# Forthcoming Avicularia revision



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Craig McInnes found this very interesting thesis and posted it on AP. I had a bash at translating it and Pete asked if I'd put it up here so here it is: Fukushima, 2011 (Translated)

Here's a summary of the changes being proposed:
A versicolor to be moved to a still to be named genus where it'll be the only species.
A. laeta to be moved to a still to be named genus where it'll be the only species.
A. hirschii, minatrix and an unnamed/undescribed species to be moved to a still to be named Genus.
A. sooretama, diversipes & gamba to be moved to a still to be named Genus.

Avicularia would consist of the following 14 species:
Avicularia avicularia, juruensis, purpurea, taunayi, variegata, velutina, rufa, aymara & 6 new(?) unnamed/undescribed species.

Avicularia parva is now Catumiri parvum
Avicularia anthracina is now Grammostola anthracina
Avicularia affinis is now Euathlus affinis

The following no longer would be valid names:
Avicularia geroldi, holmbergi, metallica, ulrichea, walckenaeri, exilis, fasciculata, fasiculata clara, soratae, subvulpina, surinamensis, rapax, ochracea, doleschalli, detrita, tigrina, alticeps & hirsuta.

Names still to be queried:
Avicularia arabica, ancylochira, cuminami, glauca, gracilis, leporina, nigrotaeniata & plantaris.

The full work will be published in June 2013.


----------



## selina20 (May 28, 2008)

Nice one Craig thanks hun


----------



## Poxicator (Nov 14, 2007)

Thanks Craig, much appreciated.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

I had seen this on AP's and I nice work on the translation and brief breakdown Craig!!!

I always thought _A.diversipes, A.gamba _&_ A.sooretama_ deserved to be in their own genus.


----------



## Hedgewitch (Feb 12, 2008)

Bleh, Portuguese.

Having had a quick look over it, I'm agreeing with your summary and translation.

I'm also annoyed by the whole "New genus 1" "New genus 2" etc. thing... I want to find out the new genus names!


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

would this mean avicularia azuraklaasi would be staying as is ???


----------



## Paul c 1 (Sep 30, 2009)

I'm surpised this information is so readily accessable. I always thought any taxonomy work is usually done under a level secrecy and any announcements would be made as per a formal 'paper' upon completion of all the hard work that has been done.

Please feel free to advise me if i'm wrong.
-P


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

I can't wait for this one, all those people crying into their drinks "I spent a small fortune on regional forms of 2-3 (maybe 1) species" :devil: :Na_Na_Na_Na:

Paul I think it's ok once it's been put into print that the work is done/all most done, iirc the same thing happened with Dr Raven saying he would re validate _Phlogius_ in one of his papers a few years back as yet no one has tried to beat him to the punch on that, once it's announced I think the rules change.


----------



## Harbinger (Dec 20, 2008)

Mind = Blown...


----------



## Wolflore (Mar 3, 2010)

Do you think there will be a sale on?

Roll up, roll up, get your Avics before they're summat else!


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Paul c 1 said:


> I'm surpised this information is so readily accessable. I always thought any taxonomy work is usually done under a level secrecy and any announcements would be made as per a formal 'paper' upon completion of all the hard work that has been done.
> 
> Please feel free to advise me if i'm wrong.
> -P


Yeah, pretty much as Bill said. There's obviously been enough work done for her to have decided what goes where and what doesn't exist. Now she (with Bertani possibly?) start describing and naming the new genera and species. I guess it works as a kind of hands off, Avicularia is my job kinda thing. And fair play to her, maximum respect for taking on such a troublesome genus.


----------



## Craig Mackay (Feb 2, 2009)

Dr3d said:


> would this mean avicularia azuraklaasi would be staying as is ???


Noel, I noticed there's a number of species that the abstract doesn't make any mention of, namely, Avicularia aurantiaca, azuraklaasi, bicegoi, braunshauseni, caesia, huriana, palmicola, pulchra, recifiensis, rutilans & urticans. These are all valid species according to the world spider catalogue so something will have to be done with them I guess. Perhaps some of them make up the 7 unnamed spp. and maybe some have been synonymised. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.


----------



## Dr3d (Jul 31, 2010)

Craig Mackay said:


> Noel, I noticed there's a number of species that the abstract doesn't make any mention of, namely, Avicularia aurantiaca, azuraklaasi, bicegoi, braunshauseni, caesia, huriana, palmicola, pulchra, recifiensis, rutilans & urticans. These are all valid species according to the world spider catalogue so something will have to be done with them I guess. Perhaps some of them make up the 7 unnamed spp. and maybe some have been synonymised. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.


 
thanks Craig was kind a wondering on a couple there you named : victory:


----------



## ducks (Mar 28, 2010)

ok, I haven't got any further than boggling hopelessly over the fact that someone, somewhere, has managed to confuse a grammie with an avic.

:gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp::gasp:


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

mcluskyisms said:


> I always thought _A.diversipes, A.gamba _&_ A.sooretama_ deserved to be in their own genus.


New genus or Iridopelma?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jan 24, 2010)

Baldpoodle said:


> New genus or Iridopelma?


Haha Damien, yeah last year I thought they should maybe placed into _Iridopelma_. Although if you read the papers on the three species and look at male reproductive organs (especially the emboli then and lack of tibial apophysis). I'd say its more than feasible they deserve a genus of their own.

Ohh, and if you have time to, I'm sure you will come across later posts where I suggest they would be better suited in their own genus.


----------



## Oderus (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm pretty sure a new placement was hinted at in the paper for those three but it's been some time since I looked at it.


----------



## Baldpoodle (Apr 18, 2007)

Oderus said:


> I'm pretty sure a new placement was hinted at in the paper for those three but it's been some time since I looked at it.


Yes it does Oderus
From the paper:-


> Since these species are morphologically distinct from Amazonian Avicularia species, they could be considered to belong to a distinct genus.


 
but I am very sure mcluskyisms was saying it a long long time before that paper came out.:roll:


----------

