New to BTS; Can anybody tell me about pampho's?

[Ethan Atkiss]

Hiya folks! Arachnid addicted yank here...

I've been 'spidering' for almost 2 years now but this is my first post at this forum. Lately i've been getting more and more interested in the pamphobeteus genus. I've heard the genus is all over the place with many unidentified or misidentified species. Can anybody point me in the right direction for some more specific info on attempts to describe species or just general research? Anything really; scientific papers, ongoing research, etc. would be very much appreciated. If i've overlooked some previous threads on this subject I apologize in advance.

[Steve Coe]

Hiya Ethan,

Can't help you on your quest I'm afraid. I'm new to T's.

But I'm sure there are loads of people here who can.

Welcome to the BTS Forum

Good luck

[Colin D Wilson]

Hi Ethan,

Welcome to the other side of the pond, enjoy your time here.

I think your first port of call should be our Theraphosid Gallery which has all the "described" and "pet trade" species name in alphabetical genus order.

http://thebts.co.uk/forums/gallery/index.php/cat/511

This Gallery is always being revised when species are redescribed and / or reallocated to other genus etc and i'm quite sure i'm right in saying that it's probably one of the most concise available.

Colin

[James Box]

i'm also interested in this genus...
considering it contains the storied "Chicken Spider", and some other beauties...it's pretty amazing!
probably will dive into the deep end soon and buy some though haha!

[Ethan Atkiss]

Thanks

Colin, thanks for pointing me to the gallery. I didn't know there were that many unidentified pampho's! Now if we can just get pics of the rest of them (and specimens)...

James, i agree, the Pambhobeteus sp. "chicken" (or whatever it's being officialy called) is verrrry interesting. I hope it makes it into the US hobby eventually.

I'm still trying to figure if my P. platyomma's are actually V wacketi or is V wacketi the former designation? Anybody?

[Ray Gabriel]

Colin, thanks for pointing me to the gallery. I didn't know there were that many unidentified pampho's! Now if we can just get pics of the rest of them (and specimens)...

Most of the Pamphobeteus species are unidentifed, with the possible exception of P. ultramarinus and P. ornata many of the other species have NEVER been compared to type and some species have been named and described without ever going near a type specimen so could already be something described.

I'm still trying to figure if my P. platyomma's are actually V wacketi or is V wacketi the former designation? Anybody?

P. platyomma does not exist, has not done since 2001, but many dealers (who either dont know but more likely dont care) still claim that they are a real species, because giving a species a "name" as opposed to just Pamphobeteus "sp" rakes in more money.

Vitalus according to Bertrani 2001, are found in Southern Brasil, and are not Pamphobeteus sized well similar in size to P. ultramarinus maybe.

It now seems that Pamphobeteus is found mainly on the Western side of the Andies, almost diagonally opposite on the continent from Vitalus, the only REAL way to have thier identu confirmed is to preserve them and then send them over to be compared against some types, see if the match any of them.

V. wacketi is a totally different species as to what is in the hobby as P. platyoma.

Ray

[Ethan Atkiss]

V. wacketi is a totally different species as to what is in the hobby as P. platyoma.

Ray

Hmmm... <scratching my head...> so does this mean that what i've purchased as "Brazilian Pink" and photo id'd as (nonexistent) P. platyomma is not V wackety either? So what is the true ID of the T being sold in the pet trade as P platyomma then?

[Ray Gabriel]

Hmmm... <scratching my head...> so does this mean that what i've purchased as "Brazilian Pink" and photo id'd as (nonexistent) P. platyomma is not V wackety either? So what is the true ID of the T being sold in the pet trade as P platyomma then?

This is one of the problems with these stupid common names and the books that continue to promote them, anyone can call anything ......anything, looking at the picture of V. wacketi in Bertranis paper there is not that much pink in them...they are mostly black, dealers love these common names as they can make them up as they go along and can change them to sell the stuff that isnt selling..........ive seen it done.

Who identifed the spider in the photo in the first place? a taxonomist after he disected the specimen or another hobbyist who probably thought that it looked like someone elses picture which had never been id'd?

Ill bet you were sold an unidentifed Pamphobeteus sp, did you have it from a spiderling? if so was the spider 3cm leg dia or 5mm leg dia ? (another way to separate Vitalus from Pamphobeteus).

So to answer your question, you have been sold an unidentifed species of spider, with a pic someone might be able to point you in the right direction as to the Genus, but probably not the species without material to examine.

This whole thing about P. platyoma is well known and has been on American websites before, if you see dealers selling these dont buy ANYTHING from that dealer...they are not to be trusted with thier species identifications and tell your friends to do the same, eventually HONEST dealers will prevail.

Ray

[Eric Reynolds]

Hi Ethan,

I'll try and lay it out as short and sweet as possible.

The spider you likely have, what we call Pamphobeteus sp. "platyomma" is a presumably undescribed species belonging to the genus Pamphobeteus.

This is NOT the spider that was described as P. platyomma and then transfered to Vitalius... that is not a valid name anymore anyway (Nomina dubia).

V. wacketi is a totally different spider and a valid species. It's likely not in the hobby.

Eric

[Ethan Atkiss]

Thanks very informative

Short and sweet works great. Thanks for clearing that up for me Eric. The undescribed status sort of explains why these are pretty much the only t's in the place that didn't have scientific names.

The 2 t's in question were purchased at about 5cm and 8cm. A local petshop here has been getting their t's from a breeder somewhere in Pennsylvania. I try to buy cb and only have a 4 wc t's in my collection of about 30 assorted bugs. Anywayz, here's a couple of pics of them. I guess they would have helped earlier but i didn't have 'em ready yet. Do you think these are actually the same species just in different stage of color change?

2"



3"+



Thanks again for the info.

[Ray Gabriel]

The spiders in your pics are Pamphobeteus of the group with the Xmas tree pattern on the abdomen. Whether they are the same species as a few have this pattern is unknown.

Eric as the species name "platyoma" is now "nomina dubia", (the specimen which had the name "platyoma" is unidentifiable so there fore the name is dead) why are some dealers still using this to sell unidentifed species?

If the name is invald ................ it is invalid, and should no longer be used. Different dealers use this "platyoma" for selling different species, the excuse for trying to keep a species separate does not work here because dealers will change the names to suit.

Ray

[Eric Reynolds]

Hi Ray,

Eric as the species name "platyoma" is now "nomina dubia", (the specimen which had the name "platyoma" is unidentifiable so there fore the name is dead) why are some dealers still using this to sell unidentifed species?

Well, I don't have much issue with them selling it as sp. "platyomma" in order to keep from mixing this species up (if that hasn't already happened).

However, a quick check of the larger dealer sites in the U.S. shows a couple of them STILL simply listing it as P. platyomma... which is disappointing.

Eric

[Ethan Atkiss]

I have a feeling that some dealers are calling it 'platyoma' because they have to call it something. The hobby is growing rapidly here and there are a lot of developing collectors looking for different, unusual spiders that are still relatively easy to keep. Pampho's really fit that bill but people are less likely to buy "Pamphobeteus sp. ecuador #4" (or however it's properly referred to) than something with a name. I think some other dealers must just have bunk information. I saw one in particular who is very well respected saying "This species is still listed under Vitalius but is actually Pamphobeteus". Everything i've seen listed as platyomma for sale appears to be the same sp. although one can never really be certain without examining an exuvium, can they?

My understanding is that there is not a definitive listing of the current descriptive status of theraphosids readily available to the layperson. Is there some organization that coordinates this kind of thing? Perhaps a large museum or something? If an updated list like this were available it would make discussions like this much easier.

[Ray Gabriel]

[QUOTE] Well, I don't have much issue with them selling it as sp. "platyomma" in order to keep from mixing this species up (if that hasn't already happened).[QUOTE]

Yea but which species? i have seen at least 2 species of Pampho being sold as sp"platyomma" and a couple of what could be Acanthoscurria also being sold as sp "platyomma". unfortunately in this case it has not helped.

However, a quick check of the larger dealer sites in the U.S. shows a couple of them STILL simply listing it as P. platyomma... which is disappointing.

My recomendation to other people reading this would be NOT to BUY ANYTHING from people with this on thier lists, this topic has been round a couple of times and if they really cared about thier spiders and thier reputation they would have changed thier lists by now.

[QUOTE] I have a feeling that some dealers are calling it 'platyoma' because they have to call it something. The hobby is growing rapidly here and there are a lot of developing collectors looking for different, unusual spiders that are still relatively easy to keep. Pampho's really fit that bill but people are less likely to buy "Pamphobeteus sp. ecuador #4" (or however it's properly referred to) than something with a name. [QUOTE]

You are correct, but you forgot the most important part, a named species can sell for MORE MONEY than a "sp"

[QUOTE] I think some other dealers must just have bunk information. I saw one in particular who is very well respected saying "This species is still listed under Vitalius but is actually Pamphobeteus". [QUOTE]

Well this indicates to me that this guy REALLY knows his stuff, 6 years later and he still does not know? its not hard to find out all you have to do is ask the question in the right place, obviously cares alot about spiders.

[QUOTE] Everything i've seen listed as platyomma for sale appears to be the same sp. although one can never really be certain without examining an exuvium, can they? [QUOTE]

Not really there is to much "pentaxonomy" people who have been keeping spiders 5 mins advising other people who have been keeping spiders for a lesser time on what they have based purely on a photograph, which may be over lit, under lit or just a speck in the darkness, fortunately it dosent hapen that much here, and most of the time it is corrected.

[QUOTE] My understanding is that there is not a definitive listing of the current descriptive status of theraphosids readily available to the layperson. Is there some organization that coordinates this kind of thing? Perhaps a large museum or something? If an updated list like this were available it would make discussions like this much easier. [QUOTE]

The world spider catalogue by the AMNH is very good, i dont have a link here though. Is ther one on the links section?

Ray

[Ethan Atkiss]

You mean this? http://research.amnh.org/entomology/...og/INTRO1.html
It was last updated in April of 2006 so that's not too bad.

It's ironic that i didn't look here. My mom worked at this museum for 6 years. I was recently given a great behind the scenes tour of their research facilities by one of their anthropologists. It was frikkin' amazing. Too bad they don't have example photo's to go with the list.

Edit: Look what i found...

Gen. Pamphobeteus Pocock, 1901

Transferred to other genera:
P. platyomma Mello-Leitão, 1923 -- see Vitalius.


And then further down the page:

Gen. Vitalius Lucas, Silva & Bertani, 1993

Nomina dubia:
V. platyomma (Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 228, originally in Pamphobeteus, T here by Lucas, Silva & Bertani, 1993: 245, jm, Brazil) -- Bertani, 2001: 309.

Further still:

mf wacketi (Mello-Leitão, 1923)....................Brazil
Pterinopelma w. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 185, f. 114-115 (Dm).
Pamphobeteus insularis Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 241 (Df).
Pamphobeteus masculus Piza, 1939a: 6, f. 4-6 (Dm).
Pamphobeteus platyomma Bücherl, 1949a: 126, pl. II (m, misidentified).
Pamphobeteus platyomma Bücherl, 1957: 403, f. 86 (m, misidentified).
Pterinopelma w. Bücherl, Timotheo & Lucas, 1971: 129 (Tm from Eurypelma=Avicularia, erroneous S of V. dubius and V. vellutinus).
Pamphobeteus litoralis Piza, 1976b: 56 (Dm).
Pamphobeteus platyomma Schmidt, 1986: 59, f. 96 (m, misidentified).
V. platyomma Schmidt, 1993d: 100, f. 307 (m, misidentified).
Aphonopelma w. Schmidt, 1997g, 1998h: 19, f. 176, 183 (m).
V. platyomma Schmidt, 1997g, 1998h: 20, f. 229 (m, misidentified).
V. platyomma Schmidt, 1998d: 5, f. 3 (f, misidentified).
V. platyomma Peters, 2000b: 132, f. 388-389 (mf, misidentified).
V. w. Bertani, 2001: 294, f. 16, 83-86, 179-180 (Tm from Aphonopelma, Sf).
V. w. Peters, 2003: 312, f. 1250-1252, 1258-1260 (mf).


I don't know why breeder/dealers can't do this kind of research. Maybe they're just too busy breeding and selling inverts...