Any US native T other than Aphonopelma?

[Moltar]

Taxonomists say the weirdest things...

It seems like the loong way around but I can understand the reason. "Let's go ahead and reclassify all these dozens of species because this one over here was first."

 

[Kirk]

from the World spider catalog:

mf seemanni (F. O. P.-Cambridge, 1897) *

the * means that the genus was described from this species. so all the other species need to be re-classified. seemanni will remain Aphonopelma.

Huh? :?

The fact that A. seemanni is the type species of the genus does not mean it has to remain in that genus.

 

[Zoltan]

Kirk, of course that's true. However, I think where Eddy was getting at is that rather than transferring A. seemanni to another genus, the other Aphonopelma species would be transferred instead, because A. seemanni is the type species of the Aphonopelma genus, thus it "defines" Aphonopelma, and saying that A. seemanni (the type species) does not fit in Aphonopelma, because it's not like the other species currently in the genus wouldn't be logical.

 

[Kirk]

Kirk, of course that's true. However, I think where Eddy was getting at is that rather than transferring A. seemanni to another genus, the other Aphonopelma species would be transferred instead, because A. seemanni is the type species of the Aphonopelma genus, thus it "defines" Aphonopelma, and saying that A. seemanni (the type species) does not fit in Aphonopelma, because it's not like the other species currently in the genus wouldn't be logical.

Hi Zoltan. True, if monophyly of US Aphonopelma species is indicated and A. seemanni is neither sister group to them nor directly within the clade, then there would be a basis for generic revision.

 

[Moltar]

Well what I'M saying is that tape for my labeler is expensive and I'd rather relabel 1 A seemani than the other 6 Aphonopelmas I have.

I mean c'mon, isn't anybody worried about the economy??? :wall: :wall:

Seriously though, I love seeing this kind of discussion. It's nice to see people with real smarts from time to time.

 

[Kirk]

Well what I'M saying is that tape for my labeler is expensive and I'd rather relabel 1 A seemani than the other 6 Aphonopelmas I have.

I mean c'mon, isn't anybody worried about the economy??? :wall: :wall:

As I mentioned earlier, taxonomic stability is a myth. Keep plenty of labels on hand.

 

[GoTerps]

I wonder if all US species will be reclassified or if A seemani and it's ilk will be? (Goes to look at the Platnick list...)

Yeah, for a time I had a little bit of false hope that the Aphonopelma name might be retained for our NA stuff, but Brent corrected my poor logic in THIS THREAD.

Eric

 

[MizM]

As far as I've heard Aphonopelmas are the whole show. There could be a few Brachypelma skulking around in southern Texas or California but seems to me they'd probably have been noticed by now.

Any B. smithi in TX or CA are hiding from La Migra.... you'll never find them!!!

 

[Kirk]

Yeah, for a time I had a little bit of false hope that the Aphonopelma name might be retained for our NA stuff, but Brent corrected my poor logic in THIS THREAD.

Eric

I look forward to seeing the cladograms. I hope the work won't be solely based on moleculoid data. I published a paper last year in which I pointed out that monotypic genera are meaningless constructs. And, while their reasoning is not particularly cogent, the PhyloCode folks are correct that a rankless, uninomial naming system is more appropriate as opposed to the Linnean system we use.

 

[MizM]

Dave Mollendorf is working with someone at one of the colleges out here doing DNA research on Aphonopelma. They are working on local species right now, but want to get to all of them eventually.

 

[wedge07]

Hey Kevin,



Did you really mean Grammostola, or did you by chance mean to type Brachypelma? Either way I don't think so, but just curious !

Considering Grammostola don't even exist in Central America, I doubt you meant to suggest they existed in the U.S.

Eric

I have read some reports of G. rosea findings in Central America. I am pretty sure they are an introduced species but I can't say for certain. They could very well be mislabeled which is most likely. It could happen.

 

[Randomhero148]

When I was first getting into this hobby I found a tarantula in San Clemente that had a Very yellowish creamy carapas, All black legs and a black abdomen with bright red hairs all around it. This was in southern california. I looked online a while while back thought it might be a brachypelma species.

 

[Randomhero148]

The spider I caught looked just like a Brachypelma Ruhnaui. So if anyone can show me an aphonopelma like this one then I would say there are brachypelmas in southern california.

 

[hamfoto]

There are NO Brachypelma in the US...sorry (native). The US species are very closely related to Brachypelma though.

Chris

 

[Smokehound714]

Was searching for thread and found this.. Brachypelma DOES, indeed occur naturally in the USA. B. vagans ranges into southeast arizona. I've found a few myself.

 

[Philth]

Was searching for thread and found this.. Brachypelma DOES, indeed occur naturally in the USA. B. vagans ranges into southeast arizona. I've found a few myself.

Pics? How did you determine they were B. vagans ?

Later, Tom

 

[LordWaffle]

I would've just asked them.