Why Are We Calling Them G. Porteri?

[belewfripp]

[Preface: Have already searched and read a number of threads on the subject of G. rosea nomenclature. This thread is branching off of that]

So, having been out of the hobby since 2009 or so, I have missed a few changes. T. blondi is not T. blondi anymore, C. crawshayi is not C. crawshayi anymore, etc.

One of the more perplexing things has been a species of Grammostola called Grammostola porteri, which is apparently being applied to the pinker varieties of Grammostola rosea. Knowing that taxonomic revisions do occur, I did some research on this to see if I'd missed something or what was going on, especially since there has always been confusion regarding G. rosea.

What I've read (here and also on the BTS website) suggests that no one has actually published any papers separating G. rosea RCF from G. rosea NCF, and showing that G. rosea NCF is actually G. porteri. Instead, it is a claim being made by a number of sellers, who may or may not have heard some inside intel. Given that in the distant past G. cala and G. spatulata (junior synonyms of G. rosea) have also been used in the pet trade, and it makes me wonder if there's really anything behind this.

Yet I see every day on this forum people talking about G. porteri. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has actually been published that documents G. rosea NCF as G. porteri. So....why do we use that name? Because the dealers use it? Or?

Because from my perspective, until I see a scientific paper that shows this to be true, as far as I'm concerned, they're all G. rosea.

---------- Post added 06-26-2014 at 11:22 AM ----------

Doing some more digging, I found this:

Comparison of Stridulatory Organs

This is from 2012. Has something been published? The latest info I found on Arachnoboards suggested the issue was still unclear.

 

[vespers]

T. blondi is not T. blondi anymore

Why isn't it?

 

[Arachnomaniac86]

I guess what he means is that most T. blondi sold at that time was actually T. stirmi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beary Strange]

I think maybe you're confusing the fact that is was discovered that what had been sold in the hobby for years as T.blondi were in fact T.stirmi. But T.blondi, real T.blondi, still exists-they're just not very prevalent in the hobby.

As to the rosea/porteri thing, the prevalence of people referring to NCF rosea as porteri began as a thread some months ago and the general agreement seemed to be that, even though taxonomically they haven't been separated, that they should be considered and treated as separate species. I refer to mine as G.porteri/rosea NCF so no one gets their panties in a bunch.

Edit: This isn't the thread I was referring to, but you may find it interesting. http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?258531-Grammostola-rosea-and-Grammostola-porteri.&highlight=Porteri+rosea

 

[skippydude]

I just received these two specimens yesterday

This one labeled G. porteri


This one labeled G rosea


I'm a little confused now :? How should I label these girls???

Funny story, this species was at the very bottom of my want list, I mean so far down that I doubted ever getting any. Well, a smoking deal came up on a 6 pack of T's and they were part of it. To be honest, I don't know what I was thinking, they are absolutely gorgeous. Pretty sure I'll be giving them a lifetime home.

 

[LythSalicaria]

I'd label them both as G. rosea; the top one looks pretty typical of NCF. The bottom looks a lot like a G. rosea RCF to me, it could just be the lighting but the leg hairs look way too red for it to be a NCF. Mind you, my experience is limited. I've only seen the RCF in pictures and videos. Either way, congrats on the new additions! NW terrestrials are somewhat underrated in my opinion. All the Grammostolas available in the hobby are gorgeous to look at. Personally, I'm hoping to add at least one of each to my collection eventually.

 

[belewfripp]

I guess what he means is that most T. blondi sold at that time was actually T. stirmi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes - this. I was unclear in the way in which it was stated - T. blondi exist but I've not seen any being sold because in fact what we've been buying and selling is actually a different member of the genus. That is different, however, from the situation with C. crawshayi (now P. muticus if I'm understanding that particular revision correctly) and I shouldn't have put the two together as if it were the same situation, so apologies if I confused anyone.

Of course, the question I now have is - were the trade "T. blondi" established as actually being T. stirmi on a scientific basis? I'm guessing so, since the circumstances are different from the G. rosea situation, but just wondering.




---------- Post added 06-26-2014 at 03:36 PM ----------

I think maybe you're confusing the fact that is was discovered that what had been sold in the hobby for years as T.blondi were in fact T.stirmi. But T.blondi, real T.blondi, still exists-they're just not very prevalent in the hobby.

As to the rosea/porteri thing, the prevalence of people referring to NCF rosea as porteri began as a thread some months ago and the general agreement seemed to be that, even though taxonomically they haven't been separated, that they should be considered and treated as separate species. I refer to mine as G.porteri/rosea NCF so no one gets their panties in a bunch.

Edit: This isn't the thread I was referring to, but you may find it interesting. http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?258531-Grammostola-rosea-and-Grammostola-porteri.&highlight=Porteri+rosea

Why would you treat them as two different species if they haven't been taxonomically differentiated? Isn't that part of what you need to do in order to define a species? There are many species of Grammostola that are valid, that doesn't mean that NCF roseas are one of them. Then of course there is also the question of whether G. porteri actually is a separate species - would the supposed differences outlined in the link from my first post be enough to warrant a separate species? Apparently Mello-Leitao's original type specimens are not well-preserved. Stan Schultz has stated that varieties of all CFs have come from single eggsacs. If those babies are all fertile, it would make it unlikely that the different CFs are separate species.

I noticed that Swift's Invertebrates, one of the dealers that is mentioned in early threads on the subject (circa 2007-2009) as altering the naming conventions, is currently selling G. rosea NCF as G. rosea. The image is still called porteri.jpg but the spiders are back to being sold as G. rosea (which I agree with).

So I don't know - but I do know that spider classification isn't determined by coloration and my research into this subject hasn't yielded a whole lot more than people saying the pinkish roseas are actually G. porteri, without anything more to back it up. I did read the thread that you linked to and, while interesting, it doesn't really clear anything up. For my money, unless a taxonomic or systematist basis is established for concluding G. rosea (of any CF) are actually G. porteri, then they are still G. rosea in my book. And in my opinion, that taxonomic evaluation would need to investigate the basis on which Mello-Leitao established porteri as a separate species in the first place.

 

[cold blood]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but C. marshalli was cornuatum and C. schioedtei was thorelli.....no?

 

[Philth]

In 2010 Pelinobius was found to be a senior synonym of Citharischius.

Gallon, R.C. 2010.
On some Southern African Harpactirinae, with notes on the eumenophorines Pelinobius muticus Karsch, 1885 and Monocentropella Strand, 1907 (Araneae, Theraphosidae).
Bull. Br. arachnol. Soc. 15(2): 29-48.


As already mentioned T. blondi always did, and still exists. Sometime around 2006-07 large brown Theraphosa species lacking long patella hair starting coming in labeled as T. blondi. Most people didn't notice the difference and continued to call them T. blondi for a few years until spiderlings from these spiders started popping up with pink tarsi and metatarsi of leg I & II. Then in 2010 the third known Theraphosa species was described as T. stirmi.

Rudloff, J.-P. & D. Weinmann. 2010.
A new giant tarantula from Guyana.
Arthropoda Sciencia 1(1): 20-38.


Regarding the Grammostola...

Why would you treat them as two different species if they haven't been taxonomically differentiated? Isn't that part of what you need to do in order to define a species?

Why lump them together when there is no evidence that suggest they are the same? Besides color, you posted a link yourself of other differences like the stridulatory organs. Seems like you answered your own question.

I don't understand what warrants the hobby name flipping back and forth with the names of these two spiders either, or what led anybody to think either may be the real G. rosea. The description for G. rosea is a vague one that is only about 60 words long in total. Its 175+ years old, and the locality that is given just says "Chile". Chile is a pretty large country, with a wide vast variety of theraphosid spiders. The type specimen was either lost or never deposited so there is nothing to compare our current hobby spiders too be sure what we have. The name Grammostola rosea really doesn't mean much, as it's unclear what Walckenaer was looking at back in 1837.

The spiders do need names in the hobby though. I'd prefer to see them labeled as G. porti and G. rosea until more work is done on them. Names like G. rosea NCF & RCF imply that they are the same and free to mix.

Stan Schultz has stated that varieties of all CFs have come from single eggsacs. If those babies are all fertile, it would make it unlikely that the different CFs are separate species.

No , its been proven many times over that many hybrids are fertile.

Later, Tom

 

[succinct]

Alright, time for me to muddle the waters. I am not going to cite names with out permission, but this is the story I got. (Take this with 90lb of salt)

In the hobby, back with immortal sin used to make milk shoot out of my nose, there was two different types of G. rosea. The "red factor" and "normal factor".

The breeders in europe, america, and other parts of the world started to noticed a problem with the "normal factor", the mature males where always insanely bigger then the "red factor".

That got some people questing if they where in fact the same species.

A quick review of the world spider catalog, brought up one species that look similar to G. rosea, but the males where a lot smaller. That is when a lot of dealers and breeders started to label G. rosea "normal factor" for G. porti. Not so much based on "facts" as just making sure that hybrids are kept to a minimal. It is a different species simply because it might be. And might be is enough to protect the blood lines. Since then, a lot of review has gone into this and found that there are differences. Retrolateral palpal coxa are very different.

Lastly, lets stop and look at the scientific definition of species.

Species- An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

We are pretty sure that the two can mate, but they are very different in micro and macro features and colorings. They also come from some ecologically different areas.

So we probably have either a ring species in which we have not found the 2 ends or we are dealing with chronospecies in which we are seeing to different species start to evolve away from each other.

Either way, they need to be labeled differently.

After being an active part of the hobby for a long time, I started to look up C. crawshayi and was getting upset that I could not find anyone selling them. I was about to tell my two girls they did not exist anymore.

Bottom line, we learn more the more we have to change. They seem to be different species and, until prove wrong, we should treat them as such.

 

[edgeofthefreak]

Oh, I'm gonna be one of those people....

I have no mud to add to these waters... but for clarity, can we all agree to spell porteri correctly in the future? :biggrin:
Last thing anyone wants to see would be spiders labeled G. porti in a LPS.

 

[advan]

Stan Schultz has stated that varieties of all CFs have come from single eggsacs. If those babies are all fertile, it would make it unlikely that the different CFs are separate species.

Stan has claimed this many times but when asked, he can't come up with the proof. I highly doubt both of these spiders come from the same eggsac. There are too many differences between the two.

The description for G. rosea is a vague one that is only about 60 words long in total. Its 175+ years old, and the locality that is given just says "Chile". Chile is a pretty large country, with a wide vast variety of theraphosid spiders. The type specimen was either lost or never deposited so there is nothing to compare our current hobby spiders too be sure what we have. The name Grammostola rosea really doesn't mean much, as it's unclear what Walckenaer was looking at back in 1837.

Here is the description of Grammostola rosea (Walckenaer, 1837)

6.Mygale Rose. (Mygale rosea) Long. 1 pounce 9 lignes

Tres velue abdomen et corselet couverts de poils d un rouge tendre tirant sur le rose luisant femoral garni de deux crochets.
Nouvean-monde-Amerique meridionale-Chili-collection de M. Gnerin. Envoyee par M. annee.
Cette espece est voisine de la Versicol re, ais elle en differe surtout par la couieur du corselet semi le a celle de l'abdomen.

Roughly translates to:

6.Mygale Rose. (Mygale rosea) Long. 1 pounce 9 lines

Very hairy abdomen and thorax covered with soft red hairs pulling the femoral shiny pink topped with two hooks.
New world- South America-Chile-collection of Mr. Gnerin. Sent by Mr. Annee.
This species is close to A. versicolor, as she differs mainly by the semi color the thorax to that of the abdomen.


Yes, this is the full description. Good luck IDing your spiders off of that!

 

[succinct]

Oh, I'm gonna be one of those people....

I have no mud to add to these waters... but for clarity, can we all agree to spell porteri correctly in the future? :biggrin:
Last thing anyone wants to see would be spiders labeled G. porti in a LPS.

Son of a ..... You got me, I swear I fixed that. Stupid e. But in my defense, Philth said it first and since he is 99% right all the time, I blame him. Yep thats right, I blame YOU.

 

[cold blood]

There are a few words/terms that spell check refuses to let go. Porteri is one of them as I have to watch every time I type it or it will "correct" me and change the spelling (dropping the I at the end)....funny though, this was the first time I ever typed it without that correction...is spell check learning the new term as well?