Tarantula Intelligence level? IQ vs True spiders

[Ultum4Spiderz]

Tarantulas are the Largest & most unknown least studied of the large spiders. Even Expereinced hobbyists sometimes low little about Ts.
Some hobbyists know a lot of knowlage but seem to rather Troll & make fun of newer members then Educate them.
I used to catch & keep true spiders as pets when I was younger . Jumping spiders & huntsman being the smartest I caught.
Orb weavers Big Argiopes were very good at killing bee's without being stung /bitten by webbing extreemly fast.

Personally I think that Tarantulas are better hunters & are more Motion sensative then Huntsman spiders.
Huntsman spiders probably have much better vision then terrestrial Ts , aboreals about equal.
I have only observed my pet tarantulas never actualy did a Sceintific study watching there behavior.
They are good at sensing motion, some can sense sight and Seem to be very defensive
Are they less intelligent then true spiders? due to large bulky size , or smarter due to Speed & brighter colors they use to scare away preditors (pokies have Bright colors):biggrin:

 

[SamuraiSid]

I guess we'd have to define intelligence before we begin.

capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.


Every species on the planet learns what it must, reasons what it must and understands what it must to survive. There are many true spiders with amazing hunting abilities they have learned over time, but does this truly make them smarter than a creature thats method is simpler? Im reminded of one true spider.... the one that throws a silken net over its victims... Theres a jumping spider that will pluck the strands of its preys webbing, and when the spider comes onto the web to see what it has caught, the original spider jumps on its back to enjoy the meal. Which of these two is smartest? Perhaps they are equally smart for falling into a rather unique niche for which to find prey.

I think the term intelligence is best reserved for Homo sapien, and we should just say that every other species is as intelligent as that species needs to be.

Some hobbyists know a lot of knowlage but seem to rather Troll & make fun of newer members then Educate them.

And some newer members have no interest in being educated... But this type of thing has been discussed to death. my .02 is that these two groupings of people are polarized, and very unlikely to ever see eye to eye. But lets not forget that these two groups make up a rather small percentage of users on AB.

 

[Aviara]

Size, speed, colors and eyesight are all genetic adaptations. They're not truly a measure of intelligence. Even in humans, intelligence is a very subjective idea. It is extremely difficult to determine comparative intelligence between species. To even begin to talk about arachnid intelligence from a scientific standpoint, there are a LOT of gaps in research to be filled. I don't like to touch the subject of tarantula intelligence, let alone how tarantulas' cognitive abilities compare to those of different truespider species.

 

[jayefbe]

Size, speed, colors and eyesight are all genetic adaptations. They're not truly a measure of intelligence. Even in humans, intelligence is a very subjective idea. It is extremely difficult to determine comparative intelligence between species. To even begin to talk about arachnid intelligence from a scientific standpoint, there are a LOT of gaps in research to be filled. I don't like to touch the subject of tarantula intelligence, let alone how tarantulas' cognitive abilities compare to those of different truespider species.

Exactly....

 

[JohnDapiaoen]

Just throwing it out here, there is a genus of jumping spider (Portia sp.) that uses clever tactics to catch their prey, which is other spiders; It is also said that they are capable of learning and problem solving but don't hold that to me.

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

Ive seen Large jumpers kill Wolf spiders bigger then them , due to there learning /Intelligence .or Whatever it actualy is. Instincts of survival lol

 

[spiderengineer]

I believe the jumping spider are the most intelligent, If I recall their brains are capable of making 3 dimensional images of their surroundings. to me that seems like an ability that requires high brain function, because this allows them to take alternate paths of attack that allows them to be the ninjas they are. Unlike other spiders who just charge head on or wait for prey to come to them or be caught in their webs. They have been show to have problem solving skills that other spiders lack since their hunting technique requires a large amount of computation and factoring lots of variable. to some its just jumping on prey, but if you think about it they have to gauge distance, angle of attack, and size of prey, while having to constantly adjust these variable and other ones as well in real time as the prey moves around. Their are other variable they need to consider but I think you get the idea of how intelligent they are.

 

[Merfolk]

Portia is technically, a jumping spider. So we could call capacity to resolve problems a form of intelligence, nothing like our abstract reasoning, but still not only an automaton. Also, notice that most jumpers are very small. This proves that the size of the brain is a minor factor. Like, with humans, Anatole France had the smallest brain ever weighted post mortem but the guy was a genius!

 

[Geocycle]

I believe the jumping spider are the most intelligent, If I recall their brains are capable of making 3 dimensional images of their surroundings. to me that seems like an ability that requires high brain function, because this allows them to take alternate paths of attack that allows them to be the ninjas they are. Unlike other spiders who just charge head on or wait for prey to come to them or be caught in their webs. They have been show to have problem solving skills that other spiders lack since their hunting technique requires a large amount of computation and factoring lots of variable. to some its just jumping on prey, but if you think about it they have to gauge distance, angle of attack, and size of prey, while having to constantly adjust these variable and other ones as well in real time as the prey moves around. Their are other variable they need to consider but I think you get the idea of how intelligent they are.

I think their sight, ability to comprise 3 dimensional view and problem solve is in part an evolutionary trait to their body's, which has allowed them to ascend along the chain. Unlike other arachnids they have a level of agility unrivaled considering the weight of trantulas other true spiders. That being said the psychology of spiders is fascinating beyond any other animal. I can directly reference the bond between myself and my avicularia avicularia. Sweetest little bean I know, She s my therapy animal and companion for sure.

 

[The wolf]

What makes this a difficult area is anthropomorphism for instance spiders don't really have brains but more of a centralised neural system rather than a true central nervous system just like they don't exactly have hearts or blood they are just too different for us to understand partly due to their lack of sociability which means it is hard to grasp what is really going on in their heads due to a lack of communication although a few things are obvious for instance we can see with myglamorphs that they are far more procedural especially with trapdoor spiders or "pet holes" in which a simple algorithmic procedure can be mapped out wheras species such as arborial tarantulas are slightly more complex with less of a linear "preform x then preform y" and more of a conditional "if x=true preform y" and this is taken further by hunting true spiders which can consider factors react to a wide array of stimuli and react differently to certain prey items which is also done by some webbing true spiders which will wrap up grasshoppers but not flies these spiders again have different degrees of intelligence with some being very much procedural "if felling vibration proceed to epicentre if else seek dark"

 

[Thomas Loomis]

I will preface this with the "in my opinion" qualifier to prevent any undue attacks.

It have always come to the conclusion that the more docile of the tarantula species are likely a little more intelligent. Given that one of the elements of intelligence is the ability to coexist and evaluate dangers, this could easily be a marker. Species like Aphonopelma Chalcodes lives among humans and can tolerate an enormous amount of handling. Where as an OBT wants to attack even small bits of stimuli.

The ability to evaluate threats, even in a primitive way, is an evolutionary marker for intelligence.

 

[The wolf]

I will preface this with the "in my opinion" qualifier to prevent any undue attacks.

It have always come to the conclusion that the more docile of the tarantula species are likely a little more intelligent. Given that one of the elements of intelligence is the ability to coexist and evaluate dangers, this could easily be a marker. Species like Aphonopelma Chalcodes lives among humans and can tolerate an enormous amount of handling. Where as an OBT wants to attack even small bits of stimuli.

The ability to evaluate threats, even in a primitive way, is an evolutionary marker for intelligence.

I'm really sorry if this comes across as rude but I don't think aggressiveness is a good indicator of intelligence but rather an evolutionary response to an environment and rather than being a matter of evaluation it would be a Matter of sensitivity

 

[Thomas Loomis]

I'm really sorry if this comes across as rude but I don't think aggressiveness is a good indicator of intelligence but rather an evolutionary response to an environment and rather than being a matter of evaluation it would be a Matter of sensitivity

It most certainly does not come across as rude. Survivability is not a sign of intelligence. Social structures, societies, and cooperative progress are what defines social species and typically follows the animals that evolved to the highest places in the food chain. Evolutionarily, the ability to defend is a survival advantage. Darwin's observations seem pretty clear that tabling aggressiveness for a more measured approach is the only way to move forward in evolution.

I enjoy watching my aggressive specimens immensely. That being said, attacking any and everything is a survival instinct, not intelligence.

 

[Nightstalker47]

What makes this a difficult area is anthropomorphism for instance spiders don't really have brains but more of a centralised neural system rather than a true central nervous system just like they don't exactly have hearts or blood they are just too different for us to understand partly due to their lack of sociability which means it is hard to grasp what is really going on in their heads due to a lack of communication although a few things are obvious for instance we can see with myglamorphs that they are far more procedural especially with trapdoor spiders or "pet holes" in which a simple algorithmic procedure can be mapped out wheras species such as arborial tarantulas are slightly more complex with less of a linear "preform x then preform y" and more of a conditional "if x=true preform y" and this is taken further by hunting true spiders which can consider factors react to a wide array of stimuli and react differently to certain prey items which is also done by some webbing true spiders which will wrap up grasshoppers but not flies these spiders again have different degrees of intelligence with some being very much procedural "if felling vibration proceed to epicentre if else seek dark"

Phrases man...phrases. The nerve cluster is referred to as ganglia, which is basically a primitive brain.

I will preface this with the "in my opinion" qualifier to prevent any undue attacks.

It have always come to the conclusion that the more docile of the tarantula species are likely a little more intelligent. Given that one of the elements of intelligence is the ability to coexist and evaluate dangers, this could easily be a marker. Species like Aphonopelma Chalcodes lives among humans and can tolerate an enormous amount of handling. Where as an OBT wants to attack even small bits of stimuli.

The ability to evaluate threats, even in a primitive way, is an evolutionary marker for intelligence.

You may be onto something here. Although individual temperament will vary regardless of species. So that isn't the most reliable indicator. The ability to learn however, is something else entirely.

 

[atraxrobustus]

Personally, I would find that the old-worlds are less evolved than the new worlds, if we're to accept Darwinism in theory. (Something I personally reject for reasons I'm not going to get into here.) The thing is that environmental needs don't dictate the aggressiveness of a species necessarily: For example, G. Pulchra doesn't quite behave as badly as most old worlds, while T. blondi usually has a bad disposition, and somehow, the connotation of the psycho Rosie comes to mind. Also, some of the funnel web species (particularly Atrax ) are known to be quite aggressive despite having the same evolutionary history as Aphonopelma to the terms of having to deal with acclimating to humans in a co-existent habitat. Rather, Aphonopelma has done this alot more quickly it seems, without as much negative repercussion for given species in terms of numbers. The ability to adapt to the environment quickly is a marker of intelligence Vs. Insanity, which is adopting the same techniques without solving existent problems, or put differently, an inability to continue to evolve in any measure of the word.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

The problem that I see occurring here is one of confirmation bias. The halo effect is very real. I noted that some theories disagree. My takeaway is that these individuals have injected their opinion into the mix. For example, there really is no debate, if you truly accept Darwinism, that mammals are more advanced and superior to, arthropods. Therefore the characteristics of mammals are those characteristics one should consider, under Darwinism, to have superior qualities in terms of total adaptation. Any ararchnid displaying those characteristics is evolving toward mammals that have evolved beyond them. If you are an individual that appreciates spiders, then you appreciate them for what they are. To try to create some sort of alternate theory of what is or isn't advanced based upon your fondness for spiders is disingenuous at best.

As far as personalities within a species, that is true of all animals, including humans.

My opinion was not meant to evaluate spiders to spiders. It was to evaluate spiders against nature as a whole.

 

[Swoop]

Hard to accept docility as an indicator of intelligence when docility/defensiveness are almost perfectly correlated to possessing urticating hairs. T. stirmi, avic species and M. balfouri being possible exceptions.

Aggression may be a 'survival instinct' but if you have a more potent defense mechanism than biting, then not-biting can be dismissed as a 'survival instinct' just as easily.

 

[atraxrobustus]

Hard to accept docility as an indicator of intelligence when docility/defensiveness are almost perfectly correlated to possessing urticating hairs. T. stirmi, avic species and M. balfouri being possible exceptions.

Aggression may be a 'survival instinct' but if you have a more potent defense mechanism than biting, then not-biting can be dismissed as a 'survival instinct' just as easily.

The thing is that, as I've demonstrated- Aggression goes against survival in certain cases. It is usually better to run than to stay and defend- If you stand your ground and defend, you're more likely to end up on the loosing end. Because, for example, while A. robustus is both aggressive and has lethal venom, that still doesn't account for the almost certain death of the spider when it bites- namely via the steel toed boot that's fixing to come down on top of it when it decides to bite.

 

[The wolf]

The thing is that, as I've demonstrated- Aggression goes against survival in certain cases. It is usually better to run than to stay and defend- If you stand your ground and defend, you're more likely to end up on the loosing end. Because, for example, while A. robustus is both aggressive and has lethal venom, that still doesn't account for the almost certain death of the spider when it bites- namely via the steel toed boot that's fixing to come down on top of it when it decides to bite.

But with the use of warnings this is counteracted,I agree on your points about a.robustus but in old worlds like p.murinus or king baboons an effective display is given that will deter most predators and could likely be more effective than having no display or effective defences and being chased into a burrow and eaten by something like a mustelid or rodent

 

[The wolf]

The problem that I see occurring here is one of confirmation bias. The halo effect is very real. I noted that some theories disagree. My takeaway is that these individuals have injected their opinion into the mix. For example, there really is no debate, if you truly accept Darwinism, that mammals are more advanced and superior to, arthropods. Therefore the characteristics of mammals are those characteristics one should consider, under Darwinism, to have superior qualities in terms of total adaptation. Any ararchnid displaying those characteristics is evolving toward mammals that have evolved beyond them. If you are an individual that appreciates spiders, then you appreciate them for what they are. To try to create some sort of alternate theory of what is or isn't advanced based upon your fondness for spiders is disingenuous at best.

As far as personalities within a species, that is true of all animals, including humans.

My opinion was not meant to evaluate spiders to spiders. It was to evaluate spiders against nature as a whole.

Does Darwinism state that? I'm not disagreeing I'm just interested i thought we were past such egocentricisim although the term advanced is difficult to truly define and could mean different thing s to different people,my veiw is that all organisms at the same point in time are equally advanced but feel free to correct me