What pink toe am I
Aaron M

What pink toe am I

@AracKnight As of now, according to the revision, this is how they are classified. Your theories of the morphotypes actually being separate species are irrelevant until proven in a future revision when it comes to someone trying to label their specimens properly. Since your theory maybe right, I still frown upon mixing color forms.
My interpretation of what you are implying is; Only species easily distinguished (for example: minatrix) should be bred. Whether they were bought with a species lebel or as pink toe shouldn't matter. I completely agree, we can't be one sided. It's all or nothing. People are breeding these things left and right without knowing their Avicularia's origins.
Unfortunately, the reality is they will be mixed even more than they already have been. I don't have faith in people to not screw it up no matter what we tell them... IMO you have two choices, live with it or avoid Avicularia entirely.
 
They are not irrelevant, because we ar not scientists but hobbyists. Our mainpurpose is not to label every specimen scientifically correct, but to give those specimen that belong together the same name, so we know, what we can breed or not. Otherwise there weren't people out there labeling species knowingly wrong just to keep them matching the established hobby names.

I wouldn't say we should only breed, what we can easily distinguish, but we definetely should only breed with specimen that are properly identified. And yes, that would mean to stop breeding with almost everything that is in the hobby for more than a few years now, at least in case of Avicularia spp.
Wildcaught specimen we know the locality of and had been properly identified can be used for breeding purposes just as easily noticeable species can, but all others shouldn't imo.
 
@CEC I know what they are considered I read the paper. I'm disputing what was written in it, but rather the assumptions that "had" to be made. I find it surprising that you think the recent revision is a confirmation, rather than a Part 1, with Part 2 or 3 being the remainder of the species that have not been described.

For example, all the Tesmoingt species have no original specimens on deposit for examination. Simply because there is no specimen to examine does not mean the animal is a new species, or not a new species. It means we don't know yet, because this group didn't completely examine those particularly species.

You may not challenge their conclusions on lumping all of Tesomoingt's Ts into A. avicularia, but I do. Science is about constantly expanding our knowledge, examining and re-examining etc. If we closed the book on Avics a few years ago, we wouldn't have a revision ;)
 
@AracKnight Exactly we aren't taxonomist... The opinion of the taxonomists trumps all hobbyist opinion. That's why your opinion that is not backed by the revision is insignificant in the matter. Whether those species are valid or not is irrelevant since it's your opinion on how they might be classified in the future, which controdicts the conclusion of the revision. I agree with your breeding logic, although, it is wishful thinking...

@viper69 You know another revision will probably be decades away. Why you are disputing what the scientists have concluded in almost a decade of research in the field is beyond me. Who are you to challenge their findings? Why do you think the only reason they considered those species nomen dubium is because they "had" to? There's more reason than that. The taxonomists went to the type localities of the species poorly described by Tesmoignt. They found only variants of other species. So they are either looking at the same type of specimens or all the species he described in the 1990's miraculously disappeared in 20+ years.

When I assume these hobby "species" are probably color forms of another and then a peer reviewed revision (that even other taxonomists don't dispute) has the same conclusion. That's what I call "confirmation".

We base our labels on classification, not the opinions of hobbyists. This genus is special though, since we as hobbyists would like to keep the integrity of all these color forms. I purpose we keep the incorrect hobby names of the species in the Avicularia avicularia complex in order to be more clear. It is a lot less confusing to the average keeper and possibly the only thing the hobby can implement to decrease the chances of color form mixture.
 
I know another revision is likely not in my lifetime according to a biologist I know who knows the authors of this revision.

I'm not challenging their findings in the paper from what they examined. All I have said is that simply because no specimens haven't been found, does not mean one stops there. Mind you I'm not faulting the researchers for having limited time nor funds. Taxonomists should look at these "species" and determine what they are, both with cladistics and sequencing.

A lot of species known to science didn't have a previous one in a museum, yet somehow science managed to classify them.

Do you really think they should not be examined at some point, because you sure sound willing to accept the finding on those particular "species" as 'case closed'.

Science always moves forward, change is constant...this field is no exception.
 
@viper69 It does stop there for hobbyist like us until another taxonomist changes it. I believe you are misunderstanding me, it's "case closed" until another revision is published. I am merely relaying what the revision concludes, nothing more. There is nothing wrong with having your opinions and I will always encourage and respect it but the fact remains, this is how they are classified now whether you consider it valid or not. So when someone asks "what pink toe am I". You can tell them how they are classified now. Then, and only then, should you add a side note with your opinion on the matter. Science only moves forward on classification when a peer-viewed paper is published, until then, all opinions except those layed out in the revision are hearsay.
 
@CEC great info (debate lol) as a newbie I find the avicularia genes quite confusing although better than before but I understand how someone that is not willing to put in the time and research could be turned off by the genes I was at first I wanted nothing to do with avicularia's now I love them and After reading through the revision It is much more clear than it used to be. I also believe that we as hobbyist can have our own opinion on anything but until it's revised into the taxonomists report than its just that our opinion. We as hobbyist have to go by what the scientific community comes up if not the whole hobby would be a free for all like the snake and lizard trade
 
@CEC Ohhh, CEC, I did misunderstand you after reading your last post. I walked away to do some errands, and I thought "man, he can't have meant what I THINK..."

I agree completely with what your last post read. I've said much the same in other posts over the years regarding scientific research, ie this is what we know now....

Man, I thought you had fallen off your rocker for a bit....I couldn't imagine we weren't on the same page on this issue.:D
 

Media information

Category
Tarantula Identification
Added by
Aaron M
Date added
View count
1,111
Comment count
18
Rating
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings

Image metadata

Device
SAMSUNG SM-S975L
Aperture
ƒ/2.2
Focal length
4.2 mm
Exposure time
1/40
ISO
50
Filename
20170627_092215.jpg
File size
2.8 MB
Date taken
Tue, 27 June 2017 9:22 AM
Dimensions
4128px x 2322px

Share this media

Top