Avicularia Morphotypes?

[Tessa Clifton]

Okay, so I have owned tarantulas since I was about 6 or 7 years old, and I consider myself to be pretty knowledgeable about them. But I only recently came across Avicularia Morphotypes and I have tried to figure out exactly what it means, but honestly I can't make any sense of it. And before I get a bunch of hate asking why I think I know about tarantulas if I don't understand morphotypes. Its because I have never owned Avics until now. I kept mostly terrestrial species. This is just basically a curiosity question. Thanks for the help!

 

[cold blood]

Avicularia genus was revised not all that long ago, this revision showed certain species, once thought to be individual species, were actually geographic variations of one species....so all in these groups are considered one species, but seperating them by morphotypes recognizes distinct enough differrences to make them individuals basically.

Its how we can keep the variants seperate, specifically for breeding purposes.....every morphotype has a former name, one that would be easily recognizable...like A. metallica is now Avicularia avicularia morphotype 6.

 

[Tessa Clifton]

got it, so would the old Avicularia Avicularia be considered A. Avicularia morphotype 1?

 

[cold blood]

got it, so would the old Avicularia Avicularia be considered A. Avicularia morphotype 1?

Correct

 

[jrh3]

Avicularia genus was revised not all that long ago, this revision showed certain species, once thought to be individual species, were actually geographic variations of one species....so all in these groups are considered one species, but seperating them by morphotypes recognizes distinct enough differrences to make them individuals basically.

Its how we can keep the variants seperate, specifically for breeding purposes.....every morphotype has a former name, one that would be easily recognizable...like A. metallica is now Avicularia avicularia morphotype 6.

This is actually very interesting because with them all being in south america, if i am correct, they are all just different morphs, per say, different locales just like panther chameleons. With that said in the wild there is no border wall for them to not get intercrossed. So could it be possible for example morphotype 6 and morpho type 2, create offspring of a new morph?

This could be how we have so many different types, of the same species, just different color morphs. And if this is true about them only being different morphs, they can however be crossed with other morphs to create new colors without any negative traits.

Let me be clear though, im not intentionally promoting hybrid colors, but when they reclassified them to being just morphs it will open new doors for backyard breeders.

 

[Tessa Clifton]

That’s true I hadn’t really thought about it. I’m kind of of the opinion that if they crossbreed naturally in nature and create new colors that’s fine, but we shouldn’t try to make new colors ourselves

 

[EtienneN]

It's my understanding that if they were to breed in the wild, some would be of the morphotype of Parent A and some would be of the morphotype of Parent B. Isn't this what happened with P. subfusca highland/lowland? That some sacs had slings that looked like one and slings that looked like the other?

 

[cold blood]

@jrh3

There are significant barriers all over S. America that keep them separate...these geographical boundaries are precisely how these variants come about...They became isolated and evolved on independent paths.

The biggest boundaries would be fast moving rivers and mountain ranges....sometimes a species can get "caught" in something as trivial as a valley, isolating a species and causing it to evolve independently.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

This is actually very interesting because with them all being in south america, if i am correct, they are all just different morphs, per say, different locales just like panther chameleons. With that said in the wild there is no border wall for them to not get intercrossed. So could it be possible for example morphotype 6 and morpho type 2, create offspring of a new morph?

This could be how we have so many different types, of the same species, just different color morphs. And if this is true about them only being different morphs, they can however be crossed with other morphs to create new colors without any negative traits.

Let me be clear though, im not intentionally promoting hybrid colors, but when they reclassified them to being just morphs it will open new doors for backyard breeders.

The authors of the Avicularia revision were clear that molecular characters (DNA) will need to be used to determine if the morphotypes are truly variants of the same species or genetically distinct species. The revision only used morphology and as such found there were groups which were too similar to separate into distinct species, but different enough in color/ pattern to warrant some kind of distinction.

Another revision of the subfamily Aviculariinae using integrative taxonomy with a combination of morphology, genetics, geographical distribution, behavior, etc. will provide more information as to whether the morphotypes really are the same species. This is why it is important to make sure morphotypes are identified as accurately as possible in the pet trade before breeding. Cross breeding morphotypes could turn out to be hybridization.

 

[mack1855]

^^^^...OK,now I have a headache....

 

[SonsofArachne]

I agree with all the informative posts above. That being said I will continue to refer to my A. metallica as 'Avicularia metallica' for nostalgia's sake, if for nothing else. Avicularia avicularia morphotype 6 has no style and is a bit of a mouthful.

 

[viper69]

This is actually very interesting because with them all being in south america, if i am correct, they are all just different morphs, per say, different locales just like panther chameleons. With that said in the wild there is no border wall for them to not get intercrossed. So could it be possible for example morphotype 6 and morpho type 2, create offspring of a new morph?

This could be how we have so many different types, of the same species, just different color morphs. And if this is true about them only being different morphs, they can however be crossed with other morphs to create new colors without any negative traits.

Let me be clear though, im not intentionally promoting hybrid colors, but when they reclassified them to being just morphs it will open new doors for backyard breeders.

I am a cham person. This is not the same for Avics. Also, there are distinct species of Avicularia, they are not all lumped into Avic. avic morphotype #XYZ. I wasn't sure if you knew this or not.

Scientists have many ideas regarding the geographic distribution of all Avic across S. America. When you think about the continent, it's quite large, there are barriers, yet the poofy Pink Toe is spread far/wide. This is quite an accomplishment for this genus.

If DNA analysis is done, nothing would surprise me. I could easily see new species, subspecies or just phenotypic variation

It's my understanding that if they were to breed in the wild, some would be of the morphotype of Parent A and some would be of the morphotype of Parent B.

Would you elaborate a bit?

When animals breed the progeny share DNA from both parents.

 

[EtienneN]

Would you elaborate a bit?

When animals breed the progeny share DNA from both parents.

I need to see if I can find a published paper for it, but i seem to remember that when studying Poecilotheria highland/lowland “forms” of P. subfusca appeared in the same clutch of eggs. Does anyone else remember reading this? It would have been at least two years ago.

Edit: Maybe I dreamed this or hallucinated it. But seriously I swore there was some kind of documentation.

 

[cold blood]

It's my understanding that if they were to breed in the wild, some would be of the morphotype of Parent A and some would be of the morphotype of Parent B. Isn't this what happened with P. subfusca highland/lowland? That some sacs had slings that looked like one and slings that looked like the other?

This would mean we were talking dominant and recessive genes being responsible for the variances...but thats definitely not the case or we would see random morphs popping up in nearly every avic sac...we never see this.

The only t with this unique genetics would be incei, where the gold color is that of a recessive gene....for instance, ive bred 2 olives and got 25% golds in the sac because one t carried that recessive gene.

Subfusca isnt like that....if it occurs as you say, its likely more a product of rampant hybridization of lowlands with highlands.

 

[EtienneN]

This would mean we were talking dominant and recessive genes being responsible for the variances...but thats definitely not the case or we would see random morphs popping up in nearly every avic sac...we never see this.

The only t with this unique genetics would be incei, where the gold color is that of a recessive gene....for instance, ive bred 2 olives and got 25% golds in the sac because one t carried that recessive gene.

Subfusca isnt like that....if it occurs as you say, its likely more a product of rampant hybridization of lowlands with highlands.

Thank you, sir! This makes sense!

 

[viper69]

I need to see if I can find a published paper for it, but i seem to remember that when studying Poecilotheria highland/lowland “forms” of P. subfusca appeared in the same clutch of eggs. Does anyone else remember reading this? It would have been at least two years ago.

Edit: Maybe I dreamed this or hallucinated it. But seriously I swore there was some kind of documentation.

I thought something sounded fishy....

 

[jrh3]

I am a cham person. This is not the same for Avics. Also, there are distinct species of Avicularia, they are not all lumped into Avic. avic morphotype #XYZ. I wasn't sure if you knew this or not.

Scientists have many ideas regarding the geographic distribution of all Avic across S. America. When you think about the continent, it's quite large, there are barriers, yet the poofy Pink Toe is spread far/wide. This is quite an accomplishment for this genus.

If DNA analysis is done, nothing would surprise me. I could easily see new species, subspecies or just phenotypic variation

No, I didnt know that. I was quoting cold blood where he stated they actually geographically variants of the same species. So, are you saying they are not the same species? If not, I would like to see some research on it if you have any. This type of stuff interests me, especially with morphs and genes. Also if they are not the same species, why would the revise them as the same species with different morphotypes if your saying they are not all the same species? Because By definition

morphotype. Noun. (plural morphotypes) (biology) Any of a group of different types of individuals of the same species in a population; a morph.

This would mean they are the same however, your statement saying they are different couldnt be accurate or they wouldnt be labeled as morphotypes. Either they are the same species or not. And there must have been enough data for scientist to reclassify them as one.

 

[viper69]

No, I didnt know that. I was quoting cold blood where he stated they actually geographically variants of the same species. So, are you saying they are not the same species? If not, I would like to see some research on it if you have any. This type of stuff interests me, especially with morphs and genes. Also if they are not the same species, why would the revise them as the same species with different morphotypes if your saying they are not all the same species? Because By definition

morphotype. Noun. (plural morphotypes) (biology) Any of a group of different types of individuals of the same species in a population; a morph.

This would mean they are the same however, your statement saying they are different couldnt be accurate or they wouldnt be labeled as morphotypes. Either they are the same species or not. And there must have been enough data for scientist to reclassify them as one.

I believe we are not in sync.

Avic avic is a species with many morphotypes.

Avic minatrix, A purpurea are examples of specific species that are not morphotypes.

That was my point. Better?


Regarding morphotypes— as mentioned elsewhere, the revision was done with cladistics only. If DNA was used too, perhaps new species or subspecies would be learned.

Want to see an example of DNA used for T taxonomy? Please look up Dr Jason Bond. I know him, he’s an excellent scientist.

 

[jrh3]

I believe we are not in sync.

Avic avic is a species with many morphotypes.

Avic minatrix, A purpurea are examples of specific species that are not morphotypes.

That was my point. Better?


Regarding morphotypes— as mentioned elsewhere, the revision was done with cladistics only. If DNA was used too, perhaps new species or subspecies would be learned.

Want to see an example of DNA used for T taxonomy? Please look up Dr Jason Bond. I know him, he’s an excellent scientist.

Ok, I see what you were saying, I can agree with that to an extent. If minatrax and purpurea are not morphotypes then we can focus on avic avic morphotypes.

I see where you get the idea they are different species through Cladistics meaning they have the same ancestors and have evolved to individual species, but if this is the case the scientists that reclassified them as morphotypes is contradicting. Morphotype is the same species, Cladistic is not the same species if I understand it correctly.

So they either have to be the same species or not. If not they cant be morphotypes. See what im getting at?

Are you talking about the Dr. Jason Bond at Auburn University, If so, I live about an hour from the school. Would be interesting to chat with him one day. Maybe my son will get him as a professor when he goes there in 4 years.

 

[Venom1080]

This would mean we were talking dominant and recessive genes being responsible for the variances...but thats definitely not the case or we would see random morphs popping up in nearly every avic sac...we never see this.

The only t with this unique genetics would be incei, where the gold color is that of a recessive gene....for instance, ive bred 2 olives and got 25% golds in the sac because one t carried that recessive gene.

Subfusca isnt like that....if it occurs as you say, its likely more a product of rampant hybridization of lowlands with highlands.

Selenocosmia peerboomi as well.. like incei, they have a "gold" form. And Omothymus schioedtei slings have popped up being completely yellow. My understanding is these schioedtei slings die rather quickly. There are sooo many unique patterns and gynandromorphs out there in the tarantula world.