomy has changed one of the many millions of species that inhabit this planet. Can you be a little more specific?

When it happens its generally posted on a thread somewhere.

I will be sure to look around for threads like that. I think i heard on a video somewhere on youtube the acanthiscurria
Brocklehursti got a name change.

I think it's Acanthoscurria theraphosphidae (did I spell it right?) now but don't bet your rent on it.

Arachnomaniac19 said:

I think it's Acanthoscurria theraphosphidae (did I spell it right?) now but don't bet your rent on it.

Click to expand...

That doesn't sound right, Theraphosidae is the family name for all tarantulas

See The tarantula bibliography page for the latest in Theraphosidae taxonomy changes.

Later, Tom

A. brocklehursti is now called A. theraphosoides. However, I don't think that the spiders in the hobby were ever positively identified as brocklehursti, and AFAIK they are not this species (brocklehursti / theraphosoides). But probably best to keep them labeled as brocklehursti or sp. 'brocklehursti' for now to keep them separate from other material (for instance: if the real theraphosoides ever entered the hobby).

You can use this website to keep up to date with taxonomical changes: http://www.wsc.nmbe.ch/family/100/Theraphosidae

Philth said:

See The tarantula bibliography page for the latest in Theraphosidae taxonomy changes.

Later, Tom

Click to expand...

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:

advan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Storm76 said:

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:

Click to expand...

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

Tarantula taxonomy is constantly changing, and eventually it finds its way here. The subfamily of some are still not agreed upon, let alone genus, let alone species. Many tarantulas have been named as several different species, and even in different genera. The dust hasn't settled yet, and a number of changes are in dispute. Every new pronouncement isn't always the clarifier that one would assume. Tarantula taxonomy was not a popular field until recently; after the flurry of initial discoveries and descriptions, there was a long period of inactivity and neglect. The surge in keeping them as pets has renewed interest in unraveling the previous chaos. As with most plants and animals described during the last several centuries in the race to explore the tropics, many descriptions lack adequate detail and type specimens have been lost. It's difficult making sense of those and determining what animal they really had. There wasn't the global communication systems we have today, and the same plant or animal was frequently 'discovered' and named by several different people (unaware of what others were doing). The criteria for what constitutes a legitimate species was in its infancy, and many inconsequential details (particularly colors, instead of spermatheca, emboli, stridulating organs, and urticating hairs) were used to designate species; over time we have learned that species have a certain amount of variation. In taxonomy there are 'lumpers' and 'splitters', and in the early days of taxonomy, splitters were dominant, partially motivated by their benefactors (museums, zoos, etc) wanting their expeditions to produce as many new species as possible. This led to many more species being described than were justified with the material in hand.

Platnick's list of tarantula species contains every species name that's been published. Before anyone gets too impressed by that, the standards are low, and peer review and publication in a scientific journal are not requirements. Besides the jumbled mess referred to above, some recent authors have 'described' species from molts and without any idea of the country the spider originally came from. In some cases, 'new' have been poorly researched and existing material not looked at. Some 'new' species have been described in European invertebrate 'fan' magazines, and without peer review. This is bound to lead to more problems.

A few examples of current disputes:
- Avicularia - Besides being mass confusion, it's suspected that possibly half a dozen 'species' may simply be regional variations of Avicularia avicularia. It's also thought that versicolor and diversipes may not belong in the genus.
- Aphonopelma - You wouldn't think that tarantulas in our own backyard could be so fouled up. Taxonomists didn't have to spend months in remote jungles; they just had to hop in their car. Fortunately there is a revision in the works which will invalidate a number of species, and also add some.
- Brachypelma - Some species are in dispute.
- Cyrtopholis - There's about 30 species in this Caribbean genus, and the real possibility some are not valid.
- Lasiodora - Many species described, most are small in size and probably belong in another genus, possibly Metriopelma.
- Nhandu - I think all of the 5 species were originally in different genera, and it's suspected that chromatus may not have found it's final resting place yet.
- Pamphobeteus - More species awaiting descriptions.
- Phormictopus - Work needs to be done here.
- Psalmopoeus / Tapinauchenius - These are an anomaly, having both NW and OW characteristics. They've been shifted between subfamilies, and may just belong in their own. It's questionable that they belong in the Aviculariinae subfamily, as they lack urticating hairs.
- Theraphosa - Of the 3 species, 1 has tibial spurs, the others don't. Obviously they're related, but how closely?
- The subfamily Ischnocolinae has been a dumping ground for odd tarantulas. It contains both new and old world species, which in itself seems implausible. Always changes being made.
- Just about all of the African tarantulas need clarification, but with regular civil wars and disease outbreaks, taxonomists aren't lining up to go there.
- There are so many islands in Indonesia that are poorly explored by scientists, particularly ones focusing on invertebrates. The subfamilies Ornithoctoninae and Selenocosmiinae are all through here and SE Asia.

I'm not a young man anymore and don't expect this to be sorted out in my lifetime. The better question isn't: 'Have there been any recent taxonomic changes?' but rather, 'What are this month's changes?'

Philth said:

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

Click to expand...

To my knowledge:

That T's we keep in our enclosures as Euathlus sp. "blue femur", are a) supposedly from Chile, b) not the initial "real" one described and c) Schmidt made various mistakes IDying them, as he didn't have access to the holotype.

The one referred to in the paper as "Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi" and having been moved to the genus "Maraca" now, hasn't been in the hobby at all. In addition, that particular T's origin has been described to be from Ecuador.

If I mixed something up, please feel free to correct me? (Also, I think that's pretty much what you said, Tom? )

Storm76 said:

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:

Click to expand...

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>>>

advan said:

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).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Storm76 said:

(Also, I think that's pretty much what you said, Tom? )

Click to expand...

I think that's what I was saying lol.

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.

Later, Tom

Well, it got me confused there. Thanks for clearing that up, Chad / Tom.

I'm still wondering what the species we have in the hobby and call "Euathlus sp. blue / blue femur / pulcherimaklaasi" is for real though. Especially since these are reportedly from Chile while the one in the paper is from Ecuador. Gah, sometimes I hate taxonomy and that it takes so long

Philth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Poec54 said:

Jacobi's showing Avic fasciculata as a separate species from diversipes; I thought they were merged a while ago.

Click to expand...

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.

Poec54 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure that would be helpful, if he knew, and maybe he does, but current taxonomic work is usually very hush hush, until its published. It wouldn't be Jacobi's position to leak info or spread rumors of possible merges etc.


Later, Tom