Yet another Theraphosa "sp" thread

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
so post 181 means nothing then well thats fine because I gave you some limited evidence showing how there has been no captive breeding success between blondi x burgendy yet there has been breeding success between burgendy x burgendy and blondi x blondi. Ok I know full to well that this is not be all and end all but it is a dam sight more evidence to show they are different to what you have given to show they are the same. Oh but don't have to give any evidence to this as I forgot you don't have to give any evidence to say that something is the same.:rolleyes:

did you see post 191? that is an interesting DNA look at things but will off course not be able to be taken into account for the simple reason you do not want to take it into account.
You only have one way of looking at this and do not even consider a different view from your own so it is dead end descussion. There really is no point to continue. Even if the DNA evidence was there you would not beleive them to be different because it is fix set in youir head and you are not even open to the idea that they even might be.
This is fine by me as long as it is fine with you that I will be treating them as if different species.
Of course I am open to the DNA evidence. Perhaps this is what will be unveiled in this much anticipated paper, but to be honest, I am doubtful of this. If it is there, and documented, then I will have no problem at all accepting that these are separate species.

The reason why you are wrong about me having to provide evidence that they are the same is because it is just natural to assume so. Just as it is natural to assume that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There has been NO EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise, so why would I believe in it?

Although I can't PROVE that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist, I can give you PLENTY of sound logical reasons why I don't accept that he exists. In the same way that I have already given you countless reasons (The entire species concepts, DNA/Genetic and evolutionary relationships, etc) for why I don't accept that they are different species.

All of my reasoning for not accepting that they are separate species (and not accepting that a spaghetti monster exists) is well established, readily available and reliable information that you are free to research yourself. In contrast, your evidence is limited to your personal experiences, online stories, and other unreliable word of mouth. You even said it yourself, that you provided "limited evidence," there really is no such thing. You either prove something or you don't. Until it is proven, you can't make the claims. .

I encourage you to explore the foundations of taxonomy and when you do you will realize that is never safe to make such stubborn assumptions are you and many others are doing here.
 

PhobeToPhile

Arachnoknight
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
210
Alright, think I found it. There is hybridization going on, but the rate is estimated to be very low (0.8%).

Here's a link to an article the birds in question. Technically, they are separate species, but they are very, very closesly related an appear to have only differentiated very recently (interfertility is demonstrated in at least one case within the article). While searching I found some instances of other birds isolating due to human influences, but this is almost definately the one I remember from several years back. What we're looking at would fall under "sympatric speciation".
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
Technically, they are separate species, but they are very, very closesly related
This is what I figured. The reproductive isolation (which can be PROVEN in this case of the birds) is a big part of why they are considered different species. You said earlier that they were the same species, but yet genetically isolated . . . this by definition isn't possible (to my knowledge).

I hope you realize that you were mistaken and that this supports my view that they are same species.

These birds in your example could just as easily be these Theraphosa spiders in question. They look very similar, yet are found in different parts of the world and are labeled differently. But as you put it yourself, they are TECHNICALLY MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES. This is the possibility that no one wants to accept.

While searching I found some instances of other birds isolating due to human influences, but this is almost definately the one I remember from several years back. What we're looking at would fall under "sympatric speciation".
human influences are entirely irrelevant, especially since people in this hobby are so concerned with "preserving the natural bloodlines." We are focused on defining them as species with regards to natural factors, no selective human breeding or other interference would give us any reliable or helpful information about these species.
 

sharpfang

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
909
Goliath Sized Debate - 10"+ Tarantula

W/ seemingly LESS hairs lately - 2 bad Not less Urticating ones :cool:

Have they? do you know of successful breedings between the two then?
Again, as I already stated, YES. I have obtained a couple "supposed-hybrid" specimens = They Appear Identical to Sp. "Burgundy" examples I have, that came from different sources, incl. a member in thread {but Not directly :cool:} I am "known" 2 B confusing ....Do Not intend to be - Sorry.

Sorry if you have suffered scrutiny in this hobby, thank passion for that, I suppose, again.
I Thank No One for being Scrutinized, Flamed, Spoken down to, or other like assertions towards myself, or Any other friendly & Fair Hobbyist on AB. Especially when I consider them to be unnescessary.

So at the moment you don't know because you have yet to make a video of the breeding.
sp burgundys were thought to be around a while back only like I said because they look so similar to blondi they were over looked, although even back then some did believe there was a different form of blondi going around due to the lack of breeding success
Infact I have just seen that sp. burgundy was around as far back as 1977 as there is a picture of one in a book by Dale Lund (publish date is 1977).
BTW I don't think I have ever flamed you or? so why the reference to this all the time?

so now you are saying they are different or what?
I did Not mean you.....I have gotten a hard time on this site in past months, from "Hybridizing" Albopilosum X Vagans Brachy's. Yet we have "Labra-Doodles" and What-Not, that is O.K. cause they're Fuzzy & Soft :p But contribute almost Nothing, in sake of Genetic Research, or understanding, the Over-Lapping boundaries and genetic relationships between closely related Tarantulas in the Wild :rolleyes:

I believe he has been saying that this whole time.
They seem Obviously different to Me, @ my experience Level - IMO

Furthermore: I do Not, and Have Not, suggested that Sp. "Burgundy's" have Not existed in the Wild....and thus perhaps on Occasion in Past Decades, in private collections. I never saw one in person, or in photo, {that I recognized as appearing subtly different} when in the Hobby previously. So to Clarify ~ I feel that "True" Blondi's, have become more scarce in the US T-Hobby, since my re-entry. Perhaps due to Locales of Collection and exportation, in native environs.

I think looking beyond the "senseless debating" would help you, this is an issue that needs input and settling.
{Appology accepted ~ perhaps I am the Sorry 1, for entering thread :rolleyes:}
It does, it does.....but:

After 12-13 pages {Not that this is the 1st thread regaurding Topic} of building Argueing and Insults on members character and/or Opinions......I choose {*Duh-na-nuh-na-nuh* :p} to insert a bit of, I will admit sometimes = Out-of-place HUMOR, and ya know that about me :D
Fran knows where I am coming from - Don't ya Fran Don't turn Green - I kid, I kid :D}

When more detailed and SCIENTIFIC data/proof becomes available world-wide, we will ALL have more to discuss On Topic ~ Untill then........ Let's some of us, share experiences/knowledge on subject, and then Agree to Dis-Agree - w/ out "poking & jabbing" - No one IMO - Including Mr. West, has guaranteed FACTS re: this Theraphosa genetics = Otherwise would be Published Already.

Care to Help out on some of the Known Facts "Zoltan", and others, that are more experienced on the subject than most of us ?

Just Tarantulas people, just tarantulas.....{deep breath.....} Relax :p I am gonna go Enjoy the Californian Sunshine now....then some of my Tarantulas - Stick a Fork in me & Have @ it :)
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
No one IMO - Including Mr. West, has guaranteed FACTS re: this Theraphosa genetics = Otherwise would be Published Already.
:clap:
*sigh of relief* Finally, someone who isn't afraid to think for themselves! If the scientific (genetic) evidence were out there, this debate wouldn't even be happening!
 

Fran

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,533
Do you have a job? Or a life?

Cos you have been here pretty much 24h straight since yesterday posting the same.

Reading around the net doesnt make you a scientist, by the way.
 

PhobeToPhile

Arachnoknight
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
210
human influences are entirely irrelevant, especially since people in this hobby are so concerned with "preserving the natural bloodlines." We are focused on defining them as species with regards to natural factors, no selective human breeding or other interference would give us any reliable or helpful information about these species.
Eh, like I said it was several years since I read the article. The only thing that actually prevents them from interbeeding though are the songs. When one species lays in the nest of another, the resulting offspring breed with the usual species that parasitizes that host. Judging by the inidviudal they found in the article, the resulting hybrids are fertile as well, but due to the general host-based isolation it seems that outward differences vanish within a few generations until they blend back in.

I don't recall saying T. blondi and T. sp. burgundy are one and the same though-and you're right about human influence not being relevant. It's why I didn't post the other examples I found.

Edit: Just a thought...but the reason the paper isn't published yet may very well be because L. spinipes to T. spinipes isn't the only change being made.
 
Last edited:

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
:clap:
*sigh of relief* Finally, someone who isn't afraid to think for themselves! If the scientific (genetic) evidence were out there, this debate wouldn't even be happening!
By that logic, no one has any facts on any subject in the world. Why? We have provided facts, you have chosen to overlook them.
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
By that logic, no one has any facts on any subject in the world. Why? We have provided facts, you have chosen to overlook them.
Technically, this is correct. There are no "facts" in science, only falsifiable theories which best explain natural phenomena.

But you haven't acknowledged this at all before, so why in the heck would you now? :rolleyes:
 

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
Technically, this is correct. There are no "facts" in science, only falsifiable theories which best explain natural phenomena.

But you haven't acknowledged this at all before, so why in the heck would you now? :rolleyes:
Oh but I have, you just fail to read between the lines. Natural human inclination drives the need for understanding, if determining the difference between two things is dictated by factors that the majority of individuals understand, the one who seeks a 'deeper' understanding based on a man established mode of testing beliefs, needs to first weigh his desires against this truth. You complicate a very simple issue. No matter how deep taxonomy is, superficial ideals are woven in and amongst it.
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
Oh but I have, you just fail to read between the lines. Natural human inclination drives the need for understanding, if determining the difference between two things is dictated by factors that the majority of individuals understand, the one who seeks a 'deeper' understanding based on a man established mode of testing beliefs, needs to first weigh his desires against this truth. You complicate a very simple issue. No matter how deep taxonomy is, superficial ideals are woven in and amongst it.
Huh? Now you are just rambling. You already have made countless errors and tried numerous fallacies, but you fail every time. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE. . no matter how you slice it.

There is no need to talk about 'testing beliefs' or 'deeper understandings' here, you are getting way off the point. You said that by "my logic" no one has any facts about the world. Guess what, it isn't just my logic, but the universally accepted logic of all scientists! No matter how you try to squirm out of your previous statement, you were wrong. There are no facts in science.
 

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
Huh? Now you are just rambling. You already have made countless errors and tried numerous fallacies, but you fail every time. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE. . no matter how you slice it.

There is no need to talk about 'testing beliefs' or 'deeper understandings' here, you are getting way off the point. You said that by "my logic" no one has any facts about the world. Guess what, it isn't just my logic, but the universally accepted logic of all scientists! No matter how you try to squirm out of your previous statement, you were wrong. There are no facts in science.
No. You just agreed with me, you don't get it. You cannot understand text, this is something that is very harmful for you, as you should at least understand what you read. Countless errors and fallacies, that would be you. It is far from the point, you are playing cards from that realm, "universally accepted logic of all scientits!", come now, how do you not recognize yourself as a hypocrite? I said there were no facts, read it again. In fact stop posting unless you understand what is being written, which you have yet to represent thus far. I'm not squirming out of anything, I stand by everything I said, besides, I have no need to, you have hardly an existent position for me to do so.
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
No. You just agreed with me, you don't get it. You cannot understand text, this is something that is very harmful for you, as you should at least understand what you read. Countless errors and fallacies, that would be you. It is far from the point, you are playing cards from that realm, "universally accepted logic of all scientits!", come now, how do you not recognize yourself as a hypocrite? I said there were no facts, read it again. In fact stop posting unless you understand what is being written, which you have yet to represent thus far. I'm not squirming out of anything, I stand by everything I said, besides, I have no need to, you have hardly an existent position for me to do so.
No, I never agreed with you. And now you are trying to say that you agree there are no such thing as facts? You claim that I didn't understand what you originally posted? Okay, let's take a look at what you said word for word then:

By that logic, no one has any facts on any subject in the world.
Your tone here, implied that you found it silly (a few minutes ago when you made the reply) that I was suggesting that there are no such thing as "facts."

You further go on to say,
We have provided facts, you have chosen to overlook them.
You have clearly stated here that you HAVE FACTS, and then directly after posting this you claim that you don't believe there are such things as facts. If that isn't blatant hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
 

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
No, I never agreed with you. And now you are trying to say that you agree there are no such thing as facts? You claim that I didn't understand what you originally posted? Okay, let's take a look at what you said word for word then:



Your tone here, implied that you found it silly (a few minutes ago when you made the reply) that I was suggesting that there are no such thing as "facts."

You further go on to say,


You have clearly stated here that you HAVE FACTS, and then directly after posting this you claim that you don't believe there are such things as facts. If that isn't blatant hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.
Two different context forms, entirely. I say there are no facts, it doesn't mean that I truly believe that, I merely placated your notion, which I suppose could be true, objectively speaking. Facts exist, whether science says so or not, or do you have a different definition for that word as well? My car is more expensive than yours, a truth, is that a fact? I have recieved NUMEROUS PMs, emails, and phone calls from individuals telling me that I cannot reason with your insanity, I'm starting to believe that, I had hope, however. If you cannot grasp concept within your next reply, this discussion will halt, with you still in a very 'red' position.
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
Two different context forms, entirely. I say there are no facts, it doesn't mean that I truly believe that, I merely placated your notion, which I suppose could be true, objectively speaking.
wow, you can't even decide yourself whether or not you believe "facts" exist.
Don't have this internal struggle in this thread, do you own research and come to an educated conclusion.

Facts exist, whether science says so or not, or do you have a different definition for that word as well? My car is more expensive than yours, a truth, is that a fact?
I'm glad you tried this example. You say your car is more expensive than mine. . when did you buy it? Have you taken into consideration the time value of money? Inflation? What if I had to sacrifice my left arm for my car, then would you still consider yours "more expensive." Again, there are no such things as facts, only interpretations of our surroundings. I think Friedrich Nietzsche said this exact quote.

Again, you are the one squirming about here, trying ever so hard to justify and talk your way out of all your errors and misinformation. Nice try, but no cigar.
 

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
wow, you can't even decide yourself whether or not you believe "facts" exist.
Don't have this internal struggle in this thread, do you own research and come to an educated conclusion.



I'm glad you tried this example. You say your car is more expensive than mine. . when did you buy it? Have you taken into consideration the time value of money? Inflation? What if I had to sacrifice my left arm for my car, then would you still consider yours "more expensive." Again, there are no such things as facts, only interpretations of our surroundings. I think Friedrich Nietzsche said this exact quote.

Again, you are the one squirming about here, trying ever so hard to justify and talk your way out of all your errors and misinformation. Nice try, but no cigar.


I have recieved NUMEROUS PMs, emails, and phone calls from individuals telling me that I cannot reason with your insanity, I'm starting to believe that, I had hope, however. If you cannot grasp concept within your next reply, this discussion will halt, with you still in a very 'red' position.
[/QUOTE]

Facts exist, if you want to distort context, be my guest. Dismiss what we have provided all you want, in the end you mean very little, I only continued this thinking you would grasp understanding, I admit, I have failed. No squirming here, have no need to. You are so demeaning, I don't have an internal struggle, if I did, you wouldn't have faced defeat so many times in two threads. You have yourself who believes in you, I say, more power to you. I have reached the brinks of your insanity, I see no light, with your last bout of ramble, this is over. Reply and rant all you want, each one further deters you as a man of integrity, as you made a public note you were not going to reply after said point. I have been doing this all on my handheld phone, in and amongst my tempestous responsiblities, I no longer have the patience and time to waste for you, in this thread. The 'authorities' will have the official documentaion out soon, there are two different spiders folks, and in the bottom of this abyssmal distortion these two tarantulas look different, you can expect to pay a different priced, based solely on that FACT. It was amusing Mack, it's a good thing you don't smoke, not even close.
 

Ace_Man

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
60
When I posted pix of my Theraphosa... which was labelled a Blondi. Everyone told me it was an Apophysis. Then, the second this Burgundy stuff came up, everyone said that's what it was. Does anyone have a pic of a Blondi/Aphophysis Hybrid? Or did I miss it in this thread?
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
When I posted pix of my Theraphosa... which was labelled a Blondi. Everyone told me it was an Apophysis. Then, the second this Burgundy stuff came up, everyone said that's what it was. Does anyone have a pic of a Blondi/Aphophysis Hybrid? Or did I miss it in this thread?
LOL, perfect example. You bought it as a blondi, then the "experts" here on AB told you it was an apophysis, then once the sp burgundy label popped up people were calling it a "burgundy!"

Solidifies my point even more: There's no way to know for sure!

But all the evidence so far points to them being the same species.
 

Falk

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
679
:clap:
*sigh of relief* Finally, someone who isn't afraid to think for themselves! If the scientific (genetic) evidence were out there, this debate wouldn't even be happening!
Even if they have everything clear it will still take a long time.
 

Jmugleston

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,578
When I posted pix of my Theraphosa... which was labelled a Blondi. Everyone told me it was an Apophysis. Then, the second this Burgundy stuff came up, everyone said that's what it was. Does anyone have a pic of a Blondi/Aphophysis Hybrid? Or did I miss it in this thread?
Here is a picture of all three side by side. Until recently it was thought that the pink tarsi were only found on T. apophysis. Therefore, slings with pink tarsi were called T. apophysis. It was also thought that the spiders coming in from Guyana were Theraphosa blondi. Not to surprise anyone, but few hobbyists check their collection against species descriptions to be sure that is what they really have. Recently it was made known that there was a third species of large brown spider that was not T. blondi or T. apophysis. In the hobby it was given the name "burgundy goliath." In the scientific literature it was named long while ago as Lasiodora spinipes. Once we realized we were dealing with a third species we started paying more attention to our spiders. I have all three in my collection. Side by side they are as easy to differentiate as B. smithi from A. geniculata. Earlier in this thread I list a number of morphological characters that also differ between the three.

 
Top