Its pamphobeteus platyomma, the old name is vitalius platyomma.

Thanks Dave

No problem.

Dave wrote: Its pamphobeteus platyomma, the old name is vitalius platyomma.

There was a recent debate about this in the Pamphobteus thread.

Dave have you not got this the wrong way round?

As far as I remember the Pamphobeteus platyomma is not Pamphobeteus but rather of the genus Vitalius

Look at post #44370 in www.tarantulas.co.za/forum/tarantula-gen...on?limit=12&start=48

And, the species "platyomma" at one time was considered a type of Pamphobeteus, but has been moved to the genus Vitalius for many years now. And, as such it is considered a "junior synonym" for V. wacketi. The name "platyomma" is obsolete and no longer used. Somebody's not paying attention to current events. Maybe for the last ten years or so!

This is what uncle Stan said

I think uncle stan got this the wrong way around, on archnoboards they call is pamphobeteus.
I know that many years ago is was Vitalius but change to Pamphobeteus. If it has changed back to Vitalius
it would make no sense, tarantulas are classified into the species group by body shape and features.
eg, a Lasiodorides polcuspalatus has similar markings of a pamhobeteus, theres something about the body
structure that seperates it. (i cant remember exactly what it was, will have to double check).

In the same breath, i wouldnt undersatnd why they would call Pamphobeteus platyomma a Vitalius anyway.
The unique christmas tree markings the slings have are identical to any other Pamphobeteus like the nigricolour, vespertinus, spec machalla any other Pamphobeteus sling i have kept. I know that Pamphobeteus Antinous and Ultramurnius look nothing like the other Pampho slings.

Vitalius wacketi is a valid species, Pamphobeteus platyomma was transferred to Vitalius, but it's currently considered a dubious name (nomem dubium)

A tarantula is classified by the taxonomic interest or related to captive animals.


Pamphobeteus platyomma does not exsist, ans Vitalius platyomma in the hobby (and since it's a dubious name, you can't really label a spider with it), only some specimens were erroneously sold under this name in the past-- those are what should be "properly" labeled as Pamphobeteus sp. "platyomma" and they have nothing do to with Vitalius wacketi or platyomma.

The sexual structure of this spider is not identical to any vitalius specimens.