Talk:Tama novaehollandiae

Name superseded

this reference suggests the name Tamopsis novaehollandiae is actually dubious and has been split into several species. I think we need to get the original paper and have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

@Casliber: somewhat belatedly (!), I have looked at the original Baehr & Baehr (1987) and their several follow-up papers on the family Hersiliidae in Australia. It seems that this species is destined to remain a nomen dubium. It's not a case of the species being split, rather that other species have been misidentified as this species, and as its type specimen is lost, it's never going to be clear what it actually was. I've edited the page accordingly, but I don't have access to Child, John, Australian Spiders, of which there seem to be at least two editions, one in 1965 and one in 1968; as the date wasn't given in the original use of the ref, I can't be sure the page number is correct. Do you have access to this book? Or any other book that uses the name? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I had this book when I was a kid...might have gone out in a garage sale...or maybe not. Am checking my bookshelf now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope...gone....sorry....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking. I think this article and Tamopsis are now accurate. More light may be shed by the promised new book on Australian spiders – see [1]. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)