# Dont change your Theraphosa labels...Yet.



## Fran (Jan 2, 2011)

Hi everybody,
I have been in contact with some of the people whos working directly and indirectly with the Spinipes/Burgundy  revision and seems like that "stirmi"  WONT be the final name fot them, but "spinipes" as it was meant to be.

I dont now why the germans came out with the paper, sort of "out of the blue", but seems like it wont last.


----------



## PrimalTaunt (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm not sure why but I found that to be funny.  Either way, I can't wait until this mess gets cleared up once and for all.


----------



## Fran (Jan 2, 2011)

Thats the info I got from very reliable sources, but again, nothing is out there yet.

Theraphosa will bring us a nice surprise soonl...Wait and see


----------



## PrimalTaunt (Jan 2, 2011)

Haha, when it comes to you and your obsession with these monsters of the tarantula world, I won't doubt that what you say is coming from a reliable source.  Unless maybe that they've been known to grow wings and take down flying pigs.


----------



## Fran (Jan 2, 2011)

Thanks . I really like the genus  a lot. Im mainly focusing on it now. 
Between Blondi, Spinipes and Apophysis I have the house full


----------



## AmbushArachnids (Jan 2, 2011)

Fran, im curious. How many Theraphosa do you own now? :?  -Doug


----------



## Fran (Jan 2, 2011)

Theraphosa? Right now I have:

Blondi: 10  slings. (I lost 3) 1 adult female.
Spinipes: Several adult females,sub adults , slings and 2 males (1MM )
Apophysis: 2 Adult Females, 3 juvie females 1 juvie male.


Gravid: 4  Spinipes, 1  apophysis .


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 2, 2011)

Hopefully, this means Rogerio Bertani's work is still under development.

ON THE GENUS LASIODORA C. L. KOCH 1850 (ARANEAE, THERAPHOSIDAE) Bertani, R. Instituto Butantan, Av. Vital Brazil 1500, 05503-900, S„o Paulo S„o Paulo, Brazil

The genus Lasiodora comprises the largest spiders of Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest and is known for naturalists at least since 1641 when the Dutchman Albert Eckhout illustrated one specimen in Pernambuco, Brazil. It is one of the older theraphosid genera, being derived from the division of the genus Mygale and included formerly six species. Ausserer, Bertkau, Thorell, Simon and Pocock described several news species, and in 1901 Pocock choose as type species L. klugi, from Bahia, Brazil and transferred several species for other new genera proposed by him. Other authors such as Strand, Chamberlim and Mello-Leit„o contributed describing many new species. After the synonymy of Crypsidromus with Lasiodora in 1996, the genus has now 38 species and one subspecies, the majority described for Brazil (24). The genus is close to Vitalius, Nhandu and Proshapalopus, differing by the presence of stridulatory bristles on the prolateral coxae of legs I-IV. In this study, six species are considered valid, all them distributed only in Brazil: L. isabellina (synonyms: L. benedeni Bertkau, L. curtior Chamberlin, L. differens Chamberlin, L. cristata Mello-Leit„o, L. difficilis Mello-Leit„o and L. mariannae Mello-Leit„o), L. itabunae Mello-Leit„o, L. subcanens Mello-Leit„o, L. parahybana Mello- Leit„o and L. klugi C. L. Koch. A new species was detected and is described. L. lakoi Mello-Leit„o belongs to the genus Megaphobema and L. spinipes Ausserer to Theraphosa. L. sternalis Mello-Leit„o is a synonym of Acanthoscurria gomesiana Mello-Leit„o. The following species are considered ìnomina dubiaî, since the types could not be located and the descriptions are insuficient for allowing identification: L. acanthognatha Mello-Leit„o, L. boliviana (Simon), L. citharacantha Mello-Leit„o, L. cryptostigma Mello-Leit„o, L. dolichosterna Mello-Leit„o, L. dulcicola Mello-Leit„o, L. erythrocythara Mello-Leit„o, L. fallax (Bertkau), L. fracta Mello-Leit„o, L. moreni (Holmberg), L. pantherina (Keyserling), L. pleoplectra Mello-Leit„o, L. saeva (Walckenaer) and L. striatipes (Ausserer). Species from Central America and Venezuela will be transferred to other genera, mainly to Hapalopus Ausserer.

That abstract was taken from the 2007 International Society of Arachnology 17th International Congress of Arachnology abstract book. http://www.ib.usp.br/~ricrocha/ISA17/CONGRESSOCOMPLETO.pdf


----------



## Fran (Jan 2, 2011)

Correct . Seems like Rogerio Bertani will be the one naming this sp. At least thats what I know.


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 2, 2011)

PrimalTaunt said:


> I'm not sure why but I found that to be funny.  Either way, I can't wait until this mess gets cleared up once and for all.


You know, if history tells us anything, I don't think any mess will be cleared up.  From the scientific stand point I think it will, but for the casual tarantula enthusiast, I think a well written systematic paper won't make a difference.  For example, years ago there was a lot of confusion in differentiating between Haplopelma minax, Haplopelma longipes, and Haplopelma sp. "Vietnam."  Since Von Wirth and Striffler classified H. longipes and provided a very indisputable means for one to identify H. longipes, there are still H. sp. "Vietnam" being sold as H. longipes.  Another similar example is Poecilotheria bara and P. subfusca. At this point in time, P. bara is a junior synonym of P. subfusca but some sellers and hobbyists seem to insist on using the name Poecilotheria bara.

It is my prediction the same will hold true for Theraphosa blondi and the now classified T. stirmi and that whatever happens with the systematics of the genus Lasiodora, we will still have mislabeled and misidentified Theraphosa species circulating the trade.


----------



## Zoltan (Jan 2, 2011)

Good post, Lonnie!



Fran said:


> Seems like Rogerio Bertani will be the one naming this sp. At least thats what I know.


Are you talking about _L. spinipes_? That species was named by Anton Ausserer in 1871.


----------



## Suidakkra (Jan 2, 2011)

It's rather disturbing that they cannot settle on the scientific name of one species.

 So I cant imagine a genus such as Avicularia will ever be properly named and identified in the near future.


----------



## Fran (Jan 2, 2011)

Zoltan said:


> Good post, Lonnie!
> 
> 
> Are you talking about _L. spinipes_? That species was named by Anton Ausserer in 1871.



What I mean is that he seems to be the one who will finally locate them as "Spinipes"


----------



## Poxicator (Jan 3, 2011)

Totally unsurprising as Rudloff J.-P. & D. Weinmann failed to examine holotypes of T. apophysis and T. blondi.

Would T. spinipes derive from L. spinipes which was described with material from Sao Paulo (Ausserer, 1871) and from Santa Catarina (Mello-Leitao, 1921).

Its worthwhile having a re-read of this post:
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1793281&postcount=20


----------



## zonbonzovi (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't care what they refer to it/them as, as long as the differential characters are established for each individual *ahem* species.


----------



## esotericman (Jan 3, 2011)

When differentiating two species might include 150 character states, both morphological and molecular, I am completely at ease with changes to much of the backwater published garbage out there.  Change is always going to occur in this hobby.  When I started there were "about" 750 species, now there are "about" 900.  Regardless of if it's 300 or 3,000, it takes thousands of bench hours and hundreds of samples to differentiate two species, much less what may or may not be a genus.

I am glad some are able to keep somewhat abreast of the changes and are willing to discount garbage and take the time and effort to post it.


----------



## smashtoad (Feb 14, 2011)

esotericman said:


> Regardless of if it's 300 or 3,000, it takes thousands of bench hours and hundreds of samples to differentiate two species, much less what may or may not be a genus.


Exactly to the point...this is why it is a million miles from being worth our tax dollars, and is perhaps the biggest scam going right now.  

The hobbyists who work with and actually reproduce the animals in captivity are looked down on by many in science, who do nothing but continually find ways to milk the public till by renaming genera and species.  The term "species" itself is vague.

Simply put...taxonomic nomenclature is an attempt by man to understand the workings of God, a force that we will never understand.  Therefore...contradictions, mysteries, arguments, et al...will always exist, and will always allow research scientists to live out their dreams of catching bugs in tropical locales at the public's expense.

Who among us, in the name of all things sweet and good, would NOT want a job like that?  Our elite universities, in their current form, are a racket...a publicly funded racket.


----------



## Bill S (Feb 14, 2011)

Smashtoad, it's a pity you don't have a better understanding of what science is all about.


----------



## LadySharon (Feb 14, 2011)

smashtoad said:


> Simply put...taxonomic nomenclature is an attempt by man to understand the workings of God, a force that we will never understand.


don't know about the rest of it but +1 on this statement.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

LadySharon said:


> don't know about the rest of it but +1 on this statement.


I agree with it as well, but you'll find that the majority of the members on here don't believe in God, so the few of us who do get jumped on pretty quickly. :}


----------



## Jacobchinarian (Feb 14, 2011)

> I agree with it as well, but you'll find that the majority of the members on here don't believe in God


I noticed this as well. I wonder why.


----------



## Fran (Feb 14, 2011)

What god has to do with this? Beyond me.
We are talking about taxonomy on arachnids.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

I didn't realize you were in charge of this thread, Fran.

Go back to work.


----------



## Fran (Feb 14, 2011)

xhexdx said:


> I didn't realize you were in charge of this thread, Fran.
> 
> Go back to work.


Joe, you are great at behaving like a total jerk.

Who said who was in charge.I said that what we are talking about has nothing to do with believing or not in God.
Why dont you just stay off the topics if you are not gonna contribute to the thread?
Whats your problem,Joe?
How come you always find a way to destroy the topics and create trouble? dont you see that is always you?

We are talking about Theraphosa here.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

Fran, believe me, I know _exactly_ what it is you're doing.

If you really want me to find every post of yours that wasn't on-topic with relation to the thread it was posted in, I'll have no problem doing it.  Stop being so hypocritical and anal retentive because 'your' thread veered a tad in a direction you didn't want it to go.


----------



## Hedorah99 (Feb 14, 2011)

xhexdx said:


> I didn't realize you were in charge of this thread, Fran.
> 
> Go back to work.


Didn't realize you were either.

I'll intervene as the little "God" of this forum. This will not become a religious discussion! Keep it on spiders or take it to the watering hole.


----------



## Ms.X (Feb 14, 2011)

Fran said:


> What god has to do with this? Beyond me.
> We are talking about taxonomy on arachnids.


The topic of God was raised in relation to the original topic of understanding taxonomy (by four people):
1. 





smashtoad said:


> Simply put...taxonomic nomenclature is an attempt by man to understand the workings of God, a force that we will never understand.


2. 





LadySharon said:


> don't know about the rest of it but +1 on this statement.


3. 





xhexdx said:


> I agree with it as well, but you'll find that the majority of the members on here don't believe in God, so the few of us who do get jumped on pretty quickly. :}


4. 





Jacobchinarian said:


> I noticed this as well. I wonder why.


Then, you chose to inquire about what God has to do with this topic, but I believe the intentions of those quoted above were perfectly clear regarding relevance to the original topic.  You have every right not to share similar beliefs, but there was nothing off topic about the above posts.

Just because you don't agree with the direction that a thread is taking does not give you the right to act like a child and commence with the name calling.  You also shouldn't accuse people of not contributing to a thread when they were merely commenting and expanding on the ideas of others.  



Fran said:


> Joe, you are great at behaving like a total jerk.
> 
> Who said who was in charge.I said that what we are talking about has nothing to do with believing or not in God.
> Why dont you just stay off the topics if you are not gonna contribute to the thread?
> ...


Sorry for the rant, Fran, but many times when you don't like something, you tend to jump on people quickly with ridiculous accusations prior to confirming their validity.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 14, 2011)

Hedorah99 said:


> Didn't realize you were either.
> 
> I'll intervene as the little "God" of this forum. This will not become a religious discussion! Keep it on spiders or take it to the watering hole.


I never claimed to be, if you hadn't noticed.


----------



## Fran (Feb 14, 2011)

I cant wait for Rogerio to publish  his work regarding Theraphosa.
I did not like the germans paper one bit.


----------



## Jacobchinarian (Feb 14, 2011)

I'm sorry I was part of the derailing of this thread. Can we please get back on track. This is about theraphosa not god.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 14, 2011)

Quote: Simply put...taxonomic nomenclature is an attempt by man to understand the workings of God, a force that we will never understand. 


I see it not as a religious statement, but rather a belief that nature doesn't draw clear lines between species, genuses and all. The source of Nature, God or else, changes very little in the message.  Men like to subdivise everthing and sometimes go wrong...... When I was young, the animal kingdom was solidly divided between Mammals, birds, reptiles and so on and it was believed that nothing would cross those borders, save for the platypus and other monotremes. Now we have almost warm blooded fishes, almost cold blooded mammals that live like ants (mole rat) , venomous birds and mammals so the attributes of an animal category can be found in another one. There are Ts that I think are wrongly classified and I expect them to be reclassified, it's a reference rather than a law. 

Believing in God or not is irrelevant since if there is a god, Nature is an emanation of him , and we are talking about how to classify parts of nature relative to each other, not to prove a point about how they got created. What I see is that those artificial intellectual frontiers will get blurred while we find more and more common traits about different animals.


----------



## Nerri1029 (Feb 14, 2011)

Merfolk said:


> Quote: Simply put...taxonomic nomenclature is an attempt by man to understand the workings of God, a force that we will never understand.
> 
> 
> I see it not as a religious statement, but rather a belief that nature doesn't draw clear lines between species, genuses and all. The source of Nature, God or else, changes very little in the message.  Men like to subdivise everthing and sometimes go wrong...... When I was young, the animal kingdom was solidly divided between Mammals, birds, reptiles and so on and it was believed that nothing would cross those borders, save for the platypus and other monotremes. Now we have almost warm blooded fishes, almost cold blooded mammals that live like ants (mole rat) , venomous birds and mammals so the attributes of an animal category can be found in another one. There are Ts that I think are wrongly classified and I expect them to be reclassified, it's a reference rather than a law.
> ...


Well put 

No one can/would say that taxonomy is an exact science. It is wrought with opinions and varying ideals. Last I knew the definition of a species hadn't been nailed down yet.


----------



## dannyboypede (Feb 14, 2011)

Let's all love each other and just not change our Theraphosa labels...yet

And just to brighten everyone's mood:
:3:

--Dan


----------



## Lorum (Feb 14, 2011)

Nerri1029 said:


> Last I knew the definition of a species hadn't been nailed down yet.


+1. And probably won't ever be. There are different "definitions" (or attempts to do so), but not a clear, unique and universal one. If such a definition of species would (or could) be made, a lot of things we know would change.

The _Theraphosa_ genus needs a revision before more species are described. If Bertani is going to do a part of that revision (proposing _Theraphosa spinipes_ as a new combination), it is perfectly OK (IMO). The description of "_Theraphosa stirmi_" is just a -not funny- joke (again, IMO).


----------



## Bosing (Feb 15, 2011)

Well,

I for one appreciate the tidbits of information in this thread. I guess I would have to change the sticker label on my T. spinipes again...


----------



## smashtoad (Feb 15, 2011)

Merfolk said:


> Quote: Simply put...taxonomic nomenclature is an attempt by man to understand the workings of God, a force that we will never understand.
> 
> 
> I see it not as a religious statement, but rather a belief that nature doesn't draw clear lines between species, genuses and all. The source of Nature, God or else, changes very little in the message.  Men like to subdivise everthing and sometimes go wrong...... When I was young, the animal kingdom was solidly divided between Mammals, birds, reptiles and so on and it was believed that nothing would cross those borders, save for the platypus and other monotremes. Now we have almost warm blooded fishes, almost cold blooded mammals that live like ants (mole rat) , venomous birds and mammals so the attributes of an animal category can be found in another one. There are Ts that I think are wrongly classified and I expect them to be reclassified, it's a reference rather than a law.
> ...


Thanks, Merfolk.  Yes, my main statement included God, but was not centered there.  Your statements reflect exactly what I am saying...and those birds are poisonous, not venomous.  My apologies, just wanted to add that before Bill jumped in to educate me more about my lack of scientific understanding.

Trying to understand major relationships between animal groups down to their common ancestor is one thing...but spending taxpayer dollars to argue about whether a theraphosid from each side of the goobigundo river should be classified as different species is a complete freaking waste of time, because it does not matter...at all...except to the pointy-head cashing the grant check.

Thanks again.

---------- Post added at 09:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------




smashtoad said:


> The term "species" itself is vague.





Nerri1029 said:


> Last I knew the definition of a species hadn't been nailed down yet.


Yep...and it never will.  Because what many "taxonomists" call subspecies interbreed all the time.  Geographic separation forces them to change away from one another, but that can end as easily as it started...and they can still breed.

Tigers and lions can produce offspring, they may be infertile, but they can produce young.

What really blows my mind, and I'm talkin splits it open with extreme prejudice...is this:

When Darwin went to Galapagos he discovered nothing more than what man himself had already been doing with the domestic dog for 4,000 freaking years, yet people acted like Darwin taught himself to fly.  It is maddening...but it keeps lots of professors diving in coral reefs and getting paid to do so, doesn't it?


----------



## treeweta (Feb 15, 2011)

ive knew collectors who got in a major flip over the introduction of apophysis into the hobby, 'is it a  blondi? is it a new species? its worth more than a blondi etc ad nauseum.

 Im always more concerned about having an healthy, active animal that i find attractive in my collection than worrying about where it fits in the arbitrary notion of  species, it is true to say that defining a species is open to debate precisely because its arbitrary.

 While its reasonable to say that a lasiodora parahybana and a megaphobema mesomelas are different species (as far as i know there is no way to get their genes combined through mating, let alone to produce viable offspring) more recently diverged populations of animals like the current living examples that we label theraphosa are more tricky to pigeonhole because you have variable multiple populations, in some populations the genes will be isolated from others in others they will be free flowing, where those genes may or may not flow changes over time, its the same with any group of organisms. 

 Again its mere convenience, if 'burgundy' is a distinct separately diverged subset of animals (that have a shared trait of no long hairs on the patella??)from those we call blondi then thats a fact, if we want to give those a separate name then so be it, the notion exists only in our head, if a 'blondi' finds itself in a tank with a 'burgundy' it wont give a hoot, it will try and mate (i guess) with it!!!!!

 This isnt just theraphosa either, take any of the pet shop tarantulas and we could have the same debate about any of them, im sure there are immense and distinct populations of grammostola that could be given all manner of different names.

of course that doesnt mean that the idea of species isnt useful, it is. Once we agree on what we mean by a given definition it can then be used, so if somebody wants a burgundy vs a blondi, you expect to get something that is contained within that definition. The distinction just becomes more generally pronounced the less recently related an organism is to another, so if you wake up with a scorpion on your chest its characteristics will allow you to ascertain if its padinus or buthus.......something that would be useful to know.....



@smashtoad.

I was always under the impression that tarantula taxonomists did their 'work' purely as an amateur pursuit even if they are otherwise professional biologists.


----------



## sjl197 (Feb 16, 2011)

Firstly, can we please all just put any discussion of 'spinipes' aside for now. All that is being reported is hearsay, save for the abstract by Dr Bertani at the ISA congress in 2007 in Brazil. The abstract was a poster presentation. A great conference, which i also attended and enjoyed very much by the way. But, the key point is - there is no formal publication to formally transfer L.spinipes to Theraphosa, nor to synonymise it with any existing species.

The holotype specimen of L.spinipes a very old and damaged female, and i personally have little hope it is possible to match well enough against any of the current 'species' of Theraphosa. Further, to go back to an earlier comment, the original Ausserer description only unhelpfully mentions collected in 'Brazil', rather than any more specific locale (like Sao Paulo and Santa Catalina) that was suggested later by Mello-Letao, without any reference to the actual type specimen, and so cant be trusted. There is no way that real Theraphosa will range into Santa Catalina in far south Brasil.

Now, until anything is published on L.spinipes, which it isnt yet - we are dealing with diagnosing differences between T.blondi and T.stirmi. The presence tibial spurs alone seems reliable to diagnose T.apophysis. But, what is the point of resistively clinging onto the temporary hobby name 'Theraphosa sp burgandy' if your spiders have been exported from southern guyana and they perfectly fit the description on T.stirmi ? No reason at all, they're T.stirmi. This is formally described and named, no matter what you think of the paper or their failure to look at the T.blondi type(s) for example.

Now, onto defining the species. There are so many cases in biology when defining a species is not open to debate, nor arbitary, so the previous comment that suggests that is complete crap. Yes there are many species concepts (i can name you about 27 if you want), but in many cases ALL these ways of defining species all fit... two species can be geographically isolated, reproductively isolated (prezygotically, and postzygotically), have different morphology, genetically divergent above a certain %, or form reciprocally monophyetic genetic groups, etc etc. There are other cases where only some of these criteria fit to diagnose two forms as two species, but those together still a good argument that you infact are looking at two species., i think the crux is they just have to be diagnosably different by some concept or preferably several. When two 'species' are diagnosable by several species concepts, surely we can have more confidence there are indeed two species, and those species will maintain their differences on interbreeding, introgression or hybridisation, whatever. Ie they are on different phylogenetic trajectories if you want me to be explicit. There is never going to be one species concept that fits everything, and there doesnt need to be. If you want only one thing alone, its called a pluralistic species concept, or pluralism.  

Now ok back to Theraphosa. As i said, the presence of tibial spurs alone seems reliable to diagnose T.apophysis from the 'blondi-stirmi' group. Well, there have now been morphological differences proposed to differentiate T.stirmi from southern guyana, and T.blondi from elsewhere (ie from french guiana and north suriname as indicated by Rudloff and Weinmann), so cant we now move forward from here to properly evaluate these proposed differences? You know, in essence, science advanced by testing hypotheses?. So how? It would perhaps be most useful to ask questions about specimens from  geographically  intermediate localities, ie are Theraphosa also present in southern Suriname and what do they look like?, ie do they have intermediate features / a mixture of the features that allegedly separate T.strimi from T.blondi. It needs to be further evaluated whether the two currently accepted species are geographically isolated (ie no geographic intermediates), and whether the presented characteristics to diagnose them are stable (and different) within the two species. For now though, until someone does such additional characterization of WC material, there are two closely related species named and much of what can be figured out from hobby material which could be artificially hybridised is rather limited.

So, indeed the challenge comes if you are only looking at spiders that seem to have some characteristics of T.stirmi and others of T.blondi. And its an even greater challenge if you are only looking at your captive bred spiders with no knowledge of the features in the parents, nor knowledge of the geographic origin of those specimen (or their parents). But, the potential for intermediates is key to determining if there are two morphological species or not. BUT, You really have to be careful when you are not looking at WC exports or direct descendants, as of course, captive breeding between parents with differing characteristics (like amount of hair on the patella) is very likely going to lead to variability in the offspring isnt it? (here i don't know if it does or not, but testing such hypotheses can help figure out what are the reliable differences between such closely related forms - so why dont some of you big-shot Theraphosa breeders do something like compare how stable these proposed diagnostic features are across all the offspring from an eggsac for example?, but please do use parents from the same WC collection - and hence you are restricted to only using specimens one natural locality, not mixing different geographic forms which can be expected to naturally have accumuated differences and variability by distance). 

Anyway, regardless of all this, it seems some of you dont want any taxpayer money to support funding biologists (professional or not) to figure out what species are there 'on the two sides of the 'goobigundo' river'... so maybe we will never know about Theraphosa in places like south Suriname, nor the other species that live in places like that. We could of course wait for all the undescribed biodiversity in south Suriname to go extinct, then we wont have any wild Theraphosa with intermediate characteristics to worry about.. and we will have two isolated species, until of course humans make those others extinct in the wild too...

Until then, if you have a species of Theraphosa in your collection which was sold as 'Theraphosa sp burgandy', exported from Souuth Guyana, and have the diagnostic characteristics of the described species T.stirmi, then DO change your tank labels to say T.stirmi please... otherwise you are simply ignoring the current science, and we havent progressed anywhere. If you are resistant to that current science, then you might also be happy with thinking all species were divinely created in their current form, and they are immutable while you are at it.


----------



## blay (Feb 16, 2011)

can someone post a picture of real T. blondi and "fake" t. blondi aka. t.spinipes/stamini, side by side so i can se the differences betwen two species.
please....


----------



## treeweta (Feb 16, 2011)

sjl197 said:


> Now, onto defining the species. There are so many cases in biology when defining a species is not open to debate, nor arbitary, so the previous comment that suggests that is complete crap. Yes there are many species concepts (i can name you about 27 if you want)



 Instead of saying that what i said was complete crap i'd prefer you to explain why you think im wrong. the definition of species is open to debate (you admit there are 27 concepts), its a term of convenience for us, i'd argue that it is therefore arbitrary. I'd say that the concept of species is arbitrary but the things we use to define them are based on practical concepts like viable offspring, isolation etc.

 I think you misunderstood me, i didnt mean arbitrary in some flippant and non consensual form, plainly there is an attempt to define what we mean as a species.
It is a perfectly valid and useful concept though and its reasonable to say that T.blondi and bsmithi are separate species within that framework but ultimately when you get to more recently diverged populations things become far more fuzzy.

 Also importantly to consider the notion through time, when you consider organism populations back in time and how they link to each other through common ancestry the notion of species then can be demonstrated as actually meaningless, when we consider currently living groups the fact that all the ancestors are dead and their descendents sufficiently different can we begin our notion of species in its practical sense.

i will again say that the notion is arbitrary but useful, its like shoe size, ultimately its made up but it is exceedingly useful as a concept despite the fact that human feet vary far more than the increments of size would dictate.

sjl197, dont get me wrong, grouping organisms by 'species' and higher levels (therefore) is an incredibly useful thing to do, im talking about this in a theoretical sense through time, i'd be an ass to suggest that the difference between tarantulas and eurypterids was practically meaningless because they share a common ancestor way back, and therefore you could find 2 trajectories from their last common ancestor which are joined by a series of intermediates. I hope that when i said arbitrary i now make sense to readers.

edit, actually changing the word arbitrary to 'artificial' might be better.

treeweta.


----------



## Fran (Feb 16, 2011)

(I wonder if Im one of those "big shots" )


Well, theres so much one can do, specially as an enthusiast with a full time job.
I do try to get as much information as possible about the WC specimens Im getting, and where the parents of the CB individuals were from (if WC).
Thats why I ask a million questions when purchasing Theraphosa.

More than 50% of the times this info is extremely hard to pursue, and you will only get a somewhat reliable info about if their parents were or not WC individuals.

As of the "stirmi/spinipes" label "hearsay"...I evaluate the source. If the sources are reliable enough for me to take a side on the story,then I reinforce my already formed opinion.


----------



## metallica (Feb 16, 2011)

Fran said:


> (I wonder if Im one of those "big shots" )


no, don't worry. Stuart used "big-shot Theraphosa breeders", not just "big shots".


----------



## Fran (Feb 16, 2011)

metallica said:


> no, don't worry. Stuart used "big-shot Theraphosa breeders", not just "big shots".


Oh, I see. Who are you?
Do you have anything interesting to add to this matter? Or you just showed up to make a childish insult?


----------



## Philth (Feb 16, 2011)

blay said:


> can someone post a picture of real T. blondi and "fake" t. blondi aka. t.spinipes/stamini, side by side so i can se the differences betwen two species.
> please....


See this , but keep in mind the link was made before T.stirmi was described. 

Later, Tom


----------



## metallica (Feb 16, 2011)

Fran said:


> Oh, I see. Who are you?
> Do you have anything interesting to add to this matter? Or you just showed up to make a childish insult?


I never introduced myself? Hi I'm Eddy.
You wrote you were wondering, so i helped you get that illuion out of your head.

Anyone is free to click the link in my signature and you will not have to read a single post from me ever again........ But be warned, you still see that i made a post in the thread and you will want to know what i wrote. So there really is no point in using the ignore button.

Cheers

Eddy


----------



## Fran (Feb 16, 2011)

metallica said:


> I never introduced myself? Hi I'm Eddy.
> You wrote you were wondering, so i helped you get that illuion out of your head.
> 
> Anyone is free to click the link in my signature and you will not have to read a single post from me ever again........ But be warned, you still see that i made a post in the thread and you will want to know what i wrote. So there really is no point in using the ignore button.
> ...



Ok Eddy. And what do you want to prove to the people reading here, with  those 2  completely unuseful posts? Did you contribute a single bit to the Theraphosa thread? No. 
Was that then to sound funny or elocuent?
Then, Eddy? 

If you have a personal thing with me, why dont you pm me  and keep your problems and personal tantrums off   the public thread?

Do you know how long have I been keeping Theraphosa? Do you know if I have bred this genus? Do you actually know if my college degree has something to do or not with Entomology?

So then Eddy, since You have no info about me or my background whatsoever  regarding the matter....What do you want to prove with those posts?


----------



## metallica (Feb 16, 2011)

Fran said:


> Ok Eddy. And what do you want to prove to the people reading here, with  those 2  rather unuseful posts? Did you contribute a single bit to the Theraphosa thread? No.
> Was that then to sound funny or elocuent?
> Then, Eddy?
> If you have a personal thing with me, why dont you pmm me  and keep your problems off   the public thread?
> ...


Hi Fran,
i don't have to prove anything.
i do know that in 07 you could not even sex a 7.5" blondi. That allready tells me a lot.

and here is something to keep on-topic

cheers

Eddy


----------



## sharpfang (Feb 16, 2011)

*What should I put w/ my Label Maker ? T. Blondi Sp.*

I got mine from KTBG, parents *paired* on T.V. {cute off-color feet}



smashtoad said:


> When Darwin went to Galapagos he discovered....


Today he'd Discover "Hybridizing" between the Iguana Sp. 



Bosing said:


> Well,
> I for one appreciate the tidbits of information in this thread. I guess I would have to change the sticker label on my T. spinipes again...


LOL 



metallica said:


> Hi I'm Eddy.
> 
> Anyone is free to click the link in my signature and you will not have to read a single post from me ever again........ But be warned, you still see that i made a post in the thread and you will want to know what i wrote. So there really is no point in using the ignore button.


High Eddy  pretty clever you are  *in 900+ yr. old YODA voice*


----------



## Fran (Feb 16, 2011)

Ok, Eddy. Now that you have posted a pretty picture actually regarding the thread you can move on.

Any problems, Im a PM away. Read the rules if you need to refresh your memory.


----------



## metallica (Feb 16, 2011)

Fran said:


> Do you know if I have bred this genus?


I'm pretty sure you haven't. Your brother might have, decades ago.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1819040&postcount=74



> Do you actually know if my college degree has something to do or not with Entomology?


you look more like a Geographer type of guy, specialized on climatology (dynamic and climatic).


----------



## Fran (Feb 16, 2011)

metallica said:


> I'm pretty sure you haven't. Your brother might have, decades ago.
> http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1819040&postcount=74
> 
> 
> ...



See? now you are a bit more informed. Yet it gives you no excuse for personal attacks.

Since i moved to the US, in 07, I started being interested in the genus and also taking matter into my own terms, rather than looking at my brothers breedings and collection.

At that time,my brothers -in laws were begining to do some field work on the Estado Amazonas, in Venezuela. Work that my brother got inviolved in, so I did since I help with  part of their papers regarding their work.

They have colegues on the field that are more involved with the local fauna, so most of thet info on Theraphosa started coming that way.

Now, im currently breeding CB and WC Theraphosa sp. "burgundy",and CB Theraphosa apophysis. On burgundy, with over 30 adult females I have 6 that  have been bred on late October early november and they are very close to laying.
On apophysis, I only have one succesfully paired female(August 2010)  and 4 subadult females. On the bred female, Im expecting a sack anytime now.

Wether all that will be succesful or not, only time will tell.

Regarding Theraphosa blondi, I currently have 18 slings/juveniles from 3 different blood lines that im raising for the same. Breeding.

But besides all this, my question is, do you think you are funny or rather amussing with your impertinent comments? Seriously. You came in to the thread to insult me? And what do you want me to do about it? I dont quite get it, but hey...What can we do.
Just so you know, I dont think no one cares. So yes, keep it on topic.


----------



## Suidakkra (Feb 16, 2011)

Are there any threads on this forum, that do not turn into a flame fest, go off-topic, or are derailed by someones personal disdain for another person?  I really was hoping this forum was above the typical Internet drivel that's out there when I first came upon it, but the more I read, the further away I am getting from my former enthusiasm. 

Back on Topic:

I have read that new studies and reclassification of the Theraphosa are supposedly in order. Does anyone know if those studies were completed, are being completed, or still in the process of publishing?  I could not find any information pertaining to the reclassification other than what I have read in the threads on this board. I am really curious about the reclassification, I want to venture into Theraphosa, but I wait for clarification of the genus since it seems to be a good deal of confusion on identification.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 16, 2011)

Fran said:


> Now, im currently breeding CB and WC Theraphosa sp. "burgundy",and CB Theraphosa apophysis. On burgundy, with over 30 adult females I have 6 that  have been bred on late October early november and they are very close to laying.
> On apophysis, I only have one succesfully paired female(August 2010)  and 4 subadult females. On the bred female, Im expecting a sack anytime now.


So you're _trying_ to breed them, since you haven't actually been successful...



Fran said:


> Just so you know, I dont think no one cares. So yes, keep it on topic.


I care, even though you don't care that I care.  Who are you to tell others to stay on-topic, anyway?

I mean...if you look at your last post, just because you were talking about your spiders doesn't mean you were even on-topic with relation to this actual thread...



Suidakkra said:


> Are there any threads on this forum, that do not turn into a flame fest, go off-topic, or are derailed by someones personal disdain for another person?  I really was hoping this forum was above the typical Internet drivel that's out there when I first came upon it, but the more I read, the further away I am getting from my former enthusiasm.
> 
> Back on Topic:
> 
> ...


You know what I'd like to see?  Published work by the people doing it, rather than someone trying to be the first to tell others that something may or may not happen.

I know if I was the one doing the work, I'd be pissed at all the gossip going on.  Give the credit to the people who deserve it.


----------



## Fran (Feb 16, 2011)

Suidakkra said:


> Are there any threads on this forum, that do not turn into a flame fest, go off-topic, or are derailed by someones personal disdain for another person?  I really was hoping this forum was above the typical Internet drivel that's out there when I first came upon it, but the more I read, the further away I am getting from my former enthusiasm.
> 
> Back on Topic:
> 
> ...



Its supossed to come this year...But who knows


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Feb 16, 2011)

I really don't understand how it came to be that what is currently Lasiodora spinipes is the same spider as Theraphosa stirmi thus warrenting any conversation about changing labels for T. stirmi.  I don't recall anyone stating without a doubt that it was.  We might have four species of Theraphosa after Bertani's revision of Lasiodora. Speaking of which, what's all this talk about work on the genus Theraphosa; is there something in the works other than the Lasiodora revision?

On another note, I'm still waiting on some insight to the questions I posed here : http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1793281&postcount=20


----------



## sjl197 (Feb 16, 2011)

@blay 
"can someone post a picture of real T. blondi and "fake" t. blondi aka. t.spinipes/stamini, side by side so i can se the differences betwen two species."

I can send you a copy of the Rudloff & Weinmann paper that describe and diagnose T.stirmi of you send my your email by PM for example. There are several photos in that paper, with diagnostic features.

@treeweta
I totally appologise for my use of 'complete crap'. I now see from your reply that you have a relatively good understanding of the challenges to define species. Yes, i mainly objected to the use of 'arbitary' as that can mean 'by chance, whim, or impulse', and that's not how species are defined. Yes there are several ways to define species, but each have reasoned criteria that are empirically assessed. Really too, i would prefer to avoid talking about persistence through time, as only few species concepts try to incorporate the past or future, most concentrate on the observations we can make now using the living forms and their ecology, behavior and distribution. Of course, i prefer species concepts that consider both past and present, but most definitions dont. Yes i agree when we are looking at ancient divergences boundaries are usually clear, and indeed its the population/ species interface where the challenges are ususally at. But you can have very recently divergent forms that are easily diagnosed as species, island endemics versus mainland widespread species are common examples. Anyway, i dont want to go more into defining species, except that here the T.blondi/T.stirmi debate seems to be exactly a problem of whether the two forms in different geographic locations are different enough to be called species or not. More work needs to be done, especially on characterizing intermediates, and on studying the reliability and stability of the characters proposed to separate the two 'forms' that are currently scientifically recognised as two distinct species.

@xhexdx. 
The gossip is a natural part of things unfortunately, especially when scientists are encouraged put 'teasers' and 'tasters' out there in the form of abstracts, posters and spoken presentations. Things like that stimulate debate, which hopefully eventually leads to consensus, or stimulates further study.

@eddy. 
I always wondered what the 'ignore me' thing did..., but im not yet ready to press the button, im always curious what amazing gem will appear from you next!  And just to stay on topic, ahem..:}, which are your pics supposed to be? They have furry knees... just like the ones Pato_Chacoana shows wild in French-Guiana on the wildpics part of the forum (and as Philth mentions that Martin/Tarcan did before that from French Guiana).., so eddy, im guessing those furry ones are from before the new wealth of Guyana exports, ie pre about 2006/7.

@ Fran. 
Good luck with all the breeding plans, and im glad you ask a million questions about your stock. Hopefully you apply the same rule to your sources of information... some sources are reliable, some gossip, but there's plenty of B/s out there from people who think they know more than they do. The first-hand knowledge or direct observations are normally the most reliable. We all generally just know a tiny part of the real -and possibly unknowable' true story for much of nature or species, but useful to try the best we can to reveal something of the true story...

@Suidakkra. 
No flames from me here now. No need to loose enthusiasm, plenty of work to be done, and the Rudloff/Weinmann paper describing T.stirmi is the most recent published work that i know of...

regards all

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

@AphonopelmaTX.

It was a good post in your link. Yes there has been a consistent failure to examine the types, which is critical. you mention 'Gerchman et al 1966' but do you infact mean Schiapelli and Gerchman 1967 or did i miss something. In the 1967 paper they drew a male without tibial spurs from AMNH material collected in Venezuala. ... does this mean there are male Theraphosa without spurs in venezuala or was there a label mishap somewhere?. They also say they examined the T.blondi types from Paris, sent by Dr. Vachon, so why they didnt draw and characterize those types instead of the AMNH non-type material i will never know  (were these paris specimens the actual specimens used by Latreille, or is this another fiction ??!, do they still exist?).

So yes, i agree, that right now if L.spinipes is actually a Theraphosa, then i have seen no more public release info to suggest whether it is going to be considered a new species, or instead a synonymy of any of the three named ones. If we are just going by the 2007 abstract by Bertani, its possibly even be considered a senior synonym of T.apophysis.


----------



## treeweta (Feb 16, 2011)

@sjl197.

i think we are in general agreement lol. I generally have to talk about populations changing through time when im faced with 'but we never see one species _just_ become another do we??' that type of thing....but i wont go there


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Feb 16, 2011)

sjl197 said:


> @AphonopelmaTX.
> It was a good post in your link. Yes there has been a consistent failure to examine the types, which is critical. you mention 'Gerchman et al 1966' but do you infact mean Schiapelli and Gerchman 1967 or did i miss something. In the 1967 paper they drew a male without tibial spurs from AMNH material collected in Venezuala. ... does this mean there are male Theraphosa without spurs in venezuala or was there a label mishap somewhere?. They also say they examined the T.blondi types from Paris, sent by Dr. Vachon, so why they didnt draw and characterize those types instead of the AMNH non-type material i will never know  (were these paris specimens the actual specimens used by Latreille, or is this another fiction ??!, do they still exist?).


To be perfectly clear on the article of question, I was referring to "Contribucion al conocimiento de Theraphosa leblondi (Latreille), 1804 (Aranea: Theraphosidae). Gerschman de P., B. S. &R. D. Schiapelli, MEMORIAS- INSTITUTO BUTANTAN SAO PAULO. 1966, VOL 33 pp. 667-674"

In the post I linked to, I grouped them together with the other authors who didn't examine the types because they used the AMNH specimens instead of the types for the drawings and written description.  I guess in retrospect I should have mentioned that Gerschman and Schiapelli at least examined the types where the others didn't.



sjl197 said:


> So yes, i agree, that right now if L.spinipes is actually a Theraphosa, then i have seen no more public release info to suggest whether it is going to be considered a new species, or instead a synonymy of any of the three named ones. If we are just going by the 2007 abstract by Bertani, its possibly even be considered a senior synonym of T.apophysis.


Oh the anticipation of finding out what the heck Lasiodora spinipes is (or "was" when the paper is published)!

- Lonnie


----------



## smashtoad (Feb 17, 2011)

sjl197 said:


> Firstly, can we please all just put any discussion of 'spinipes' aside for now. All that is being reported is hearsay, save for the abstract by Dr Bertani at the ISA congress in 2007 in Brazil. The abstract was a poster presentation. A great conference, which i also attended and enjoyed very much by the way. But, the key point is - there is no formal publication to formally transfer L.spinipes to Theraphosa, nor to synonymise it with any existing species.
> 
> The holotype specimen of L.spinipes a very old and damaged female, and i personally have little hope it is possible to match well enough against any of the current 'species' of Theraphosa. Further, to go back to an earlier comment, the original Ausserer description only unhelpfully mentions collected in 'Brazil', rather than any more specific locale (like Sao Paulo and Santa Catalina) that was suggested later by Mello-Letao, without any reference to the actual type specimen, and so cant be trusted. There is no way that real Theraphosa will range into Santa Catalina in far south Brasil.
> 
> ...


Case in point...notice the smiley faces in the above diatribe? Please allow me to translate. Translation: I am so very proud of myself, aren't you? End of Translation.

Yes, some species are pretty solid...but many aren't, and they are changing all the time, right? Therefore, your species definitions are crap.  But hey...enjoy temporarily defining things at taxpayer expense. 

No one said, anywhere in this thread, that all species were "divinely created in their current form", but nice try at manipulating the data (have you worked with Al Gore?)...notice my statement on domestic dogs.  How about attacking what I said there...that your hero Darwin discovered NOTHING MORE than a natural version of what we had been doing with the dog for 4K years?  It is exactly the same...and Darwin didn't see it.  And his book was about a lot more than animals...Hitler loved his work.

You can blather on and on and on about intermediary characteristics, et al. But my opinion remains the same. Scientists try to beat you over the head with terms and language so complicated that you believe they MUST SURELY understand the simplest of things in nature...when that is exactly what they don't understand.

Guess whose post was a LOT more fun to read?  And mine didn't take two intermissions.


----------



## billopelma (Feb 17, 2011)

> .notice my statement on domestic dogs. How about attacking what I said there...that your hero Darwin discovered NOTHING MORE than a natural version of what we had been doing with the dog for 4K years? It is exactly the same...and Darwin didn't see it. And his book was about a lot more than animals...Hitler loved his work.


Who wants to argue against Dogma...?


Bill


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 17, 2011)

I think that the situation of Theraphosa genus might be a bit like all those lookalike Avics (Avicularia, metallica and else) or other species where difference are seen only with a maganifier pointed at hard to see body parts.

But there are more troubling cases to my mind. Like, Psalmos being classified in Avicularinae yet you put a black and white pic of P cambridgei along balck and with pics of L violaceopes and ask the non expert to sort which one is OW and NW! Or H mac being put in the Avicularinae also... :?  but I have been told that I cannot use visual cues to disprove what has been officially classified (by mere mortals).


----------



## Zoltan (Feb 17, 2011)

Smashtoad, the most recent _Theraphosa_ article wasn't funded by taxpayers' dollars (I think), so your argument is invalid.

Lonnie, I wanted to respond to your post *here* when I read it first, but I don't really have much to add or say. You summed up the problems with _T. blondi_ nicely. If I remember correctly, Pérez-Miles _et al._ (1996) state they have examined the types of _T. blondi_, but their article doesn't deal with the species in depth and doesn't say if there are stridulatory setae on legs II.

Pérez-Miles, F., S. M. Lucas, P. I. da Silva Jr., & R. Bertani. 1996. Systematic revision and cladistic analysis of Theraphosinae (Araneae: Theraphosidae). _Mygalomorph_ *1*: 33-68.



			
				Merfolk said:
			
		

> But there are more troubling cases to my mind. Like, Psalmos being classified in Avicularinae yet you put a black and white pic of P cambridgei along balck and with pics of L violaceopes and ask the non expert to sort which one is OW and NW! Or H mac being put in the Avicularinae also... :?  but I have been told that I cannot use visual cues to disprove what has been officially classified (by mere mortals).


Have you read the article which regards _Psalmopoeus_ and _Heteroscodra_ as aviculariines? If not, go and read it, and let us know your opinion why they should be in different subfamilies. I don't know what black and white pictures have to do with their subfamilial placements though. :?


----------



## sjl197 (Feb 17, 2011)

@Smashtoad. 
Right, i will keep this brief, avoiding to much diatribe = 'learned discourse'
(sorry to the others if you think this off-topic digression !)

First, its difficult to explain that i am not attacking, i'm trying to persuade you about some things to help you understand my perspective, I believe it might be called rhetoric. I am not trying to 'beat you over the head with terms and language so complicated', but i am trying to introduce you to new terms and new ways of thinking, which might be called education from open discussion. I too am being educated to your way of thinking Smashtoad.

Please though, at least try to get facts right about Darwin and domestication. Actually, though i never talked to him personally, Darwin was well aware of the influence artificial selection can have on domestic animals, and if you dare open a copy of his 1859 'on the origin of the species', you will amazingly find that chapter 1 is called 'variation under domestication', about 47 pages on the topic. He seemed more obsessed with pigeons than dogs, but there you go. If you care to read on, he used domestic variation as an understandable theme throughout the book to help people relate to the possibility of natural variability and descent with modification. That was his legacy. I don't remember him saying much on Theraphosa species though.

If that's not enough on domestication, as with many in 1860's, then try:
Darwin, C. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. Thats a whole book, wait, its two volumes infact.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_VariationunderDomestication.html
Please consider Darwin wrote more than one book, and that he discussed so many areas in his most well known book. Try reading these sometime.

Now Re, "No one said, anywhere in this thread, that all species were 'divinely created in their current form'". No, they didnt, but God entered discussion a while back before we rightly dropped this. My statement was a historical illusion to the old debates that Darwin himself had, to convince people that there was variation in species, and that variation could be subject to selection, both natural and artificial. Sorry you didnt get that.  

and if its still possible to convey something to you Smashtoad, then lookup the fossil Sinornithosaurus, which might be the 'venomous bird' referred to in the earlier post you so easily contradicted. That's venomous by the way, not poisonous, but i thought there was no need to point out that before, we don't all read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0912360107.abstract

Right, where was I... ah, Theraphosa, intermediates, looking at how reliable and stable characters might be to define them.. even over time.

Hopefully this post was more fun to read. Sorry, didn't know that was why we were writing on here, i thought we were discussing Theraphosa.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 17, 2011)

I don't know what black and white pictures have to do with their subfamilial placements though. :?[/QUOTE]

Only strikingly similar features between those two, and few with Avics. But anyway, its my opinion.


----------



## hooale (Feb 17, 2011)

Fran said:


> Now, im currently breeding CB and WC Theraphosa sp. "burgundy",and CB Theraphosa apophysis. On burgundy, with over 30 adult females I have 6 that  have been bred on late October early november and they are very close to laying.
> On apophysis, I only have one succesfully paired female(August 2010)  and 4 subadult females. On the bred female, Im expecting a sack anytime now.
> 
> Wether all that will be succesful or not, only time will tell.


Bit off topic, sorry for that...

Awesome collection of "burgundy". I guess now it is the time to get your breeding group as it is always a risk that Guyana will stop exporting. For me personally i cannot stand the itching of the hairs, that is what is keeping me from getting a nice group of "burgundy".  

Can you share some pics of your facility?


----------



## Fran (Feb 17, 2011)

hooale said:


> Bit off topic, sorry for that...
> 
> Awesome collection of "burgundy". I guess now it is the time to get your breeding group as it is always a risk that Guyana will stop exporting. For me personally i cannot stand the itching of the hairs, that is what is keeping me from getting a nice group of "burgundy".
> 
> Can you share some pics of your facility?


Sure I can take pics, but no facility here 

Just in my appartment. We have a somewhat big loundry room, and thats where temps get to be perfect.

Also, the bigger CB girls are in display in 40G tanks.


----------



## Lorum (Feb 18, 2011)

Well, this thread has been by far the best one I have read in a lot of time.

So, Bertani never said anything about _Lasiodora spinipes_ (pos. new. comb. _Theraphosa spinipes_) being a senior/junior synonym of another _Theraphosa_ species (or a new one)? Why did I think that it could possibly be the same spider as _Theraphosa sp._ Burgundy? Gossip, I have to ignore arachno-gossip...:wall:


----------



## smashtoad (Feb 20, 2011)

sjl197 said:


> @Smashtoad.
> Right, i will keep this brief, avoiding to much diatribe = 'learned discourse'
> (sorry to the others if you think this off-topic digression !)
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm done.  You are one very arrogant person, and this discussion could go on for days. In those days, you would undoubtedly introduce me to many "new ways of thinking", enlightening me to ends my fragile mind didn't even know existed.  Wow...I wish we could go on and on with this.  I was referring to the poison found in the feathers of LIVING birds, Doctor...not conjectured fossil theory...for the love of God...you people make me insane.  Notice the word "discovered" in my article...not "did they" or "maybe they".  Again...taxpayer funded conjecture to keep the thrill alive!

http://www.suite101.com/content/poisonous-birds-a11293

Darwin discovered nothing...and to the guy who asked "who wants to argue with dogma?"  The truth hurts sometimes, don't it? 

Here's the bottom line:  Animals change (NEWSFLASH).  But if you believe every living thing on this earth, both plant and animal, came from a single source of life...your lack of vision for nature may be unfixable, and I will not be hammered by people who are content to just puke out the current scientific lines or theories...as it is sad.  I want to argue with thinkers.

If you guys, especially the good doctor...would like to move this somewhere where we can continue this...I'd love it.


----------



## sjl197 (Feb 20, 2011)

Im agreed too much sidelines here. Im done. 

@smashtoad.
Please go ahead if you want to open new threads on any sideline topics here, i will hopefully see them, and reply if i have time and reason to comment. 

@Fran. 
Apologies for off-topic. Best of luck with the breedings! It would indeed be great to see some pics how you have them setup, and get update on successes.


----------



## Fran (Feb 28, 2011)

So it seems like theres work being done about  a possible 4th Theraphosa, from Brazil.


----------

