P nigricolor vs P nigricolor

johnny quango

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
260
Today I took delivery of a Pamphobeteus nigricolor (blue -Brazil/Colombia) juvenile and it's going to give me a great opportunity to compare and document the differences between a true nigricolor and the Pamphobeteus nigricolor (Ecuador) or the hobby form as it's sometimes called. They're roughly the same size although both are unsexed it should be fun and somewhat educational. I've heard that as adults the hobby form are slightly skittish whereas the true form can be a little more defensive and less likely to bolt. As you can see below there not easy to tell apart as of now.
 

Attachments

johnny quango

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
260
The real nigricolor doesnt have the christmas tree pattern. ;)
So I was lead to believe, could you possibly point me in the direction or post a link to any information regarding this it would be much appreciated. I researched and done more research and all it's done is confuse me even more. In some of the original papers P nigricolor was said to have been found in " neu granada" which simply translated means Colombia it was also said they were found around Bogota which in a more recent study was found to not have any Pamphobeteus spp due to the high elevation of 2600m+ I'm not saying it's impossible but as far as I'm aware the only pamphobeteus that lives at altitude is sp conani which is between 1800-2000m and as enlarged leg iv.

Another paper stated that P nigricolor male palps were a distinctive characteristic as they were very slender and elongated which would make it easier to identify the species, only later to be found to be a mistake as a few other male Pamphobeteus sp were found in the same region with the same palps and similar colour and markings.

Lastly I was wondering if all the talk of missing markings was as a result of pocock paper I think from around 1901 -1903? From what I can gather pocock stated that male nigricolor lack the Bloom markings associated with other Pamphobeteus sp but that was in reference to carapace as apposed to abdominal markings. The only real information I can find regarding missing Christmas tree markings are from collectors and breeders/dealers and it as been claimed that some species sold as true form may not even be a Pamphobeteus but infact be an Xenesthis sp of some sort.

Sorry for the slight long winded response but I'm just wanting as much information as I can possibly find. Either way I'm not disappointed if it turns out I have 2 hobby forms as they are from different sacs and could end up a breeding pair
 

Angel Minkov

Arachnobaron
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
595
Benjamin Webber, who has studied them extensively in the wild, and has many WC adults/slings/juvies has told me. I can see you're from Europe, so you should know him. Another person who has told me that is Kim, another top-notch and go-to Pamphobeteus person. To my knowledge, the members of the genus need to be from the same localities, or else they eat the sac or it just doesn't hatch. How true that is I cannot say, as I've had no breeding experiences with them :)

Cheers.

Maybe Tom Patterson can chime in and enlighten us? ;)
 

johnny quango

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
260
Thaks Angel I guess I'll have to keeping looking around for more information I'll try the sources you mentioned. Pamphobeteus are in such a mess as are others like Avicularia and it would be great if it was sorted but I guess in the grand scheme of things getting the identification of species of tarantulas isn't important to many outside of the hobby or part of the scientific community
 

c.h.esteban

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
253
Hi,

I researched and done more research and all it's done is confuse me even more. In some of the original papers P nigricolor was said to have been found in " neu granada" which simply translated means Colombia it was also said they were found around Bogota which in a more recent study was found to not have any Pamphobeteus spp due to the high elevation of 2600m+ I'm not saying it's impossible but as far as I'm aware the only pamphobeteus that lives at altitude is sp conani which is between 1800-2000m and as enlarged leg iv.
The typloc. for P. fortis, M. robustum, X. immanis (all described by AUSSERER) is also Bogota.
All these genera can found “around” Bogota but not on these high elevation.


Another paper stated that P nigricolor male palps were a distinctive characteristic as they were very slender and elongated which would make it easier to identify the species, only later to be found to be a mistake as a few other male Pamphobeteus sp were found in the same region with the same palps and similar colour and markings.
Which paper do you mean?

Lastly I was wondering if all the talk of missing markings was as a result of pocock paper I think from around 1901 -1903? From what I can gather pocock stated that male nigricolor lack the Bloom markings associated with other Pamphobeteus sp but that was in reference to carapace as apposed to abdominal markings.
Not a result of POCOCK, 1901c / 1903 or AUSSERER 1875. They have only adults for description and dont know juveniles.
It´s a result from CB of specimens that found “near” the typloc. and fits in the descriptions from AUSSERER, POCOCK, BERTANI and also the drawings of GERSCHMAN & SCHIAPELLI, especially in details of the bulb-morphology.

The only real information I can find regarding missing Christmas tree markings are from collectors and breeders/dealers and it as been claimed that some species sold as true form may not even be a Pamphobeteus but infact be an Xenesthis sp of some sort.
This makes me smile.
Pamphobeteus is easy distinguished from Xenesthis by having the scopulae on metatarsi IV only weak and restricted to apical portion (see SIMON 1891h or BERTANI et al. 2008).

Bye
 
Top