Selenocosmia javanensis???

[Steve Nunn]

Hi,
The Selenocosmia are just the selenocosmiine subfamily dumping ground, all old descriptions that could not easily fit into any other genus, simply were lumped here. There are multiple examples, as Chris said, S.peerboomi is not part of the Selenocosmia either, they clearly fit into the Orphnaecus. Nothing from Australia belongs to the Selenocosmia, very little to nothing from India fits into the Selenocosmia, yet count the number of spp. from this genus from those countries, they are numerous.

We are waiting for the work to start so the mess can be cleared up. Raven announced the Phlogius resurrection, Volker and Borris have mentioned several projects around this issue too. Nobody has touched the group because the holotype is lost, a neotype must be described first and that job, being the intitial one needed, has already been proposed by Volker and Borris. In short, very little can even be done with most of the Selenocosmiinae until the neotype is described, then the floodgates open, so to speak I've got nov.sp. Selenocosmia and some others for description, but I can't touch them until the above works are completed, needless to say I'm pretty keen to see the work done, Volker and Borris announced they would take the job about 3 years ago. Raven announced he'd do the Phlogius revision 2 years ago.

My twidling thumbs are starting to ache

Steve

[Nicola Dolby]

Hi Steve,
I know that these experienced and esteemed entomologists have agreed to do this work, but as things are taking so long (and I do appreciate they are really busy) couldn't someone else step in and do the neotype instead?

[Steve Nunn]

Hi Nicola,
In short, not really Volker and Borris have examined more rellevant type material than anyone else focused on the group, this gives them a unique chance to do an excellent job of the work, it may take time, but I think we can be guaranteed a good job in the end. Besides that, when they announced they would do the work, it would be highly unethical to jump in on the job, at least until they decide one way or the other when the work will come out.

All good things take time, some things a lot of time (like my very late Aussie theraphosid export to Soren, it is coming!!)

Cheers,
Steve

[Nicola Dolby]

Hi Steve,
thanks for your words and you're right it would be a bit unethical. On the one hand these are really great times for us in this hobby:
Just look at the discoveries in Australia. The Rattlesnake tarantula which my be not only a new species but a new genus. The Goliath spider (is it a seperate species or a giant variant of strenuus?), there's the giant variant of crasspies and the Coremiocnemis dwarf spiders you have discovered. There's Chile, with more new Euathlus and Paraphysa species than I had hot dinners last year, and of course the beautiful A. fasciculata & South African blue foot.
But: we have Grammostola and Avicularia; what is happening there? do they need ew neotype work or other revision or has this been planned? I know Richard Gallon has been doing a lot of revision work on African tarantulas.

My concern is that the hobby is expanding faster than the tarantula-keeping community can keep tabs on. Take P. tigranawesseli. Easily identified as Poecilotheria and was formally brought into the hobby, taxonomically described and presented because the ground work on Poecilotheria had been done. I'm not t saying we should stop finding new tarantuls, but the scientific study needs to catch up to make things easier. Maybe I'm being silly, , it just concerns me.

[Steve Nunn]

I'm not t saying we should stop finding new tarantuls, but the scientific study needs to catch up to make things easier. Maybe I'm being silly, , it just concerns me.

Hi Nicola,
Unfortunately, the actual descriptions can take an aweful lot of time to publish, bringing a new specimen into the hobby can be as quick as a shovel and a planeflight. Add to that the larger number of collectors than there are people doing the descriptions and you get an even larger discrepancy.

I think the trick as a hobbyist is to follow geographic collection locales and stay breeding specific to those groups, at least until published taxonomic info can assist with other populations.

Steve

[Nicola Dolby]

That seems a pretty reasonable way to go Steve. The trick seems to be to get the geographical research done first. For example it wasn't until February that I found there were two variants of G. mollicoma in Uruguay, people not knowing could have easily tried to interbreed without knowing. However those bringing new species of Euathlus into the hobby seem really keen to make sure each variant in seperately identified along with location, which is brilliant. I understand that revealing the location of a new species has its risk because of poachers, though this is not so much of a concern for Brachypelma because of CITES and by immediately setting up captive breeding (or doing so before introducing the species into the hobby) may satiate demand and remove the desire for wild caught specimens. One thing though which has been mentioned here before is that where WC poaching is no longer an issue because of CB populations, it might be an idea for the BTS to publish geographical data on this site, possibly in the form of a "care sheet" for the species concerned. I know that would be a massive work but I think invaluable to the tarantula keeper. Thanks once again

[Richard Gallon]

The problem is that most of the described species can't be reliably identified at the moment, so what chance has anybody got of correctly ID'ing supposed new species (many of which may be found to be poorly described species from donkey's years ago).

There's no point quickly describing a new species/genus unless you can be confident it hasn't been described before. Otherwise you're just adding to the taxonomic mess and creating more problems for the future.

Unfortunately current theraphosid taxonomy seems to be driven by the desire to describe new species/genera - rather than focusing on more usefully working out how to ID existing species!!

The problem: theraphosid taxonomy takes decades to undertake; university funding usually only lasts at most 3 years.

Result: by the time a university researcher has learnt about the problems of theraphosid taxonomy he/she will have run out of time/funding to resolve them! And will have moved on to where funding is available - often in a different discipline i.e. flipping burgers etc.

So basically serious taxonomic exploration can only be undertaken by those rare researchers who can ring-fence time and money for their pet project. Or by committed amateurs prepared to invest their own money, time and effort into tackling the issues.

There's no such thing as quick taxonomy - it takes decades. Hobbyists want instant gratification, largely because their own interest in spiders is probably a short-term one (few years at best, until the next interest comes along).

I'm not joking when I say people have died while waiting for the results of some of my taxonomic investigations!

Richard

[Nicola Dolby]

I fully understand what you're saying Richard and the lack of funding for taxonomical research is a loss to everyone. However in the meantime as Steve said if we can keep our breeding and tarantula keeping within geographical boundaries and to whats been described (for example A. metallica is regarded as such and bred as such, even though scientifically there is doubt as to whether it even exists as a non-variant of Avic avic)) then this should keep the "type" from hybridisation whilst science catches up. My suggestion over the locality information being held and published by the BTS was purely so that if t is all here it is easier to fnd and access for the tarantula keeper. I know hobbyists come and go to some extent, thats the market (and to some degree tarantula keeping is a business like any other animal in the pet trade) , thats life. But there is a way round this. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn but the BTS grants for overseas study, couldn't they be expanded to include taxonomical research? Perhaps as co-sponsors some Universities would be prepared to invest in these projects? I'd rather be in Africa or Surinam looking at spiders than playing with a greasy lump of offal in McDonalds (personal opinion about MDonalds). .
Thanks Richard

[James Box]

i share your opinion of McGagAndPuke, Nicola! hehe

Richard, you mention how amateurs could in theory give of their time to assist a taxonomist and maybe speed things along. has there been much precedent, and what would an amateur need to begin that kind of work?
i also suppose some means of establishing trust would need to be worked out as well.
but i'm sure many of us would relish the chance to delve deeper into these mysteries for the good of the conservation of the animals as well as the hobby.

[Nicola Dolby]

Thanks James. As for assisting taxonomists, I'd certainly like to be involved in the work.

[Ray Hale]

A good way to start in taxonomy is to take a good look at any deads that you get. Unfortunatly many hobbyists find it hard to detach themsleves from a dead spider and the thought of disecting a much loved pet is often abhorent.
If you want to be a taxonomist you need to view the spider in death differently to you did in life.

My advice is to get a good quality microscope ( biocular is best ) and a dissecting kit. You can then put the unfortunate beast to good use by looking at the key features. When it dies pop it into alcohol to await examination. You can buy the correct fluid from a chemist or a chemical supplier. I began by drawing what I could see and comparing it to the description of the spider it should be. Measure the legs , draw the chelicerae, examine the genitalia of both males and females. You will be surprised how quickly you pick things up. Record everthing and draw. It doesnt have to be a work of art just enough to help you understand what you have. This way you build up your own library of infomation and correctly stored you may return to the spider in the future for comparison.
Theres no fast track into the field except through hard work and dedication.


Ray Hale

[James Box]

that's helpful, thanks Ray