PDA

View Full Version : The Cyriopagopus issue...............



wayne balcombe
25-01-10, 11:31 PM
Hi all, i'm after a little help understanding whats happening with this genus at the moment.

Firstly - thorelli (Simon 1901) and schiodtei (Thorell 1891) - are these actually different species or the same species decribed by different individuals?

secondly - I've seen spiders being sold as Cyriopagopus sp "singapore blue" and the same spiders elsewhere being sold as Lampropelma violaceopes, are these one and the same? has this undescribed Cyriopagopus species officially been transfered to the genus lampropelma or was it dub'd "Cyriopagopus" initially because of the similarity to the genus and the untrained eye that made the hasty assumption or perhaps there is an undescribed Cyriopagopus species dub'd the "singapore blue" aswell as L.violaceopes??

from what i've seen and read to date my opinion is that C.thorelli and C.schiodtei are the same spider described at different times and by different people and Cyriopagopus sp. "singapore blue" and L.violaceopes again are the same spider, i'm probably wrong but i understand it this way. That being said its really bugging me and i wanna put this one to bed lol.

I expect this to be even more complicated than i have made it seem but i'm hoping someone can shed some light on this for me.

thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings.

matthew spooner
26-01-10, 12:20 AM
hi wayne, cant help you on the c.thorelli and c.shiodtei problem but i can however tell you that the cyriopagapus sp was re classified as lampropelma vioalceopes, or so i have been told by many an educated person

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
26-01-10, 12:22 PM
Hello Wayne,

My understanding is as follows: Cyriopagopus schioedtei (Thorell, 1891) and Cyriopagopus thorelli (Simon, 1901) are currently considered to be two distinct, different species. As for the Cyriopagopus sp. "blue" / Cyriopagopus sp. "Singapore blue" (etc.) - spiders were initially sold under this name. Later they have been identified as belonging to the species Lampropelma violaceopes Abraham, 1924. Please note this is not a "reclassification", as the Cyriopagopus sp. "blue" is not a "classified" name. When you see a spider with a name like Genus sp. "something", it is a "Pet Trade Name" (PTN), and it means that said spider is unidentified, and not necessarily undescribed. Whoever gives these names thinks that the spider belongs to the genus of which name it is given - i.e. Cyriopagopus sp. "blue" is supposed to belong to the Cyriopagopus genus. In reality they are only provisional names, and often just guesses-- depending on who gives such names, they can be educated guesses (better scenario).

So, the spiders which were sold as Cyriopagopus sp. "blue" were found to be actually an already described species - Lampropelma violaceopes. But, here comes the twist, many people think that the species Lampropelma violaceopes doesn't fit into the genus Lampropelma at all! They think it is likely that it belongs to the Cyriopagopus genus. So, certain dealers/people have gone back to using the name Cyriopagopus sp. "blue". Its current scientific name is Lampropelma violaceopes, and if you want to be correct, you should stick to using this name.


from what i've seen and read to date my opinion is that C.thorelli and C.schiodtei are the same spider described at different times and by different people
That can only be an accurate conclusion if it's made after the examination of the type specimens, as I'm sure it's gonna be done eventually by somebody (or it's already a work in progress ;)).

Hope this helps...

Peter Lacey
26-01-10, 02:23 PM
Zoltan has beat me to it.

Its important to remember that the description of a species is one persons argument, vetted by others. In science that means that argument becomes the rule until someone proves otherwise. With the species above there have been changes in opinions and therefore a variety of names. Its also important to remember that different colours are often attributed as different species by collectors whereas the truth may just be a variation in the colour or a regional variation. Its not necessarily a different species.

From my readings C. thorelli and C. schioedtei are 2 separate species, however those in the hobby are believed to be C. schioedtei only. So, whilst they both exist only 1 exists in the hobby. Strangely C. thorelli isnt mentioned in the BTS spider galleries.

Phil Rea
26-01-10, 03:06 PM
From my readings C. thorelli and C. schioedtei are 2 separate species, however those in the hobby are believed to be C. schioedtei only. So, whilst they both exist only 1 exists in the hobby. Strangely C. thorelli isnt mentioned in the BTS spider galleries.

Probably because no one knows for certain what C. thorelli is Pete (or didn't at the time), and so can't provide a picture.

The descriptions for C. schoiedtei and C. thorelli do indicate that they could indeed be different species if I remember correctly (but it's been a long while since I looked into it). There were significant differences between the two from what I recall. Whether the differences are down to size, normal variation, colourforms etc., or whether they are stable taxonomical factors which would indicate that they are actually different species, I have absolutely no idea.

However, if there is currently work in progress then maybe don't expect too much information to be provided, as I believe previous work has been unscrupulously 'hijacked' from forums and published in advance, so there may well be some reticence involved.

Martin Huber
26-01-10, 04:56 PM
Hi Zoltan,




When you see a spider with a name like Genus sp. "something", it is a "Pet Trade Name" (PTN), and it means that said spider is unidentified, and not necessarily undescribed. aren't most names in the pet trade, even they look like a complete scientific name, just pet trade names, given by importers/dealers to the stuff they sell?

Cheers,
Martin

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
26-01-10, 05:38 PM
Hello Martin,

Of course, more often than not they are, but you know this better than me. ;) My usage of "pet trade name" was in regards to the actual quality of the name, not the quality of identification used when applying the names, i.e. pet trade names are only used in the pet trade (by dealers, hobbyists) and not in the scientific community.

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
28-01-10, 11:16 PM
BTW, in Vol. 24 No. 4 of the BTS Journal, in Eddy Hijmensen's article "Spider Hunting in Malaysia August 2006", Eddy wrote: "But on special request by Volker von Wirth, first we had to make a little detour to look for what we incorrectly refer to as Lampropelma violaceopes in the hobby."

Maybe Eddy can elaborate this?

Eric Reynolds
29-01-10, 12:22 AM
BTW, in Vol. 24 No. 4 of the BTS Journal, in Eddy Hijmensen's article "Spider Hunting in Malaysia August 2006", Eddy wrote: "But on special request by Volker von Wirth, first we had to make a little detour to look for what we incorrectly refer to as Lampropelma violaceopes in the hobby."

Maybe Eddy can elaborate this?

That doesn't sound like Eddy is referring to the arboreal spider you're discussing in this thread. To me it seems that Eddy is referencing THIS SPECIES (http://asianarboreals.googlepages.com/ornithoctoninaeg.sp.%22haplopelmarobustum%22) which was still being commonly sold as L. violaceopes in the pet trade at the time of his trip.

Eric

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
29-01-10, 11:11 AM
Hello Eric,

Thanks for your answer. I didn't know that, but then I don't really keep up with all the "pet trade names", I find them funny sometimes. But, there's also a picture in Eddy's article of a male Lampropelma violaceopes (http://asianarboreals.googlepages.com/lampropelmaviolaceopes), but it's called Cyriopagopus sp. "blue". Wonder why Eddy uses this name for this spider? Maybe identification of the spider as L. violaceopes didn't happen yet at the time?

James Box
29-01-10, 12:28 PM
i'm interested in this topic as well...
i spoke to a few people in the know, so to speak, that disagreed with them being called L. violaceopes...
and i did notice that Eddy used Cyriopagopus spec. blue in that picture as well...
it'd be interesting to know a bit more about why some feel it's Lampropelma and some don't.
Eddy's a mod here, so maybe he'll explain?

Eduard Johan Hijmensen
29-01-10, 12:39 PM
Hi Zoltan,

i submitted the article to the BTS in March 2007. At the lectures in February 2009 the editor requested new articles as he had ran out of articles. i asked him about the article i submitted...... he did not have it: due to a computer crash the editor lost all his articles.
so in February 2009 i forwarded the e-mails from 2007 to the editor again.

at the time of writing, in 2007, Lampropelma violaceopes was known as Cyriopagopus sp"blue". as Eric pointed out, the spider we had in the hobby as Lampropelma violaceopes is Ornithoctoninae G. sp. "malaysia".

unfortunately i did not get to proof-read the article before it was printed in the BTS journal. when i got the issue and read Cyriopagopus sp. "blue" in the article i could hit my head on the wall. (not to mention the lack of credit to Chris Sainsbury in the pictures.)

i hope this clears things up.

Eddy

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
29-01-10, 01:51 PM
Hello Eddy,

Thanks for your post and for clarifying things, it's all clear now.

James,
I think most people only disagree with calling them Lampropelma, but unless there's a previously described species that proves to be synonymous with Lampropelma violaceopes, the specific epithet violaceopes is here to stay. I know there's the opinion that Lampropelma violaceopes doesn't fit in gen. Lampropelma, but a proper study needs to be carried out and published for the name change to take effect.

James Box
29-01-10, 02:34 PM
thanks Zoltan:)
i guess i'm curious about what does/doesn't make it Lampropelma...ie what traits it shares of doesn't share with other members of that genus.

Eduard Johan Hijmensen
29-01-10, 02:58 PM
Lampropelma posses femoral fringes where as Cyriopagopus don't.

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
29-01-10, 03:00 PM
Hello James,

Maybe you will find this...

Rafn, S. 2002a. Phormingochilus. Tree tigers of Borneo. Invertebrate 2002 (01): 20-27.

...interesting. You can download from here (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/26/1884095/Phormingochilus%20cropped.pdf), and you can find more articles on the AsianArboreals literature page: http://asianarboreals.googlepages.com/litterature.

Eduard Johan Hijmensen
29-01-10, 03:06 PM
interesting yes.... but now we know P. everetti males DO posses tibia apophysis..... and there is even a Cyriopagopus sp that lacks these!

James Box
29-01-10, 03:13 PM
Hello James,

Maybe you will find this...

Rafn, S. 2002a. Phormingochilus. Tree tigers of Borneo. Invertebrate 2002 (01): 20-27.

...interesting. You can download from here (http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/26/1884095/Phormingochilus%20cropped.pdf), and you can find more articles on the AsianArboreals literature page: http://asianarboreals.googlepages.com/litterature.

thanks Zoltan, i'll have a read!

@ Eddy: oh the joys of taxonomonomothingamy!

Zoltan Mihaly Lestyan
29-01-10, 03:23 PM
Cheers for the info, Eddy!