# Tarantula hair growth?



## Mariemarie (Dec 22, 2011)

After a tarantula molts is that the harriest they generally get? I have a rosehair and I am very fond of the fuzzy appearence. She just molted and hasn't been kicking hairs (At me at least!) and she seems kind of bare. Not alarmingly but I have seen some pretty fluffy rosehairs out there. Does it just depend on the spider?


----------



## Chris_Skeleton (Dec 22, 2011)

The only thing they can really lose between molts is the hair on the abdomen. If it kicked the hairs off before it molted, they regenerated in the molt. If you want a fuzzy T, get a B. albopilosum. They have the craziest hair.


----------



## grayzone (Dec 22, 2011)

there are alot of fuzzy/ hairy ts ......if you use the search function here , or google, youll find what ya need


----------



## Bill S (Dec 22, 2011)

The hair of a tarantula is not like mammal hair - it does not grow from a follicle like human hairs do.  It's part of the exoskeleton and is "full length" as soon as a tarantula molts.  It will not grow between molts.  Is this what you were asking?


----------



## Mariemarie (Dec 22, 2011)

Thanks so much for the help! I've tried to find information on this before. I'm very content with my Rosehair I just thought she may get a little fluffier xD


----------



## kanito107 (Dec 22, 2011)

No they don't Grow hair like we do, baca use they don't have any. They just regenerate they're cuticle after each molt.


----------



## Bill S (Dec 22, 2011)

kanito107 said:


> No they don't Grow hair like we do, baca use they don't have any.


Technically, they DO have hair - but there are many kinds of hair.  Their hair is, as you indicate, cuticle - but human hair is also a form of cuticle, not much different from our fingernails.  Just produced in a different manner than tarantula hair.  Theirs is formed along with the rest of the exoskeleton and does not grow through it.  Ours grows through our skins independent of skin growth and shedding (and yes, we shed our skin too - but in tiny pieces).  But some forms of mammal hair are different than what humans grow - the "horn" of a rhinoceros is also hair.


----------



## kanito107 (Dec 22, 2011)

Okay we'll what exactly is it that your saying. The hair like follicle we see is part of their whole body which is also made our of cuticle so it doesbt grow back like it does on human hair when we pluck it.
But if you want to say a tarantula has hair then so be it


----------



## Anonymity82 (Dec 23, 2011)

They aren't hairs. Their bristles. They are similar in appearance but there is much that makes it different. Your T's hair will not grow after it molts and hardens. It will not get fluffier until possibly it's next molt. Calling it "hair" just makes it easier for everyone.

---------- Post added 12-23-2011 at 12:40 AM ----------




njnolan1 said:


> They aren't hairs. Their bristles. They are similar in appearance but there is much that makes it different. Your T's hair will not grow after it molts and hardens. It will not get fluffier until possibly it's next molt. Calling it "hair" just makes it easier for everyone.


They're bristles.*

---------- Post added 12-23-2011 at 12:55 AM ----------




Bill S said:


> Technically, they DO have hair - but there are many kinds of hair.  Their hair is, as you indicate, cuticle - but human hair is also a form of cuticle, not much different from our fingernails.  Just produced in a different manner than tarantula hair.  Theirs is formed along with the rest of the exoskeleton and does not grow through it.  Ours grows through our skins independent of skin growth and shedding (and yes, we shed our skin too - but in tiny pieces).  But some forms of mammal hair are different than what humans grow - the "horn" of a rhinoceros is also hair.


Isn't "hair" just a singular form of cuticle? So a horn would be a different type of cuticle but not actually "hair" right? The compounds are similar, but the result is different, one being hair, one being a horn and one being a bristle? This is probably a bad analogy; if you take a certain type of plastic and create three different products, such as a bottle, a bowl, and a glass you can say they are all made out of the same thing, but you can't call the glass a bottle or a bowl a glass.


----------



## Rob1985 (Dec 23, 2011)

"Fluffy T's are Itchy T's"


----------



## grayzone (Dec 23, 2011)

she's supposed to learn THE SAME WAY I DID lol... dont give away suprise endings:sneaky:


----------



## Bill S (Dec 23, 2011)

njnolan1 said:


> They aren't hairs. Their bristles. ..............
> So a horn would be a different type of cuticle but not actually "hair" right? The compounds are similar, but the result is different, one being hair, one being a horn and one being a bristle?


The dictionary definition of hair does not in any way restrict the meaning to mammal hair, or even animal hair.  For some reason, people like to assume that only one kind of hair is "true" hair, but that belief is not supported scientifically or linguistically.  As for your theory on horn vs hair - you're on the wrong track.  Rhino horn is actually true mammal hair, made or keratin, same as human hair or fingernails.  Obviously a very specialized growth form, but still hair.  And it is not the same as other growths that we refer to as horns - such as those that decorate a cow's head.  (These are also made of keratin, but have a bone core.)  And of course deer antlers are something else altogether, although the material is sometimes called horn.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Dec 23, 2011)

Let's sort this thing out properly once and for all.

First, contrary to popular belief, dictionaries are not very good gold standards for the technical terms used in our language. They merely try to interpret the meanings of those technical terms as used by the experts who invented them and use them all the time. And, since those technical definitions often employ arcane and esoteric concepts, the dictionaries often either get it wrong or try to generalize the definitions so much as to make them useless except in grade school. In at least this way, dictionaries aren't much better than TV documentaries. Bottom lines:

1> The dictionary is only second string.
2> The dictionary isn't always correct.
3> Don't completely trust the dictionary.

Secondly, you may use the term _hair_ for the fuzzy stuff on spiders, especially tarantulas, as long as you do not do so around arachnophiles (who should know better), in formal publications and documents (where *YOU'RE* supposed to know better), or in TV documentaries (which shouldn't be passing off such mistruths as real knowledge). The hair-like growths on arthropods in general and tarantulas in particular are technically known as _setae_. We call them _bristles_ in the vernacular.

Setae and hair (*sensu stricto*) have completely different phylogenetic origins, embryonic origins, structure, chemistry, and morphology. They only seem similar to someone who hasn't taken the time to look at them.

Except for a superficial resemblance to "real" hair (a resemblance that disappears with even minimal magnification) they have little or nothing in common. To understand the full depth of meaning behind that statement would require a lot more time and space than we have here. I suggest you Google *hair site:.edu*, then Google *setae site:.edu* and after scanning through the hits perform a little compare and contrast exercise.

We have evidence of arthropod setae on fossils found in the Burgess Shale and other fossils even predating the Burgess Shale. (And those were aquatic/marine animals.) That's something in the neighborhood of 550 million years old, more than half a *B*illion years old! "Hair" in the formal sense is *reserved entirely and completely for mammals*, which probably appeared much less than 300 million years ago. (And those were terrestrial animals.) Thus, there is about a *quarter of a billion year gap* between the first setae and the first hair.

Setae and hair arise from different embryonic tissues and have vastly different structures. And, their method for growth, regrowth and/or replacement are vastly different.

Lastly, the principle component of hair is a protein called keratin. The principle component of arthropod setae is a polysaccharide, chitin, and a number of proteins, resilin being one of the more common. Thus, setae and hair have radically different chemical compositions.

Now you have it. Test next Friday!

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Anonymity82 (Dec 23, 2011)

Bill S said:


> The dictionary definition of hair does not in any way restrict the meaning to mammal hair, or even animal hair.  For some reason, people like to assume that only one kind of hair is "true" hair, but that belief is not supported scientifically or linguistically.  As for your theory on horn vs hair - you're on the wrong track.  Rhino horn is actually true mammal hair, made or keratin, same as human hair or fingernails.  Obviously a very specialized growth form, but still hair.  And it is not the same as other growths that we refer to as horns - such as those that decorate a cow's head.  (These are also made of keratin, but have a bone core.)  And of course deer antlers are something else altogether, although the material is sometimes called horn.


"A threadlike out growth esp. on the skin of mammals" The MW Dictionary.

---------- Post added 12-23-2011 at 12:25 PM ----------




njnolan1 said:


> "A threadlike out growth esp. on the skin of mammals" The MW Dictionary.


This definition doesn't restrict the meaning, but suggests it. It doesn't go any deeper than that. I agree with you that rhino horns and fingernails and T bristles are all made with the same/similar substance(s). I guess it's just the term "hair" that is disputed. I am by no means an expert, I have just recently been studying tarantulas but, I have found that the use of the term "hair" is sometimes disputed between experts and I guess I am going with the "a horn is a horn, a bristle is a bristle and a hair is a hair" side. Thanks for all your information though!

---------- Post added 12-23-2011 at 12:29 PM ----------




njnolan1 said:


> "A threadlike out growth esp. on the skin of mammals" The MW Dictionary.
> 
> Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly. "A threadlike out growth esp. _from_ the skin of mammals; also: a covering or a growth of hairs of an animal or a body part" The Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anonymity82 (Dec 23, 2011)

Definitely should have used the TKG as a reference for this discussion. This is why:"Tarantulas do not have hair. Neither do any other species of spiders. 'Hair' is a uniquely mammalian structure. In fact, it is one of the key characteristics that define a mammal. No other creatures on planet Earth possesses hair except mammals. If an organism has hair, by definition it's a mammal. Mammalian hair and the structures that we see on tarantulas have completely different origins, shapes, ,and anatomical structures, and any resemblance is entirely superficial". (TKG, pg 28) I feel embarrassed. I just read this a few days ago.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Dec 26, 2011)

njnolan1 said:


> Definitely should have used the TKG as a reference for this discussion. ... (TKG, pg 28) I feel embarrassed. I just read this a few days ago.


No reason for any of you to be embarrassed. It took me literally years to compile what you read in TKG and I still have to go back and refresh my (failing!) memory about specific facets of tarantula biology from it. You certainly shouldn't have your feet held to the fire when I'm having difficulty! *The test next Friday is hereby cancelled!* (I forgot what I was supposed to be testing you on.) 

BTW, I would like to strongly recommend that any of you who are interested in spider (in general) biology get a copy of Ranier Foelix' book *Biology of Spiders*. The newer edition contains a lot of "stuff" about tarantulas in response to the requests of enthusiasts and the popularity of the hobby. The book sells for something like US $43, but maybe a local college of university library has a copy you can borrow.

Did you know? The Amazon Kindle edition is significantly less expensive, however. You don't have a Kindle? No problem. You can download *FREE* apps for almost all smart phones, iPads, Macs, PCs, etc., at *Free Kindle Reading Apps*. You don't have to blow $200 on a Kindle just so you can read about spiders!

Now all we need to do is convince Barron's to issue a Kindle edition of TKG3 to run on the *Kindle Fire*.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Anonymity82 (Dec 26, 2011)

WOw, I will definitely keep that on my wish list! I would rather read the book than electronically but that's still really good to know. Thanks!


----------



## Stan Schultz (Dec 28, 2011)

njnolan1 said:


> ... Can I bookmark you?! That was awesome explanation. Thank you! ...


Of course. Be my guest.


----------

