Breeding in the wild

[splangy]

Idk, I read his post as things that are closely related may not be able to genetically produce offspring (which is true and false). If it's the part about the sheep herders, i believe that may have been a little sarcasm...

I'm a she, and idk... i have ancestors who were sheepherders, and if my gramma is to be believed, the stories are true.

i'm not sure how my original post was insulting to anyone unless you are a sheepherder or have otherwise engaged in relations with animals. If that's the case, i apologize!!

 

[cacoseraph]

ok, so... hybrids do absolutely occur, regardless of whatever crazy definition you want to force onto the situation

so, saying this is like asking if chimps and humans can mate is either A) stupid or B) insulting


you pick

 

[splangy]

Humans and chimpanzees share about 95-99.9% of the genome. the question of whether or not humans and chimps could mate was obviously rhetorical. The point is that despite the fact that we are almost identical in a genetic sense, we have no possibility to mate.

Animals are categorized into the same species every day that are less-related than us and chimps.

If some aliens were to come and classify all the animals on earth, I bet you a million bucks they would stick chimps and humans in the same bucket and assume we could mate.

sorry if that's insulting. i'm just trying to be objective.

 

[cacoseraph]

Humans and chimpanzees share about 95-99.9% of the genome. the question of whether or not humans and chimps could mate was obviously rhetorical. The point is that despite the fact that we are almost identical in a genetic sense, we have no possibility to mate.

Animals are categorized into the same species every day that are less-related than us and chimps.

If some aliens were to come and classify all the animals on earth, I bet you a million bucks they would stick chimps and humans in the same bucket and assume we could mate.

sorry if that's insulting. i'm just trying to be objective.

except that humans and chimps can't mate, and lots of tara species CAN interbreed. your argument was good until it started


you basically posted a really flip answer indicating the OP's question was stupid. and you were wrong. so there =P

 

[Philth]

Example: P. murinus with P. usambara turned out to be the same guys.

Usambara is a locality and P. usambara never exsisted, so thats a poor example, but I know what you meant.

Part of the fundamental definition of a species is that they can mate with each other and produce viable offspring. If two different "species" are doing that, then there should be discussion to combining them into one species. If we don't use strict definitions, then taxonomy falls apart.

This is one reason why sometimes species are often found to be synonymic to each other later on. Although its been proven that B. albopilosum and B. vagans can reproduce, and there offspring can reproduce it dosent mean we should lump them together as they are clearly different.

Later, Tom

 

[splangy]

Usambara is a locality and P. usambara never exsisted, so thats a poor example, but I know what you meant.



This is one reason why sometimes species are often found to be synonymic to each other later on. Although its been proven that B. albopilosum and B. vagans can reproduce, and there offspring can reproduce it dosent mean we should lump them together as they are clearly different.

Later, Tom

they're different phenotypically, sure. That doesn't necessarily mean they're actually different.

For example, all dogs are all the same species. But there are a ton of different breeds. Phenotypically they're all totally different.

I can't say for sure, but I would hazard a guess that no one has ever gone through the genome of any brachypelma. we've never compared them genetically, we've only described them phenotypically (which is really all that taxonomy can do when you have so many species and so few people to describe them) The phenotype shouldn't be the only thing taken into consideration when describing species, unfortunately, that seems to be our limit at this stage.

i'm asserting that perhaps it would be more accurate to reclassify them as the same species and just different subspecies or even different breeds. I realize that wouldn't be terribly helpful for the hobby (more names and information to remember), but taxonomically, it makes more sense.


Side question: does anyone know if there's been any T that's been genetically described or even compared??

and side comment: I wasn't in any way trying to be insulting to anyone, especially the OP. I think this question is incredibly fascinating, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered responding. It's a great question.

 

[splangy]

I swear, I'm not an insulting person!! Don't let the lack of intonation in what I type fool you!!

 

[cacoseraph]

my bad, i could have read it wrong.


basically i took it as, "your question is as stupid as asking if chimps and humans can mate"

i'm sorry if it was more tongue in cheek or something than i took it for. i have been getting annoyed with ppl "newb bashing" on here lately and could easily have jumped the gun



a good amount of new work, both molecular and morphological is being done on USA Aphonopelma right now. i have caught a spider or two for it NO idea when the papers are going to come out... but i do know that my local group will be buying a copy





edit:
also, species that live in the same area can often have different mating seasons. i can't remember specifically (heh) but there are places in USA where you actually get two waves of mature males. one is like, early summer and the other late fall or something like that

 

[hassman789]

this has gone from tarantulas to humans having sex with chimpanzies... just saying:? lol

 

[JC]

this has gone from tarantulas to humans having sex with chimpanzies... just saying:? lol

Hehe, it happens. Let me answer your question again, without the he said/she said/I believe/it should be stuff.

Tarantulas of the same genus but of different species sometimes do mate with each other if they are close enough in special areas called "hybrid zones". "Hybrid zones" are simply places/regions where the two species come into contact with each other. Sometimes the sacks are viable and sometimes they are not. And sometimes we think we have discovered a new species, when in reality these are just a hybrids of very "genus friendly" spider.

Now you can say they are sub-species or whatever, but my explanation and classification is the "official understanding."

 

[splangy]

my bad, i could have read it wrong.


basically i took it as, "your question is as stupid as asking if chimps and humans can mate"

i'm sorry if it was more tongue in cheek or something than i took it for. i have been getting annoyed with ppl "newb bashing" on here lately and could easily have jumped the gun



a good amount of new work, both molecular and morphological is being done on USA Aphonopelma right now. i have caught a spider or two for it NO idea when the papers are going to come out... but i do know that my local group will be buying a copy





edit:
also, species that live in the same area can often have different mating seasons. i can't remember specifically (heh) but there are places in USA where you actually get two waves of mature males. one is like, early summer and the other late fall or something like that

Definitely something you need to put on here when you have it! Classifying little things like spiders and insects is really difficult because they don't look the same the way that larger animals tend to (at least not from our perspective). I think that's part of the reason that we have so much "hybridization."


And I can see how my initial comment could be interpreted as insulting. But it was legitimately part of my thought process..... "Hmm... i wonder if species would mate with each other in the wild?? Well... humans and chimps are pretty closely related, could we mate in the wild? :?" and then it just came out on the keyboard.

 

[Kirk]

This is the equivalent of asking whether humans and chimpanzees would mate in the wild.

even if they did do the deed (i've heard stories about sheep herders...), there's no possibility for offspring. genetically, and physically, things are too different.

we're more closely related to chimpanzees than most tarantulas would be to each other.

even if they did somehow get confused and manage to mate with the wrong species, the offspring probably wouldn't happen.

part of the definition of a "species" in taxonomy is that they don't mate outside of their species. there's very few exceptions to that.

Hybrid zones do exist in nature.

 

[Kirk]

Part of the fundamental definition of a species is that they can mate with each other and produce viable offspring. If two different "species" are doing that, then there should be discussion to combining them into one species. If we don't use strict definitions, then taxonomy falls apart.

The ability to interbreed is, by definition a primitive condition. As such, that ability isn't the sole criterion for inferring a particular species hypothesis. There are over 20 different species concepts available.

 

[Kirk]

i'm asserting that perhaps it would be more accurate to reclassify them as the same species and just different subspecies or even different breeds. I realize that wouldn't be terribly helpful for the hobby (more names and information to remember), but taxonomically, it makes more sense.

This all depends on which definition of species you're subscribing to. There are over 20 definitions and no consensus among biologists. There's a general tendency nowadays not to use subspecific ranks since there are no clear ways of defining them.

 

[cacoseraph]

always comes down to definitions

if you MAKE the definition that only the same species can breed, well... i don't think that is going to work very well, BUT you can then safely say that well, only the same species can breed together. it doesn't really give a very refined picture of the situation that is.

 

[Kirk]

always comes down to definitions

if you MAKE the definition that only the same species can breed, well... i don't think that is going to work very well, BUT you can then safely say that well, only the same species can breed together. it doesn't really give a very refined picture of the situation that is.

As I pointed out earlier, as interbreeding is a primitive/plesiomorphic feature, then it goes without saying that individuals to which a species hypothesis applies will be interfertile. But this does not preclude interspecific interfertility. This is why a notion of species predicated only on interbreeding has problems. One also has to stipulate that intrinsic or extrinsic barriers to interbreeding are present that preclude or severely reduce opportunities for hybridization.

 

[Galapoheros]

Hey that was a good read, comes up so often here. I guess the gray zone is where different animal forms are allowed to evolve. If so, it will never be cut and dry when trying to cross a line(?)

 

[AbraCadaver]

ok, just throwing in my two cents, as a definition freak.

Splangy is indeed right, the term "species", by definition, means two individual that can mate and produce fertile offspring. Thus, creating a species that can grow.

So, just throwing this out there, perhaps species is the wrong term in this discussion. Humans of different races has different colours and different physical traits, but still being the same species, being able to mate and make fertile offspring, also hybrids(mulattos for example) if you wish.

As with, per definition in biology(which I agree can be square) a person with downssyndrome, isn't the same species as one without, as they can't produce fertile offsrping, as people with DS can't reproduce at all.. But as caco pointed out, it all comes down to definitions, but per a biological study definition, species is an aggrivating term..

Uhm, yeah.. So i kinda agree with all of you, and I'm sort of a geek..

 

[Kirk]

ok, just throwing in my two cents, as a definition freak.

Splangy is indeed right, the term "species", by definition, means two individual that can mate and produce fertile offspring. Thus, creating a species that can grow.

So, just throwing this out there, perhaps species is the wrong term in this discussion. Humans of different races has different colours and different physical traits, but still being the same species, being able to mate and make fertile offspring, also hybrids(mulattos for example) if you wish.

As with, per definition in biology(which I agree can be square) a person with downssyndrome, isn't the same species as one without, as they can't produce fertile offsrping, as people with DS can't reproduce at all.. But as caco pointed out, it all comes down to definitions, but per a biological study definition, species is an aggrivating term..

Uhm, yeah.. So i kinda agree with all of you, and I'm sort of a geek..

This is some of the most peculiar reasoning I've ever seen. Have you read the vast literature on the topic of species? A person with Down Syndrome isn't a member of Homo sapiens? It's irrelevant what one might or might not do in the future with regard to mating. The notion of species is an explanatory concept, that applies to what has occurred in the past to give us what we observe in the present.

 

[AbraCadaver]

This is some of the most peculiar reasoning I've ever seen. Have you read the vast literature on the topic of species? A person with Down Syndrome isn't a member of Homo sapiens? It's irrelevant what one might or might not do in the future with regard to mating. The notion of species is an explanatory concept, that applies to what has occurred in the past to give us what we observe in the present.

I have, yes.

The DEFINITION, as, dictionary, straight forward, DEFINITION of a species is one that can mate and make offspring. I am not saying I don't consider people with DS humans, but PER DEFINITION(there it is again, that word.. ) they aren't a species at all. I could scan my old biology books, but I'd doubt you'd get anything, as they're in norwegian..

But I'm not excatly sure you got exacrly what I meant here.. And I find it quite peculiar that as a biologist, you've never heard of these theories of definition..?