# Grammostola rosea and Grammostola porteri.



## Emotionlessness (Jan 10, 2014)

Can anyone explain to me what is what with these?

I have been doing a lot of reading around and there are lots of people saying one thing and lots of people saying other things.

I have not been able to find anything set in stone.

I have heard there was no taxonomic changes and that it was just traders doing it to differentiate between their stock.
I have heard that G. rosea is the RCF/NCF and the G. porteri is the DCF...and vice versa.
I have heard that it is do do with the colour of the bristles on the legs, amoung a plethora of other theories.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## edgeofthefreak (Jan 10, 2014)

Only starting checking the World Spider Catalogue recently, but according to them, they are a unique species and quite separate from G. rosea.

http://research.amnh.org/iz/spiders/catalog/THERAPHOSIDAE.html

Search for 'porteri' and you find 2 results, and the minor mess it was in (being in Lasiodora for 20-30 years will do that).
If you search for 'spatulata' you get 14 counts of trying to name various Grammies with that name.

My best guess for the confusion, would be dealers who can't tell the difference, and get their stock mixed up. Just my thoughts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BobGrill (Jan 10, 2014)

In this Animal Planet Tarantulas book by Michael Andreas Jacobi, the author has the Chilean Rose Hair listed as G. porteri. Just wanted to share that, because the guy's been in the hobby for 35+ years, and while I have no idea what his reputation in the eyes of most hobbyists is, he's obviously got some very significant amount of experience. So I'm sort of doubting he has the species misidentified, but what do I know.


----------



## Keith B (Jan 10, 2014)

Apparently right now, for the time being as things always change, they are two separate species, and are to be treated as such.  I personally am a bit skeptical at times about it, and IF they are indeed two separate species (DNA might be nice for this one, is there? probably not..), then the genealogy has been cross-bred into each other anyway over the years in the hobby.  If you google "Grammostola rosea" you only make it for about 12 pictures before finding an image of a "G. rosea" mating with a "G. porteri"... that's pretty quick for searching the general scientific name and not anything specific..

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 11, 2014)

BobGrill said:


> In this Animal Planet Tarantulas book by Michael Andreas Jacobi, the author has the Chilean Rose Hair listed as G. porteri. Just wanted to share that, because the guy's been in the hobby for 35+ years, and while I have no idea what his reputation in the eyes of most hobbyists is, he's obviously got some very significant amount of experience. So I'm sort of doubting he has the species misidentified, but what do I know.



Really? That's a bit surprising he does. Let's see, the Curator of Invertebrate Zoology at the American Museum of Natural History or very experienced individual..hmmm I go with the curator on taxonomic questions.


----------



## persistent (Jan 11, 2014)

what I do not understand is lately you'll see people post pics of G. rosea NCF and almost everytime there's someone posting to say it's a G. porteri. Just because of the colour. And so a lot of hobbiests are now suddenly relabelling their G. rosea NCFs as G. porteri. This confusion is getting out of hand.

Reactions: Face Palm 1


----------



## Emotionlessness (Jan 11, 2014)

Does anyone have any pictures of the 2 of them? I have been googling each of them and it throws up a lot of the same pictures for each of them.


----------



## drgonzo (Jan 11, 2014)

G.rosea













G.porteri

Reactions: Like 1 | Winner 1


----------



## Emotionlessness (Jan 11, 2014)

So the G. porteri is the NCF? What is the DCF then? porteri as well?


----------



## ClosetCollector (Jan 11, 2014)

Every rose hair I have ever seen in a pet shop labeled G. Rosea  looks like a G.porteri so I am confused now as well, by the look of the two pictures I was sold a G porteri???

Is the color form the only difference??


----------



## edgeofthefreak (Jan 11, 2014)

ClosetCollector;2238612...is the color form the only difference??[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Technically, if they are a fully separate species of the Grammostola genus, then their DNA wouldn't be the same. But that's not too easy to tell just by looking at a spider, or even a picture. In the pics above, they don't appear to be the same lighting, and possibly not even the same camera. Pictures can be very deceiving, especially with creatures that are designed to refract light for defence.
> 
> Most likely, if you had 2 spiders, G. porteri and G. rosea, side by side... and they were of approximately the same size/age/weight/pre-molt status, etc... you could likely see differences after a few minutes. From their I'm sure it would a matter of experience with noticing those differences in other possible miss-matches.
> 
> Better still, if you have a microscope and molts (or very patient creatures) you can find the differences much easier.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 12, 2014)

edgeofthefreak said:


> Technically, if they are a fully separate species of the Grammostola genus, then their DNA wouldn't be the same. But that's not too easy to tell just by looking at a spider


What, I can see DNA with my eyes.

I have to say in those 2 pics, I've seen TONS of rose hairs that are in theory rosea, but sure look like that porteri.  SO is the red phase Rose Hair exist only as a rosea, or in porteri too?? This is highly confusing these 2 similar looking species.


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 12, 2014)

A lot of people are saying G. rosea is now G. porteri.  This is a very poor choice of words as it implies something very different form what they are trying to say.  Nobody is implying that the two species are the same, or that one species has been changed to the other. What they are trying to say is that the Chilean rose tarantula (NCF/DCF) that we used to know as the G. rosea, is now known as G. porteri.  

This debate goes all the way back to 2006 (possibly earlier).  The Chilean rose had long been imoprted as G. rosea.  Then some importers started to change the name to G. porteri.  Others kept them as G. rosea.  Obviously this caused a lot of confusion. Then we started to see the Chilean red rose/flame rose imported as G. rosea as well.  In the hobby we referred to these as the G. rosea RCF to keep them clear.

So we have tons of different poeple coming up with all of these different color forms (normal/pink, dark/gray, red/copper), but they were all considered to be G. rosea.

Now in 2008, we start to see some of the more taxonomicaly oriented folks in the hobby doing some research and coming the the conclusion that the importers possibly had it right all along.  They suggested that the red/copper form or RCF were the true G. rosea, and that all the other color forms were actually G. porteri. Many hobbyists balked and said they would wait for some more scientific evidence came around to support it, while others jumped on board.

Like the metric system in the United States this idea has taken a long time to be accepted and even longer to actually be put into use across the board (still working).  This movement seems to have been in greater hobby acceptance since about 2010 and continues to grow.  Today it is generally accepted as true across the board. However, the word still isn't out hobby wide.  Some dealers and nearly all pet stores still list the NCF as G. rosea. Which is why we are still discussing this today.

The reality is, we have no way of knowing what spider is what species definitively, until somebody does the taxonomic and DNA work necessary to put this to bed.  But until that happens, this is our best scientific guess as to what species is what.

For reference, I just took these pics together under the same lighting conditions. iPhone pics, not the greatest.

Mature male G. porteri (Chilean rose)






Female G. porteri (Chilean rose) in need of a molt






Female G. rosea (Chilean red rose) in need of a molt

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Emotionlessness (Jan 12, 2014)

Thank you for the detailed reply and pictures, that makes things much clearer.


----------



## Tomoran (Jan 12, 2014)

thevez2, thanks for great explanation and the pics. I've actually been trying to figure out the difference for a while now. 

I, too, have the book in which Mr. Jacobi says they should all be called G. porteri, which I found very intriguing. I know he's a member of the boards, so perhaps he'll see this and chime in.

Regardless, it's looking as if my old G. rosea is likely a G. porteri.


----------



## jecraque (Jan 12, 2014)

thevez2 said:


> This debate goes all the way back to 2006 (possibly earlier).  The Chilean rose had long been imoprted as G. rosea.  Then some importers started to change the name to G. porteri.  Others kept them as G. rosea.  Obviously this caused a lot of confusion. Then we started to see the Chilean red rose/flame rose imported as G. rosea as well.  In the hobby we referred to these as the G. rosea RCF to keep them clear.
> 
> So we have tons of different poeple coming up with all of these different color forms (normal/pink, dark/gray, red/copper), but they were all considered to be G. rosea.
> 
> Now in 2008, we start to see some of the more taxonomicaly oriented folks in the hobby doing some research and coming the the conclusion that the importers possibly had it right all along.  They suggested that the red/copper form or RCF were the true G. rosea, and that all the other color forms were actually G. porteri. Many hobbyists balked and said they would wait for some more scientific evidence came around to support it, while others jumped on board.


Thevez, do you have any sources on this? Was there a redescription? It seems like color would be a really weak character to differentiate the two.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 12, 2014)

No, there is no redescription.  That would imply a change in species, that I pointed out did not happen. Let me way exaggerate this to illustrate a point.

Lets say we had some stripe kneed tarantulas coming in.  One with yellow stripes and one with white stripes.  They have both been imported under the name A. seemanni. Now we get a shipment of yellow striped tarantulas in but they are labeled G. pulchripes.  Well it is determined that the yellow A. seemanni are the same as the yellow G. pulchripes.  So we announce that the white striped is the true A. seemanni and the yellow is actually G. pulchripes.  That is kinda what is happening here.

Chilean rose have been imported as G. porteri for a long time. But they get renamed in the hobby as G. rosea.  That doesn't make G. rosea correct.

My source is years of reading this topic on the BTS, ATS and AB forums, going back to 2006. Search the archives and read up on it yourself.  Nothing scientific has come out to prove it one way or another.  But right now, this is what we are working with.


----------



## Scoolman (Jan 12, 2014)

From the World Spider Catalogue:
m porteri (Mello-Leitão, 1936)....................Chile [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002022]
Lasiodora p. Mello-Leitão, 1936d: 122, pl. 13 (Dm).
G. p. Schiapelli & Gerschman, 1979: 295 (Tm from Lasiodora).


----------



## viper69 (Jan 12, 2014)

So all of these are G porteri, but if it's a RCF it's G rosea? Just trying to be clear, OR are they all G porteri regardless of color?


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 12, 2014)

viper69 said:


> So all of these are G porteri, but if it's a RCF it's G rosea?


Yes, that is correct.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 12, 2014)

thevez2 said:


> Yes, that is correct.


This is kind of funny, because so far it seems there is only a single phenotypic diffierence causing a new name. In the herp world, there are a myriad of NATURALLY occurring Boa constrictor imperators, some with more than just a color difference (eg size) and yet they are all the same species and sub-species for now.


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 12, 2014)

Not at all, color just happens to be the easiest to see.  The main taxonomic difference between the two species is in the palpal coxa stridulatory organ.  What I read is that "G. porteri has more well defined lyra on the retrolateral palpal coxa and prolateral coxa of leg I than G. rosea.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## viper69 (Jan 12, 2014)

thevez2 said:


> Not at all, color just happens to be the easiest to see.  The main taxonomic difference between the two species is in the palpal coxa stridulatory organ.  What I read is that "G. porteri has more well defined lyra on the retrolateral palpal coxa and prolateral coxa of leg I than G. rosea.



THANKS! Now that makes more sense for a new species name...Thank You!


----------



## Emotionlessness (Jan 14, 2014)

And may I ask what was renamed from G. cala? The G.rosea or the G.porteri? Or both?


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 14, 2014)

Emotionlessness said:


> And may I ask what was renamed from G. cala? The G.rosea or the G.porteri? Or both?


G. cala was synonymized with G. rosea, a long time ago. But of course back then, what we called cala and rosea are now G. porteri. Confused yet?


----------



## Hydrazine (Jan 15, 2014)

The import name inconsistency doesn'thelp at all, too. I've seen "Grammostola spatulata", "Grammostola cala" and others - and it's not distant past, it's last year 
Guess we can be glad we do not see "Lasiodora rosea" or even "Eurypelma spatulatum" anymore.....or do we?

Kind of glad I avoided the confusion by getting the "RCF", or, according to the new theory, the "true G.rosea"







And apparently, the rest of the genus is kind of a mess as well, perhaps 0,73 on the genus mess scale, with Avicularia as reference standard with value of 1


----------



## Emotionlessness (Jan 16, 2014)

Been thinking more and would still like to go deeper.

Is the RCF the "default" so to speak colour form? I mean you have G. porteri and G. porteri DCF or vice versa?


----------



## CitizenNumber9 (Jan 16, 2014)

Ugh why can't someone just breed the two and then breed their offspring? That seems to be the easiest way to get and answer, albeit not exactly the quickest.

Reactions: Face Palm 1


----------



## Hydrazine (Jan 16, 2014)

Let's not go into discussing hybrids. I am quite interested in this thread and I don't wanna see it closed because of a BLEEPstorm that usually follows someone noticing even just hypothetical hybrids.


----------



## CitizenNumber9 (Jan 16, 2014)

Hydrazine said:


> Let's not go into discussing hybrids. I am quite interested in this thread and I don't wanna see it closed because of a BLEEPstorm that usually follows someone noticing even just hypothetical hybrids.


Heheh sorry. I retract my question then.


----------



## spanes (Jan 17, 2014)

Looks like i got a g. Porteri


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 17, 2014)

Emotionlessness said:


> Been thinking more and would still like to go deeper.
> 
> Is the RCF the "default" so to speak colour form? I mean you have G. porteri and G. porteri DCF or vice versa?


I'm not sure what you mean. RCF is G. rosea.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Emotionlessness (Jan 17, 2014)

I apologize, my mind completely drifted when I typed that message, I mean NCF, so:

Is the NCF the "default" so to speak colour form? I mean you have G. porteri and G. porteri DCF or vice versa?


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 17, 2014)

Yes, of course. The Normal Color Form is always going to be the default.


----------



## Keith B (Jan 22, 2014)

BUMP.  This thread should be in plain sight for a while, cause pet stores aren't ever going to get it right.  It's just speculating on my part, but I'm kind of thinking that G. porteri is just the grey color form, G. rosea is red, and all the stuff we have that's colored in between (and reports about both coming out of the same sac) is likely from cross breeding the two?  Seems logical enough to me.  Would explain the difficulty in pairing and sale of WC specimens mentioned in TKG3.  Might be easy to pair 2 porteri but much less so to mix them up.  After all, these two T's have been identified as the same thing by an abundance of people for ages.  Food for thought, and conversation


----------



## viper69 (Jan 22, 2014)

Actually this thread should be a sticky because people like that Stimp user are too lazy to search! It took the person more keystrokes to post his/her thread than to search. But hey some people thrive on efficiency!


----------



## Lee Beck (Jan 22, 2014)

First thing that should be noted is that very often, what is sold in the pet trade as a specific species, often reflects nothing at all regarding the real described species, you just have to look at Euathlus truculentus for a good example, the ones in the pet trade are nothing to do with Euathlus spp. (The description for them translates to 'brown tarantula from Chile').
Importers often sell things with valid binomial names, but give no explanation as to how it was confirmed to be so, and they just end up being the hobby species.
Grammostola is in a bit of a state really, the name rosea goes back nearly 200 years and is one that Schmidt dug back up. Rosea having no type specimen doesn't help either, meaning that the specimens caught and imported cannot be compared to any material. I believe the work is in progress to sort a few things out, we will just have to wait, however, the hobby species will likely remain just that, with all the possible hybrids circulating, bad IDs of other similar looking Grammostola and doubts to their real placement.
There was an article recently 'showing the differences between rosea and porteri'
It was based on the number of lyra on the palpal coxa and such, however, the number can vary a lot specimen to specimen, and is not a sole characteristic to key them as 2 different species (also, I cannot think where the 'porteri' and 'rosea' specimens originated from, and were obviously not compared to any type material beforehand).
However, people calling one porteri and the other rosea isn't a bad thing in my opinion, whatever they are. It will likely put people off breeding them together with the statement 'only colour forms of rosea, doesn't matter', just in case it transpires that they are not.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tomoran (Jan 22, 2014)

viper69 said:


> Actually this thread should be a sticky because people like that Stimp user are too lazy to search! It took the person more keystrokes to post his/her thread than to search. But hey some people thrive on efficiency!


+1 Search-impaired individuals aside , I think that this thread would be a great candidate for a sticky. I, for one, would be interested in seeing it develop as it's a common question/discussion that is still cause for interesting debate. Just my two.


----------



## LordWaffle (Jan 22, 2014)

Do you have a link to that article you mentioned, Lee?


----------



## Lee Beck (Jan 22, 2014)

LordWaffle said:


> Do you have a link to that article you mentioned, Lee?


 http://www.tarantulaforum.com/threads/comparison-of-g-rosea-g-porteri-stridulatory-organs.262/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## advan (Jan 22, 2014)

Loose translation of the _Grammostola rosea_ description. Yes, this is all of it. 



> 6.Mygale Rose. (_Mygale rosea_)
> 
> 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.



Now, how can anyone say for sure what they have is _G. rosea_? Lee is absolutely correct, these are just hobby names for now. 

You should keep the color "forms" separate until something definitive comes out saying otherwise.


----------



## LordWaffle (Jan 22, 2014)

Lee Beck said:


> http://www.tarantulaforum.com/threads/comparison-of-g-rosea-g-porteri-stridulatory-organs.262/


 Thanks! Good read.


----------



## Galapoheros (Jan 22, 2014)

Polymorphism exists within some species too, sometimes depending on locality, so small differences in morphological differences aren't dependable in IDing.  I think it would come down to breeding experiments and DNA studies.  It seems like it's at the point of no fine line with the species imo.


----------



## OrganicTorus (Sep 26, 2019)

I have a few questions about how this topic relates to care:

I might be getting my first tarantula from a woman who's son went to college and left her with the spider. She called it a rosehair tarantula, and I doubt she still has any info from the breeder or store, as she's had it for 8 years. I'm not planning on breeding it so I don't need definitive ID. I just want to make sure I give it the best care possible.

Everywhere I see descriptions of how to care for _G. rosea_, it looks pretty easy, but should I be concerned that if this spider is a closely related species it will have significantly different needs?

She said the spider doesn't move or come out of its hide as much as it used to. Is this normal as the tarantula ages, or does it indicate it might need an adjustment in its environment?

I love taxonomy, so I'm very interested in how this shakes out, but for now I'm more concerned about giving this spider a good home.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cold blood (Sep 26, 2019)

OrganicTorus said:


> I have a few questions about how this topic relates to care:


It doesnt....while there may be several species referred to as "rose hairs"....care for each is EXACTLY the same....bone dry with a water dish.


----------



## Arachnid Addicted (Sep 26, 2019)

I've been talking about this issue a lot in the last few years but, I'll say it again. 

First of all, and most important, I guess, if you got your individuals as _G. rosea_ NCF and _G. rosea_ RCF you should never, ever, paired them. 

That said, _G. porteri_ was once known as _G. rosea_ NCF before. I dont actually know why, when or how people started to called them _G. porteri_ (I have an idea, tbh, but this idea doesnt matter cause it doesnt concern this discussion).

Thing is, although _G. porteri_ is a valid species scientifically speaking, chilean researchers didnt found its holotype yet, some of them even believe the species will turn out to be Nomen dubium. 

This means no one, as far as I know, know how the real _G. porteri_ actually looks like and there are some people (me included) that believes that the real _G. porteri_ never were in the hobby. 

Back to the hobby, the question remains: then, what _G. rosea_ NCF/_G. porteri_ really is? The answer is, no one also known for sure, it could be _G. rosea_ or _G. porteri_, indeed. It could be another species, or even a new one, who knows? Lol. When it comes to _Grammostola_, everything is possible. Lol. 

One last thing, the "article" that was spread in the hobby as "scientifical", comparing one taxonomical character of them is not valid scientifically, as stated in the article itself and could not be used as an absolutely truth to tell them apart. Forgive me, I forger which character was examined. 

Only fact is, in the hobby, we can continuously call it _G. porteri_ or _G. rosea_ NCF, this discussion will still go on from time to time until a revision article came up.


----------

