Unknown Ornithoctonus from asia

[Skuromis]

Yes I like these asian diggers too. Nice colors and easy to care. But hard to get Ornithoctonus males ;O)

 

[Crotalus]

Hi,

see the picture below, maybe it works now.

@Steve:

It's a medium sized one. It has a bodylength of 4 cm. at the moment I have a cocon from a very small Ornithoctonus Species from Koh Samui (Thailand). It looks identical to Ornithoctonus aureotibialis but it has only a bodylength of 2,5 cm. It was not possible to mate it with usual Orn. aureotibialis, so I think that it could be a new Species.

Cheers, Volker

Just because they didnt mate im not so sure I would exclude the possibility that it might be one and the same species.
A bit more that that im sure it takes to separate two species fro each other esp. since several species mate and produce offspring

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi,
Just in personal experience I've seen small mature females reluctant to mate with larger males of their own species (but do accept smaller males), this could also be the case here, like Lelle said, hard to rule out because of this. It would be interesting to try with a small mature male O.aureotibialis, I wonder if the result would be different....

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi,

the problem wasn't that he was to small for mating. The real problem was, that he was killed by the female without doing anything. She came out of her burrow, recognised that there is "something" and ... BANG .. she got him! I tried to mate her thereafter with a conspecific Ornith. aureotibialis male, which worked very well. BTW, the dead Koh Samui male is the father from two cocons, which were produced by two females actually, so obviously he was able to mate!
I suppose that there is an isolating mechanism which prevents that males do react to the pheromones of the females web. I've recognised the same for the Ornithoctonus sp. "Surat Thani". I've tried to mate this Species with O. aureotibialis for several times within the last 10 Years, but I was not able to recognise a mating between both "Forms/Species". It seems that the species are isolated against each other concerning the possibility to recombine and this means that they highly likely belong to seperate Species in the sense of the biological Species concept.

Cheers, Volker

 

[versimomma]

I have noticed on a few forums people seem very sceptical of the fact this could be a different spider and are detemined to make it be Ornith. aureotibialis . I wonder why its a hard thing to accept that it could be something else. I trust volker coz my knowledge of spiders is extremley limited and my taxonimcal(sp?) knowledge is non existant lol.
Is the Koh Samui spider a long way of being described Volker? I have no clue as to how long all these matters take.
Oooh and congratulations :clap: on your other sack too. I will tell Steve when I speak to him next he will glad of more of this species in the hobby and for your research .

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi,
I don't think I'm sceptical about it at all. What I did do was state an experience I noticed that may have been rellevant, Volker explained well it was not and why, clearing up the matter quickly. But there is no scepticism involved, I have a huge amount of respect for Volker's opinion and never see reason to doubt what he says. If what he says is an opinion, then it becomes open and he states so, as his opinion. If there are published findings, either from Volker or someone else, then of course that is a different story. But I think if you ask Volker he'll mention he enjoys a good debate on theraphosids, so long as respect is shown a lot can be learnt, from everyone.

I think you'll find in time it pays to ask questions and give opinions, if you are respectful and can handle a good topic discussion, a lot of information can be found out, as was exactly the case above. By questioning Volker, we found out far more detail about the event and understand it more. Trust me when I say it has nothing to do with disrespect!

Steve

 

[Crotalus]

Hi,

the problem wasn't that he was to small for mating. The real problem was, that he was killed by the female without doing anything. She came out of her burrow, recognised that there is "something" and ... BANG .. she got him! I tried to mate her thereafter with a conspecific Ornith. aureotibialis male, which worked very well. BTW, the dead Koh Samui male is the father from two cocons, which were produced by two females actually, so obviously he was able to mate!
I suppose that there is an isolating mechanism which prevents that males do react to the pheromones of the females web. I've recognised the same for the Ornithoctonus sp. "Surat Thani". I've tried to mate this Species with O. aureotibialis for several times within the last 10 Years, but I was not able to recognise a mating between both "Forms/Species". It seems that the species are isolated against each other concerning the possibility to recombine and this means that they highly likely belong to seperate Species in the sense of the biological Species concept.

Cheers, Volker

That can happen with any species if the female is not receptive and I would not exclude that they are one and the same species just because of that.

 

[Bearo]

Lelle>> I think that Volker may base his theory on more then a bad mating

 

[Crotalus]

Lelle>> I think that Volker may base his theory on more then a bad mating

Maybe he should present that info here instead of the mating info?
Im not doubting his skills, just wondering about the info that are presented here

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi,

let me first say that I really enjoy the discussions with Steve (and a lot of other guys) and I don't find his critical annotations as bad criticism.
As you can see, I'm not that kind of person which is called a "splitter" in the Systematic. There are other persons here in germany which can be perfectly called a "splitter"!
If I'm of the opinion that a Species is a new one, I think I have some good arguments to support my opinion. This Ornithoctonus from Koh Samui is undoubtedly near related to Ornithoctonus aureotibialis, but because of their small size, the reaction of the female Orn. aureotibialis (see above) and because of the fact that this Species was only found on that Island Koh Samui untill now (endemic Species?!), makes me believe that it could be an undescribed Species. On the other Hand I won't describe it as "new" at the moment, because there is enough time to repeat the crossbreeding experiments within the future, because I think there will be some offsprings available!
But I won't wait to long with the description of new Species in the future, because I don't want be again the idiot which has to see that other persons steal "my" (=in which I've spend a lot of time and money) Species and describe them with terrible decriptions. You know what I'm talking about! So, Lelle, if I think that this is a new Species, I try to describe it one day. If you think that I'm wrong, please feel free to publish a paper about it!

With best Wishes, Volker

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Maybe he should present that info here instead of the mating info?
Im not doubting his skills, just wondering about the info that are presented here

Hey Lelle,

sorry, I can't, because it is obvious that there are people searching the internet forums for usefull informations about asian Theraphosid Sytematic given by me and telling them to my "special" friend from Deutsch-Evern (germany) as you can see in the actual issue of the TOW Magazin and the articles from that Grandpa about Chilobrachys! In the future I will only give some hints of new results, but I won't give exact data anymore! I hope you can understand that, because I don't want be agian the idiot ... (see above)!

Cheers, Volker

 

[Crotalus]

Volker, thats cool. I understand the dilemma.

 

[GoTerps]

Good discussion guys, I appreciate the good ones.

In the future I will only give some hints of new results, but I won't give exact data anymore! I hope you can understand that, because I don't want be agian the idiot ... (see above)!

Very understandable... but I'm really looking forward to finally knowing what species Chilobrachys sp. "huahini" is! I think I've narrowed it down to 2 possible species.

Eric

 

[Skuromis]

Hi!
Very interesting question regarding that huahini. I bought a female, wich is bright brown. A friend told me, normally they are black or even darker. And a 2 cm spider of Ch. spec burmensis has an identical coloration like my Ch. huahini (don't know if it mean anything, but the suggested Ch. dysculus for this species is darker). So now I'm confused, who is who?

 

[versimomma]

Hiya Steve
I think what I said may have come across wrong. On a few forums that have mentioned this spider many people have come across with ideas that this spider was simply underfed or dwarfed due to its environment. Its good of them to ask/enquire and discuss but some really would not believe it could be something new due to its similarities to O.aureotibialis. I just found it strange as to why they wouldnt even consider it.
Cant wait for more info on these guys to be found.
Looks like we will have to wait for our young male to mature as our eggs with legs have died off . We have learned from this and hope to do better with future breedings.

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi,
I understand Anytime a new species is proposed a lot of discussion is bound to follow, particularly when there are so many similarities between specimens. A lot of descriptions will be based on a combination of phylogenetic research, along with a "presumption" that the species is valid in the sense the taxonomist is basing the description on. A lot (but not all) descriptions will follow the principle of the BSC, or Biological Species Concept, which is but one theory to define a species. This theory is based on the principle that if an entity has separated from it's original group, which often would be due to a new geographical feature, such as a mountain range, new islands, etc, then there is a possibility that entity will adapt to it's new isolated environment and develop to an extent that it can no longer reproduce with the original population it was isolated from. This development is what is known as an isolated reproductive mechanism and once detected (perhaps seen and given strong support when the two populations happen to join together again, yet remain two different forms), then there is support that we are dealing with a new species according to the BSC.

Sometimes, we may think that we have a new species, closely related to another population that is not in sympatry (live together in the one geographic location) with the "new species". This can be a more difficult situation to describe the new species, because the two populations do not live together there is no blatant detection of an isolated reproductive mechanism between the two populations.

So, a possible way to bypass this issue is to bring the two forms together in captivity and try to breed them. This is what Volker is currently in the process of. I've discussed all this because it is highly rellevant to the topic, when you bring tow forms together to breed in captivity, then the experiment is frought with complications. There is every chance an isolated mechanism could be removed, simply by bringing the two forms into captivity and placing them in an unnatural situation. Therefore, even if Volker did have success and produce young, there is still a possibility that the two forms are different species and the mechanism has been artificially removed. However, if Volker cannot get these to breed through repeated attempts, then there is support for different species. It's all a matter of elimination and this sort of research is rarely performed to describe a new species, so I commend Volker for the effort!!

That said, this is very touchy work, and this is why there is going to be some questions and critique regarding it, so don't be too surprised to see some strong questions, I'm quite sure Volker is more then capable of answering to everyone's satisfaction though

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

'Morning,

that was a very good explanation from Steve about the biological Species concept. There is only one further, but very important, hint I want to give here. There were and there are a lot of discussions concerning the different Species concepts in the past and now. But one should be very clear: The BSC is the only concept, which is highly objective, because it is outside of human interpretation! In all the other Species concepts (evolutionary,ecological,typological, morphological etc.) the human being is the one which has to define the Species and especially the Species boundaries (mostly in using an interpretation of the usability of "characters" - which are - concerning a philosophical definition - build in our brain). In the BSC human beings can only observe what the nature is doing concerning reproductive isolation in natural environment or in lab! Unfortunately, this concept doesn't work in groups that reproduce uniparental, but this is always a "special way" in nature and in most cases an apomorphy of the concerned groups. That is the reason why I always try to crossbreed such Species, from which I'm of the opinion that they could be very near related to each other. But my decision finally will base on some more facts than the results of crossbreeding experiments, because, like Lelle told above, it can happen that a female doesn't react to a male because of many different conditions.

@Sukromis:

The problem is, that then names for the different Chilobrachys Species, you've used, are only given by Pettrade dealers. In most cases there are only two different Species of Chilobrachys available in the european Pettrade. The large lighter brownish one and the dark one with the noticeable stouter and hairier front legs in comparison to the rear legs. I know the real identity of both Species, but - as I've told above - at the moment I have to be very careful in telling such results in the forums, because I get the impression that Grandpa steals my results!

Cheers, Volker

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi Volker,
Yes, I think the BSC is highly appropriate and the most usefull in theraphosid taxonomy. I know there are some systematists pushing for the use of the Phylogenetic Species Concept, but this worries me a little. I believe the concept is based on the terminal taxa in the relevant clades as species, this might sound great, but it allows for way too much human interpretation I think. Cladistics are a great way to research natural history and probable relationships between higher taxa, however as a means to describe new species based on cladograms, we could see certain people using arguable colour patterns on limited research groups as apomorphic characters, among other characters that may "suit" the researcher. Particularly if evolutionary taxonomists start getting heavily involved. Their penchant to give no weight to characters in phylo research is bizzare and could thoeretically constitute anything as a new species, if the researcher feels like it.

I like the BSC for the reasons you stated Again, if many systematists had thier way we'd use numbers for species instead of binomal references!!

I guess the line needs to be drawn to obtain a logical answer on what really best constitutes a true biospecies, some compromise has to be made currently to get it close to right and I think your work is definately heading in the right direction :clap:

Steve

 

[Michael Jacobi]

One point regarding using the ability to breed as a taxonomic tool - it has been proven many times in the herpetocultural world that not only can very different species hybridize, but in the artificial domain of captivity, two different genera can actually be mated to successfully reproduce offspring. Recently, carpet pythons and green tree pythons have been hybridized to create the so-called "carpondros". These two snakes used to be in different genera, but now reside together in Morelia. However, there have been a number of successful matings between ratsnakes and gopher snakes or kingsnakes (ratsnakes being long residents of the genus Elaphe, but recently has fluctuated, with the gopher snakes in Pituophis and kingsnakes in Lampropeltis). If we assume that the advanced snakes of the family Colubridae are far more genetically complex than the primitive spiders of the family Theraphosidae, than an inability to successfully mate may not be of much use in a taxonomic sense.

Cheers, Michael

 

[Steve Nunn]

HI Michael,
I think the answer lies in the mechanism to prevent crossing of species, in captivity the mechanism can be removed, despite the genetic variation. If a barrier is in place and this has prevented the two forms from crossing in the wild, then that barrier is removed in captivity and is just one example. Because of natural barriers there has been no need to develop a notable isolated mechanism, other then the natural barriers in place. Even if crosses are possible in captivity, if they cannot logically occur in the wild then this disproves nothing.

That said, there are always examples where the theory of the BSC will be tested, wild "hybrids" can and do occur, but I still believe in the case of arachnids it's the best definition we have for a species to date.

Cheers,
Steve