# why are people doing this?!



## codykrr (Dec 27, 2008)

Ok i have come across now on several occastions where people are breeding B. albopilsum(curly hair) with B. vegans(red rump) and im wondering why? bordum? also i know its a hybrid but how do you classify this kind of happening and what would or is its name be? i mean the only explenation for this i have is charactoristic traits from both sp. that people want in one T, or am i wrong? and is this a far more common thing that is becoming because i have just recently noticed peole doing this, at least with these 2 sp. in particular.


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 27, 2008)

Run a search on it; there's plenty of info out there without getting into another discussion about the 'H' word.

Also, they are spelled albopilosum and vagans.


----------



## codykrr (Dec 27, 2008)

yeah sorry about the spelling. but i did run a search about these two sp. and nothing came up....:?


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 27, 2008)

codykrr said:


> yeah sorry about the spelling. but i did run a search about these two sp. and nothing came up....:?


I think people try breeding the two together for various reasons.  Boredom could very well be one of them.  I think those two are relatively simple to breed together when compared to other crossbreeding attempts.

I personally believe it confuses the crap out of the hobby and isn't worth doing for any reason.  But that's my personal opinion. ;P


----------



## codykrr (Dec 27, 2008)

yeah for sure, im against cross breeds but i have noticed it becoming more of a problem now days....like my buddy said when i asked him about this "wel in the 70s that wasnt a problem but people accepting the fact you own spiders as pets was and still is...." and sorry about the spelling i just got a new keyboad for my ps3 that attaches too the controler and im still learning....so far the buttons are small (computer broke so i resorted to using the ps3)


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 27, 2008)

Hmm my albovagans are kinda cute. 
A really bad picture but you get the idea. I should get some current ones.


----------



## Dreamslave (Dec 27, 2008)

WOW very cute indeed!


----------



## squinn (Dec 27, 2008)

I don't have an opinion about hybrids on T's yet. However this whole debate has raged for years with snakes and I definately do enjoy hybrids in that capacity. The market is driven by the new and unusual a fact that just has to be accepted otherwise people wouldn't be paying tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for new ball python morphs. I have many fabulous looking hybrid snakes in my collection and greatly enjoy them, however you are right in the sense that hybrids if misidentified can water down a pure genetic pool, but so does mixing localities where the same species has begun to seperately evolve due to habitat fragmentation or just plain distance. Seems most of the old school herpers are the ones that really get upset at hybrids seems the younger guys and gals are much more accepting of hybrids. I fully believe in the case of endangered species steps should be taken to ensure assurance colonies are kept pure otherwise captive animals are not ever intended to be released into the wild so a bit of playing God with their genetics shouldn't matter terribly much..........I have a feeling there will be no lack of strong opinions on this one lol.


----------



## arachyd (Dec 27, 2008)

Awwww! They're adorable.


----------



## Boanerges (Dec 27, 2008)

> Talkenlate04 Hmm my albovagans are kinda cute.


Gotta admit, those are neat looking. Nice pics man!


----------



## Merfolk (Dec 27, 2008)

It's an experiment,   valuable if the end result is very different from the parent sp. An hybrid looking like absolutely nothing else would be worth  the trouble, but if it looks too much like an existing sp, then there is the risk of mislabeling it and breed it later as pure breed, which is the exact problem we try to avoid.


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 27, 2008)

Those guys are getting big, Ryan.  I have to say though, I see nothing about that particular cross that would make me want one.  They're just another dull-looking tarantula, in my opinion.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 27, 2008)

xhexdx said:


> Those guys are getting big, Ryan.  I have to say though, I see nothing about that particular cross that would make me want one.  They're just another dull-looking tarantula, in my opinion.


I did not do it to make anyone want one so I am glad you don't want one.


----------



## samsbugs (Dec 27, 2008)

Personally I think most of them are quite cool and I have a few myself. I have crossed them to find a new look, mostly they look like the parents with a color difference, nothing to exiting, but kinda cool.

Doing it for personal reasons is not going to hurt anything, see what you come up with and keep them for your personal enjoyment.
Getting them in the hands of anyone that wants one may cause lots of problems. Althoug it's probably been done so often most of us would never know if we had one, and are hybridising without knowledge.
 Lots of mixed opinions on this topic.


----------



## arman (Dec 27, 2008)

In my country Brachypelma albogans(this is how we call it)is a big issue.Almost nobody wants to get baby albopilosum or vagans.The albopolosum-couse most of the people says that there is no B.albopilosum in my country at all,and B.vagans-couse the chance to get albogans or albovagans,or whatever you call it,is higher than to get a vagans.The beginners are not interested about the spieces,but about the size(there is no petshop selling t's here)and when they see an offer let's say subadult"albopilosum" for the same prize as b.smithi sling for example,they just go for it.There are lots of people breeding and selling this kind of hibrid hereI have two of them,still too small to say,but i am like 95% sure they are not B.albopilosum


----------



## T Frank (Dec 28, 2008)

Ryan, those are cool, can I have one:}


----------



## Franklin (Dec 28, 2008)

just like the Venezuelan sun tiger cross breed with a trinidad chevron you have?

the curly x vagans are mules and are infertile, so you cant breed them and "mess up the worlds curlies and red rumps" but if you can breed ANY dogs i dont see why not T's. . .

some hybrids can breed i think


----------



## JungleCage (Dec 28, 2008)

Franklin said:


> just like the Venezuelan sun tiger cross breed with a trinidad chevron you have?
> 
> the curly x vagans are mules and are infertile, so you cant breed them and "mess up the worlds curlies and red rumps" but if you can breed ANY dogs i dont see why not T's. . .
> 
> some hybrids can breed i think


dogs are all the same sp.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 28, 2008)

Franklin said:


> the curly x vagans are mules and are infertile, so you cant breed them and "mess up the worlds curlies and red rumps"


Where is your information backing this statement up?:? 
I see no reason at all that will prevent them from breeding in the future.


----------



## dtknow (Dec 28, 2008)

arman said:


> In my country Brachypelma albogans(this is how we call it)is a big issue.Almost nobody wants to get baby albopilosum or vagans.The albopolosum-couse most of the people says that there is no B.albopilosum in my country at all,and B.vagans-couse the chance to get albogans or albovagans,or whatever you call it,is higher that to get a vagans.The beginners are not interested about the spieces,but about the size(there is no petshop selling t's here)and when they see an offer let's say subadult"albopilosum" for the same prize as b.smithi sling for example,they just go for it.There are lots of people breeding and selling this kind of hibrid hereI have two of them,still too small to say,but i am like 95% sure they are not B.albopilosum


This scares me! 

If Ryan told me those were little vagans, or maybe angustum or something...I'd totally buy it. You can't tell when they are slings. Its hard to follow his reasoning but when people are not sure of the indentity then no one is going to want them. Hybrid people want something distinctive and new(albovagans and other T hybrids really are not), and well, the rest of us want the T's as they looked originally. You see this alot with fish also. 

And FTR I am a younger member of the hobby.


----------



## barabootom (Dec 28, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Where is your information backing this statement up?:?
> I see no reason at all that will prevent them from breeding in the future.


I don't have a source, but I used to breed Hyalophora cecropia and Hyalophora colombia.  (I know this occurs in the wild quite often because I observed it)  The larvae would mature and the moths would hatch and breed and produce infertile eggs.  I think there's a good chance the albovagans will be infertile.  I guess you gotta try it to find out.   

I personally don't like the idea of hybrids unless it's done by someone who is responsible enough to keep them out of the market.


----------



## bliss (Dec 28, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Where is your information backing this statement up?:?
> I see no reason at all that will prevent them from breeding in the future.



LOL exactly what i was about to type out, ryan 

those you have aren't even breeding age/size yet are they?  

btw, ryan _isn't_ supplying the hobby with these hybrids    the hybrids you sometimes see pop up for sale come from another source(s).

peace out


----------



## AzJohn (Dec 28, 2008)

I have no problem with what Ryan and Sam and others are doing. I have a few hybrids, and as long as I know what they are and what the cross is then it's fine. The big problem with hybridization is that a lot of people are doing it without any real idea about what they are doing. Breeding wild caught Avics or buying the Red Rump from the pets store without knowing the species name is were a lot of problems are. Then people sell Avic avic that are really somthing else and B Vagans that are vagans/angustum mutts. 

John


----------



## squinn (Dec 28, 2008)

AzJohn said:


> And FTR I am a younger member of the hobby.


 I have no problem with what Ryan and Sam and others are doing. I have a few hybrids, and as long as I know what they are and what the cross is then it's fine. The big problem with hybridization is that a lot of people are doing it without any real idea about what they are doing. Breeding wild caught Avics or buying the Red Rump from the pets store without knowing the species name is were a lot of problems are. Then people sell Avic avic that are really somthing else and B Vagans that are vagans/angustum mutts. 

John[/QUOTE]

It is important to note how many times have we seen "unidentified" T's for sale which missidentification could lead to hybridization by accident anyway so in my opinion the genie left the bottle a long time ago. As far as possible impure genetic lines of mexican red rumps  and such a lot of them end up in the hands of beginner hobbyists (I know I did when i first started) who are unlikely to care if they are pure or not due to them being not particularly expensive and a beginner T. I would also like to point out things like Hyalophora cecropia and Hyalophora colombia which bases solely on classification in my opinion are not technically hybrids but rather sub-species same as breeding an elaphe guttata (cornsnake) to a elaphe obsoleta (black ratsnake) one could almost make the arguement sub-species are so closely related in many cases they are almost more localities and color phases than seperate species.


BTW does anyone know if anyone has successfully crossed avic avic and a. versicolor?, i'd seriously be interested in that cross.


----------



## Merfolk (Dec 28, 2008)

squinn said:


> BTW does anyone know if anyone has successfully crossed avic avic and a. versicolor?, i'd seriously be interested in that cross.


The one cross i would make would be versi/fasciata or geroldi/minatrix!  Nothing that remotely looks like the regular Avicularia avicularia or metallica should ever be cross-bred again, because now we are never sure exactly of what we have. People (mostly unvoluntary) mated spiders of different variety that looked similar, and that's the cause of the mess that anti hybrid people point to.

I consider the experience justified if the result is something totally unseen and new ; and not to be mistaken with an existing species. Why bother hybrid to obtain something that resembles an existing sp?  I would never do it with sp that are too much alike, and if it doesn't work with the combinations  that I have in mind, so be it. It wasn't meant to exist.


----------



## David Burns (Dec 28, 2008)

Talkenlate04 said:


> Where is your information backing this statement up?:?
> I see no reason at all that will prevent them from breeding in the future.


Hennig's theory of biological species says that true hybrids are sterile.  This theory says if you breed two seperate species together and get viable young, then one or both of the parental species needs to be reclassified as similar species or subspecies. I am paraphrasing what I read.

Hennig's theory has been usurped in the last few decades by numerous other theories. But IMO still hasn't been totally ruled out.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 28, 2008)

David Burns said:


> Hennig's theory of biological species says that true hybrids are sterile.  This theory says if you breed two seperate species together and get viable young, then one or both of the parental species needs to be reclassified as similar species or subspecies. I am paraphrasing what I read.
> 
> Hennig's theory has been usurped in the last few decades by numerous other theories. But IMO still hasn't been totally ruled out.


David, are you referring to Willi Hennig? Part of my research is on the nature of species, and I don't know of anyone who's subscribed to Hennig's view. But then, there are over 20 different species 'concepts,' including my own I've published on recently.

Interfertility is not a requirement to discern species. If it were, then most orchids around the world would be the same species.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## squinn (Dec 28, 2008)

chone1 said:


> David, are you referring to Willi Hennig? Part of my research is on the nature of species, and I don't know of anyone who's subscribed to Hennig's view. But then, there are over 20 different species 'concepts,' including my own I've published on recently.
> 
> Interfertility is not a requirement to discern species. If it were, then most orchids around the world would be the same species.


I have to agree with that statement 100% If you can breed old world colubrids successfully with new world colubrids and still have them viable (thinking here specifically of korean ratsnakexcornsnake) anything is possible. Not to mention the success of breeding Boids from different continents together successfully, not sure if anyone has proved out the offspring on those yet but I am unaware of any reptile hybrid that is known to be 100% sterile so I see no reason to believe arachnids would be sterile although I admit the door must be left open to that possible just a bit.


----------



## FuzzOctave (Dec 28, 2008)

I figured I'd throw in my $0.02. 1) People are going to do whatever they wish when it comes to animals in their care. 2) People are always going to be curious enough to find answers to questions that sometimes shouldn't be asked. (IMHO)

I'm all for any of you doing what you see fit to entertain yourselves, or further your knowledge, so long as these hybrids DO NOT ever make it into trade, identified as some "legitimate" species. How does one make that guarantee?

 I guess what I'm saying is that I totally disagree with hybridizing, but it's an individual's decision to make and my opinion is just that: mine.

:wall:


----------



## David Burns (Dec 28, 2008)

chone1 said:


> David, are you referring to Willi Hennig? Part of my research is on the nature of species, and I don't know of anyone who's subscribed to Hennig's view. But then, there are over 20 different species 'concepts,' including my own I've published on recently.
> 
> Interfertility is not a requirement to discern species. If it were, then most orchids around the world would be the same species.


I only posted it as a response to someone asking for info on backing up another post.  I did mention that this theory is not the only one.  This is the theory that was used to define species for decades. Many of the species that we deal with were defined this way.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 28, 2008)

FuzzOctave said:


> I'm all for any of you doing what you see fit to entertain yourselves, or further your knowledge, so long as these hybrids DO NOT ever make it into trade, identified as some "legitimate" species. How does one make that guarantee?


The best way to preclude invalid species names getting distributed is to avoid terms like "albovagans," as I've seen in this thread. If one wants to refer to a hybrid, then use the notation, _B. vagans _x _B. albopilosum_.


----------



## patrick86 (Dec 28, 2008)

Just curious Ryan did you breed the two hybrids in the photo? They are very unique looking. Thanks.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 28, 2008)

David Burns said:


> I only posted it as a response to someone asking for info on backing up another post.  I did mention that this theory is not the only one.  This is the theory that was used to define species for decades. Many of the species that we deal with were defined this way.


I just found it intriguing to see Hennig's name pop up here. Usually he's referred to among us nerdy systematists.


----------



## matthias (Dec 28, 2008)

David Burns said:


> Hennig's theory of biological species says that true hybrids are sterile.  This theory says if you breed two seperate species together and get viable young, then one or both of the parental species needs to be reclassified as similar species or subspecies. I am paraphrasing what I read.
> 
> Hennig's theory has been usurped in the last few decades by numerous other theories. But IMO still hasn't been totally ruled out.


you forgot an important part of that theory. It says if two animals breed IN NATURE. It says nothing about human intervention.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 28, 2008)

matthias said:


> you forgot an important part of that theory. It says if two animals breed IN NATURE. It says nothing about human intervention.


Interfertility in nature predates Hennig, e.g. the biological species concept. The difficulty, however, is that hybrid zones are a reality. Also, asexual and obligate hermaphroditic organisms are not given consideration. And, for example, for organisms that are identical but distributed on far flung islands, they are still referred to the same species, yet clearly are unable to interbreed.


----------



## Euronymous (Dec 28, 2008)

I have a serious problem with these animals. First of all they are very pretty. Second of all I don't how much they cost or where to get them; bringing me to my fourth problem, I probably cant afford one even if I could. And for the final problem? I am so bored that I writing this.

          Nice pics talkin


----------



## Euronymous (Dec 28, 2008)

On a serious note, would you put a new set of wheel on a stock 65 mustang? These animals are not in captivity, and assuming they wont be- whats the big deal? Some one mentioned ball python morphs. You can guy CH or CB "naturals" or you can morphs. The thing is keeping the hyrids and possibly color morphs in arachnids while maintaining an even healthier stock of "pure" species. Just my thoughts, it does not matter; maybe a thought will be had from it.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 28, 2008)

Euronymous said:


> You can guy CH or CB "naturals" or you can morphs. The thing is keeping the hyrids and possibly color morphs in arachnids while maintaining an even healthier stock of "pure" species. Just my thoughts, it does not matter; maybe a thought will be had from it.


Technically, there are no issues with hybrids in captivity if one's intent is to produce something that looks different. 

Where there might be issues is if one is selling individuals with no clear indication that they're hybrids. Those interested in future breeding would certainly want to know such matters.


----------



## Merfolk (Dec 28, 2008)

Euronymous said:


> The thing is keeping the hyrids and possibly color morphs in arachnids while maintaining an even healthier stock of "pure" species. Just my thoughts, it does not matter; maybe a thought will be had from it.



Pretty much it. Hybrids should remain an occasional occurrence.


----------



## Venom (Dec 28, 2008)

chone1 said:


> Technically, there are no issues with hybrids in captivity if one's intent is to produce something that looks different.
> 
> Where there might be issues is if one is selling individuals with no clear indication that they're hybrids. Those interested in future breeding would certainly want to know such matters.


What it does do, on the other hand, is waste breeding efforts. It consumes time, and often males that could be used to produce viable, pure-species offspring. Many of our T's are NOT available for import anymore, and are maintained in captivity by our breeding efforts. Diverting time and specimens to pointless and fruitless hybridizing is detrimental to our efforts to increase the number of specimens of many rarer species, and thereby hurts our hobby.


----------



## JDeRosa (Dec 28, 2008)

Hmmm. What is their temperment like? Do they burrow like a Vagans?


----------



## Kirk (Dec 28, 2008)

Venom said:


> Diverting time and specimens to pointless and fruitless hybridizing is detrimental to our efforts to increase the number of specimens of many rarer species, and thereby hurts our hobby.


What one does in their home regarding breeding is not something that can be regulated by the community of hobbyists.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Dec 28, 2008)

Venom said:


> Diverting time and specimens to pointless and fruitless hybridizing is detrimental to our efforts to increase the number of specimens of many rarer species, and thereby hurts our hobby.


I disagree with that thought. I have bred my share of Ts this year, legit breeding that had nothing to do with crossing species. My own experiment should not negate all of my other efforts especially when none of the offspring from my crossing ever made it into the hobby. 
I know your comment was not directed directly at me, but it did include me so I felt the need to voice my disagreement.


----------



## AzJohn (Dec 28, 2008)

Venom said:


> What it does do, on the other hand, is waste breeding efforts. It consumes time, and often males that could be used to produce viable, pure-species offspring. Many of our T's are NOT available for import anymore, and are maintained in captivity by our breeding efforts. Diverting time and specimens to pointless and fruitless hybridizing is detrimental to our efforts to increase the number of specimens of many rarer species, and thereby hurts our hobby.


I agree with you to some extent, however most of the tarantulas used in hybridization are fairly common. How many people are going to use a rare male for this when they can put it out on loan or sell it? The risk of losing a MM is too great. Who in their right mind would use a MM P metallica in an attempt to make a hybrid? If he gets eaten or the slings are sickly then you wasted the male. I think the great majority of keepers understand that, and would send him off to a same species pairing, at least them you would get a chance at some desirable slings. Who would purchase a rare MM just to try making a hybrid, when the chances of success are so slim? I wouldn't be able to afford it.

John


----------



## barabootom (Dec 29, 2008)

squinn said:


> I would also like to point out things like Hyalophora cecropia and Hyalophora colombia which bases solely on classification in my opinion are not technically hybrids but rather sub-species


Hyalophora cecropia and hyalophora colombia are currently taxinomically classified as different species.  Whether you want to call them sub-species or not, by crossing them you get 100% infertility.  This happens whether you cross the hybrids to themselves, or if you cross the hybrids back to pure cecropia or pure colombia.  Their ranges overlap and natural crossbreeding does occur, but produces a dead end.  I believe vagans and albos probably naturally breed in a similar fashion in the wild and probably produce infertility in both the males and females.  I would love to see Ryan cross his albovagans (I like the name albovagans, but was it an albo male and female vagans or vice versa?) to see if they produce viable offspring.  It's a question worth answering and I'm looking forward to Ryan answering it.  Some of you textbook scientists can pull out all the thoeries you want and argue parts of them until your blue in the face, but do the cross and give us some real info please.


----------



## squinn (Dec 29, 2008)

barabootom said:


> Hyalophora cecropia and hyalophora colombia are currently taxinomically classified as different species.  Whether you want to call them sub-species or not, by crossing them you get 100% infertility.  This happens whether you cross the hybrids to themselves, or if you cross the hybrids back to pure cecropia or pure colombia.  Their ranges overlap and natural crossbreeding does occur, but produces a dead end.  I believe vagans and albos probably naturally breed in a similar fashion in the wild and probably produce infertility in both the males and females.  I would love to see Ryan cross his albovagans (I like the name albovagans, but was it an albo male and female vagans or vice versa?) to see if they produce viable offspring.  It's a question worth answering and I'm looking forward to Ryan answering it.  Some of you textbook scientists can pull out all the thoeries you want and argue parts of them until your blue in the face, but do the cross and give us some real info please.


Well if your theory is correct about infertility than all the Ballyhoo about producing hybrids and the problems they will cause will be completely irrelevent as they would be a dead end as you say. I am curious what you base your theory that they will be infertile on. Seems there are many more examples in nature of fertile hybrids than infertile dead ends.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 29, 2008)

barabootom said:


> I would love to see Ryan cross his albovagans (I like the name albovagans, but was it an albo male and female vagans or vice versa?) to see if they produce viable offspring.  It's a question worth answering and I'm looking forward to Ryan answering it.  Some of you textbook scientists can pull out all the thoeries you want and argue parts of them until your blue in the face, but do the cross and give us some real info please.


And such a cross would produce what relevant information? What if the cross produces fertile offspring? infertile offspring? Either way, the results don't impinge on the species hypotheses called _B. vagans _and _B. albopilosum_. Hybrid zones are not uncommon, and interfertility is not evidence against recognizing distinct species.

Just sign me one of those "textbook scientists," with 30 years of field research experience, with whom you express unfounded disdain.


----------



## barabootom (Dec 29, 2008)

squinn said:


> Well if your theory is correct about infertility than all the Ballyhoo about producing hybrids and the problems they will cause will be completely irrelevent as they would be a dead end as you say. I am curious what you base your theory that they will be infertile on. Seems there are many more examples in nature of fertile hybrids than infertile dead ends.


I know there's no guarantee they will be infertile, just a liklyhood, in my opinion.  I'm basing my opinion on actual breeding of cecropia and colombia.  I don't know what will happen with Ts.  It needs to be done to find out.  You're right, both fertile hybrids and infertile hybrids are proven.  Here are a few fun ones....

A leopon  (leopard/lion cross) resulted in 100% infertile offspring.  
Ligers (lion/tiger cross) Males are sterile while the females are often fertile.
Wolf/dog hybrids are mostly fertile in both male and female.
A Zebroid (horse/zebra cross)   Both male and female fertile offspring have been reported but generally fertility rates are low.
A cama (camel/llama cross) Only one mature male exists and is assumed sterile since mules are sterile.
Turkey-chicken crosses, when successful, produced all males.

Personally, I'm hoping the T hybrids will be infertile.  





chone1 said:


> And such a cross would produce what relevant information? What if the cross produces fertile offspring? infertile offspring? Either way, the results don't impinge on the species hypotheses called _B. vagans _and _B. albopilosum_. Hybrid zones are not uncommon, and interfertility is not evidence against recognizing distinct species.
> 
> Just sign me one of those "textbook scientists," with 30 years of field research experience, with whom you express unfounded disdain.


Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you in any way.  I'm not a biologist and I don't hold you in disdain.  (Although I think it would be an interesting turn of events since many biologists hold hobbiests in disdain.    )  The point I was trying to make is we don't know if the T hybrids will be fertile or not.  And why is it relevant?  Just because I'd like to know what the end result is.  Any unanswered question deserves an answer if we can find one.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 29, 2008)

barabootom said:


> You're right, both fertile hybrids and infertile hybrids are proven.  Here are a few fun ones....
> 
> A leopon  (leopard/lion cross) resulted in 100% infertile offspring.
> Ligers (lion/tiger cross) Males are sterile while the females are often fertile.
> ...


Actually, your examples point out an important caveat, that hybridization often occurs under extenuating circumstances. There is the tendency for members of different species with overlap to have isolating mechanisms, e.g. behavioral, that preclude hybridization, or at least keep the hybrid zone narrow.



barabootom said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you in any way.  I'm not a biologist and I don't hold you in disdain.  (Although I think it would be an interesting turn of events since many biologists hold hobbiests in disdain.    )  The point I was trying to make is we don't know if the T hybrids will be fertile or not.  And why is it relevant?  Just because I'd like to know what the end result is.  Any unanswered question deserves an answer if we can find one.


No offense taken. I'm also a hobbyist (and I assure you, I have biologist colleagues to which the term 'disdain' _does_ apply!). I find the wealth of knowledge on AB to be fantastic. I just try to sprinkle in a bit of science here and there if I think it might be useful.


----------



## upwith inverts! (Dec 29, 2008)

so what I got from this is that all tarantulas in the same genus are able to hybridize. If this is true, then couldn't this be used to find the true genus of a tarantula species with a diputed genus? i.e. there is debate over if Lasiodora sp. A is in Lasiodora or Acanthoscuria. So then someone attempts multiple times to hybridize Lasiodora sp. A with Lasiodora sp. B, a ell established species in the genus. All of the attempts fail. Then, someone attempts multiple times to breed Lasiodora sp. A with Aacanthoscuria sp. A, a well established species in the Genus Acanthoscuria. All of the attempts succeed. Is this considered definitive evidence that Lasiodora sp. A is really in acanthoscuria?


----------



## jasen&crystal (Dec 29, 2008)

vary cute i want one


----------



## Kirk (Dec 29, 2008)

upwith inverts! said:


> so what I got from this is that all tarantulas in the same genus are able to hybridize. If this is true, then couldn't this be used to find the true genus of a tarantula species with a diputed genus? i.e. there is debate over if Lasiodora sp. A is in Lasiodora or Acanthoscuria. So then someone attempts multiple times to hybridize Lasiodora sp. A with Lasiodora sp. B, a ell established species in the genus. All of the attempts fail. Then, someone attempts multiple times to breed Lasiodora sp. A with Aacanthoscuria sp. A, a well established species in the Genus Acanthoscuria. All of the attempts succeed. Is this considered definitive evidence that Lasiodora sp. A is really in acanthoscuria?


No, members of a species in any particular genus are _not_ necessarily interfertile. Being able to interbreed is a primitive character, which in some instances is not lost among a group of organisms regardless of phylogenetic distance. Disputes as to assignment of an individual to a genus resides with the presence or absence of the characters to which the genus refers as a phylogenetic hypothesis. Such disputes tend to indicate that one or more genera are in need of revision, which moves the problem down to carefully examining members of the species in those genera.  Interbreeding experiments don't solve that problem.


----------



## squinn (Dec 29, 2008)

upwith inverts! said:


> so what I got from this is that all tarantulas in the same genus are able to hybridize. If this is true, then couldn't this be used to find the true genus of a tarantula species with a diputed genus? i.e. there is debate over if Lasiodora sp. A is in Lasiodora or Acanthoscuria. So then someone attempts multiple times to hybridize Lasiodora sp. A with Lasiodora sp. B, a ell established species in the genus. All of the attempts fail. Then, someone attempts multiple times to breed Lasiodora sp. A with Aacanthoscuria sp. A, a well established species in the Genus Acanthoscuria. All of the attempts succeed. Is this considered definitive evidence that Lasiodora sp. A is really in acanthoscuria?


Wow I really wish it was that simple.............................This kind of taxonomy stuff makes my head hurt and the only cure is a tall glass of Chivas. :wall: :} I'm going to admire some of my getula x elaphe hybrids now that should be more inclined to eat eachother rather than breed to help me maintain some perspective on this thread.


----------



## Kirk (Dec 29, 2008)

squinn said:


> Wow I really wish it was that simple.............................This kind of taxonomy stuff makes my head hurt and the only cure is a tall glass of Chivas.


As a child, my parents told me "Don't do drugs."  What they neglected to tell me was, "Don't become a taxonomist."


----------



## sjl197 (Dec 19, 2009)

As a child, my parents told me "dont keep those creatures they're horrid". I didnt listen. Then my one of my undergrad lecturer's said "don't do taxonomy". Again i didn't listen. Maybe i should have listened. Hindsight is marvellous isn't it.

Right, to the point, sorry to resurrect the thread.

The 1st gen. offspring of B. albopilosum x B. 'vagans' are absolutely fertile.
(when the mother is 100% albopilosum and father is red/black 'vagans', well female 1st gen hybrids at least) Both the 1st and second generation hybrids i have look like those photographed as earlier in the thread.

How do i know? I have done back-crossing of 1st gen. hybrids back with a distinct bloodline of B.'vagans'. I kept and have raised about 10 of these 2nd generation hybrids, and they're all healthy, strong and pretty much adult now. I wait to see if this 2nd generation is fertile... i fear so.

I keep have these hybrids for experimenting like this. I wasnt responsible for the 1st generation hybridisation. I dont like or condone hybridisation, but did the 2nd generation backcross test to assess fertility. It surprises me how many of the Brachypelma species appear inter-fertile, as mentioned in Schultz's excellent book, and i have seen other confirmed hybrids among the redleg species, so i believe credible - though i dont know anything on the fertility of redleg hybrids. Less credibly, I even heard of a B.smithi x vagans hybrid ... but when i got a mature male of that reported hybrid, it was just like a standard redrump male..no big surprise to me. 

Just because hybridization can happen in captivity doesnt mean it does in the wild. Just because species may naturally hybridize in certain parts of their range doent mean they are not valid distinct species (in areas where they dont meet and dont hybridize). Indeed in many natural cases hybridization doesnt happen (no mating or no live offspring for example), while in others the hybrid offspring are less fit (smaller, weaker etc). But, despite all those 'isolating machanisms', sometimes strong viable hybrid offspring can happen. Yes, it leads to doubt on whether the two parent species should really be called distinct species by us humans or not. But, as kirk knows, species can be rather nebulous entities...,so in those problem cases i still especially like the final possible definition of 'a species' that my taxonomy professor gave me, that "a 'good' species is what a competent taxonomist says it is". 

Kirk, too late to tell you, but for the others i will indeed say "Don't become a taxonomist.", but do "consider a career as a competent taxonomist"  !

Class dismissed.
s


----------



## JimM (Dec 19, 2009)

squinn said:


> I don't have an opinion about hybrids on T's yet. However this whole debate has raged for years with snakes and I definately do enjoy hybrids in that capacity. The market is driven by the new and unusual a fact that just has to be accepted otherwise people wouldn't be paying tens of thousands of dollars (or more) for new ball python morphs. I have many fabulous looking hybrid snakes in my collection and greatly enjoy them, however you are right in the sense that hybrids if misidentified can water down a pure genetic pool, but so does mixing localities where the same species has begun to seperately evolve due to habitat fragmentation or just plain distance. Seems most of the old school herpers are the ones that really get upset at hybrids seems the younger guys and gals are much more accepting of hybrids. I fully believe in the case of endangered species steps should be taken to ensure assurance colonies are kept pure otherwise captive animals are not ever intended to be released into the wild so a bit of playing God with their genetics shouldn't matter terribly much..........I have a feeling there will be no lack of strong opinions on this one lol.


You're missing the point.
Hybrids can and do contaminate blood lines. Your purchase a male thinking it's a particular species and breed it as such...now you've produced more hybrids without even knowing it. So you go to sell your "fasciata" slings or whatever the heck you think they are, but in reality you have garbage. Someone buys some but they just don't look right, they're washed out maybe, or they have an aberrant color pattern.

So down the road this blood spreads, and spreads, and you're hard pressed to find true representatives of the actual species. I've seen it happen.

We frown upon it in the fish world, and we frown upon it in the tarantula world for the same reasons.

Lastly, a "morph" is not the same thing as a hybrid, whether we're talking ball pythons or anything else.

I see now I responded to an ancient post.


----------



## codykrr (Dec 19, 2009)

hey...just think of itlike this jim....your just getting an early start on this threads birthday! hahaha  happy birth day old thread...(well almost)


----------



## TarantulaFanBoy (Dec 19, 2009)

If nature didn't create it. Then i wont want it.  That's my view


----------



## JimM (Dec 19, 2009)

On reef board I frequent, we call raising an old thread like this "necroposting"


----------



## JimM (Dec 19, 2009)

TarantulaFanBoy said:


> If nature didn't create it. Then i wont want it.  That's my view


amen......


----------



## HESSWA (Dec 19, 2009)

I have noticed that this particular hybird has gotten out of control as i have seen several slings at pet store here in Michigan (Preuss Pets in Lansing)! Personaly I think hybirdnizing is terrible as  it screws with the whole genus and could even destroy it. Hybirds are usally dull and I see now reason to make them. If you do happen to have some or create some then do not sell them or breed them with other sp. in that genus.


----------



## BlackCat (Dec 19, 2009)

TarantulaFanBoy said:


> If nature didn't create it. Then i wont want it.  That's my view


I hope you don't own any cats or dogs then... lol

Also, hybridizing.. I'd say its fine as long as people don't sell or transfer ownership of any of the offspring, but since that is so unlikely it just shouldn't be done.


----------



## TarantulaFanBoy (Dec 19, 2009)

BlackCat said:


> I hope you don't own any cats or dogs then... lol
> 
> Also, hybridizing.. I'd say its fine as long as people don't sell or transfer ownership of any of the offspring, but since that is so unlikely it just shouldn't be done.


Nope i dont own any cats or Dogs


----------



## Xian (Dec 19, 2009)

TarantulaFanBoy said:


> If nature didn't create it. Then i wont want it.  That's my view


What part of nature did your computer come from?


----------



## TarantulaFanBoy (Dec 19, 2009)

Xian said:


> What part of nature did your computer come from?


Ok since you want to be a Smart ass. I was referring to Animals. Tarantulas in particular.


----------



## Ice Cold Milk (Dec 21, 2009)

Ok - let's stir the pot here.  

I believe it was back in the 1980's that Ceratogyrus species were exported out of South Africa legally, since then there has been a ban, so pretty much NO new blood has come into the lines.  (Shouldn't cause a problem- there were THOUSANDS exported). 
But my point would be this-
compare a true wild caught C. brachycephalus to the "hobby" form.  
Here's a picture of one straight out of the wild






Now compare to any number of those that are in the hobby in the USA/Europe:
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1307292&postcount=12
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1240666&postcount=975
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1464366&postcount=11
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1412951&postcount=159


Now, I'm NOT picking on anyone who owns one of these - you use what you have available to you.  What I'm pointing out is that there are some obvious "muddied" genetics in the hobby form.  We simply do not get any "brachycephalus" that resemble the hobby form occurring naturally in southern Africa.  

My opinion - the true C. brachycephalus was bred with C. darlingi/bechuanicus or another similar species which led to it being much different than the original, while still being able to bear _*fertile*_ offspring.  
I do not think I'm wrong about this, which leads me to believe cross breeding any Theraphosid is traversing a very slippery slope.
See what has happened after only 25 years of "hobby" breeding!!!

EDIT:  
Not picking on the owner - but if you check one of the posts, it states that the tarantula is 5.5" legspan.  C. brachycephalus is the "dwarf" of the Ceratogyrus genus, maxing out at 10cm legspan usually.   C. marshalli and darlingi are quite large in comparison.


----------

