# Hybrid?



## _bob_ (May 26, 2008)

I just wanted to see what everyone thought of this T I have. I bought her a while back as a P. cambridgei... I thought when she was younger that her striping would dissipate when she grew larger. She has been the same coloration since she was about 2.5 inches or so. Anyways now that she is larger I am starting to believe that she is really P. cambridgei x P. irminia.







Bob


----------



## Kimo (May 26, 2008)

She is definatelly looking as a hybrid of those mentioned. If she is bigger then 3.5 inches and still those colors, I am sure she isn't pure P.cambridgei...and stripes on legs are also more orange and intense as I can see in picture...and the abdomen is something between those two species.


----------



## WARPIG (May 26, 2008)

Looks like a light colored irminia, but you can't rule out he H word!!!

PIG-


----------



## _bob_ (May 26, 2008)

Well the thing is that she has a lot of grey. Here is a picture from a few molts ago


----------



## Yung Cae$ar (May 26, 2008)

That's a very pretty T, and could defineately be a hybrid of the two previously mentioned Ts. Thats a nice find if it is a hybrid


----------



## Veneficus (May 27, 2008)

_bob_ said:


> Well the thing is that she has a lot of grey. Here is a picture from a few molts ago



It looks like a male P. irminia, since they have a lot of gray, except the abdomen has more color & stripes on it; although, if it is a male, it might lose that with the ultimate molt.


----------



## _bob_ (May 27, 2008)

Its not a male. It's a female. I bred her around December and she laid an infertile egg sac.

Bob


----------



## hamfoto (May 27, 2008)

Hmmmm...that's very interesting that she laid an infertile eggsac.  I would continue to try and mate her in the future and see what happens.  There are people that know Psalmopoeus that believe cambridgei is just a color variant of irminia.

Chris


----------



## _bob_ (May 27, 2008)

Hmmm... well i have a MM P. cambridgei right now. Do you think I should use a P. cambridgei or a P. irminia MM? Last time it was infertile I used a P. irminia MM.

 We have spoken about this before.... You were saying that you didn't think they were the same species... Since they are from two completely different parts of the world. 

I have been very interested in this particular spider to see if I can even get a viable egg sac out of her. I have thought for a while that she might be a cross but I will give it another try. She just molted recently too.

Something that I will also consider is that the male was infertile. I do not remember the age of him but I believe he might have been pretty fresh.


----------



## _bob_ (May 27, 2008)

Just to add some more photos for the curious people out there...






This is right before the mating actual took place.






This about a week or so before she laid her egg sack.






Laying her egg sack before I left for work






With the sac






Here are her eggs.


----------



## Noexcuse4you (May 28, 2008)

I would advise you not try to mate her.  There's no need to have hybrids in the hobby and it would only mess things up.  In my opinion, cambridgei and irminia are better looking by themselves than a hybrid.  What would you sell the slings as?  What if those slings were mated with a irminia or a cambridgei?  It would only cause problems.  Just look at what happened to the Avicularia genus when people misidentified them.


----------



## DrAce (May 28, 2008)

Breeding isn't a viable way to test if she is a hybrid.  I think these discussions should be had with those who sold you the tarantula, though.

If she cannot produce a viable sac from any matings, then it's possible she was a hybrid.  Then again, if she can produce a viable sac, then that also doesn't mean she wasn't a hybrid.  You could be hybridising her with that mating.


----------



## _bob_ (May 28, 2008)

One thing to keep in mind is that when I first tried to breed her I didn't even consider that she might be a hybrid. Also if I did decide to breed her again. I would not give anyone the slings or even sell them. I really don't want this to turn in to a debate about hybrids.

Bob


----------



## hamfoto (May 29, 2008)

Bob - yeah, I personally wouldn't call them the same species b/c I am a "splitter" and Trinidad is now separate from Venezuela and there are unique species that are endemic to Trinidad...so, I would still consider them different species.  But I do believe that cambridgei came from the irminia lineage or that they both came from a common ancestor.
I would try to mate her with the opposite of the one you mated with her in the past.

Everyone else - this is an experiment...we don't need your thought on whether you think hybrids should be created and sold and put into the hobby.  Bob is trustworthy and he knows what he's doing. And DrAce's comments are correct.

DrAce - I agree that breeding isn't "the" way that you can test as to whether she is a hybrid...but it is a way to get some interesting info to expand upon.  If in fact she is a hybrid and cannot reproduce that gives us some very interesting information on two closely related spiders.

Chris


----------



## DrAce (May 29, 2008)

hamfoto said:


> ...
> DrAce - I agree that breeding isn't "the" way that you can test as to whether she is a hybrid...but it is a way to get some interesting info to expand upon.  If in fact she is a hybrid and cannot reproduce that gives us some very interesting information on two closely related spiders.
> ...


I agree that it would be interesting... but it would be meaningless and is a very bad experiment.

An infertile sac wouldn't tell you if the mating was bad, she's infertile, the male's infertile or if she just had a bad sac.
A fertile sac wouldn't tell you anything more.  She's either back-crossing into her original species or forming a new hybrid (either way).

So, while I agree, it MIGHT tell you something, it's a bad experiment... that's all I'm saying.


----------



## GoTerps (May 29, 2008)

I think these 2 species have been crossed in the hobby for years now.  

Years back, hybrids of the 2 (which are less attractive then either true species IMO) were even sold online to the public by 1 dealer who is no longer around.  I've raised crosses of these 2 species myself, though I don't have any living material today.

The offspring have been shown to be fertile as well.  

I'm NOT saying what Bob has is a hybrid though... really don't know.   I've seen a good bit of natural intraspecific variation with regards to coloration in groups of pure _P. cambridgei_.  

Eric


----------



## syndicate (May 29, 2008)

with no WC imports of these species anymore how does one even know if there irminia or cambridgei is from a pure line?


----------



## pato_chacoana (May 29, 2008)

fertile hybrids offsprings? ohh...that's bad, very bad...


----------



## DrAce (May 29, 2008)

syndicate said:


> with no WC imports of these species anymore how does one even know if there irminia or cambridgei is from a pure line?


No.  Do you know there are any purely bred ones in the wild either?



pato_chacoana said:


> fertile hybrids offsprings? ohh...that's bad, very bad...


Yup.  So's global warming.  

And Rob Schinder.

Hybrids can tell us important information.  While I partially agree with the logic of keeping them under wraps, I have to also conclude that many of the arguments against them are made by people who are poorly informed.

Also, you've missed the two calls above to *NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO A DEBATE ABOUT HYBRIDS*!


----------



## GoTerps (May 29, 2008)

syndicate said:


> with no WC imports of these species anymore how does one even know if there irminia or cambridgei is from a pure line?


Just wanted to add some info to your question, without really answering it 

The _P. cambridgei_ I have sold, and am still selling are pure.  The mother/father of the parents came direct from Trinidad along with the _T. plumipes_ I have from there.

There were WC _P. irminia_ that came in sometime in 2006.  I think adults were sold as "CB" along with some adult _C. cyaneopubescens_, but that was a lie  (they went to Europe first then shipped to the U.S. as "CB"). 

Eric


----------



## syndicate (May 29, 2008)

GoTerps said:


> Just wanted to add some info to your question, without really answering it
> 
> The _P. cambridgei_ I have sold, and am still selling are pure.  The mother/father of the parents came direct from Trinidad along with the _T. plumipes_ I have from there.
> 
> ...


ah nice one Eric.well i hope for the hobbys sake that not to much of the Psalm bloodlines are tainted hehe


----------



## pato_chacoana (May 29, 2008)

I didn't miss anything. What's up with those capital letters? I am very aware of the hybrid topic, I have no need to discuss it with anyone.

Pato.




DrAce said:


> No.  Do you know there are any purely bred ones in the wild either?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tarcan (May 29, 2008)

hamfoto said:


> There are people that know Psalmopoeus that believe cambridgei is just a color variant of irminia.Chris


I have a stupid question here... and I am not doubting or even discussing of this is true or not or possible or not.

If this would prove to be true... when both species are synonimised, they would get the name P. cambridgei right? Since it is the first one described of the two.

Then, on paper,  it would appear that irminia would prove to be a color variant of cambridgei just because it was described later. But since Trinidad detached from South America, logic in that perspective is that cambridgei "color form" "evolved" from the "mainland" form because of it's insularity, right...

So in this case, the "regulation" of naming it the first name it was given, would it not in theory be "misleading" because it would imply that irminia is the colour variant of cambridgei, but evolution wise, logic dictates that it should be the contrary?

I know, it is completly obsolete to the actual thread, I apologize, but I was wondering about that.

Any thought? Or I am not making any sense at all. Does this situation ever occur in taxonomy where two "species" proves to be the same and when synonimised, the "older" name reffers to what appers to be the more recent "colour form" of the two.

Martin


----------



## DrAce (May 29, 2008)

tarcan said:


> ...
> If this would prove to be true... when both species are synonimised, they would get the name P. cambridgei right? Since it is the first one described of the two.
> 
> Then, on paper,  it would appear that irminia would prove to be a color variant of cambridgei just because it was described later. But since Trinidad detached from South America, logic in that perspective is that cambridgei "color form" "evolved" from the "mainland" form because of it's insularity, right...
> ...


You are techinically right, although you can't easily tell which 'evolved' the colour from the other.  Evolution _tends_ to work faster on islands... but not always.


----------



## hamfoto (May 30, 2008)

pato_chacoana said:


> fertile hybrids offsprings? ohh...that's bad, very bad...


No it's not.  People seem to have this idea that hybrids are rare...they are not!  There are natural hybrids all over the world.  A sterile hybrid, like a mule, is actually a rare case.

Chris


----------



## hamfoto (May 30, 2008)

It's not stupid.

But here's the problem...species is a concept we created.  Organisms don't always follow our ideas of how they should be.  Just because they can "hybridise" doesn't mean they're the same species.  I would call them different species because they have now become isolated and have started to evolve down different paths.

And generally when names are synonymized, they refer back to the first (original) name.  I'm sure there is probably some example out there of using other names...but can't think of any of the top of my head.  I personally don't think that just because one species was named first, that the name should take precedence.  I think it should be determined by evolutionary history...who came from who.

And back to the "experiment"...I don't think it's dumb, worthless experiment.  It tells you something...information is valuable.  And being able to quantify information makes it even more valuable...instead of just having theories.

Chris



tarcan said:


> I have a stupid question here... and I am not doubting or even discussing of this is true or not or possible or not.
> 
> If this would prove to be true... when both species are synonimised, they would get the name P. cambridgei right? Since it is the first one described of the two.
> 
> ...


----------



## DrAce (May 30, 2008)

hamfoto said:


> ...
> And back to the "experiment"...I don't think it's dumb, worthless experiment.  It tells you something...information is valuable.  And being able to quantify information makes it even more valuable...instead of just having theories.
> 
> Chris


What would you conclude from it... given each of the possible outcomes.

WHAT information would you gather?

Do you have a good positive/negative control for it?


----------



## pato_chacoana (May 30, 2008)

hamfoto said:


> No it's not.  People seem to have this idea that hybrids are rare...they are not!  There are natural hybrids all over the world.  A sterile hybrid, like a mule, is actually a rare case.
> 
> Chris


Hybrids occur in nature, I know. But that's another story, totally different. However, I prefer different species.

To name species by evolutionary history?? Theraphosidae taxonomy is a mess already, imagine if you will do that?
I hate common names, but I have to admit that sometimes are useful, because the way taxonomy is determined can change all the time....you end up with one spider that has like 5 names, istead of 5 different species...
never ending story...


----------



## DrAce (May 30, 2008)

pato_chacoana said:


> Hybrids occur in nature, I know. But that's another story, totally different. However, I prefer different species.


I don't even understand the kind of confusion of ideas which would lead to a statement like that.

How, exactly, is a naturally occuring hybrid different from a captive one?

Is there some sort of label that occurs naturally which enables naturally occuring hybrids to be identified?



pato_chacoana said:


> To name species by evolutionary history?? Theraphosidae taxonomy is a mess already, imagine if you will do that?
> I hate common names, but I have to admit that sometimes are useful, because the way taxonomy is determined can change all the time....you end up with one spider that has like 5 names, istead of 5 different species...
> never ending story...


Again, I really don't even know why you might think that common names are somehow more accurate than scientific ones.  By and large, scientific taxonomy doesn't change much.  If it does, it's by way of very good information.
Common names change because the pet shop was on the north side of the street, not the south side.


----------



## DrAce (May 30, 2008)

pato_chacoana said:


> I didn't miss anything. What's up with those capital letters? I am very aware of the hybrid topic, I have no need to discuss it with anyone.
> 
> Pato.


You are, yet again, quite right.  I had confused your original comment for a statement of you opinion about hybrids.  And I was also confused that you may have been discussing it on a discussion board.



pato_chacoana said:


> fertile hybrids offsprings? ohh...that's bad, very bad...


Wait... no, it was!  You think they are bad.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the comment that two people, including the original poster, requested NOT happen.

The capital letters are called 'expressive accenting'.  They're used because it was less obtrusive than increasing the font size.  If I was talking to you, it would have been because I was raising my voice, slightly... although not at a yell.  Yells are reserved for size '24' font.


----------



## pato_chacoana (May 30, 2008)

Ok. Who are you to tell me what to post in this thread? I'm not getting into this...besides I would explain much better what I want to say in spanish hehe-  I didn't say common names are better. And you are reading and interpreting what you want, it's useless that I try to explain anything, and I don't feel like wasting time with you either ;-) it's not that I'm saying that you know nothing about spiders, don't take it the wrong way.
Well, I've worked with a taxonimist, I know a little about it. IT CHANGES, do you know for example how many times a species is transfered to another genus???
Anyway, that's it for me in this thread, it was interesting to see such spider though.

PAto.


----------



## DrAce (May 30, 2008)

pato_chacoana said:


> Ok. Who are you to tell me what to post in this thread?


Sir, I am just pointing out what you say.  I appreciate that your native language isn't English, but what you are saying demonstrates that you don't know what you talk about.

I have twice pointed out where the person who started this thread asked people very specifically that he didn't want to read people's opinions of what they thought about hybrids.

You then gave your opinion.

You say things like this:


pato_chacoana said:


> Hybrids occur in nature, I know. But that's another story, totally different...


Which makes no sense... even if it was translated from Spanish.


You've then said:


pato_chacoana said:


> ...I hate common names, but I have to admit that sometimes are useful, because the way taxonomy is determined can change all the time....you end up with one spider that has like 5 names, istead of 5 different species...
> never ending story...


Which isn't true.  I then pointed that out.  Common names are not useful because they refer to different things in different places, AND there are multiple names for single species.  That's a big step backwards from binomial nomenclature.



pato_chacoana said:


> ...I didn't say common names are better. And you are reading and interpreting what you want, it's useless that I try to explain anything, and I don't feel like wasting time with you either ;-) it's not that I'm saying that you know nothing about spiders, don't take it the wrong way...


Sir, what you said (above) is that it was useful, and by then commenting about the disadvantages of the scientific system you implied that it was somehow inferior.

That's not interpretation, that's reading.  I've presented it above for you to read again.


----------



## pato_chacoana (May 30, 2008)

I'll be short.

The person who started the thread can speak for himself.

I didn't post my opinion about hybrids, I just replyed that I think it's bad about the offsprings. That it's not a debate! it's just the way I see about hybrid offsprings! You can find my opinion about hybrids in some old thread. Here I DO NOT intent to make one.

I DON'T think that common names are better! or superior! far from it. I said that sometimes are useful, because cientific names DO change too, and sometimes common (official) english names don't. I don't think that cientific names are bad or useless!!!!!!!!!!! just that sometimes when it changes, the common name remains.

Maybe I wasn't explaining right, what none of the things you said are what I meant (read the above please)

Pato.


----------



## Merfolk (May 31, 2008)

hamfoto said:


> It's not stupid.
> 
> But here's the problem...species is a concept we created.
> 
> Chris


What a wise saying!!!  And I would extend it to the concept of order, like if mammals, birds, reptiles and all were tightly separated, while you have animals like the platypus that seem to cross the border!


----------



## pato_chacoana (May 31, 2008)

Yes! We humans seem to have this need to label everything! haha


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

alrighty here's some good stuff =P
































Bob


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 2, 2008)

Merfolk said:


> What a wise saying!!!  And I would extend it to the concept of order, like if mammals, birds, reptiles and all were tightly separated, while you have animals like the platypus that seem to cross the border!


It's not just a saying, it's the reality of the phenomena biologists try to describe. Groups grade into one another. It's an empirical reality.



DrAce said:


> Again, I really don't even know why you might think that common names are somehow more accurate than scientific ones.  By and large, scientific taxonomy doesn't change much.  If it does, it's by way of very good information.
> Common names change because the pet shop was on the north side of the street, not the south side.


I've talked to importers who flat out tell me that they make up their own common names. Pet store owners around here have told me the same thing.



pato_chacoana said:


> I DON'T think that common names are better! or superior! far from it. I said that sometimes are useful, because cientific names DO change too, and sometimes common (official) english names don't. I don't think that cientific names are bad or useless!
> 
> just that sometimes when it changes, the common name remains.


I deleted your superfluous punctuation marks.

Common names are beyond meaningless.

Scientific names do change as these organisms are studied. Reclassification is simply a function of discovery. They are classified with the spiders they are most closely related to as far as we can tell and because of this, the old name becomes essentially useless because it no longer describes the animal. This is why trying your best to keep up on taxonomy is important.

Problem is that most studies on tarantulas (that I know of) are done through morphology, not at the molecular level. So expect more reclassification in the future.

However, there is almost no basis for common names. None. Importers and shop owners invent their own common names based upon a supposed country of origin and some superficial feature on the spider. They are arbitrary and have no meaning.

A picture of this spider's spermecethae should clear this up or at least shed a bit more light on the details...as I understand it, these two species have differently shaped spermecethae.


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

Ah good thinking... She just molted but her molt didn't survive. So I will have to get a picture of it when she molts again.

Bob


----------



## pato_chacoana (Jun 2, 2008)

Once again, I don't even use common names, I don't like them either. But I remember in an old ATS magazine that there was an ''official'' common names list, so that if the cientific name changes (or miss label, bad ID's, etc), you have the other name ONLY as a reference. Only this I could think as an advantage.
I know how taxonomy studies are done. But it depends who is doing the work, taking different characteristics into consideration to classify species. For example, one scientist could put the Grammostola genus within 6 species only, an another could say there are 30 different species. Grammostola's genitalia are identical in many species and very similar in somatics as well.
Do you get my point?

Pato.



Cheshire said:


> It's not just a saying, it's the reality of the phenomena biologists try to describe. Groups grade into one another. It's an empirical reality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Larkin (Jun 2, 2008)

Hi,

a picture of it's Stridulation organ may be usefull as well.
They are quite different in both species.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

Here's a picture of their spermatheca for later on.

http://tarantulas.tropica.ru/files/images/spermatheca.jpg


----------



## DrAce (Jun 2, 2008)

pato_chacoana said:


> Once again, I don't even use common names, I don't like them either. But I remember in an old ATS magazine that there was an ''official'' common names list, so that if the cientific name changes (or miss label, bad ID's, etc), you have the other name ONLY as a reference. Only this I could think as an advantage.
> I know how taxonomy studies are done. But it depends who is doing the work, taking different characteristics into consideration to classify species. For example, one scientist could put the Grammostola genus within 6 species only, an another could say there are 30 different species. Grammostola's genitalia are identical in many species and very similar in somatics as well.
> Do you get my point?
> 
> Pato.


Pato, you have missed the point completely.

Common names are completely informal, and are based on nothing more than the colour of the tarantula.  If an ATS group were trying to set up an 'official' list of common names, then they are doing nothing more than trying to rename the scientific ones.

Species are actually classified a little more rigorously than you think, apparently.


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

i just found one of her molts from a long time ago... i'll see if i can produce any pictures.


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 2, 2008)

Larkin said:


> Hi,
> 
> a picture of it's Stridulation organ may be usefull as well.
> They are quite different in both species.
> ...


I actually just came here to add that.

I have a P. irminia female who just moulted. I could totally get a pic of her stridulators up sometime tonight.


----------



## pato_chacoana (Jun 2, 2008)

That's not what I mean, on how are named, name them by numbers if you want! or whatever, it's just as a reference, to know the spider you are talking about, well nevermind... Of course the official names are scientific.
Yes are classified so rigorously, that's why there are hundreds of synonymy haha, just kidding. But well, take a look at Schmidt's works, that's scary...like 20 new species per year! or maybe 0? (till someone corrects......)

Pato



DrAce said:


> Pato, you have missed the point completely.
> 
> Common names are completely informal, and are based on nothing more than the colour of the tarantula.  If an ATS group were trying to set up an 'official' list of common names, then they are doing nothing more than trying to rename the scientific ones.
> 
> Species are actually classified a little more rigorously than you think, apparently.


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

_Psalmopoeus cambridgei_


Heres the best I could do... Its really small so I had to use my scope.


----------



## Stylopidae (Jun 2, 2008)

Looks like cambredgei to me.


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

Same here... I'm trying to get one of the stridulating organ right now


----------



## DrAce (Jun 2, 2008)

Based on the diagram we had before, that's _cambredgei_, without doubt.


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 2, 2008)

_Psalmopoeus cambridgei _


This is the best I could do


----------



## Larkin (Jun 2, 2008)

From Strid organ it looks like _P.cambridgei_, too.

There should be another difference -the shape and location of the Sternal sigillen. But this feature is less exposed.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dtknow (Jun 2, 2008)

all this being said...what would it look like if it was a hybrid? did anyone preserve molts from any hybrid cambridgei? You'd think that the spermathecae would be intermediate in form...though with traits like that in crosses its not always the case.

She's a looker for sure.


Also just because they may or may not be the same species(look different enough to me) does not mean we should cross them. Their is no/very little gene flow between them in the wild.


----------



## MalevolentScorp (Jun 2, 2008)

I believe it would be a possibility that p.irminia / p.cambridgei hybrid offspring could have been accidental, since in many cases (atleast some that i have seen in pictures and in person) that mature males of both species look identical. They are hard to tell apart, especially if the mature male was mis-identified to startoff with.


----------



## lewisskinner (Jun 4, 2008)

DrAce said:


> Pato, you have missed the point completely.
> 
> Common names are completely informal, and are based on nothing more than the colour of the tarantula.  If an ATS group were trying to set up an 'official' list of common names, then they are doing nothing more than trying to rename the scientific ones.
> 
> Species are actually classified a little more rigorously than you think, apparently.


I can see both sides of this debate, but I have an example for you.

Since the age of around 5, I've known that I wanted a Mexican red-knee tarantula (I saw them in Indiana Jones, and then at my local zoo).

If I had looked up the scientific name then, I'd have found _Euathlus smithi_.  Nowadays though, this is actually less useful than the common name, Mexican Red-knee!

Of course, this is only one example.  The "Chinese bird spider" refers to at least three species, _H. hainanum_, _H. huwenum_ and _H. schmidti_.  "Earth Tiger" may related to all of the above, as well as many _Cyriopagopus _and _Lampropelma _spp.  

Sorry.  Point being, both can be useful.


----------



## DrAce (Jun 4, 2008)

lewisskinner said:


> ...
> If I had looked up the scientific name then, I'd have found _Euathlus smithi_.  Nowadays though, this is actually less useful than the common name, Mexican Red-knee!
> 
> Of course, this is only one example.  The "Chinese bird spider" refers to at least three species, _H. hainanum_, _H. huwenum_ and _H. schmidti_.  "Earth Tiger" may related to all of the above, as well as many _Cyriopagopus _and _Lampropelma _spp.
> ...


Wouldn't looking it up give you _Brachypelma smithi_?  And _B. smithi_ is just as useful as Mexican Red-Knee, which also refers in some places to other Brachypelma species.


----------



## lewisskinner (Jun 4, 2008)

I'm just making a point Dr Ace.  I notice you have lept upon the point that opposes yours, rather than commenting on those which agree with you.  Are you unable to accept that some people have different points of view to yourself?  Even worse, that some people can see _both_ sides of the argument?  I was not jumping in to argue, rather to mediate, but you're aparently too self-engrossed to realise that.

How about Chilean Rose?  Or Curly-hair?  Or Pink-toe (Martinique or Guyana)?  Or red-leg?  Goliath Birdeater?  These spiders are well-established in the pet trade, so their names are not changing (nor indeed changable).  By the same token, their scientific names are very unlikely to change, but I have already highlighted at least one which has in my lifetime.  

For something like the Singapore blue, the common name is very useful.  Some are calling it a _Cyripagopus sp._ "blue", and others say it is actually the original _Lampropelma violaceopes_, but at least two other species have been misidentified (and sold) under this latter name in the past 20 years or so.  For those two species, the scienftific name was wrong.  For this current species, even it's genus is unknown/unconfirmed!  At least a common names lets us all be certain we're talking about the same spider - no point me sending my MM to someone who think he has a corrisponding female, only to find they're different species!

Now as I have said, something like "Chinese Bird Spider", or "Mombasa golden starburst" are not very useful, but aer you telling me that if I said OBT, GBB or Cobalt Blue, you'd not instantly think _Pterinochilus murinus_, "green bottle blue"/_Chromatopelma cyanopubescens_ and _Haplopelma lividum_?


----------



## DrAce (Jun 5, 2008)

Lewis,

I have no need to comment on points that I agree with.  I agree with them.

MY point is that there has never been a consensus within common namings. You suggest Chilean Rose, but I know that has existed under other names.  Pink toes are often used for any Avic, and 'red-leg' equally so.

I appreciate the offer of mediation, but I really don't see it is required.  Scientific names have been misassigned, but the point of this discussion is that they are largely set in fast-drying cement, unless there is a very good reason for altering the name.  Common names come and go with the store, including the ones you suggested above.

And if there was a poor classification of a genus or species, it CAN be ratified under the conventions for species naming.  That is also not to say that someone can give the spider the wrong name when identifying it... but that's not a fault with the system.  It's a fault with the biologist.


----------



## lewisskinner (Jun 5, 2008)

So is the point here not that both the common names and the sacientific names are useful, if not valid?

"Mexican red-knee" will mean something to the majority of people,(even those who do not know Tarantulas can picture this) whereas _B. smithi_ may not.  That said, as a newbie, I am trying to learn scientific names.

It is like learning a new language.  When most people here hear the term _Brachypelma smithi_, they think of a 4-6" terrestrial spider, mostly black, but with red patellae, and occasionally prone to kicking its setse.  the ammateur/newbie, will think "_B. smithi_...  Ooh, that's a Mexican red-knee ain;t it?" and will _then_ recognise both.

To simplify, we need the "English" names, to allow newbies to convert fro their "latin" names, but *both* are equally valid and changable.


----------



## pato_chacoana (Jun 7, 2008)

Lewis,

Exactly my point about the Cyriopagopus sp. blue/ Lampropelma violaceopes. That is just what I meant, and nothing else!! You expained it much better with that example.

Dr.Ace, do you understand now? that SOMETIMES a common it can bue useful?

case closed.

Pato.


----------



## DrAce (Jun 7, 2008)

The point you keep glossing over is highlighted below.  Red-knee means something to most people.  _B. smithi _is concrete.  Even if it doesn't help the newbies, it's a concrete indentification.

I am unfamiliar with the reasons why the _Lampropelma violaceopes_ name was incorrectly attached to some tarantulas.  Is that because the species didn't actually exist, or is that because someone in the hobby miss-identified something and so starting giving the wrong name to something.

If it was an actually scientific error, then the process exists to change it.

And I completely disagree with you on the last portion of your statement... Scientific names and common names are not equally changable.  They may be equally changable by the layman, but not in proper usage.



lewisskinner said:


> So is the point here not that both the common names and the sacientific names are useful, if not valid?
> 
> *"Mexican red-knee" will mean something to the majority of people*,(even those who do not know Tarantulas can picture this) whereas _B. smithi_ may not.  That said, as a newbie, I am trying to learn scientific names.
> 
> ...





pato_chacoana said:


> ...
> Dr.Ace, do you understand now? that SOMETIMES a common it can bue useful?
> ...


Common names are useful to the newbie.  I agree with that.  However, they are severely limited, because - as described more than once above - they are interchangable and they often double-up for some species.  For that very reason, scientific names are given to organisms where (in theory) one species will have one name.
There are mistakes made in both systems, but there are actually rules to protect the scientific ones.  Nothing similar exists for the common names.


----------



## pato_chacoana (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't  get why you can't open your mind  I use scientific names and not common names usually, yet I can see an advantage when it comes to synonymy or wrong IDs. I've been working with theraphosidae many years.
I don't see why you keep saying something that doesn't change the above. Yes scientific names are more accurate of course. There's no disccussion about that. But that doesn't change the matter of use like Acanthoscurria hobby ''musculosa'' or whatever...can be useful because actually no one knows what the real Acanthoscurria musculosa looks like!! except for Simon who has been dead for years....So an Acanthoscurria spescies appears which could be actually this one, but no one is certain because there's not enough evidence, it's good to call it by such an unscientific accurate name, because we'll know the spider in question. That is just another good example. Do you get it?

PAto.


----------



## crpy (Jun 11, 2008)

Well an argument can be made from changing genera and specific names also in a way.

An example is Euathlus smithi, also rat snakes from Elaphe to Pantherophis.
I know its because of cladistic systematics but gee, just when we get used to one scientific name, they change it. 

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (Jan 22, 2009)

okay well since I have had quite a few people tell me my cambridgei is a hybrid or at least looked like an irminia I will post these pics of her. just over 5" legspan.



























all pics were taken with a flash.


----------



## cacoseraph (Jun 13, 2009)

anyone ever get any young from the oddball Psalmos?


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 13, 2009)

not yet. I'll try again this year though. The last egg sac she had was a dud =\


----------



## cacoseraph (Jun 13, 2009)

_bob_ said:


> not yet. I'll try again this year though. The last egg sac she had was a dud =\


thanks for the reply 

was that the sac mentioned in the thread?



and...  i hate to throw fuel on an old fire... but the pics of her spermethecae looked a bit funky to me. i don't know how much natural variation there is the shape, but it looks like in the diagram pic cambridgei have two pretty distinct er "sub fingers" and your girl has blurred and much less distinct sub fingers



she is one of the prettiest specimens i have ever seen, regardless of what exactly she is!


----------



## Jarconis (Jun 13, 2009)

is Bob playing God with the tarantulas again? *sigh


----------



## _bob_ (Jun 17, 2009)

cacoseraph said:


> thanks for the reply
> 
> was that the sac mentioned in the thread?
> 
> ...


Yeah I've only done one breeding session with her and I got that egg sac out of her. When ever I get another male I'll hook her up for sure


----------



## FuzzOctave (Jul 31, 2009)

*Update regarding why hybridizing is bad...*



Noexcuse4you said:


> I would advise you not try to mate her.  There's no need to have hybrids in the hobby and it would only mess things up.  In my opinion, cambridgei and irminia are better looking by themselves than a hybrid.  What would you sell the slings as?  What if those slings were mated with a irminia or a cambridgei?  It would only cause problems.  Just look at what happened to the Avicularia genus when people misidentified them.


Okay, yesterday I'm at the LPS buying tanks and supplies, and I stroll through the T section, as always, and... I see a brightly written sign: "Hybrid Redrump Curly hair, very rare". I almost went out of my head. Firstly, these should NEVER make it to market, secondly the attitude of any LPS is to push inventory, and make profits. The fact that they're advertising them as very rare makes the unknowing purchaser think he/she's getting something special, so they'll buy it. Thus perpetuating a bad thing.

This is the very reason why we collectively bitch about how bad this idea is. The classification of many genera is already confusing enough in nature, without our meddling. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.:wall: :wall:


----------



## _bob_ (Sep 12, 2009)




----------



## _bob_ (Sep 12, 2009)

she is starting to look so nice!


----------



## ZergFront (Sep 12, 2009)

She's very pretty.


 I could definately see hybridization happening in the psalmos species. I'd have to bet that it was a male P. irminia (they're VERY similar to male P. cambridgei) that bred with a female P. cambridgei.

 Although I think this one accident is a nice one, if I'd landed in the position of possessing a hybrid, it would be a non-breeding pet.

 Least we don't have to worry a lot about a hybrid male getting out and getting frisky with a neighbor's tarantula like a cat or dog..


----------



## xhexdx (Sep 12, 2009)

If either of you guys wants to try breeding with a P. cam male, send me a PM.


----------



## seanbond (Sep 13, 2009)

awesome spida!


----------



## Tapahtyn (Sep 14, 2009)

she is a very beautiful T regardless!!  I am jealous of you all that have one That is sooo next on my list!!  Good luck


----------



## Merfolk (Sep 14, 2009)

FuzzOctave said:


> The fact that they're advertising them as very rare makes the unknowing purchaser think he/she's getting something special, so they'll buy it. Thus perpetuating a bad thing.


Well, it was correctly labeled and those ignorant people are unlikely to try to breed it. Hybridation occurs naturally and is perhaps one of the engine of evolution, but it is something that normaly rarely occurs and thus is a tiny fraction of all breedings that occur, so the problem  would be if it becomes sort sort of a trend...


----------



## _bob_ (Sep 14, 2009)

I really don't plan on breeding her anymore. I do love the way she looks though.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (Sep 14, 2009)

My "cambridgei" just molted again and is looking pretty neat too.


----------



## kman (Sep 14, 2009)

I felt the need to comment on this issue of let stores selling hybrids as something "cool" and making money off it. It PISSES me off to walk into a pet store and then they have these puppies that are cokapoo, labradoodle, tuggs and who knows what else. My family has bread dogs for 40 years and this is a disgrace to dog breeds. They invent "designer" dogs with cool names and sell them to idiots. They are doing the same with spiders it seems and who know's what's next.

Sorry for the rant but I can't stand seeing those dogs with those stupid names.

Nice T Bob, let her live a happy life and enjoy her for what she is.



FuzzOctave said:


> Okay, yesterday I'm at the LPS buying tanks and supplies, and I stroll through the T section, as always, and... I see a brightly written sign: "Hybrid Redrump Curly hair, very rare". I almost went out of my head. Firstly, these should NEVER make it to market, secondly the attitude of any LPS is to push inventory, and make profits. The fact that they're advertising them as very rare makes the unknowing purchaser think he/she's getting something special, so they'll buy it. Thus perpetuating a bad thing.
> 
> This is the very reason why we collectively bitch about how bad this idea is. The classification of many genera is already confusing enough in nature, without our meddling. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.:wall: :wall:


----------



## Moltar (Sep 15, 2009)

Jarconis said:


> is Bob playing God with the tarantulas again? *sigh


Don't we all just by keeping them in cages and providing everything they need to live?


----------

