Journal discussion, Recent article - Andrew M Smith re North American Aphonopelma etc

[Neill House]

I only got around to reading this, and found it a fascinating article. Now, I am not sure that everyone has read it, and so would love to have this thread as a source, but that is subject to permission to either link or paste it here?
I have been pretty ignorant of the inner goings on regarding Aphonopelma, and only very recently decided to get some for my collection. With this decision comes the research etc.. and that is when my eyes were opened to the veritable pandora's box.

[Colin D Wilson]

Journal entry discussion .... no problemo

Can't see there being a problem if sentences and the odd paragraph are quoted in reference to the article to make a point of discussion.

However, being all serious and what not (unlike me i know), If all the articles were to be reproduced in full here soon after the journal was released, then technically there would be no need for the majority of visitors to become members (thus receiving their quarterly journals), unfortunately this would reduce the income of the society and eventually due to lack of income we wouldn't be able to provide funds for research and field trips, so future taxonomy would suffer.
I know this is worse case scenario and probably wouldn't happen but it's worth being a little careful.

Now i'll shut up and start the ball rolling

Aphonopelma, what a "can 'o' worms" ..... that is all

[James Box]

argh...i need to renew my membership...haven't had a journal in ages...why did they have to publish it NOW!!! much sadness is mine...

[Paul Cockerill]

I'd be up for talking "Aphonopelma",... i'm a big fan and sort of just specialise in keeping these wonderful spiders (the North American counterparts anyway) ... the only barrier I've found in the hobby is that the majority of the UK pool of hobbyists either aren't interested in the genus (I know of a few die hard Aphonopelma fans out there),... or because of the difficulty in sourcing these spiders and open availability; they tend to get swept aside for the more popular genera....

Soooo after my rant, I would really like to see the spotlight on and a good refreshing conversation focused on these very cool spiders.

Paul.

[Neill House]

Well Paul you can put me on your list.. as I am fascinated with these, and will certainly be looking to get more of them.

The thing that struck me about the article was that it is such a mess! My idea is to try and get all the ones that are out there. If anything, it will give us the exoskeletons to look at and compare.. or at least send to the likes of Andrew?
I have jotted down a few more in depth (puddle depth ) thoughts, but am at work still, and won't be on again until later tonight.

[James Box]

well Andrew wrote that brilliant book about north american tarantulas years ago, managed to get a copy, though i believe a lot has changed since then.

Paul C...good to see you on here matey! hope those spiders are doing well.
Neill, good to meet another enthusiast

[Christian Elowsky]

If you have access, and when the articles come available, I'd suggest following Dr. Brent Hendrixson's work (interesting link here: http://www.millsaps.edu/academics/bi...y_research.php) and the PhD student Chris Hamilton (who's been to that side of the puddle and is not as self-promoting as I think he could be [http://www.8legs2fangs.com/Site/8legs2fangs.html]) if you're interested in the North American Aphonopelma. Comparing Andrew's old book to today's techniques in regards to not only morphology but molecular techniques is like comparing cars of 50 years ago with today's models. Now that is not an insult to him, nor his work, to be honest, some of what happened a hundred years ago is still useful, but the new techniques and the amount of time those two are pouring into the group is staggering.

Now then, back to the original topic, our entomology library has a copy of the original text, but I have not taken the time to compare the new writing with the old. I do think having a perspective which covers decades is interesting though!

[Paul Cockerill]

well Andrew wrote that brilliant book about north american tarantulas years ago, managed to get a copy, though i believe a lot has changed since then.

Paul C...good to see you on here matey! hope those spiders are doing well.
Neill, good to meet another enthusiast

Cheers James, hope your well pal... the Iodius and 'Mt hops' are doing very well had a few moults off them recently....
-P

[James Box]

Cheers James, hope your well pal... the Iodius and 'Mt hops' are doing very well had a few moults off them recently....
-P

glad to hear it, mate...i had a couple hops die, but the rest are doing very well indeed.

[Neill House]

Right.. so just to get us started, I am nicking a few things from the American Society.. this is a couple of years old, so updates have occurred, but nothing to detract.

There are around 50 described Aphonopelma species in the US. A rework of Aphonopelma is in progress and it is likely that some of these will be found to be the same species. Only around a dozen of these are available in the hobby.

anax (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
apacheum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
armada (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
arnoldi Smith, 1995....................USA
baergi Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
behlei Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
breenei Smith, 1995....................USA
brunnius Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
chalcodes Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
chamberlini Smith, 1995....................USA
chambersi Smith, 1995....................USA
clarki Smith, 1995....................USA
clarum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
coloradanum (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
cratium Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
cryptethum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
echinum (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
eutylenum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
gabeli Smith, 1995....................USA
gurleyi Smith, 1995....................USA
harlingenum (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
hentzi (Girard, 1852)....................USA
heterops Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
hollyi Smith, 1995....................USA
iodius (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1939)....................USA
iviei Smith, 1995....................USA
joshua Prentice, 1997....................USA
jungi Smith, 1995....................USA
lithodomum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
marxi (Simon, 1891)....................USA
minchi Smith, 1995....................USA
moderatum (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1939)....................USA
mojave Prentice, 1997....................USA
mordax (Ausserer, 1871)....................USA
odelli Smith, 1995....................USA
paloma Prentice, 1993....................USA
phanum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
phasmus Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
punzoi Smith, 1995....................USA
radinum (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1939)....................USA
reversum Chamberlin, 1940....................USA
rothi Smith, 1995....................USA
sandersoni Smith, 1995....................USA
schmidti Smith, 1995....................USA
smithi Smith, 1995....................USA
stahnkei Smith, 1995....................USA
steindachneri (Ausserer, 1875)....................USA
sullivani Smith, 1995....................USA
texense (Simon, 1891)....................USA
vogelae Smith, 1995....................USA
vorhiesi (Chamberlin & Ivie, 1939)....................USA
waconum (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
wichitanum (Chamberlin, 1940)....................USA
zionis Chamberlin, 1940....................USA

And there are a few undescribed species in the hobby as well, some of them include:
sp. Black Canyon brown
sp. Carlsbad green
sp. cocheisi
sp. Flagstaff orange
sp. Huachuca
sp. New River
sp. paysoni
sp. Rosebud
sp. Roswell

[Neill House]

And a post from the previously mentioned Dr Brent describing the real problem..

In taxonomy, there is something known as the "type" concept. This basically means that there is a standard specimen that "bears" the name for a particular taxonomic group.

For example, whenever a new species is described, the "holotype" is the actual SINGLE specimen that bears the name of that species. A description should include multiple specimens, but again, only one is designated as the "type" for the species. Therefore, if a researcher decides later on that some of the specimens used in the original description are actually different from that species it was described as, how do you determine what specimens to name a new species? Well, the "type" holds the name.

As far as Aphonopelma goes, there is also a "type species" for the genus (this is A. seemanni). Therefore, A. seemanni IS Aphonopelma (unless of course there is something else messy going on as Eric has eluded to)... A. seemanni is very very very different from all North American tarantulas. So, if it is determined that the North American spiders are different from A. seemanni at the genus level, A. seemanni keeps the name Aphonopelma, and the North American things will have to be given a different name (not a new genus name, but an older name that is currently considered a "synonym" of Aphonopelma).

If it turns out that A. seemanni is actually something different (i.e., if it was described as a different species in a different genus previously), this will cause major nomenclatural chaos. Because technically, the genus name should be synonymized along with the species. BUT, there is something known as nomenclatural stability that has to be considered because Aphonopelma HAS been used so much in the literature.

But, this will not be an issue of nomenclatural priority and stability. A new type species would have to be designated for the genus - and this would not be a trivial argument to make!

[Neill House]

Now.. from my understanding, if A. seemaani is the holotype for Aphonopelma, it gets to keep the name.. that is it, no questions. This of course raises the massive question of what are the other USA 'Aphonopelma' to be called? Well, it seems likely that they will be moved to what is currently a synonym of Aphonopelma.. like:

Apachepelma Smith, 1995
Chaunopelma Chamberlin, 1940
Eurypelma C. L. Koch, 1850
Delopelma Petrunkevitch, 1939
Dugesiella Pocock, 1901
Gosipelma Chamberlin, 1940
Rhechostica Simon, 1892

It would be usual for the oldest name to be used.. in this case Eurypelma, but of course, for this to be a 'type' there would need to be a jar with 'holotype' on it somewhere.. however, it also seems that Eurypelma is a mess also!

This is just what I have read on the surface so far, and work has limited my time in anything more structured.. but there seems to be plenty of meat on this bone, and this bone is on a humongous carcass! The ATS has a fair lot on the debate, which I have borrowed for here, and is worth a visit.

[James Box]

to be flippant, i like the sound of Aphonopelma...and i like the desert species keeping it, so i vote we change everything else

only joking...but that does have irritating implications for my Aphonopelma collection, which is pretty good...it'll end up being a lot of different genera in smaller sections of my collection. annoying!

right i'll stop being flippant lol.

i am glad a few chaps in the US and here are doing some DNA work, as this may clear up some issues...but inevitably it may create some new ones, as species boundaries are not as clear as we'd often like it to be, with regional variants, natural hybrids, and other parts of evolution. life doesn't often fit into boxes, and while that makes it hard to understand, it does make it more amazing!

[Colin D Wilson]

there would need to be a jar with 'holotype' on it somewhere.

This jar would have to have a label (outside or in) that corresponds to the spider inside too, it's come to light that some "types" in jars aren't what they say on the tin from mix ups earlier in this and the last century apparently.

[James Box]

This jar would have to have a label (outside or in) that corresponds to the spider inside too, it's come to light that some "types" in jars aren't what they say on the tin from mix ups earlier in this and the last century apparently.

Good sir, dost thou refer to the infamous Avicularia avicularia holotype, evidently from Togo? One can only laugh!