So Stupid question about A. seemanni

[arachno.kinetic]

So I was at a LPS and the so-called "spider guy" and I got into a convo about Cleo my adult female A. seemanni. He showed me his "striped knee" and I said something along the lines of I say Costa Rican zebra. And he exploded ranting and racing about how they are two completely different breeds. Is he right? Or is my gut feeling of him not really being a "spider guy" correct?
Here's a pic of my a. Seemanni for ya!

 

[Therasoid]

This is why I use a T's genus name. Common names can cause confusion as some are used with more than just a couple of different species. Like "giant bird eater" is used for at least 3 different T's.
Yes, Costa Rican zebra is a term used for A. seemanni, haven't the slightest as to what a "striped knee" could be.
Don't get upset, or who is right or wrong about "common names" of species. I believe the website Exotic Fauna has a downloadable list of the known tarantula species. It has genus, sub family, country of origin and maybe some "common names".
Google is your friend. Do a little surfing and research, "knowledge is strength".
This is a truly fascinating hobby to be in, so much to see, do and have. With 940+ species, I thinks its the best one to be a part of.

 

[Poec54]

No one who knows what they're doing goes by common names. Way too much confusion there. I've had several Aphonopelma seemani types, maybe different species, maybe the local variants of the same species. All have the distinctive salmon/pink ventral color and matching spinnerets. The one seen in the hobby today is the southernmost, Costa Rican, it's a dark blue. There's an otherwise identical brown form from Honduras, and smaller battleship grey form from Guatemala that used to be common in the 1970's.

BTW, the two official lists of tarantula species are only updated with final published descriptions and revisions, and both are well behind what's actually going on in taxonomy. For example the long-anticipated Avic revision is partially done, but the lists won't recognize the interim publication which limits the genus to 14 valid species with 8 under review. 8 are being moved to new genera. Another 17 'species' were invalidated. Exotic Fauna still lists 47 species of Avics! It's got a lot of old descriptions that are vague, that used characters no longer considered valid, that were based on a single immature specimen or single sex, missing the location data, that type specimens are lost or falling apart, etc. You can't use the 940 number and think it's at all accurate.

What Jacobi did with a couple Avic species was to add brief notes that the pet trade specimens don't match the type specimens. Imagine how much more useful Exotic Fauna list would be if he did that across the board and gave us what taxonomists are currently working on, and what they feel are duplicate, invalid, or misnamed species. For example, A versicolor has long been though to be a poor fit in Avicularia because it has different urticating hairs that can be kicked off; N chromatus is considered to be a poor fit in Nhandu (it was previously a Lasiodora). Heads-up info like this is great. Tell us what taxonomists are talking about and working on; there's not that many of them to talk to. Otherwise the lists could be a decade or two behind; final revisions take many years. There's hundreds of thousands of tarantula owners in the world, and many would find these kind of notes very useful and informative, however the Exotic Fauna's target audience is the handful of tarantula taxonomists.