1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is leg thickness an indicator of something?

Discussion in 'Tarantula Chat' started by efmp1987, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. efmp1987

    efmp1987 Arachnosquire Active Member

    Advertisement
    Read above. Who tried to be sarcastic first? No offense, but I kept my responses short until someone decided to be smart with his.
     
  2. EulersK

    EulersK Arachnoengineer Arachnosupporter

    It certainly wasn't me, but you chose to ignore a legitimate post and instead decided to be snarky.

    Alright, I gave you a chance. I was watching this thread before, I was notified of every response. I'm done now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    5,836
    5,531
    1,278
    In point of fact the word "fluffiness" you used is a QUALITATIVE word, thus you are referring to QUALITY, and not QUANTITY. I don't think you understood what I wrote the first time, perhaps a second time will help you. If you don't that's fine, let us know, and someone will explain it, we are all happy to help here.

    I wasn't assuming anything. I merely read your words, where you specifically wrote the below. You seem not to understand or remember what you typed. We can only go by your typed words.

     
  4. efmp1987

    efmp1987 Arachnosquire Active Member


    Why are chinchillas fluffy? Because they have dense fur. How can hair be dense? The amount per cubic inch. Why are mexican hairless cats not fluffy? They have scant hair.

    No grammatical rule exists that fluffy should only refer to quality.

    That said, I dont know how this thread became a contest of grammar. You hate to "assume", because its not scientific, as per one of your posts dated some years ago. As a scientific man, would you agree that nature does not create an exact replica of another? Which was my point to begin with.
     
  5. EulersK

    EulersK Arachnoengineer Arachnosupporter

     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    5,836
    5,531
    1,278
    It was post #5 that caught my attention. Your use of fluffy was secondary.

    Define "exact replica", that's a subjective term that means different things to different people :cool:
     
  7. efmp1987

    efmp1987 Arachnosquire Active Member

    For someone with 1,278 trophies it boggles me that you're asking me to clarify what I mean by "exact replica". There is no deeper meaning to that word. This is a nature-related forum, not a poetry forum. Iron-bound facts cannot be bent via context nor are they subjective, just as how you cannot subject to subjective interpretation that the human brain matures at a certain age, from an anatomical and physiological perspective. :p

    Again, as a scientific man, would you agree that nature does not create an exact replica of another?
     
  8. WoofSpider

    WoofSpider Arachnosquire

    The semantics in this thread over the definition of "fluffiness" are ridiculous.

    There is currently no evidence to suggest that the amount or length or "quality" of setae is a sexually dimorphic trait in B. albopilosum.

    EDIT: And to be on topic with the OP. I don't believe that leg thickness is either.
     
  9. efmp1987

    efmp1987 Arachnosquire Active Member


    I was not referring to sexual dimorphism though. I wanted to specify, "of the same sex, of the same species, and of the same age", that is if difference in leg thickness is somehow related to good physical or reproductive health. But even stating "aside from nutritional health", some just responded again witn nutritional health-related statements, while some just flat out disagreed (and sarcastically) implying that there are no differences whatsoever.

    Theres more to it than meets the eye. I wanted to further explore female cannibalistic tendencies, which covers male fitness possibly related to size (and size is the topic), the aggressive spillover hypothesis, or any possible evolutionary adaptations to ensure a healthy brood.

    But instead of intelligent responses I get those that you can read on the last 2 pages.
     
  10. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    5,836
    5,531
    1,278
    You need clarification, that's fine.

    I don't know what an "exact replica" is because you either cannot/will not describe it. So let me help you be more specific and less subjective.

    Are you referring to a life form that is:

    1. genetically identical?
    2. identical based on phenotype?
    3. Or both?
     
  11. Grace Cannell

    Grace Cannell Arachnopeon

    I find it hard to believe that every tarantula in the world (or individuals belonging to one species at least) has the same number of hairs on their body, but that would merely indicate a small difference in phenotype as a result of genetic variance. I highly doubt anyone would go to the lengths of finding out. I agree with the above though that without any scientific exploration it is fair to assume any differences in leg thickness due to hairs or not doesn't really have much significance, other than maturity or potentially sexing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    5,836
    5,531
    1,278
    Yup, there's not a penny in grant money for such information.
     
  13. Grace Cannell

    Grace Cannell Arachnopeon

    Plus the ethics application would be a nightmare! And I don't imagine the researcher would get many willing 8 legged participants.
     
  14. Moakmeister

    Moakmeister Arachnobaron Active Member

    475
    1,368
    158
    Texas
    NOBODY thought this was funny? I am disappoint.
     
    • Love Love x 1
  15. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    5,836
    5,531
    1,278
    willing has nothing to do with it hah.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Grace Cannell

    Grace Cannell Arachnopeon

    Exactly, from a psychology background, that is an ethical nightmare :p
     
  17. efmp1987

    efmp1987 Arachnosquire Active Member

    Nice response. Thanks.

    Your post made me realize one thing : there really is a lack of information. :( Our Ts are not even qualified for LD50 toxicology studies due to the insignificance of undertaking such a costly study over something that is not really significant in medical literature.

    Its disgusting to think that we also lack more taxonomists in this field. Theres a lot of tarantulas that are simply labelled "sp. 5" or "sp. 6", while some animal groups e.g. family Conidae (mollusks) have already been really overclassified by enthusiasts due to the scientific interest in conotoxin to name 1 reason.
     
  18. AphonopelmaTX

    AphonopelmaTX Moderator Staff Member

    There really is a lot of information out there on tarantulas if you are willing to hit up the Google Scholar and start typing in keywords along with "tarantula" or "theraphosidae" and start reading. By contrast, what specifically isn't studied in tarantulas might have been studied in a group of closely related spiders which you can use to make an educated hypothesis on your own questions about tarantulas specifically. There is even a lot of information on tarantula venom if you care to look for it. There really is no need to conduct LD50 tests or toxicity tests of tarantulas for the reason you stated. As far as posing a danger to people, tarantulas are just not significant at all whether from having a weak venom or just by people not encountering and being in close contact with them. It would seem that those who are interested in tarantulas without studying spiders, or even arthropods, in general think inside of this bubble where they think tarantulas are somehow unique from any other spider. In a lot of ways they are, but at a very basic level, they are pretty much the same as any other spider. What really sets them apart from other spiders though is their appeal by people to keep them as pets. I do think though that more researchers will pay more attention to tarantulas as they continue to be more and more popular as pets.

    Taxonomic/ phylogenetic studies have definitely been picking up in the last several years due to their popularity as pets. As more and more species and individuals are collected from the wild for the pet trade, there is this urgency to understand their distribution and phylogeny for conservation reasons. When you have a plethora of tarantula sold as "sp. 5" or "sp. 6" or some other designation to communicate that a species for sale has not been classified or identified, blame the collectors and salesmen who are out there scooping them up, breeding them, and selling them before science has a chance to find out what they are. Taxonomy takes a long time to get right and tarantulas pose a unique challenge in this regard since they have cryptic lifestyles and take ages to mature. In other words, you can't classify an organism if you can't find it or it takes 5-10 years for spiderlings to grow up. I have always wondered out of the numbers of tarantulas taken from the wild to be sold as pets, how many collectors are sharing some of those individuals or even the locality information with researchers so they can be sorted out.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. viper69

    viper69 ArachnoGod Old Timer

    5,836
    5,531
    1,278
    Agreed, we have only to blame our society for the lack of research on Ts.

    T venom is studied, though typically it's used as a tool, I'd say about 99.9% of the time.