|
|
Post by panacanthus on Oct 14, 2021 2:07:17 GMT -8
I’ve noticed that all E. goliath specimens I see for sale, and all that I have owned over the years, have had data from New Guinea. However, all literature I find says that they are endemic to Australia. I’ve never seen a specimen for sale with this data. Does anyone know if they do in fact also live in New Guinea or is there a reason no one puts Australian data on their specimens? Perhaps they are only endemic to Australia but they are bred also in New Guinea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 14, 2021 6:19:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by panacanthus on Oct 15, 2021 0:04:36 GMT -8
Thank you for the link! That is what I see with any literature I find - only from Australia. I should have mentioned previously that I am not seeing any specimens for sale currently, although E. goliath is still listed on a couple websites (out of stock) of well known suppliers and they are said to be from Irian Jaya or Papua New Guinea. I've seen many listings from multiple dealers over the past 25 years and always from these locations. Never from Australia. I haven't bought this species in quite a while but any I have purchased in the past had data from New Guinea or Irian Jaya. Again, these observations are based on the past 25 years and many specimens from various dealers - not just one instance. I didn't realize until recently that they are endemic to Australia and it has just made me curious why the data therefore seems to be wrong for all these specimens I have seen or purchased. I do not believe they were a different species all along but I cannot be 100% certain. I will post a couple photos of the pair I still have in my collection. The data for these was PNG! It now seems this may have been wrong. My main reason for asking if anyone knows more about this is because I will soon be placing these into a display and in this particular situation I would prefer to have data which is proper for the species even if it is not precisely correct for this exact pair. Once again these are just one pair of many that I've seen over the years which may have had the wrong data. This female has a body length of 268mm and a wingspan of 246mm.   |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 15, 2021 5:48:05 GMT -8
Bulolo, PNG has long been a clearing house for specimens arriving from PNG. Sadly, many specimens coming from near and far apparently arrive without data, and are "given" data as Bulolo. However, this does indicate to me that the source is PNG, not Australia. That said, as I'd mentioned before, it's possible that the specimens are falsely labeled PNG to avoid AUS export laws while still gaining revenue. Or, it could be the same species, or (more likely) a similar species. Here is but one species from PNG: www.researchgate.net/figure/FIGURES-45-53-Eurycnema-nigrospinosa-Redtenbacher-1908-45-from-Papua-New-Guinea_fig13_281558622There are forums, and experts, on stick insects. I'd start searching and find the experts- I've found them very willing to provide identification and assistance. I would NOT change the data label, even if known wrong. It's then just false data. If anything, I'd label it as suspect. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by panacanthus on Oct 15, 2021 6:17:39 GMT -8
Bulolo, PNG has long been a clearing house for specimens arriving from PNG. Sadly, many specimens coming from near and far apparently arrive without data, and are "given" data as Bulolo. However, this does indicate to me that the source is PNG, not Australia. That said, as I'd mentioned before, it's possible that the specimens are falsely labeled PNG to avoid AUS export laws while still gaining revenue. Or, it could be the same species, or (more likely) a similar species. Here is but one species from PNG: www.researchgate.net/figure/FIGURES-45-53-Eurycnema-nigrospinosa-Redtenbacher-1908-45-from-Papua-New-Guinea_fig13_281558622There are forums, and experts, on stick insects. I'd start searching and find the experts- I've found them very willing to provide identification and assistance. I would NOT change the data label, even if known wrong. It's then just false data. If anything, I'd label it as suspect. Chuck Thank you Chuck! That helps a lot. I hadn’t heard of that species from PNG. I will research it more. I’m at work at the moment so I can’t look into things right now but I had wondered if there are forums with experts in this field and will pursue that also! I do understand about the data label. I would change it only as a last resort if I was 100% certain these are from Australia, which may never be possible. I would also always keep the original data. These are going into an artistic wall display so it’s not quite a typical situation. Anyways your help has been greatly appreciated! |
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 15, 2021 7:22:13 GMT -8
Bulolo, PNG has long been a clearing house for specimens arriving from PNG. Sadly, many specimens coming from near and far apparently arrive without data, and are "given" data as Bulolo. However, this does indicate to me that the source is PNG, not Australia. That said, as I'd mentioned before, it's possible that the specimens are falsely labeled PNG to avoid AUS export laws while still gaining revenue. Or, it could be the same species, or (more likely) a similar species. Here is but one species from PNG: www.researchgate.net/figure/FIGURES-45-53-Eurycnema-nigrospinosa-Redtenbacher-1908-45-from-Papua-New-Guinea_fig13_281558622There are forums, and experts, on stick insects. I'd start searching and find the experts- I've found them very willing to provide identification and assistance. I would NOT change the data label, even if known wrong. It's then just false data. If anything, I'd label it as suspect. Chuck Thank you Chuck! That helps a lot. I hadn’t heard of that species from PNG. I will research it more. I’m at work at the moment so I can’t look into things right now but I had wondered if there are forums with experts in this field and will pursue that also! I do understand about the data label. I would change it only as a last resort if I was 100% certain these are from Australia, which may never be possible. I would also always keep the original data. These are going into an artistic wall display so it’s not quite a typical situation. Anyways your help has been greatly appreciated! All I did was a search on the genus name and Papua New Guinea. Others came up as well. And this one one of the first returns. I suggest doing some searches, studying, and comparisons. In due course of that you'll find the names of specialists, if you even need them. Chuck |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 15, 2021 12:01:27 GMT -8
You know, I have a friend who has one of those females in his collection and I took a picture of it.
I will try to see if I took a picture of the data label in the photograph (it may show).
That is certainly one of the bigger and more fantastic species and my friend has a certain fondness for Phasmids.
I have about a dozen specimens myself (so my holdings are small) but, if you would like I can always post some pictures of the few good ones that I do have. Probably all common but kind of cool...
|
|
|
|
Post by eleodes on Oct 16, 2021 11:42:27 GMT -8
I'm not an expert on phasmids, but I do have an eye for detail. I would say that these are not "true" E. goliath, instead being E. nigrospinosa from PNG. Note the length and shape of the wings, and the number and size of the spines on the legs. True E. goliath tend to have longer and more pointed wings and relatively few spines on the legs (especially the front legs). Whereas E. nigrospinosa seem to tend to have shorter,more rounded wings, and numerous spines on the legs.
|
|
|
|
Post by panacanthus on Oct 16, 2021 18:58:45 GMT -8
I'm not an expert on phasmids, but I do have an eye for detail. I would say that these are not "true" E. goliath, instead being E. nigrospinosa from PNG. Note the length and shape of the wings, and the number and size of the spines on the legs. True E. goliath tend to have longer and more pointed wings and relatively few spines on the legs (especially the front legs). Whereas E. nigrospinosa seem to tend to have shorter,more rounded wings, and numerous spines on the legs. Thank you very much for your message and observations! I can definitely see what you mean about the legs appearing more spiny on the E. nigrospinosa. As you pointed out especially the front legs. I've looked at as many photos as I can find and like you say for the most part E. goliath front legs do not appear as spiny/lumpy. However then I run across a photo or two where the specimen looks almost identical to mine and is labelled as E. goliath, but it is possible that these specimens are also misidentified, so it's difficult to say for sure, especially since there is definitely variation among the same species, both in wing shape and the degree of spines. At the moment I tend to agree, based on what everyone has said here, that these are most likely E. nigrospinosa and the location data is correct. Still the question remains- why have so many been misidentified or purposely mislabeled from PNG over the years in regards to the name. I am still researching this and will post any new findings! |
|
|
|
Post by panacanthus on Oct 16, 2021 19:11:41 GMT -8
You know, I have a friend who has one of those females in his collection and I took a picture of it. I will try to see if I took a picture of the data label in the photograph (it may show). That is certainly one of the bigger and more fantastic species and my friend has a certain fondness for Phasmids. I have about a dozen specimens myself (so my holdings are small) but, if you would like I can always post some pictures of the few good ones that I do have. Probably all common but kind of cool... I would love to see the photo of your friend's specimen!! In regards to your other specimens I would also love to see those! I have a fairly large collection of Phasmids but most are still papered. I noticed your thread showing the Eurycantha horrida male and I'm VERY jealous! I've had numerous specimens over the years but I used my last one in a display for someone never expecting them to disappear from the market like they did! Now I would love to have another but I cannot find one anywhere. Obviously it would most likely have to be an older specimen. I do have a huge female. Just no male!  Also that extra spiny one you showed along with the male E. horrida is wonderful - I've never seen it before! If you wish to start a thread showing your Phasmid collection I would also add some to it but again they would be mostly papered. Many are papered with wings spread though, so they are still worth showing. Hopefully others might add some of their more special Phasmids as well. |
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 16, 2021 21:12:27 GMT -8
Hello Panacanthus, I located that photo of my friends specimen. He still has it to this day and he got his specimen in the late 1980's. The body of his specimen is not quite as nicely colored as yours. However, we all know how these can vary based upon different factors. Most importantly, though I did get a shot of its data label and it shows beneath it. I enlarged it so you could more easily read what data he took off the papers it was wrapped in; because back then these items were NEVER as nicely presented (spread) as they are now !   |
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Oct 16, 2021 21:16:00 GMT -8
BTW I would not mind at all starting a thread
for those who appreciate Phasmids.
Sometime this week. Do you have a title in mind ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Oct 17, 2021 1:53:21 GMT -8
It is quite likely that the species was misidentified from source, and the misidentification was continued during the 'life' of IFTA.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by exoticimports on Oct 17, 2021 4:09:41 GMT -8
It is quite likely that the species was misidentified from source, and the misidentification was continued during the 'life' of IFTA. Adam. That happened with two large beetles I have from Solomons. They both are commonly described with names; the first was subsequently found to be synonymous with another name, and the other is wrongly called by the name of the species in Vanuatu. I have no doubt any commercial ads for them still use the old, commonly used names. Chuck |
|
|
|
Post by panacanthus on Oct 17, 2021 14:28:58 GMT -8
I do believe what we have here are examples of Eurycnema nigrospinosa!!
Thank you again to everyone who shared their thoughts.
|
|
Also that extra spiny one you showed along with the male E. horrida is wonderful - I've never seen it before! 
