Brachypelma hamorii was initially misidentified as the very similar
B. smithi, a species originally described in 1897. In 1968, the
holotype of
B. smithi was found to be an immature male, and in 1994,
A. M. Smith redescribed
B. smithi using two adult specimens. The specimens cannot now be found, but his description makes it clear that they actually belonged to what is now
B. hamorii, not
B. smithi.
B. hamorii was first described by Marc Tesmoingt, Frédéric Cleton and Jean Verdez in 1997. They stated that it was close to
B. smithi, but could be distinguished by a number of characteristics, including the
spermathecae of the females. However, following Smith's description,
B. hamorii continued to be misidentified as
B. smithi until the situation was clarified by J. Mendoza and O. Francke in 2017. The two species have very similar color patterns. When viewed from above, the
chelicerae of
B. hamorii have two brownish-pink bands on a greyish background, not visible on all individuals.
B. smithi lacks these bands. Mature males of the two species can be distinguished by the shape of the
palpal bulb. When viewed
retrolaterally, the palpal bulb of
B. hamorii is narrower and less straight than the broad, spoon-shaped one of
B. smithi. It also has a narrower keel at the apex. In mature females of
B. hamorii, the baseplate of the spermatheca is elliptical, rather than divided and subtriangular as in
B. smithi; also, the ventral face of the spermatheca is smooth rather than striated.
DNA barcoding DNA barcoding has been applied to Mexican species of
Brachypelma. In this approach, a portion of about 650
base pairs of the
mitochondrial gene
cytochrome oxidase I is used, primarily to identify existing species, but also sometimes to support a separation between species. In 2017, Mendoza and Francke showed that although
B. hamorii and
B. smithi are similar in external appearance, they are clearly distinguished by their DNA barcodes. ==Longevity==