Taki wrote: ...if however the two forms get described as different in the near future, that comment will look rather silly

Near future? Highly doubt that

Ceratogyrus wrote:

Taki wrote: Ok the link works now, not even the white leg markings are the same on the two forms......

The 2 spiders in those pics look nothing like the dark form that I have and the light form that scarab has. Could this mean that there is just a natural variation in the species? Or else previous crossing of the 2 colour forms?
I am also not convinced that the dark form in that pic is female and it is definately not the same "maturity" as the light one, or that abdominal folio would have been whiter (If it is female).
If you are referring to the leg patterns on the pics on that page, then you would have to compare spiders of similar "maturity" and sex. The "dark form" has the same leg patterns, they are just not fully developed yet in that pic.

So after he confirmed that fact, you're basically saying he's lying?
To me they look maybe a moult or two apart in size, I can't see that compensating for the differences..... time will tell I'm sure!

Cenotaph wrote:

Taki wrote: ...if however the two forms get described as different in the near future, that comment will look rather silly

Near future? Highly doubt that

Never lose the faith Cenotaph, did P muticus, L violaceps, G pulchripes and many others not just recently get changed?

Taki wrote:

Ceratogyrus wrote:

Taki wrote: So Cenotaph would you happily buy a B boehmei/B baumgarteni hybrid as well for example?

Don't think she would, but what does that have to do with a P.subfusca crossed with a P.subfusca?

Absolutely nothing I guess, if however the two forms get described as different in the near future, that comment will look rather silly

IF they do. This has been going on for years and no one could prove anything yet, so only time will tell.
If any other spiders that anyone has bred in the past, get separated into different species in the future, there is not much that we can do about it at the moment is there?

At this stage they are the same species, and have been so for a number of years (After being synonomised (P.bara = P.subfusca), so I am more than happy to breed them.
Not that I am against hybridizing anyway (But that is an entirely different thread that was beaten half to death a few weeks ago. )

Taki wrote: So after he confirmed that fact, you're basically saying he's lying?
To me they look maybe a moult or two apart in size, I can't see that compensating for the differences..... time will tell I'm sure!

Yip. Adult subfusca's have white folio's on the dorsal side of their abdomens without the dark line as shown in that pic. So either that spider is a lot "smaller" or else it is a sub adult male.
How many subfusca's do you own?

Taki wrote:

Cenotaph wrote:

Taki wrote: ...if however the two forms get described as different in the near future, that comment will look rather silly

Near future? Highly doubt that

Never lose the faith Cenotaph, did P muticus, L violaceps, G pulchripes and many others not just recently get changed?

These are not new species that you listed???
These are name changes.
C.crawshayi was changed to P.muticus (crawshayi doesn't exist anymore)
L.violaceopes was moved from Cyriopagopus. Not a new species. It was not a valid species as far as I understand (C.sp. "Blue"), so they just named it.
G.pulchripes was changed from G.aureostriata (aureostriata doesn't exist anymore)