P. uniformis

Angel Minkov

Angel Minkov

Arachnobaron
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
595
Can anybody enlighten me with some info on this sp.? Is it true its extinct in the wild? Or did it turn out to be P. striata? I cant find any info on them.
 
Poec54

Poec54

Arachnoemperor
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
4,745
It was recently reclassed as a junior synonym to subfusca. It's Sri Lankan, so it couldn't be merged with striata.
 
Angel Minkov

Angel Minkov

Arachnobaron
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
595
So, regalis, ornata, striata, fasciata, rufilata, subfusca, metallica, formosa, hanumavilasumica, miranda, tigrinawesseli, rajaei and? What am I missing?

Also, does P. chaoji exist?
 
Sana

Sana

Arachnoprince
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
1,139
Angel Minkov said:
So, regalis, ornata, striata, fasciata, rufilata, subfusca, metallica, formosa, hanumavilasumica, miranda, tigrinawesseli, rajaei and? What am I missing?

Also, does P. chaoji exist?
Click to expand...
You're missing vittata.
 
Angel Minkov

Angel Minkov

Arachnobaron
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
595
P. bara is not a valid name and as far as I know, both forms fall under the species P. subfusca.

@Sana Thanks.
 
Angel Minkov

Angel Minkov

Arachnobaron
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
595
They describe it as a mix of P. formosa and tigrinawesseli. Sounds interesting. Thanks for the info, Tom.
 
Philth

Philth

N.Y.H.C.
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
2,718
Angel Minkov said:
They describe it as a mix of P. formosa and tigrinawesseli. Sounds interesting. Thanks for the info, Tom.
Click to expand...
It was described from one lone male that they found. You would think in the year 2014 that taxonomist would study a selection of both males and females before describing a new species, but that wasn't the case. From what I remember, it was a small detail on one of the legs that they found to be different from the drawings Andrew Smith did to describe P. tigrinawesseli, a small detail that Andrew left out of the drawing. They are the same thing when you look at the leg markings of a live P. tigrinawesseli. It's still a valid species though, until someone comes a long and publishes something saying different.

Later, Tom
 
Philth

Philth

N.Y.H.C.
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
2,718
Poec54 said:
I don't think anyone takes it seriously. If I remember correctly, Jacobi didn't mince words about how he felt about the validity of that name.
Click to expand...
He acknowledges it on his site, The Tarantula Bibliography. (with a disclaimer)

Poec54 said:
Yeah, so 14 species.
Click to expand...
Not to be nit picky, but I say 15 until its published that its a junior synonym of P. tigrinawesseli. Regardless if any of us take it seriously, its still a valid name to science, for now. You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes. ;)

Later, Tom
 
Last edited:
Poec54

Poec54

Arachnoemperor
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
4,745
Philth said:
He acknowledges it on his site, The Tarantula Bibliography. (with a disclaimer)



Not to be nit picky, but I say 15 until its published that its a junior synonym of P. tigrinawesseli. Regardless if any of us take it seriously, its still a valid name to science, for now. You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes. ;)

Later, Tom
Click to expand...
It's a lame name, Jacobi says as much, so it's not worth even counting. He may feel bound by his self-imposed rules, but the rest of us aren't.

But then I'm not going with his 47 Avic species listed either, as many clearly aren't valid, as Caroline Fukushima's interim paper has stated. She said 14 legit, 8 still under review. 47? That's ridiculous. Apparently the bar is much lower to get on the list, than it is to be removed. The two lists would be infinitely more informative and useful if they included notes, as he did with two Avic species (about hobby forms differing from the type). Notes like that throughout the lists with taxonomist's insights would be invaluable to all parties. There's so many old vague descriptions, non-peer reviewed descriptions, lost type specimens, no locality data, descriptions based on immature specimens, based on one sex only, even on molts. At least give us a heads up on what's firm and what's iffy, what's being questioned by taxonomists, who's working on what, and what they've determined so far. I'm going to die of old age before the vast majority of it gets sorted out. If they're going to include all the garbage descriptions until an official revision happens to come by (which are years or decades off in the future) at least give us the current thoughts from the experts. Jacobi set a precedent and used insider notes; why not continue with that?
 
Last edited:
Angel Minkov

Angel Minkov

Arachnobaron
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
595
"The validity of this species, described from a single ultimate male and using problematic morphological data, has been questioned. This new species may be synonymous with Poecilotheria tigrinawesseli. The senior author, Zeeshan Mirza, has assured me that the Satpura Hills are quite separated from the range of P. tigrinawesseli and he has molecular data that will support the new species that will be published later. After first deciding not to catalog P. chajoii (sp. nov.) here, I have changed my mind and added it with this qualifying note."

Michael's note on the subject. Seems like he doesn't completely support it himself. I guess we just have to wait and see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top