Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New articles
New media comments
New article comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Articles
New articles
New comments
Search articles
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Dark Theme
Contact us
Close Menu
Are you a Tarantula hobbyist? If so, we invite you to join our community! Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your pets and enclosures and chat with other Tarantula enthusiasts.
Sign up today!
Forums
Tarantulas by Genus
Avicularia
Avicularia urticans & Avicularia juruensis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CEC" data-source="post: 130088" data-attributes="member: 23836"><p>IMO or for what it is worth... </p><p>Hobby aurantiaca is not rufa but is actually also juruensis, though, morphotype #1 (in addition to ulrichea and sp. Pucallpa etc.) Whereas, hobby urticans/sp. Peru Purple are morphotype #2.</p><p>Ironically, what Schmidt describes as "urticans" actually fits the setae description of morphotype #1 and not morphotype #2. So what we know as "urticans" in the hobby is not the Avicularia that Schmidt described.</p><p></p><p>The poorly described and lost type specimen of aurantiaca was characterized as having vivid orange bands but having only that to go on for the authors they said it COULD be rufa but knowing that many juruensis variations have vivid bands, who knows? It's really up to interpretation. </p><p>We also have to dismiss any hobby names as being legit and separate what was originally described and what we know under that label in the hobby. The revision proved the inaccuracy of hobby labels. Many species labels were given on a hunch and not examined/compared, often do to the nomina dubia species type material being lost. Therefore, what was originally described as aurantiaca could be rufa but that does not mean the hobby material under the aurantiaca label is rufa.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CEC, post: 130088, member: 23836"] IMO or for what it is worth... Hobby aurantiaca is not rufa but is actually also juruensis, though, morphotype #1 (in addition to ulrichea and sp. Pucallpa etc.) Whereas, hobby urticans/sp. Peru Purple are morphotype #2. Ironically, what Schmidt describes as "urticans" actually fits the setae description of morphotype #1 and not morphotype #2. So what we know as "urticans" in the hobby is not the Avicularia that Schmidt described. The poorly described and lost type specimen of aurantiaca was characterized as having vivid orange bands but having only that to go on for the authors they said it COULD be rufa but knowing that many juruensis variations have vivid bands, who knows? It's really up to interpretation. We also have to dismiss any hobby names as being legit and separate what was originally described and what we know under that label in the hobby. The revision proved the inaccuracy of hobby labels. Many species labels were given on a hunch and not examined/compared, often do to the nomina dubia species type material being lost. Therefore, what was originally described as aurantiaca could be rufa but that does not mean the hobby material under the aurantiaca label is rufa. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Tarantulas by Genus
Avicularia
Avicularia urticans & Avicularia juruensis
Top