G. Rosea forms

Hi all! I have a question as I just purchased a very happy G. Rosea RCF sling from Jamie's Tarantulas. (I used the search function in cased anyone wondered!)

I'm of the understanding that there are, in general, different genuses (for example, Avicularia) and that within these genuses there are different species of tarantulas. In this sense, T's are not like dogs wherein different breeds are still all part of the same species.

Where this gets sticky for me is what to make of this Red vs. Pink. vs Grey color form of G. Rosea. Are they different species? What would happen if one were to breed, say, a pink and a red color form? Would half the slings be one color and half the other color or would you get a hybrid? I know breeders like Kelly Swift think these should be considered a different species, presumably because we want to preserve them in their current forms, and is that how they should be considered--as different species entirely?

Colour does not = different species (look at people, for example).

What would make it a different species is a host of other genetic and morphological differences. To my knowledge, red pink and grey are simply colour forms with zero other defining characteristics.

I'm not familiar with Kelly Swift, but a lot of breeders say a lot of things and most of these people are just hobbyists. Until a verified research paper comes out stating that the species has been revised and why, I wouldn't take a random hobbyists word for it. Who knows how they came to that assumption.

Thanks, Niffarious. Kelly Swift is of Swift's Invertebrates operating out of Mississippi--> http://swiftinverts.com

What inspired me to ask this had somewhat to do with all of the arguments that happen over breeding across species. I see why it's complicated/negative to do so but, hypothetically, you could breed two different color forms of rosea and still have the same species. Would it still be frowned upon? (It should be noted that I have no desire to breed tarantulas.)

Niffarious said:

Colour does not = different species (look at people, for example).

What would make it a different species is a host of other genetic and morphological differences. To my knowledge, red pink and grey are simply colour forms with zero other defining characteristics.

I'm not familiar with Kelly Swift, but a lot of breeders say a lot of things and most of these people are just hobbyists. Until a verified research paper comes out stating that the species has been revised and why, I wouldn't take a random hobbyists word for it. Who knows how they came to that assumption.

Click to expand...

Even if they are just hobbyist or breeders talking out of their rear ends, you think people should be breeding these spiders together without that research paper? I'm one of those hobbyist that thinks we should keep forms separate until it's proven they are the same species. Even if they are the same species from different locales, I think they should be kept separate.

There are three color forms of rosea. RCF= red color form, PCF= pink color form, and NCF= normal/brown color form. They are the same species, just a different color form. Im sure Stan will chime in with a link to his observations. I cant for the life of me figure out where he keeps all those links . Take a look at Holothele incei, and Holothele incei "Gold". Same species, completely different color form, and found in the same sac.

catfishrod69 said:

There are three color forms of rosea. RCF= red color form, PCF= pink color form, and NCF= normal/brown color form. They are the same species, just a different color form. Im sure Stan will chime in with a link to his observations. I cant for the life of me figure out where he keeps all those links . Take a look at Holothele incei, and Holothele incei "Gold". Same species, completely different color form, and found in the same sac.

Click to expand...

John, please show me proof. Links? I'm sure Stan will pop in with his opinion but he is not taxonomist so what he says will be just that, an opinion, not a fact.

Holothele incei "Gold" was proven considering they first popped up from breeding normals to normals.

Links i cant do. Im unfortunately not the best at the research, and definitely the taxonomy side of the hobby. From what i remember reading here and there, everything said that the different color forms of rosea, were just that. Unfortunately if they are seperate species, by now they have probably been crossbred so much, there probably are very few actual rosea around.

advan said:

John, please show me proof. Links? I'm sure Stan will pop in with his opinion but he is not taxonomist so what he says will be just that, an opinion, not a fact.

Holothele incei "Gold" was proven considering they first popped up from breeding normals to normals.

Click to expand...

advan said:

Even if they are just hobbyist or breeders talking out of their rear ends, you think people should be breeding these spiders together without that research paper? I'm one of those hobbyist that thinks we should keep forms separate until it's proven they are the same species. Even if they are the same species from different locales, I think they should be kept separate.

Click to expand...

I thought that it was already proven not to even be locale thing, and that all colour forms could be found in one eggsack? I have next to no firsthand information on this though.

Regardless, I agree with your opinion re: breeding and I did not say anywhere that people should breed without impunity while waiting for research papers, but meant that they should take what has been written by a hobbyist on their hobby website with a grain of salt. In this particular case, swift invertebrates info seems to be nothing more than personal opinion, thus my comments. From their site:

"Personally I feel it deserves it's own species status, but as for now, it is considered the same species as the "Brown Form". "


I'm more inclined to take the word of someone like Mr. Schultz (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/roses.html) when looking for this kind of info, but again, without any research it's all speculation.

It seems it's most definitely an opinion of Kelly but it would be interesting to see any kind of research done on it. If the two color forms can come from the same sack that essentially would answer my question because you could, in theory, have a two pink color forms that produce all red color forms provided those genes were there. In that case, were there evidence, there really would be no issue of cross breeding (and in fact it wouldn't be called as such).

Niffarious said:

I thought that it was already proven not to even be locale thing, and that all colour forms could be found in one eggsack? I have next to no firsthand information on this though.

Regardless, I agree with your opinion re: breeding and I did not say anywhere that people should breed without impunity while waiting for research papers, but meant that they should take what has been written by a hobbyist on their hobby website with a grain of salt. In this particular case, swift invertebrates info seems to be nothing more than personal opinion, thus my comments. From their site:

"Personally I feel it deserves it's own species status, but as for now, it is considered the same species as the "Brown Form". "


I'm more inclined to take the word of someone like Mr. Schultz (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/roses.html) when looking for this kind of info, but again, without any research it's all speculation.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't say anything about breeding but what happens when people go around telling others these are the same species without that research paper proving they are? People will breed them, which people already are like John said. It is much better to keep them separate until it is proven than to label them as the same. Just my two cents from a run of the mill hobbyist.

I'm more inclined to take the word of an actual taxonomist than Stan. A link to Rick West's opinion on the subject would be more convincing.

Here's an interesting read. Clicky

catfishrod69 said:

Links i cant do. Im unfortunately not the best at the research, and definitely the taxonomy side of the hobby. From what i remember reading here and there, everything said that the different color forms of rosea, were just that. Unfortunately if they are seperate species, by now they have probably been crossbred so much, there probably are very few actual rosea around.

Click to expand...

I wonder what's the longest CB rosea line currently.
Most roseas are WC, so they probably aren't messed up. There should be plenty of actual rosea if it shows they are different species.

I have an RCF from Jaimes too. I was doing research on her before she came and I found this article that stated they believe that these are just different color forms as they have been known to all come from the same egg sack. Here's a link to the article if you were interested.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/roses.html

Hmmm, strokes chin.

TGIRL23 said:

I have an RCF from Jaimes too. I was doing research on her before she came and I found this article that stated they believe that these are just different color forms as they have been known to all come from the same egg sack. Here's a link to the article if you were interested.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/roses.html

Click to expand...

All I can say is don't believe everything you read/watch online...

This is taken direct from Stan's site...

"For a while, enthusiasts thought each color form was a different species, even calling the copper colored form G. cala, the Chilean flame tarantula. However, over the last several years all of the several color forms have been reported to arise from the same eggsac, strong evidence that these are all merely variants of the same species."

Now I like many would like to see some scientific evidence on this matter as I just don't believe it.

So if it is real, prove it.

:5:

Next thing you know we'll all be getting told that Hysterocrates spp. are avid hunters of dolphins in the wild because someone made a YouTube video about them being swimming tarantulas.

:?

I'm actually hoping to provide such "scientific evidence". My RCF MM and RCF MF have mated several times, just waiting for a sac. I'll then be able to confirm if each colour form arises from this one sac. Future sacs will also be identified. My personal opinion? Variation leading to speciation. Just not a separate species, YET.

My question, if they all come from the same sack, is how would someone like Jamie know that mine is a Red Color Form so early in the game? (Not only that, but the RCFs go for a little more money as well.) It seems like slings from the same genus are difficult to tell apart on their own so how would one look at 2nd instars of the same species at 1/2" and say "Oh, this half is pink and this is red." Is it really so easy to tell?

---------- Post added 02-28-2013 at 12:03 PM ----------

For example, pink: http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad62/tarantularaiser/Grammostola rosea/G_rosea_Zuul_sling.jpg

Red: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/attachment.php?attachmentid=100265&d=1331368055

I guess there appears to be a difference but it's slight. Perhaps a more well-trained eye could tell the difference. Also, the 2nd is a fatty.

DaveSB said:

I'm actually hoping to provide such "scientific evidence". My RCF MM and RCF MF have mated several times, just waiting for a sac. I'll then be able to confirm if each colour form arises from this one sac. Future sacs will also be identified.

Click to expand...

Do you know if either of your RCF's have been bred from other RCF's or if they have been bred from a mix of other colour forms? As if they have been bred using a mix of other colour forms could it not be a case of the RCF being genetically dominant over some of the other colour forms which would make the RCF be expressed while they still do contain genes for other colour forms which could then be expressed in the slings from the sac.

Im in the same situation. Waiting on my RCF female to drop a sac. Father is a RCF male. Good luck with yours!

DaveSB said:

I'm actually hoping to provide such "scientific evidence". My RCF MM and RCF MF have mated several times, just waiting for a sac. I'll then be able to confirm if each colour form arises from this one sac. Future sacs will also be identified. My personal opinion? Variation leading to speciation. Just not a separate species, YET.

Click to expand...

JAG1708 said:

Do you know if either of your RCF's have been bred from other RCF's or if they have been bred from a mix of other colour forms? As if they have been bred using a mix of other colour forms could it not be a case of the RCF being genetically dominant over some of the other colour forms which would make the RCF be expressed while they still do contain genes for other colour forms which could then be expressed in the slings from the sac.

Click to expand...

As I have no way of personally being able to confirm the genetics of each of my specimen, I am not testing gene expression, dominance or anything such as that. Merely testing to see if more than one colour form can be found in the same sac.
It is weak science, but in my opinion the rosea is so messed up genetically we don't even know what constitutes as a species or if it's colour forms, so it's the best I can do at the moment with what I have.

catfishrod69 said:

Im in the same situation. Waiting on my RCF female to drop a sac. Father is a RCF male. Good luck with yours!

Click to expand...

And to you, I've read your pairing thread and I'm very impressed with it.

I really hate discussions like this because I invariably am the one who gets flamed or shot at.

But, here goes:

There is no cut and dried definition for a species. It's been tried several dozen times already, and all attempts have proven to have huge failings. All species descriptions and determinations are fundamentally based on arguably questionable characteristics with a huge admixture of personal opinion. I remember quite distinctly a well known taxonomist telling me that "in my opinion, their [several kinds being discussed] characteristics are not distinct enough for them to be considered separate species."

And if one examines many putative genera of tarantulas, it becomes patently obvious that someone a hundred years ago made an executive decision that because the several kinds were colored differently they must be different species, and then went to great lengths to find definitive characters to support their contention. Clearly a case wherein the cart was leading the horse! And that, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is what we're saddled with and arguing about today!

The whole original species concept originates from long before the mid 1700s (Note: 250 years ago!) when our current system of taxonomy and nomenclature originated. (The Linnaean system in the 1750s. See Carl Linnaeus and Systema Naturae). At that point in our history we had not yet gotten over the practice of burning people at the stake for uttering things that could be considered heretical by the church. (See Inquisition.) So, everybody was understandably a little nervous and cautious. And, the party line was that God created everything within the first 7 days of creation. And, the inference was that every creature on earth was an original creation and bore no relation to any other creature except that they were created by the same deity. A further leap of belief and faith held that all "species" were unchanging and immutable. There was no such thing as evolution. Things hadn't changed since the dawn of time some 5,000 years before.

And, the thing that astounds me is that there are still people today who believe this in the face of all evidence to the contrary. :wall: But I digress.

Since its creation, the Linnaean system has had one problem (some of us would say crisis) after another, trying to keep abreast of our understanding of life on Earth. For instance, Darwin and Wallace's Theory of Evolution was a real bombshell. It should have immediately prompted a complete replacement of the Linnaean system. But, it didn't precisely because it WAS so revolutionary, and no one wanted to go that far out on such a shaky limb. You may or may not be burned at the stake, depending on where you happened to live. But, at the very least you could be ostracized and exiled to some small island in the middle of some large ocean!

Another example: Taxonomy has a huge problem with hybrids and refuses to consider them in its structure. For another, organisms do not speciate and branch out at specific nodes as inferred by either cladograms or the classical Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, ... of the traditional taxonomists. It's a much more dynamic, complex, even chaotic structure. It is possible that some branches of mathematics may be able to describe and help define what we instinctively assume is a species, but almost all mainline taxonomists experience a melt down when presented with the concept!

Even Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species... addresses the shortcomings of the taxonomy of his era, though in a very veiled and non-threatening way, by "waltzing around" in very political terms the confusion about the differences in individual characteristics, variations among family lines and larger populations, and the exact meaning of a species. (Darwin was no fool! He needed the support of taxonomists as the brickwork of his theory.)

And though several other systems have been proposed, for some truly bizarre reason the academic community continues to choose to apply band aids and crutches to the Linnaean system instead of attempting to find a system that uses those complications to its advantage, or at least deals with them realistically.

I have been roundly criticized for inferring that Taxonomy wasn't a true science, and I still hold a strong suspicion that I'm correct. One important definition of "science" is as an organized system or body of consistent and reproducible knowledge. But when I examine the lists of name changes in taxonomy's catalogs, our knowledge of "species" is anything but consistent or reproducible.

Every time someone looks at an electron or a galaxy, they get the same answer. Whenever someone looks at a Chilean rose tarantula we get a different name and a radically different opinion of its position in the grand scheme of things. Not once. Not twice. But, eleven different times, even ignoring minor changes in gender or spelling!

Citharoscelus kochii
Citharoscelus spatulatus
Eurypelma rosea Ausserer
Eurypelma spatulatum
Grammostola argentinense
Grammostola cala
Grammostola rosea
Grammostola spathulata
Lasiodora rosea
Mygale rosea
Mygale rubiginosa

This lack of consistency and reproducibility, this not having a firm basis for establishing "species" presents us with a very serious conundrum: If we can't define a species, how can we determine what's a subspecies, a race, a variety or even a hybrid?

If two putatively different organisms can interbreed to produce "fertile offspring resembling their parent," are they really different species? Or, in spite of their differences (based on someone else's opinion) are they simply different varieties? And, is their offspring a hybrid, or merely an intergrade?

The ICZN is now well on its way to bankruptcy. If and when it finally goes, one could hope that taxonomy will bite the bullet, recognize the problems and failings of the old system, and work out a new taxonomic, world order. This is not the way I would have wanted it to go. They should have worked out a better system a century ago. Or at least made a concerted effort. And made an organized transition.

Sorry.

So, argue all you want about individual variations, color forms, varieties, kinds, subspecies, and species. We've known about the problem at least since Darwin, and no one has come up with a solution yet. I doubt any of us will succeed anytime soon. You're just yelling into the wind.

And, a closing note to the half-dozen or dozen academics who understand the problem and what I'm saying: Please don't waste your time trying to pick a fight with me. You'd be much better off expending your energy trying to fix the problem.


Man! Is your little 8-legged conundrum ever going to cause a fight!

Hyperthetically, Could DNA evidence not be used to prove how closely species and sub species are related?

It has been used in the past and present for re-classifying of various mammals, birds and reptiles - so why not arachnids?

There are various reptiles with subspecies purely because of external differences - such as difference in size, shape, colour markings and pattern. Perhaps it is possible that spiders with distinct colour differences are different sub-species??? Rather than just a 'locality'.