Taki wrote:

F1refly wrote: Jeez, the guy who managed to see that deserves a pat on the back and a slice of internet cake

Yep, that makes it a different species but the substantial size and colour difference of certain other species doesn't...... :whistle:

Oh lol, just saw the irony now. I do believe in Natural Variation for species, but after doing some of my own research, I am starting to think that Highland and Lowland are separate. Still could be possible for them to be the same species but I'm not holding my thumbs any more

Well the point is that we are all allowed to have opinions, this is a forum after all, a place where people should be able to express their opinions and leave them open for healthy debate and not condescending attitude responses.....

But I'm digressing and straying off topic here so I will start a new post with some of my taxonomy thoughts...

I'm not sure where the pic of the ventral leg shot came from, as its different from the one within the BTS journal. However, the leg markings are correct.
The full article of 10 x A5 pages within the journal provides the full description, location, taxonomical ID with photographs, pictures and tables. And, as the article that appears is the descriptive article and the species is now accepted the sp. and n. are now ommitted from the name of Poecilotheria rajaei.

I thoroughly recommend everyone to become a member of BTS and help support its causes. The newly designed journal also contains breeding reports of P. rufilata and P. ornata courtesy of Ray Gabriel. Membership is available to all ages internationally and provides a database of downloadable journals from the last 10 years, and then some!

I've spoken at length with the new BTS chairman Peter Kirk about P. subfusca. He described these back in 1996 when P. bara was dropped for the former ID of P. subfusca. He assures me that the highland and lowland are the same species as he had to consider both. The differences between H and L are obvious in size and colouration, but this is a result of location. Ive personally visited Kandy and Nuwara Eliya the temperature is quite different with the higher elevations even experiencing snow. But, as is always the way with science further studies will continue. As far as I'm aware however, the studies going on in Germany (and perhaps other countries) have not studied the holotype which remains in the BNHM and therefore is likely to be argued unless such reference is made.

Will these Sri Lankan scientists not release a paper as well? like the freely available papers from South American scientists?

But in any case thank you for your input Poxicator, and welcome to our forum

It really does seem odd that the whole of Germany never mind other countries in Europe speak of the P bara. Apparently there are 3 different P subfusca from 3 different areas. There is a noticeable difference of hair on the chelicerae from pictures Taki and i have taken but again time will tell with this species. Its always a good discussion.

With the DNA project we are currently helping with it will be interesting to see any differences on all species.

Thanks for the welcome.

Yes, a paper will be released, I believe it has been submitted and accepted. Not sure when it will be available but as the article in the journal is from the source I think we can take that as published.

I asked Soren Rafn why its still referred to as P. bara and he claimed it was merely because that's what everyone knows it as!

Thanks for that Poxicator

As I said, I have noticed some consistent differences myself after photographing multiple specimens and some of the differences are not only size and dorsal colour related. There seem to be some ventral differences as well
As a matter of interest, could carapace shape point to a different species as well?
With all that said, do you know if Peter Kirk literally had multiple samples from the 3 quite specific locations they supposedly come from to work with in his description?
Lastly, welcome to the forum from my side as well :happy: