I just stumbled across another in the Guide that includes a ventral image:

this is a male Tigrosa grandis?

I subscribed to this submission because the other day I saw that Whitney Cranshaw has some images of a male wolf spider labeled Hogna permunda here, and Fawn's spider looks a lot like it and is also from CO (Hogna permunda is a previous name for Tigrosa grandis).

So I emailed Whitney to ask if his specimen was collected and ID'd under a microscope so that we know for sure. Hopefully I hear back from him. There are lots of spiders misID'd in that image database, so I know they don't have to be vouchered in order to upload there; that's the only reason I want to double check first. The written description and range does fit for the male T. grandis, though! Especially that unmarked ventral side that you showed in the thumbnail above.

If that's right it would be a great addition to the Guide.

Well, Whitney said it wasn't ID'd using genitalia; said it was done using a key to the larger lycosids of Colorado. He shared the key and it looked like all the large wolf spiders were included, and it does look like really the only possibility was Tigrosa grandis.
But one last stop, just to make absolute certain since we'd be making a new page for these... I'm going to ask Allen Brady to take a look, too (he wrote the revision of Tigrosa, so I'm hoping he dealt with some live specimens and will know right away if this is one).

Lycosidae I've been writing down the image numbers for a bunch more I think might be T. grandis, including females. I don't think I've found a female that includes a ventral yet but there's still a lot of images I want to go through.

I'll keep an eye out for another one and take more photos next time. Thanks for the effort. It was educational reading the comments.

I don't recognize it, but the eyes look fairly in line with Lycosidae to me. Some of the Hogna or Tigrosa are similar.

Maybe the odd carapace markings are making them appear abnormal?

The second image wasn't added when I saw it. I couldn't make out the lower row of eyes from the initial image, it looked like they weren't there.

I was going by the distribution of the upper row in relation to the carapace, I see what you mean about the lower row in the first image though. Apparently I took my time posting when the second image was added - I didn't see it either.

For me it looked like a Lycosidae until I enlarged it for a closer look and it turned into one of those things where the longer I looked the more confused and less sure I was because I just couldn't make out the bottom row of eyes. :)

I'm not exactly an expert, but this does not seem consistent with carolinensis to me. Also it's lycosa carolinensis not hogna anymore.

Source?

Not sure what the scoop is here. In the WSC it is listed under Hogna, so that's what we use on the guide, but some sources describe it in Lycosa (and other genuses). It doesn't seem like it's been explicitly transferred anywhere? Here's the info from the WSC V14.0.

mf carolinensis (Walckenaer, 1805)....................USA, Mexico [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:017962]
Lycosa tarentula c. Walckenaer, 1805: 12 (D).
Lycosa tarentula c. Walckenaer, 1837: 285 (Dmf).
Lycosa tarentula georgiana Walckenaer, 1837: 286 (Dmf).
Lycosa vehemens Walckenaer, 1837: 324 (Df; N.B.: incertae sedis per Roewer, 1955c: 276).
Lycosa milberti Walckenaer, 1837: 336 (Df).
Lycosa pilosa Girard, 1853: 263, pl. 16, f. 4-5 (D).
Leimonia milberti Simon, 1864: 351.
Tarentula c. Simon, 1864: 350.
Lycosa c. Emerton, 1885: 486, pl. 47, f. 1 (mf).
Lycosa c. Stone, 1890: 423, pl. 15, f. 6 (f).
Lycosa c. Emerton, 1902: 73, f. 176 (mf).
Lycosa c. Montgomery, 1902: 556, pl. 29, f. 19-20 (mf).
Geolycosa texana Montgomery, 1904: 293, pl. 18, f. 13-14 (Dmf).
Geolycosa c. Montgomery, 1904: 299.
Lycosa c. Chamberlin, 1908: 246, pl. 21, f. 1-2 (m).
Lycosa c. Comstock, 1912: 636, f. 75, 717 (mf).
Lycosa c. Chamberlin & Ivie, 1944: 143 (S).
Lycosa c. Kaston, 1948: 322, f. 1055-1056, 1072 (mf).
H. c. Roewer, 1955c: 257.
H. c. Dondale & Redner, 1990: 45, f. 33-35 (mf).
H. c. Paquin & Dupérré, 2003: 160, f. 1769-1771 (mf).

I'd be interested in knowing what's going on since I'm pretty clueless about taxonomic stuff still. Are both the names Lycosa carolinensis and Hogna carolinensis in use (or the others, for that matter!)...? Or was there a transfer in the literature somewhere?

Yep, Hogna carolinensis is the current name. The part of the World Spider Catalog that answers the question about a transfer in this case is in the paragraph under the genus name. Here's the whole paragraph, but with only the part we're interested in in bold:
_______

N.B.: considered a senior synonym of Birabenia Mello-Leitão, 1941 by Capocasale, 1990: 137 (through transfer of type species), of Lycorma Simon, 1885, Isohogna Roewer, 1960d: 567, type Trochosa maderiana (Walckenaer, 1837) (considered a subgenus of Lycosa Latreille, 1804 by Guy, 1966: 64), of Lynxosa Roewer, 1960d: 897, type Lycosa inexorabilis O. P.-Cambridge, 1869 (considered a subgenus of Schizocosa Chamberlin, 1904 by Guy, 1966: 65) by Wunderlich, 1992a: 258, 440, of Galapagosa Roewer, 1960d: 864, type Lycosa albemarlensis Banks, 1902 by Baert & Maelfait, 1997:3, contra Roth & Craig, 1970: 120 (through transfer of type species, in both cases; Galapagosa was considered a subgenus of Lycosa Latreille, 1804 by Guy, 1966: 63), and of Citilycosa Roewer, 1960b: 845, type Arctosa hellenica (C. L. Koch, 1838) by Thaler, Buchar & Knoflach, 2000: 1976 (by S of type species, contra Wunderlich, 1984a: 24 and Lugetti & Tongiorgi, 1965: 215); considered a subgenus of Lycosa Latreille, 1804 by Guy, 1966: 64; the synonymy of this genus with Lycosa Latreille, 1804 by Fuhn & Niculescu-Burlacu, 1971 and Wunderlich, 1984a has not been accepted by subsequent workers, including Dondale and Redner, 1990: 35, who consider all North American species placed in Lycosa to be misplaced; not a senior synonym of Rabidosa Roewer, 1960 (Brady & McKinley, 1994: 138, contra Dondale & Redner, 1990: 41); see notes under Hyaenosa, Metatrochosina and Prolycosides.(1)
_______

I'm not sure how familiar everyone is with that type of stuff, but crossing out some of the author names and years sometimes makes it easier to tell what the basic info is: "the synonymy of this genus (Hogna) with Lycosa has not been accepted by subsequent workers, including Dondale and Redner, 1990, who consider all North American species placed in Lycosa to be misplaced." -- so since everyone thought/thinks that none of our wolf spiders here in N. America have the characters of the European genus Lycosa, the official word is that ours are Hogna (well, some of the Hogna have been transferred to other genera over time, too). There are some obscure species listed under Lycosa in the WSC that do still say USA, but they haven't ever been revised, maybe because of a lack of specimens (some of them were only described from a single female or something), so they are still sitting in Lycosa. They're probably just synonyms of something else, I bet... but I don't think they can be moved until someone writes a paper and officially transfers them (either that or maybe they're still in Lycosa just by mistake or something, not sure).

Anyway, so I think it's been Hogna carolinensis for a couple decades ("officially" ever since 1990, but sounds like taxonomists thought so even before that). Books and papers and websites published before any changes took place will still be circulating on the market for years and years to come though, all with out-dated names (just mentioning that in case that's why Mario thought it was in Lycosa).

Even in Rich Bradley's new book, which just came out this very year, the genus Meioneta is now called Agyneta and now we have a brand new genus called Tigrosa... so even though his book is one of the most recent ones out there, it already has some "outdated" taxonomy. New things and new relationships among organisms are learned about all the time, so taxonomy is really fluid and subject to change.

One last thing is that no matter how many times the name of something might change, the spider itself stays completely the same. And as long as someone knows how to use the World Spider Catalog (can be tricky), they can still use all the older books and papers because the Catalog will tell them what the current name of something is. (For example, if I were reading Montgomery's 1904 paper and was interested in learning more about the species he named Geolycosa texana, I could go to the Catalog and go to the Lycosidae section and do a "find in page," and search for the word "texana." A few come up, but only one has a genus that starts with a 'G' and says the author was Montgomery 1904... and it's in the list under carolinensis (Kyron pasted this info above), meaning carolinensis is the current name being used for that same species that Montgomery called Geolycosa texana in 1904. You also would scroll up in the Catalog after that, until you find the genus name the species is under (genus is aligned in the center of the page, rather than on the left, and will look like:

Might be a record for one of the longest BugGuide comments ever. =P I know we have some brand new people lately, so figured it wouldn't hurt to explain some of that.

Wow, thanks for the in depth explanation, much appreciated!

Yes, it looks like H. carolinensis is current. From working with Rod I know that not all experts accept all name changes and they sometimes refuse to use new names, also not everyone updates their info regularly like the WSC does. I think all we can do on the guide is to follow the WSC and let them worry about what the current accepted taxonomy is.