E. pulcherrimaklaasi sexual dimorphism?

EulersK

Arachnonomicon
Staff member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
3,292
Here's a short and sweet question: does Euathlus pulcherrimaklaasi show any sexual dimorphism? Tibial hooks? Anything of the sort?

I've found conflicting pieces of advice, some of it containing pictures of a spider that is clearly not an E. pulcherrimaklaasi (this is not an arboreal species! :laugh:). I ask because one of my acquisitions from several months ago has yet to eat, although the abdomen is fairly skinny. I've tried several different prey items, to no avail.
 

Radium

Outlaw Valkyrie
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
128
Give it an innocuous compliment. If it starts an argument, you know it's female.
 

Thistles

Arachnobroad
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
624
Post a pic of its underside. All MMs have emboli and Euathlus do have apophyses. Is that what you suspect? You think it's a MM?

Radium, nice avatar.
 

Storm76

Arachnoemperor
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
3,797
For the record, E. pulcherimaklaasi (as described by Schmidt) has most likely never been in the hobby (got that info from Chad, advan actually myself a few months back). The spider in the hobby is best labeled Euathlus sp. "blue" or "blue femur" for the time being thus. Aside that - yes, this species MM display tibial hooks. Also, please post a picture of the T in question, a bunch of them has (and still is) being sold as a completely different species (H. sp. "blue" being one example).
 

EulersK

Arachnonomicon
Staff member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
3,292
I really wouldn't call this spider blue in any way. A picture is below. As for ventral sexing, it certainly looks female to me and the breeder I got it from, but again, it's fairly skinny and isn't prone to eating.

zzz.jpg
 

Storm76

Arachnoemperor
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
3,797
No, that's the one mainly called sp. "green femur" - there have been reports of this species changing coloration. Sadly, I haven't had the opportunity to have a specimen with a friend or myself to see it 1st hand. Hence, I'm somewhat doubting it - although it is entirely possible. What I can give you, is some advice: Do not keep this species entirely dry! Offer 1/3 of her substrate slightly dampened and a good sized waterdish. They do well on eco-earth / cocofiber (the first seemingly better actually), hides get ignored mostly, but they do dig to some degree sometimes. Not the best eaters, more on the skittish side and I remember someone having told me in the past (can't remember who it was, sry) that males usually turn green. However, take that with a grain salt, as I have no evidence to that or the contrary, seing that neither myself or a friend of mine kept one of them so I could 1st see the changes the spider went through over developing.

Here's my sp."blue femur" for comparison with some information on the mix-up that often happens with these: LINK

The problem with the whole "pulcherrimaklaasi" though, is this:
The genus "Euathlus" was synomised with "Paraphysa", so first off it would Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi. And here it gets interesting...!
Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi Schmidt, 1991 is transferred to Maraca Pérez-Miles, 2006

Now for the interesting part => The holotype (male) und paratype (female) were not of the same species! The male was transferred into the genus Maraca, however the female was identified as E. truculentus which makes the whole pulcherrimaklaasi discussion once more difficult.

Chad (advan) and multiple others, told me a few months ago that the spider that Schmidt IDed (wrongly) as pulcherrimaklaasi in 1991 never was in the hobby. What we have in the hobby is likely an entirely different spider. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find this spider at some point in the genus Homoeomma actually, because like Dr. Stuart Longhorn mentioned in an email conversation - even the current hobby spider Euathlus sp. "red" wasn't even part of that latest revision and is assumed to be Homoeomma as well.


I hope this clears a few things up for you. Here's some links with source-material towards that end:

* Perafàn & Pèrez-Miles. 2014. The Andean tarantulas Euathlus Ausserer, 1875, Paraphysa Simon, 1892 and Phrixotrichus Simon, 1889 (Araneae: Theraphosidae): phylogenetic analysis, genera redefinition and new species descriptions
* Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi Schmidt, 1991d: 8, f. 2 (Df, misidentified, per Perafán & Pérez-Miles, 2014b: 2407).
* World Spider Catalog genus Euathlus => LINK


Perhaps Chad, Stuart, Jason or one of the other knowledgable persons regarding this mess chime in if you have further questions.
 
Last edited:

Thistles

Arachnobroad
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
624
That isn't a MM and looks to be a good weight. I wouldn't worry.
 

c.h.esteban

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
253
For the record, E. pulcherimaklaasi (as described by Schmidt) has most likely never been in the hobby (got that info from Chad, advan actually myself a few months back). The spider in the hobby is best labeled Euathlus sp. "blue" or "blue femur" for the time being thus. Aside that - yes, this species MM display tibial hooks. Also, please post a picture of the T in question, a bunch of them has (and still is) being sold as a completely different species (H. sp. "blue" being one example).
Hi,

i wonder which concrete differences are known between the "pulcherrimaklaasi" female (paratyp + description data by SCHMIDT), the E. truculentus (male + female) and the Euathlus sp. "blue" / "blue femur" / "pichidangui"?

bye
 

awiec

Arachnoprince
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
1,325
No, that's the one mainly called sp. "green femur" - there have been reports of this species changing coloration. Sadly, I haven't had the opportunity to have a specimen with a friend or myself to see it 1st hand. Hence, I'm somewhat doubting it - although it is entirely possible. What I can give you, is some advice: Do not keep this species entirely dry! Offer 1/3 of her substrate slightly dampened and a good sized waterdish. They do well on eco-earth / cocofiber (the first seemingly better actually), hides get ignored mostly, but they do dig to some degree sometimes. Not the best eaters, more on the skittish side and I remember someone having told me in the past (can't remember who it was, sry) that males usually turn green. However, take that with a grain salt, as I have no evidence to that or the contrary, seing that neither myself or a friend of mine kept one of them so I could 1st see the changes the spider went through over developing.

Here's my sp."blue femur" for comparison with some information on the mix-up that often happens with these: LINK

The problem with the whole "pulcherrimaklaasi" though, is this:
The genus "Euathlus" was synomised with "Paraphysa", so first off it would Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi. And here it gets interesting...!
Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi Schmidt, 1991 is transferred to Maraca Pérez-Miles, 2006

Now for the interesting part => The holotype (male) und paratype (female) were not of the same species! The male was transferred into the genus Maraca, however the female was identified as E. truculentus which makes the whole pulcherrimaklaasi discussion once more difficult.

Chad (advan) and multiple others, told me a few months ago that the spider that Schmidt IDed (wrongly) as pulcherrimaklaasi in 1991 never was in the hobby. What we have in the hobby is likely an entirely different spider. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find this spider at some point in the genus Homoeomma actually, because like Dr. Stuart Longhorn mentioned in an email conversation - even the current hobby spider Euathlus sp. "red" wasn't even part of that latest revision and is assumed to be Homoeomma as well.


I hope this clears a few things up for you. Here's some links with source-material towards that end:

* Perafàn & Pèrez-Miles. 2014. The Andean tarantulas Euathlus Ausserer, 1875, Paraphysa Simon, 1892 and Phrixotrichus Simon, 1889 (Araneae: Theraphosidae): phylogenetic analysis, genera redefinition and new species descriptions
* Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi Schmidt, 1991d: 8, f. 2 (Df, misidentified, per Perafán & Pérez-Miles, 2014b: 2407).
* World Spider Catalog genus Euathlus => LINK


Perhaps Chad, Stuart, Jason or one of the other knowledgable persons regarding this mess chime in if you have further questions.
Do you call the spider in your avatar sp "Blue" or "Blue Femur" then? I bought a sub-adult female some time as she fits the description above as she is very shy and won't eat until she is left alone for a few hours, before that the cricket will crawl all over her. I do not think mine is the "green femur" variety as she is intensely blue/purple but I mainly bought the animal as a pet as I knew the mess the species was in before hand.
 

Storm76

Arachnoemperor
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
3,797
Hi,

i wonder which concrete differences are known between the "pulcherrimaklaasi" female (paratyp + description data by SCHMIDT), the E. truculentus (male + female) and the Euathlus sp. "blue" / "blue femur" / "pichidangui"?

bye
I actually forgot that the pulcherimaklaasi was transferred to the genus "Bumba" lately, but...I'd suggest this read CLICK

Taken from above link:

"Perafán and Pérez-Miles (2014) transferred Euathlus pulcherrimaklaasi (Schmidt, 1991) to Maraca including Ecuador in the distribution of the genus. Bumba (formerly Maraca) is characterized by the presence of type IV urticating
hairs, a retrolateral process on male palpal tibiae, palpal bulb resting in a ventral distal excavation of palpal tibia, male metatatarsus I passing between tibial spurs when flexed,
and spiniform setae on prolateral and retrolateral maxillae and coxae I–IV (Pérez-Miles 2000, Bertani and Carla-da-Silva 2003). Besides these characters, the reduced number
of cuspules on labium was also indicated as diagnostic for Bumba; the new species fits in all other generic characters but has about 50 cuspules on labium. Consequently, the
diagnosis of Bumba is presently modified in this point.
We here diagnose, describe and illustrate B. lennoni sp. n., based on male and female specimens from Caxiuanã, Pará,
Brazil. Some brief additional natural history comments on B. lennoni sp. n. are given. Three new combinations are established: Bumba cabocla (Pérez-Miles, 2000),
Bumba horrida (Schmidt 1994) and Bumba pulcherrimaklaasi (Schmidt, 1991)"

Do you call the spider in your avatar sp "Blue" or "Blue Femur" then? I bought a sub-adult female some time as she fits the description above as she is very shy and won't eat until she is left alone for a few hours, before that the cricket will crawl all over her. I do not think mine is the "green femur" variety as she is intensely blue/purple but I mainly bought the animal as a pet as I knew the mess the species was in before hand.
Yes, I have mine labeled as Euathlus sp. "blue femur" for the time being. Until such time where this particular spider gets revisited and classified / put into a final genus, I think it's best to keep it that way.


c.h. - as a sidenote, Ray Gabriel stated in 2007 that the presumed "real" Bumba pulcherrimaklaasi was sold as "Ephebopus violaceus" back then...this spider has caused (and still does) a lot of confusion like Avics do often. Not to mention the whole Homoeomma sp. "blue", T. cyaneolum, T. lagunas problematic. Up to today, I wouldn't even be surprised if some of those sold as "E. pulcherrimaklaasi" are actually hybrids, simple because tons of H. sp. "blue" (Peru II) were sold as those and people may have paired them accidentally up not knowing better. But that's assumption, not fact, so take that with a grain of salt please!
 
Last edited:

c.h.esteban

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
253
I actually forgot that the pulcherimaklaasi was transferred to the genus "Bumba" lately, but...I'd suggest this read CLICK

Taken from above link:

"Perafán and Pérez-Miles (2014) transferred Euathlus pulcherrimaklaasi (Schmidt, 1991) to Maraca including Ecuador in the distribution of the genus. Bumba (formerly Maraca) is characterized by the presence of type IV urticating
hairs, a retrolateral process on male palpal tibiae, palpal bulb resting in a ventral distal excavation of palpal tibia, male metatatarsus I passing between tibial spurs when flexed,
and spiniform setae on prolateral and retrolateral maxillae and coxae I–IV (Pérez-Miles 2000, Bertani and Carla-da-Silva 2003). Besides these characters, the reduced number
of cuspules on labium was also indicated as diagnostic for Bumba; the new species fits in all other generic characters but has about 50 cuspules on labium. Consequently, the
diagnosis of Bumba is presently modified in this point.
We here diagnose, describe and illustrate B. lennoni sp. n., based on male and female specimens from Caxiuanã, Pará,
Brazil. Some brief additional natural history comments on B. lennoni sp. n. are given. Three new combinations are established: Bumba cabocla (Pérez-Miles, 2000),
Bumba horrida (Schmidt 1994) and Bumba pulcherrimaklaasi (Schmidt, 1991)"


Yes, I have mine labeled as Euathlus sp. "blue femur" for the time being. Until such time where this particular spider gets revisited and classified / put into a final genus, I think it's best to keep it that way.

That is not the answer!

Which differences are known between the hobby-blue / blue femur / pichidangui and E. truculentus (including the former "pulcherrimaklaasi"-female) justify this statement?

For the record, E. pulcherimaklaasi (as described by Schmidt) has most likely never been in the hobby (got that info from Chad, advan actually myself a few months back). The spider in the hobby is best labeled Euathlus sp. "blue" or "blue femur" for the time being thus.
 

Storm76

Arachnoemperor
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
3,797
That is not the answer!

Which differences are known between the hobby-blue / blue femur / pichidangui and E. truculentus (including the former "pulcherrimaklaasi"-female) justify this statement?
You'd have to ask advan (Chad) regarding the fact that spider in the hobby is likely not B. pulcherimaklaasi - since I'm not a taxonomist by any means. As for the rest, PM sent your way!
 

angelarachnid

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
384
wot he said


No, that's the one mainly called sp. "green femur" - there have been reports of this species changing coloration. Sadly, I haven't had the opportunity to have a specimen with a friend or myself to see it 1st hand. Hence, I'm somewhat doubting it - although it is entirely possible. What I can give you, is some advice: Do not keep this species entirely dry! Offer 1/3 of her substrate slightly dampened and a good sized waterdish. They do well on eco-earth / cocofiber (the first seemingly better actually), hides get ignored mostly, but they do dig to some degree sometimes. Not the best eaters, more on the skittish side and I remember someone having told me in the past (can't remember who it was, sry) that males usually turn green. However, take that with a grain salt, as I have no evidence to that or the contrary, seing that neither myself or a friend of mine kept one of them so I could 1st see the changes the spider went through over developing.

Here's my sp."blue femur" for comparison with some information on the mix-up that often happens with these: LINK

The problem with the whole "pulcherrimaklaasi" though, is this:
The genus "Euathlus" was synomised with "Paraphysa", so first off it would Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi. And here it gets interesting...!
Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi Schmidt, 1991 is transferred to Maraca Pérez-Miles, 2006

Now for the interesting part => The holotype (male) und paratype (female) were not of the same species! The male was transferred into the genus Maraca, however the female was identified as E. truculentus which makes the whole pulcherrimaklaasi discussion once more difficult.

Chad (advan) and multiple others, told me a few months ago that the spider that Schmidt IDed (wrongly) as pulcherrimaklaasi in 1991 never was in the hobby. What we have in the hobby is likely an entirely different spider. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find this spider at some point in the genus Homoeomma actually, because like Dr. Stuart Longhorn mentioned in an email conversation - even the current hobby spider Euathlus sp. "red" wasn't even part of that latest revision and is assumed to be Homoeomma as well.


I hope this clears a few things up for you. Here's some links with source-material towards that end:

* Perafàn & Pèrez-Miles. 2014. The Andean tarantulas Euathlus Ausserer, 1875, Paraphysa Simon, 1892 and Phrixotrichus Simon, 1889 (Araneae: Theraphosidae): phylogenetic analysis, genera redefinition and new species descriptions
* Paraphysa pulcherrimaklaasi Schmidt, 1991d: 8, f. 2 (Df, misidentified, per Perafán & Pérez-Miles, 2014b: 2407).
* World Spider Catalog genus Euathlus => LINK


Perhaps Chad, Stuart, Jason or one of the other knowledgable persons regarding this mess chime in if you have further questions.
 

EulersK

Arachnonomicon
Staff member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
3,292
... okay? You dig a up a thread that's nearing a month old, one that was thoroughly answered, and you found the need to throw in "wot he said"?
 
Top