Hi

Genus Psalmopoeus and Tapinauchenius are now in the subfamily Sinurticantinae Samm & Schmidt, 2008

What do you think of this ?

to my opinion, it s a big problem that genus changes always of subfamily, it s because systematic is not reliable . We must use DNA now for this.
but it s just my opinion
i would like to know how this decisions are vilidated
see you friends

JM

Hi JMV,

I have not seen the paper

what do they base this on?

Ray

The paper was puplished in The TOW magazin!
But i Don`t have it yet

Hi,

here is the reference and the abstract of this paper:

• SAMM, R. & G. SCHMIDT (2008): Sinurticantinae subfamilia nov. – eine neue Unterfamilie der Theraphosidae (Araneae). TOW 13(141): 3-15.
  
  Abstract:
  For the two genera Psalmopoeus and Tapinauchenius, up to now considered as members of the subfamilia Aviuclariinae and closely related to the Aviculariinae, a new subfamilia Sinurticantinae is established. Distinguishing mark is the lack of urticating hairs on the opisthosoma. From the Selenocosmiinae they differ in the existence of tibia spurs in the males and the distribution in the South America and Caribbean, from the Ischnocolinae in the minimal spination and the lacking of a division of the scopulae of tarsi by hair or bristles.

Cheers,
Martin

Might be synonymous with 'Neoselenocosmiinae' Smith, 1994

Hi Richard,

do you have the full reference or even better a copy of this paper by Smith?

Cheers,
Martin

Martin,
From memory it's hidden away within Smith's Tarantulas of the USA and Mexico book. But whether this constitutes a formal publication I'm not sure, but one could argue the case

I'm not sure (off the top of my head) if the Zoological code applies to subfamilies in the same way as it does to species and genera.

Cheers,

Page 28

Smith says they should be in a different subgenus, but will follow Raven untill he has examined the appropriate types.

Ray

Hi,

some more article mentioning or refering to the Neoselenocosmiinae by Smith:

• CHARPENTIER, P. (1996): The palm tree spiders of the genus Stromatopelma. Exothermae Mag. 1: 3-20.
• HUBER, S. (2004): Buchrezension: GÜNTER SCHMIDT (2003): Die Vogelspinnen – Eine weltweite Übersicht. 1. Auflage 2003, unter Mitwirkung von JAN-PETER RUDLOFF. ARACHNE 9(4): 28-34.
• SCHMIDT, G. (1996): Für Sie gelesen: CHARPENTIER, Ph.: The Palm Tree Spiders of the Genus Stromatopelma. Part. I. Arachnol. Mag. 4(11): 9-10.

all the best,
Martin

JM,

Yes, the DNA will show us!!! This is something Stuart and I wholeheartedly agree upon! The DNA work is going to help us understand theraphosid relationships in such a wonderful way!

Chris

Hi

Thanks Chris

To my opinion, all systematiciens must work together to find new keys for determinations, including keys with DNA

we don t care to know who describes what , it s not war between descriptors to know who has described the most number of species

work together

see you

JM

Sounds well to me

Hi!

As from the abstract posted just another one fail by Grandpa due to 37.1 of ISZN Code.
The replacement to the "Psalmopoeinae" or "Tapinaucheniinae" is a must. But due to old paper by the same Schmidt i believe P. cambridgei should form other independent genus. But looking so his old opinion has changed...

Hello Mikhail,

which papers / references are you referering to?

all the best,
Martin

Does the paper say anything about characters used to unite the two genera Psalmo + Taps?

This has relevance for whether this new name is different to previous suggestions to move Psalmopoeus alone into a new subfamily, doesn't it?

Though i hear discussion about subgroups within each genus, i think the major message for now is can we group them altogether (how?) and are there enough different (shared) characters to warrant a different subfamily.

Let's talk about morphology here shall we - as that's the bit i'm unsure of... *grins

JM: Thanks for your support on the need for an all inclusive - and collaborative - view, DNA + morphology + Behaviour + Ecology + Biogreography. All useful.
CH: Just wait until WE start disagreeing, rate biases, compositional heterogeneity ! *smiles*

Best wishes
s

when do i get a personal smilicon icon btw?, anything with limited hair is fine
Best wishes
TCNACNUGYsecGCNCGNACN

Its a struggle between those who does it properly and those who dont.
Nothing new there.

Hello Martin!

which papers / references are you referering to?
all the best,
Martin

Nothing, just the rule of the replacement of the invalid name with the valid one.

This post has been edited by Mikhail F. Bagaturov on August 08, 2008 02:55 pm

Hello Mikhail,

I think I didn't got your message: do you want to say that they should have been named "Psalmopoeinae" or "Tapinaucheniinae"? If so, why?

all the best,
Martin

Hello Martin!

Article 37.1 of ISZN Code or I just interpret it wrong?

Hi Mikhail,

I think you may still be misunderstanding what Martin is asking.

I believe he is asking where the terms "Psalmopoeinae" and "Tapinaucheniinae" have been used before. In what publications have those terms appeared?

Eric

This post has been edited by Eric Reynolds on August 09, 2008 06:31 pm

Mikhail, I think now I understood what you want to say.

all the best,
Martin

here here, a year or so ago i really wanted to get into taxonomy so i approached someone who was working on some specimens, they basically turned me away when i offered assistance, saying that they wanted their name on the research.
greed! as all i can say.

well not to worry

i do think that taxonomy is based on a lot of different theories from a lot of different people and we wonder why a lot of material is mislabelled, like what stuart said DNA evidence should not be used alone and morphological, ethological factors etc should be taken into consideration.

i would love to get involved in some taxonomy, if anyone has some advice please send me a pm

cheers

wes

Hi,

another recently published article dealing with the subfamily Aviculariinae:

• WEST, R. C., S. D. MARSHALL, C. S. FUKUSHIMA & R. BERTANI (2008): Review and cladistic analysis of the Neotropical tarantula genus Ephebopus Simon 1892 (Araneae: Theraphosidae) with notes on the Aviculariinae. Zootaxa (1849): 35–58.
  
  Abstract:
  The tarantula genus Ephebopus Simon 1892 is reviewed and includes the type species, E. murinus (Walckenaer 1837),
  and E. uatuman Lucas, Silva & Bertani 1992, E. cyanognathus West & Marshall 2000, E. rufescens West & Marshall
  2000 and Ephebopus foliatus, sp. nov., from Guyana. Ephebopus violaceus Mello-Leitão 1930 is transferred to Tapinauchenius
  Ausserer, where it is a senior synonym of Tapinauchenius purpureus Schmidt 1995 new synonymy. Ephebopus
  fossor Pocock 1903 is considered a nomen dubium. Ephebopus occurs in northeastern South America where it is
  known only from Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. Spiders of the genus are generally fossorial; however,
  Ephebopus murinus has a developmental stage that is arboreal. A cladistic analysis of the Theraphosidae retrieves the
  Aviculariinae as monophyletic, including Avicularia Lamarck, Iridopelma Pocock 1901, Pachistopelma Pocock 1901,
  Tapinauchenius, Psalmopoeus Pocock, Ephebopus, Stromatopelma Karsch and Heteroscodra Pocock, having as a synapomorphy the well-developed scopulae on tarsi and metatarsi I–II that is very laterally extended.

all the best,
Martin

Martin do you have a copy of that paper?
thanks
-Chris

West et al (2008) renders Samm & Schmidt's work invalid. No more need to consider the homoplasious "Sinurticantinae" a valid group. Anyhow, the group could not ever be considered valid (Raven, Pers Comm), for more than one reason there were mistakes within the paper.