- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Messages
- 3,783
G. rosea
I think the fact that they're "not special" plays into their unpopularity. While the odds are slim and none that you'd encounter their cousin the G. aureostriata in anything other than a petstore with an extensive exotic section, people who don't even know what the word "arachnid" means have G. rosea. As such, even though it's not a very rational belief, I think a lot of folks perceive having G. rosea as indicating some sort of non-advancedness.
Another reason why some may harbor feelings of dislike or disinterest for them is that they represent the worst side of the arachnid pet trade. They are a species for which there is very little field biology known, yet they are collected from the wild in such numbers that it's economically wasteful to breed them in captivity. Although it's a case of "shooting the messenger", viewing this species as desirable could be construed as contributing to irresponsible practices in the arachnid pet trade. I think that most of us believe that wild collection of spiders should exist to expand the genetic variety for captive breeding, not be so extensive that it supplants it altogether.
Also, and this reason probably does not extend any further than my own personal quirk, but I harbor some resentment towards the species because it was what replaced the B. smithi as the main pet trade spider you found in pet stores when I was younger. There was a wasteland of availability of interesting tarantulas between the advent of CITES and when captive breeding began to become significant in the 90s, G. rosea is, for better or worse, emblematic of that period to me.
The G. rosea's "unpopular" status has a number of roots. One, of course, is that it is a brown spider, but I think people are dishonest if they say that's the only or even main reason they don't want one.Soul said:
I think the fact that they're "not special" plays into their unpopularity. While the odds are slim and none that you'd encounter their cousin the G. aureostriata in anything other than a petstore with an extensive exotic section, people who don't even know what the word "arachnid" means have G. rosea. As such, even though it's not a very rational belief, I think a lot of folks perceive having G. rosea as indicating some sort of non-advancedness.
Another reason why some may harbor feelings of dislike or disinterest for them is that they represent the worst side of the arachnid pet trade. They are a species for which there is very little field biology known, yet they are collected from the wild in such numbers that it's economically wasteful to breed them in captivity. Although it's a case of "shooting the messenger", viewing this species as desirable could be construed as contributing to irresponsible practices in the arachnid pet trade. I think that most of us believe that wild collection of spiders should exist to expand the genetic variety for captive breeding, not be so extensive that it supplants it altogether.
Also, and this reason probably does not extend any further than my own personal quirk, but I harbor some resentment towards the species because it was what replaced the B. smithi as the main pet trade spider you found in pet stores when I was younger. There was a wasteland of availability of interesting tarantulas between the advent of CITES and when captive breeding began to become significant in the 90s, G. rosea is, for better or worse, emblematic of that period to me.
I might send him out on a 50/50 adventure and most likely not see him again after that... and maybe no offspring either for that matter. 
