# Yet another Theraphosa "sp"  thread



## Fran (Jul 28, 2010)

Not to beat the dead horse, but certain people in the hobby dont really help the mess sometimes we have misslabing the sp.

For several months, and even though the revision regarding the "Burgundy/Spnipies" and  the whole Theraphosa genus has not been yet presented, is getting quite clear that T.Blondi and T."sp burgundy" are 2 diff specie.

It doesnt help at all that, when I contact some of the hobbiests and some of the dealers regarding their "Blondi" in stock, after requesting for pictures that clearly show *they are not Theraphosa Blondi* and after explaining them that what they have does not seem to be correct...They still misslabel  them.

Some being just hard headed about it, some others just doing it to make the sale.

I understand that till the revision is presented is not wise to give them the "Spinipes" name,
BUT
At least, be honest, respect the rest of us and make a notation or explain that *it might not be a true Theraphosa Blondi*.
Out of accuracy, out of respect for the hobbysts...and so we dont waste our time requesting pictures.

Only ONE person I have talked to regarding this issure has made an honest change on the labels on his stock. ONE.


----------



## Falk (Jul 28, 2010)

Confirmed species are probably easier to sell.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Jul 28, 2010)

Falk said:


> Confirmed species are probably easier to sell.


Exactly......


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 28, 2010)

In that case, just present the absract of the to be published paper. Which reminds me, do we have any idea when it will be out?

IMO, it might also be due to people still considering them to be the "same" until the paper is out. Recent memories of the Great Debate, Round 2 are still fresh in my mind...


----------



## cacoseraph (Jul 28, 2010)

hardly any dealers EVER key out their stock.  only a couple of the CA dealers i know are really even that concerned about it, it seems like


----------



## syndicate (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm not gonna point any fingers here but there's tons of dealers who don't take the time to properly identify there stock and even more that don't know how to ID certain species.Take Haplopelma for example..I cant tell you how many spiders are sold with the wrong species name or silly made up common names!
If you visit some reptile show's you will see this at about as worst as it can get lol!Some of the dealers look at me like I'm crazy if I try and tell them info or they just think I'm some kind of jerk know it all D:
Regarding the sp."Burgundy" it's almost safe to say that the majority of blondi being sold in the US hobby currently are not the real T.blondi!As I'm sure you already know ;]
I will assume this problem with labeling will prob still be present after the mentioned papers are published.Truth to the matter tho is the real T.blondi are becoming super rare!Here at least..So I expect to see some big price tags on the real thing when they do show up!
-Chris


----------



## 1truth (Jul 28, 2010)

So most of the blondi's in the trade are actually the burgandy then?


----------



## Falk (Jul 28, 2010)

1truth said:


> So most of the blondi's in the trade are actually the burgandy then?


Many of them are.


----------



## 1truth (Jul 28, 2010)

how long has it been like this?


----------



## Sleazoid (Jul 28, 2010)

1truth said:


> how long has it been like this?


I am guessing since the great days where they started to evolve I bet they were saying something along the lines of: "Hey guys, how about some of us shave our legs, and some of us don't so once we get taken by those big creatures we will make it difficult for them to identify which is which and will confuse their whole hobby!" I am thinking somewhere along those lines, but who knows.


----------



## Falk (Jul 28, 2010)

Chocoboizm said:


> I am guessing since the great days where they started to evolve I bet they were saying something along the lines of: "Hey guys, how about some of us shave our legs, and some of us don't so once we get taken by those big creatures we will make it difficult for them to identify which is which and will confuse their whole hobby!" I am thinking somewhere along those lines, but who knows.


Yeah, some of us shave our legs and put some nice white socks on our 4 front legs.


----------



## Sleazoid (Jul 28, 2010)

Haha yeah, I don't really know that much about the difference of the two, or the genus that much at all. I really need to look up on it, so I will go search for it later for a good read. Now it makes me want a real T. blondi. I always wanted a T. apophysis but other T's always came first.


----------



## Fran (Jul 28, 2010)

Check  "Philth" pictures around  .

I have the 3 of them, only 1 true Blondi.


----------



## NevularScorpion (Jul 28, 2010)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the fuzzy legs T blondi are the real one ?


----------



## cacoseraph (Jul 28, 2010)

fran, i am curious as to how you came to that conclusion?


did you key them out or check them against species descriptions?


just cuz there is a bit of variation in color or some relatively minor morphological characteristic doesn't necessarily mean different species


----------



## Fran (Jul 28, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> fran, i am curious as to how you came to that conclusion?
> 
> 
> did you key them out or check them against species descriptions?
> ...




To be quit honest, besides observing the obvious diferences and reading a lot  on the matter around, I completely trusted the word of the "authorities" on the matter, like Rick West and company.

Based on that and on the short conversations via mail I have had with some of them, I think I am able to diferenciate them. Am I 100% right? Not at all, till the papers come out.


----------



## jebbewocky (Jul 29, 2010)

This is part of the reason I'm not getting a blondi.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

It seems funny that people are so concerned about this. Officially as of now, there are only two species in the Theraphosa genus.  T. blondi and T. apophysis . . .and even the distinction between these two can be very difficult to make!  A few variations among individuals of the same species hardly merits classifying them as separate species and/or re-labeling them!


----------



## Philth (Aug 1, 2010)

I tried to stay out of this one but.....



The Mack said:


> It seems funny that people are so concerned about this. Officially as of now, there are only two species in the Theraphosa genus.  T. blondi and T. apophysis . . .and even the distinction between these two can be very difficult to make!  A few variations among individuals of the same species hardly merits classifying them as separate species and/or re-labeling them!


How many "variations" , merit a new species?  Whats the rule?  New species or not, why would you mix 2 spiders that have obvious differences from s'lings to adulthood???? Like I have said over and over again:wall:..... if you were breeding panther chameleons or green tree pythons, ect....you would get crucified on there boards for mixing locals.



The Mack said:


> T. blondi and T. apophysis . . .and even the distinction between these two can be very difficult to make!



I disagree, see these pics.  Once you've  seen the 3 spiders in person, they are pretty easy to tell apart.

Later, Tom


----------



## Falk (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> It seems funny that people are so concerned about this. Officially as of now, there are only two species in the Theraphosa genus.  T. blondi and T. apophysis . . .and even the distinction between these two can be very difficult to make!  A few variations among individuals of the same species hardly merits classifying them as separate species and/or re-labeling them!


Well mr if they have different looking spermatechae:wall:


----------



## Jmugleston (Aug 1, 2010)

Philth said:


> I tried to stay out of this one but.....


It seems that this comes up about once a month or so doesn't it? Bit of a broken record thing going on.



The Mack said:


> It seems funny that people are so concerned about this. Officially as of now, there are only two species in the Theraphosa genus.  T. blondi and T. apophysis . . .and even the distinction between these two can be very difficult to make!  A few variations among individuals of the same species hardly merits classifying them as separate species and/or re-labeling them!


It isn't quite so simple. The differences between them are quite noticeable and it is more than a simple color variant. I was very skeptical about the "new species" claims (I even have threads where I question the validity and bring up the possibly marketing scheme that may be involved). I was wrong. There are three spiders sold under the name of Theraphosa. It took a bit of time, the careful eye of my wife pointing out that I have more than 2 species, some conversations with taxonomists, Tom's photos, and finally access to Tinter's information before I finally was convinced. 

Now to keep from being too redundant, I have once again attached a photo with all three species side by side. I have also included a link to a post I left on another thread. *All of this echos what Tom has said above. *

To save time typing:


Jmugleston said:


> There are a bunch of threads covering this already, so I'll be brief and mention some characters as well as some notable color differences:
> T. apophysis:
> Much more "hair" covering the legs especially the underside
> Generally a pinkish/reddish hue.
> ...



The localities are different as well.

This subject has been covered quite a bit over the last year. Until the revision paper is published, there are two recognized species in the genus Theraphosa. Just because only two are recognized doesn't automatically discount the existence of a third species that is closely related to the known two. In this case it seems the third species has been identified, but it was erroneously put in a different genus. Hopefully this long talked about revision paper will correct the name and settle this issue.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

Sorry, but again there isn't a shred of scientific evidence here that proves there are more than two species. Just a couple of suspect pictures and a bunch of "he said she said." 

In fact, I think that it would be difficult to even prove scientifically that the apophysis and blondi are actually different species. And yes, a difference in spermethecae can definitely be attributed to variation! Just like a difference in hair color in humans is attributed to variation. . we don't just call redheads a "new species" lol


----------



## Falk (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Sorry, but again there isn't a shred of scientific evidence here that proves there are more than two species. Just a couple of suspect pictures and a bunch of "he said she said."
> 
> In fact, I think that it would be difficult to even prove scientifically that the apophysis and blondi are actually different species. And yes, a difference in spermethecae can definitely be attributed to variation! Just like a difference in hair color in humans is attributed to variation. . we don't just call redheads a "new species" lol


Are you comparing spermatechae with hair color?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

I am comparing the expression of genes in one organism to the expression of genes in another.


----------



## Mack&Cass (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Sorry, but again there isn't a shred of scientific evidence here that proves there are more than two species. Just a couple of suspect pictures and a bunch of "he said she said."
> 
> In fact, I think that it would be difficult to even prove scientifically that the apophysis and blondi are actually different species. And yes, a difference in spermethecae can definitely be attributed to variation! Just like a difference in hair color in humans is attributed to variation. . we don't just call redheads a "new species" lol


For one, yes there is scientific evidence, hence the paper everyone is waiting to be published. 

Second, redheads have the same sex organs as blondes and brunettes. If spermathecae difference was simply an 'expression of genes' then there would just be one species of tarantula. They're different for a reason - just like males' palpal emboli are all different.

Cass


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 1, 2010)

Why are so many people in denial over the _fact_ that there is soon to be a third classified _Theraphosa........_???

The differences are fairly obvious no?

I don't get it?

:?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

Mack&Cass said:


> For one, yes there is scientific evidence, hence the paper everyone is waiting to be published.


It amazes me how emotionally convinced all of you are on this topic, especially only based on the words of a few "authorities" on the subject and in many cases only words and pictures you have seen on the internet. In fact, "authorities" have no place in science. Here is why your one single paper really can't actually scientifically change the taxonomy standing of these big brown spiders:

A properly written scientific result connects an outcome with a theory it is meant to test, and some experimental results meant to either break new ground or confirm prior results as in a replication. (In our case we would be trying to prove or disprove the hypothesis that these spiders are indeed separate species) This divorces the outcome from the individuals responsible for it — scientists evaluate an idea on the basis of its connection with theory and its connection with evidence (both of which are open to challenge and further work), but not its connection with a particular source. If scientific research is conducted properly, its source becomes irrelevant to an evaluation of its meaning.

The demotion of authority in science has many roots:

    * The fact that results are not taken seriously until they have been replicated in independent experiments by people one may assume will not collude in covering up sloppy or fraudulent results.

    * The vital connection between theory and results. Shaping theories generalizes specific results and allows experiments using different methods to test the same claim, liberates the outcome from the biases of any individual, and ultimately creates a basis for distinct scientific fields (biology and chemistry are different fields not because of different names but because of different theories).

    * Statistical and mathematical analyses that are verifiable in their own right and that estimate the probability that a result arose by chance.

    * The innate skepticism and high standards of the scientists who read the result, e.g. the default assumption that an idea is false until and unless there is evidence to support it.

Because of these safeguards, and if the science is conducted properly, no single person can promote a result that merits the name "scientific". The best science depends on many experiments, conducted in different ways by different people, that confirm or falsify a theoretical claim. The worst science depends on a single result, emanating from a single researcher, that cannot be replicated and/or that doesn't assert or test a theoretical claim.




Mack&Cass said:


> Second, redheads have the same sex organs as blondes and brunettes.


Cass

. . and women have different sex organs than men, but they are still one species. :wall:

Why can't people here just accept that there truly hasn't been enough scientific experimentation (genetic testing, widespread documented knowledge) regarding these spiders to truly know whether they are different species or not?  For some tarantulas, it is obvious whether they are different species. That isn't true with this situation.



Mack&Cass said:


> For one, yes there is scientific evidence, hence the paper everyone is waiting to be published.
> 
> If spermathecae difference was simply an 'expression of genes' then there would just be one species of tarantula. Cass


:? huh? Every physical attribute you and every other living organism have is an expression of genes. Genes govern everything you (and tarantulas) physically are.  

And to further compound your error. . .there are many tarantulas of scientifically proven separate species which have the same sex organs. These differences in spermethecae CAN BE PART of the evidence needed to prove that they are separate species, but by itself (or coupled with only physical differences) they do not comprise sound acceptable evidence.


----------



## Fran (Aug 1, 2010)

So yes, it really doesnt help matters when Dealers keep labeling them as T.Blondi althought is clear they are not.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 1, 2010)

Fran said:


> So yes, it really doesnt help matters when Dealers keep labeling them as T.Blondi althought is clear they are not.


Dealers are only in it for the money mainly, hence labeling them "true blondi's" when as you rightly say, its obvious that they aren't. This hopefully I reckon will get sorted out upon the release of the official paper and when it has the classified valid name _Theraphosa spinipes_.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

Jmugleston said:


> You should grab some species description papers and see what characters are used by taxonomists to separate taxa. You are using phrases like "prove scientifically" and "expression of genes", but it doesn't appear as though you have much backing in the scientific process, taxonomy, systematics, etc.
> 
> If you're looking for an argument, I'm sure you can find one. But first you may want to look at the species descriptions for Theraphosa blondi, T. apophysis, and Lasiodora spinipes.


Are you suggesting then that the definition of species changes when it comes to tarantulas? 

I will be the first to say (and I'm sure if any EXPERTS were present on these boards that they would agree) that the taxonomy of spiders/tarantulas is not a cut and dry affair like mathematics or physics. There are a lot of blurred areas and unknowns - partly because of the physical limitations of studying these tarantulas in nature but also because of the sheer lack of people doing so. 

The taxonomy of some animals is just obvious like I said. . so there isn't much need for excessive experimentation to find the true answer in terms of classifying species. That isn't the case here. And I have provided more scientific "backing" for my viewpoint than you have for yours. .surely all you will do is attempt to poke holes in my statements.


----------



## billopelma (Aug 1, 2010)

> Are you suggesting then that the definition of species changes when it comes to tarantulas?


Yes, it does change indeed, obviously Tarantulas are not defined the same as other types of life. How could you use the same points to define worms or rodents when the physical characteristics from one order don't exist in the other. Duh. 
These definitions are also virtual and change constantly as new revisions come out. New revisions by taxonomists, that is. You know, the people who define species and such...



> I will be the first to say (and I'm sure if any EXPERTS were present on these boards that they would agree) that the taxonomy of spiders/tarantulas is not a cut and dry affair like mathematics or physics.


Oh, you're the first huh... And again you answer your own questions. Like many here are trying unsuccessfully to get through to you, it's not cut and dried, it can and will change and is as we speak. There will be three species of Theraphosa, as defined by experts/taxonomists, just as it always is...



> And I have provided more scientific "backing" for my viewpoint....


And where would this backing be? I must have missed it...



Density and ignorance, combined and magnified... :wall:


Bill


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Aug 1, 2010)

Jmugleston said:


> I Hopefully this long talked about revision paper will correct the name and settle this issue.


Don't worry, it won't. 

If anyone has actually read descriptions of a tarantula species found in a peer reviewed journal, then one should know that stable characters are not easily seen by looking at a live specimen.  One will need dead material, a good quality shed excuvia from an adult, or a sedated individual, and a microscope.  Dealers and hobbyists will continue to use the same superficial highly variable and highly subjective characters to say if they have a T. blondi or T. sp "whatever it will be called."  The T. apophysis paper has been out for years and most can't tell the difference between an adult female T. blondi (as currently recognized as such) and adult female T. apophysis. A third is just going to add another possibility to the "what do I have" threads on the internet.  This reminds me so much of the Haplopelma minax, H. longipes, and H. sp "vietnam" thing.  Even though H. longipes is very easy to identify and the paper has been written (although in German), dealers can't seem to identify it for whatever reason.  With the paper, some familiarity with the systematic terminology, material, and a microscope, one is only going to be able to determine what they have in their possession after they bought it.

- Lonnie


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

billopelma said:


> Yes, it does change indeed, obviously Tarantulas are not defined the same as other types of life. How could you use the same points to define worms or rodents when the physical characteristics from one order don't exist in the other. Duh.
> These definitions are also virtual and change constantly as new revisions come out. New revisions by taxonomists, that is. You know, the people who define species and such...


Very interesting Bill. So in this world you speak of where the definition of a species changes from organism to organism, I suppose we are all free to decide what makes certain organisms separate species then? That would make everyone a taxonomist then now wouldn't it! Even you. I am curious, in this world you speak of, does the theory of gravity also break down when it doesn't align with your personal hunches? 

The fact is, there is an OBJECTIVE and SCIENTIFIC definition for species, and guess what, it pertains to tarantulas also. It does not magically change just to make classifying tarantulas easier for hobbyists or people who post on message boards. I never "defined tarantulas the same as other forms of life" as you said. Of course they are different, you are constructing a fallacy. What I did say was that tarantulas need to be held to the same scientific standards in terms of classifying them. 





billopelma said:


> Oh, you're the first huh... And again you answer your own questions. Like many here are trying unsuccessfully to get through to you, it's not cut and dried, it can and will change and is as we speak. There will be three species of Theraphosa, as defined by experts/taxonomists, just as it always is...


Well I am certainly the first in these threads to say it. If you and many have been "trying unsuccessfully to get through to me" that the taxonomy of tarantulas isn't cut and dry, then show me exactly where this was said. In  fact the opposite of what you said is happening here. . everyone here is SURE that there are three species, despite sound evidence. They definitely seem to think its cut and dry to me! 




billopelma said:


> And where would this backing be? I must have missed it...


If you have read my posts thoroughly you would see that I have provided many sound logical and scientific reasons for why these tarantulas should be considered one species. Just to summarize: 

*They look very similar

*They come from the same geographical region, and it CANNOT be proved that they do not interbreed in nature. (Sooo many of you fail to understand this point)

*Not a single bit of genetic testing has been done to provide any evidence of your claim that they are separate. 



billopelma said:


> Density and ignorance, combined and magnified... :wall:
> 
> 
> Bill


Funny, I was thinking the same thing after reading your reply!


----------



## Zoltan (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Very interesting Bill. So in this world you speak of where the definition of a species changes from organism to organism, I suppose we are all free to decide what makes certain organisms separate species then?
> 
> The fact is, there is an OBJECTIVE and SCIENTIFIC definition for species, and guess what, it pertains to tarantulas also.


Fact: there isn't just one, universal definition of "species" that is accepted by everyone. Google "species concepts":

http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Fut_Tab_15_01_species_concepts.gif



The Mack said:


> That would make everyone a taxonomist then now wouldn't it!










			
				J. E. Winston said:
			
		

> We are all taxonomists.


----------



## Jmugleston (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Are you suggesting then that the definition of species changes when it comes to tarantulas?
> 
> I will be the first to say (and I'm sure if any EXPERTS were present on these boards that they would agree) that the taxonomy of spiders/tarantulas is not a cut and dry affair like mathematics or physics. There are a lot of blurred areas and unknowns - partly because of the physical limitations of studying these tarantulas in nature but also because of the sheer lack of people doing so.
> 
> The taxonomy of some animals is just obvious like I said. . so there isn't much need for excessive experimentation to find the true answer in terms of classifying species. That isn't the case here. And I have provided more scientific "backing" for my viewpoint than you have for yours. .surely all you will do is attempt to poke holes in my statements.



I won't need to try to hard to find holes in your reasoning. Your argument is silly at best. You are correct in that taxonomy is not cut and dry. There are numerous arguments for species concepts. Some of the more popular ones are Biological Species Concept, Evolutionary Species Concept, Phylogenetic Species Concept, and the list goes on for a long while. It seems to differ on your taxa of interest, whether or not fossils are involved, if you can reasonably sample the populations, etc. But I'm sure you already know that since you have shown your academic prowess with such statements as "proven scientifically".

Now as for physics and math. If you think that is cut and dry, you have no appreciation for the current research in those fields. Honestly....physics is cut and dry? 

The beauty of taxonomy, and science in general, is that once a hypothesis is formed it can be tested. If someone makes a claim that there are three different spiders pictured above, another can come through and refute that argument. There is a procedure to do that. We're not taxonomists. We're hobbyists saying there looks to be three spiders. It appears as though these three spiders have three separate names in the literature as well. 

We have provided morphological differences ranging from relative lengths of the femurs, presence of tibial apophyses, shape of the carapace, etc. All of which have been used to differentiate other spiders. I don't study spiders. I collect them. I am not an arachnid taxonomist either. I do work in the field of molecular systematics. I may know a bit about characters, traits, variation and how these are used in taxonomy.

In all honestly it sounds like you are arguing against species concepts and you don't feel that the current method of determining species is adequate. That is a fair argument but probably deserves its own thread....or numerous books as have been published. Or is it that we're not taxonomists so we shouldn't be concerned with the extreme morphological differences in the three spiders pictured above...even though less has been used to differentiate other tarantulas? Or is it that Theraphosa blondi and T. apophysis are not different species because you have evidence that the variation between those species is continuous and what we are calling characters are actually traits? What are you claiming exactly?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

I am very aware of the species concept Zoltan, thank you for the reply. If anything though, the species concept illustrates why there shouldn't be so much hurry to classify these tarantulas as separate species. 

In other words, I can't imagine how the species concept would help support the claim that these are different species.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 1, 2010)

Here we go yet again...

My two cents: separate species or not, none of the _Theraphosa_ spp. should be interbed in order to keep them distinct and keep variety within the hobby. Something I think we all can agree on.


----------



## Jmugleston (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> *They look very similar
> 
> *They come from the same geographical region, and it CANNOT be proved that they do not interbreed in nature. (Sooo many of you fail to understand this point)
> 
> *Not a single bit of genetic testing has been done to provide any evidence of your claim that they are separate.


They look similar: (Morphological species concept?)-So do all the great apes, but we see unique characters in each species.

Same Region (Biological Species Concept): South America? Chimps are from Africa. Humans originated in Africa? No geographical isolation. According to your methods, same continent = same species? Though Guyana, Surinam, and Venezuela are large areas when you're an 8" spider.

Genetic similarity (Phylogenetic species concept?): Over 95% similarity in chimp and human genomes..........What arbitrary limit would you set on genetic diversity to differentiate spiders? 

So according to your use of three different species concepts (though you apparently don't agree with multiple species concepts) humans and chimps may be the same species.

There is method for determining species. This can be tested and refuted. You are mixing multiple species concepts. Of course we cannot prove the populations are isolated. On your reasoning, we cannot "prove" many populations are separated. That is not a feasible option on many species. So either we throw our hands up and give up, or look at other evidence and draw ideas. It might not be tested in the description paper but further phylogenetic analyses will test the hypothesis and either support it or refute it. Using your methods, is it safe to pair any species of Mexican brachy since we cannot be 100% sure they aren't breeding in nature? How about Pamphos? Haplos? Where do *you* draw the line?



The Mack said:


> I am very aware of the species concept Zoltan, thank you for the reply. If anything though, the species concept illustrates why there shouldn't be so much hurry to classify these tarantulas as separate species.
> 
> In other words, I can't imagine how the species concept would help support the claim that these are different species.


Apparently you are not that aware of "the species concept" since as the link would show, there are many species concept*s*. I thought maybe it was a typo, but three times you referred to it as "the species concept" implying you really don't know much about how this works. 

We want to keep them separate because if evidence comes forward through the proper channels, i.e. not hobbyists, then we have all three bloodlines. If by chance they are able to interbreed (though evidence from accidental pairings seen by keepers on this forum speaks otherwise) we don't want to mix what may be three separate spiders.

I think the only positive thing that will come from continuing this futile argument is my post count will increase....that's cool I guess.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

So at the beginning of your reply: 


Jmugleston said:


> I won't need to try to hard to find holes in your reasoning. Your argument is silly at best.


And at the very end of your reply:


Jmugleston said:


> What are you claiming exactly?


:clap:

LOL I'm sorry, but this was just comical. It really does show how you have more emotion invested in this than logic and reason. As for the rest of your post, I did enjoy reading it and I appreciate having this discussion with you.




Jmugleston said:


> You are correct in that taxonomy is not cut and dry. There are numerous arguments for species concepts. Some of the more popular ones are Biological Species Concept, Evolutionary Species Concept, Phylogenetic Species Concept, and the list goes on for a long while. It seems to differ on your taxa of interest, whether or not fossils are involved, if you can reasonably sample the populations, etc. But I'm sure you already know that since you have shown your academic prowess with such statements as "proven scientifically".


I really don't see how you have argued _against_ me here. . .You are basically admitting that there is a gray area when it comes to these tarantulas. And my statement "proven scientifically" can be interpreted in the same sense that gravity or relativity can be "proven scientifically." Experiments can be reproduced countless times to the same results which confirm the theories of gravity or relativity. I consider that "scientific proof."  




Jmugleston said:


> Now as for physics and math. If you think that is cut and dry, you have no appreciation for the current research in those fields. Honestly....physics is cut and dry?


Physics possesses a well-tested theoretical core that can predict physical events to a staggering degree of precision, typically ten or more decimal places. And, because so much of modern technology hinges on an understanding of physics, physical theories are constantly being retested and modified when they are discovered not to reflect reality. So when a bridge is built on the basis of (physics) laboratory tests, the steel in the bridge is very likely to behave in the same way — all according to a very clear physical theory, a theory confirmed by experiments that could have falsified the theory but didn't.  In a nutshell, physics is _more_ than cut and dry when you compare it with taxonomy.





Jmugleston said:


> In all honestly it sounds like you are arguing against species concepts and you don't feel that the current method of determining species is adequate. That is a fair argument but probably deserves its own thread....or numerous books as have been published. Or is it that we're not taxonomists so we shouldn't be concerned with the extreme morphological differences in the three spiders pictured above...even though less has been used to differentiate other tarantulas? Or is it that Theraphosa blondi and T. apophysis are not different species because you have evidence that the variation between those species is continuous and what we are calling characters are actually traits? What are you claiming exactly?


To a certain extent I do believe that the current methods of determining species of tarantulas is inadequate, but I don't think it really presents much of a problem except for situations like this. I am not claiming anything, it is everyone's claim that these spiders are different species that I am doubting. And I'm not doubting just to get a rise from people, but because the evidence and current available knowledge just points me in that direction.


----------



## Fran (Aug 1, 2010)

The Mack said:


> To a certain extent I do believe that the current methods of determining species of tarantulas is inadequate, but I don't think it really presents much of a problem except for situations like this. I am not claiming anything, it is everyone's claim that these spiders are different species that I am doubting. And I'm not doubting just to get a rise from people, but because the evidence and current available knowledge just points me in that direction.


Im the first one whos not affraid to dismiss "certain" authoritys if what they are saying does not make sense...But here you are just being a giant hard headed  stubborn.

How are you gonna try to tell us that you have the edge, that you have something that   people whos lifes are pretty much  dedicated to the study of these animals dont have...
So People who are the maximun authority regarding the propper order of these genus and specie seem that they didnt think of all those things you are trying to shove us?

When are you gonna understand that they KNOW the specie, they KNOW its a different one,they KNOW it was placed in the wrong genus  and they are working on the revision?


Again, one thing is having a mind of your own, another is to be stubborn, and sorry to say what you are trying to shove up to our throaghts here is simply not correct.

I love physiscs, I studied physiscs, I have a ton of  physics books, yet if Roger Penrose and  Stephen Hawking are telling me that those equations which im working on are not correct...It might surprise me, I might be mad about it, I might not understand why...But God darn it I have to BELIEVE IT since is obvious I have nothing they dont have regarding the matter.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 1, 2010)

[  the evidence and current available knowledge just points me in that direction.[/QUOTE]

The Mack, Okay...... lets see it- Your knowledge as it pertains to this 3rd species. From what I've read thus far there hasn't been a thing except circling around and comparisons of everything else except these 3 spp. Yet you still argue the point :wall: Terry


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

Jmugleston, believe you me, I am VERY aware of the species concept(s) that exist. 



Jmugleston said:


> They look similar: (Morphological species concept?)-So do all the great apes, but we see unique characters in each species.


Please then, show me an example of three different species of ape that show as much similarity in appearance, size, and geographical region as these spiders do.



Jmugleston said:


> Same Region (Biological Species Concept): South America? Chimps are from Africa. Humans originated in Africa? No geographical isolation. According to your methods, same continent = same species? Though Guyana, Surinam, and Venezuela are large areas when you're an 8" spider.


You sure do jump to conclusions very fast! Nowhere in my post did I state that the "same continent = same species."   But are you going to argue that there are species that exist in nature who naturally live in remotely different parts of the world (hmm with the possible exception of some birds maybe ?

And you're going to tell me that it isn't possible that over millions of years, these 8" spiders haven't made it into Guyana Surinam and Venezuela!? Please, that's plenty of time lol. . .



Jmugleston said:


> Genetic similarity (Phylogenetic species concept?): Over 95% similarity in chimp and human genomes..........What arbitrary limit would you set on genetic diversity to differentiate spiders?


Tell me, what would happen if the genetic testing was done among these tarantulas and they came back 100% the same? And how can you know for sure now that this wouldn't happen?




Jmugleston said:


> There is method for determining species. This can be tested and refuted. You are mixing multiple species concepts. Of course we cannot prove the populations are isolated. On your reasoning, we cannot "prove" many populations are separated. That is not a feasible option on many species. So either we throw our hands up and give up, or look at other evidence and draw ideas. It might not be tested in the description paper but further phylogenetic analyses will test the hypothesis and either support it or refute it. Using your methods, is it safe to pair any species of Mexican brachy since we cannot be 100% sure they aren't breeding in nature? How about Pamphos? Haplos? Where do *you* draw the line?


You are wrong on so many counts here it is difficult to decide where to begin. Firstly, we can definitely "prove" that many populations are separated. Although we share 97% (or whatever it is) of our DNA with chimps, it is clear that we are separate species based on a combination of these species concepts. We look significantly different, don't mate in nature, etc. Under "my methods" you can pair any species you want, in fact I would encourage you do to so. I bet lots could be learned from it. If you are concerned with "preserving the bloodlines" which you aren't even sure about in the first place, then just do it in a controlled environment. 

Who knows, maybe one day it will be scientifically proven that all tarantulas are one species, like dogs. Are you open to this possibility? I don't see how you could be if you're not even open to the possibility that these three spiders are the same. . .


----------



## Miss Bianca (Aug 1, 2010)

I agree with your train of thought TheMack, and I am turned off with the whole issue also Fran.
I traded in January for some slings, being told they were T. blondi and I went on
 the whole_ they're so rare as CB_, 
only to be told later by over 5 collectors, that they were not true T. blondi @ all. 
In this hobby the changes keep coming, and we have to deal with that and accept the changes.
The name changes are especially annoying.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 1, 2010)

They're not 100% identical genetically; the physical expression of the genes-and the spermethecae shapes, related-can tell us that much. Even if they are 99% similar genetically, the difference in traits tell us it is NOT 100%.

*breaks out popcorn* Might as well. The heat will be more than enough to make it self-popping afterall. Anyone want some?


----------



## NevularScorpion (Aug 1, 2010)

after seeing the pics from this thread it made me think twice of breeding the theraposa sp. that I own. looks like I have to post some pics to get peoples opinion.


----------



## billopelma (Aug 1, 2010)

Mack... Though your tail chasing Troll logic is nauseating me :barf: I'll be Troll Bait just one more time....







> If you have read my posts thoroughly you would see that I have provided many sound logical and scientific reasons for why these tarantulas should be considered one species. Just to summarize:





> *They look very similar


What a horrible, useless generalization...This is relatively meaningless in the taxonomy of Tarantulas, if you knew *anything* about Tarantula classification you'd know at least this. Even if they looked exactly the same it doesn't get you much, but 'similar' . I can't believe I would have to explain this to anyone here...



> *They come from the same geographical region, and it CANNOT be proved that they do not interbreed in nature.


There are lots of different Tarantula species (disclaimer; Tarantula species as defined by the classification system currently in place, must spell everything out for you lest you take it the wrong way) that inhabit the same areas, so again, relatively meaningless. 

Whether or not they can interbreed is yet again, relatively meaningless within the scope of this discussion. Lots of different Tarantula species (see above disclaimer) can interbreed within their own genus, hence the often discussed term 'hybrid'. I have never seen that used in the definition of a Tarantula species. Can you point me to an example perhaps? 



> (Sooo many of you fail to understand this point)


Including yourself, evidently...



> *Not a single bit of genetic testing has been done to provide any evidence of your claim that they are separate.


As far as I am aware no species of Tarantula (see above disclaimer) has ever been specifically defined/classified by genetic testing. So, yet still again, meaningless .



> I never "defined tarantulas the same as other forms of life" as you said.


If you're going to quote me then use the actual quote please. Which would be "Yes, it does change indeed, obviously Tarantulas are not defined/classified the same as other types of life." (and obviously in the context of my post I meant defined as a species, see disclaimer).

 When you posed the question "Are you suggesting then that the definition of species changes when it comes to tarantulas?" I took it to mean you believe that, yes, they are defined/classified the same as other than tarantulas. Or was that only yet another attempt at Trolling and not what you actually believe?

So...Yes, you did use, pertaining to Tarantulas, points defining the classification for other forms of life but not Tarantulas, see your above asterisked (and exact) quotes... 



> Well I am certainly the first in these threads to say it.


Wrong. See post #101 of this thread. Boy, you are full of yourself...
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?p=1693632#post1693632



> Very interesting Bill. So in this world you speak of where the definition of a species changes from organism to organism, I suppose we are all free to decide what makes certain organisms separate species then? That would make everyone a taxonomist then now wouldn't it! Even you.


You must have me confused with some of your other Troll Bait, I never said anything that remotely suggests just anyone can define/classify a species, quite the opposite in fact.
 It somehow sounds like you still think with worms or rats, spermathecae shape or presence of tibial apophysis can be used as a point for classification?:? Who's world are we talking about here?

I think Terry D summed it up nicely;



> The Mack, Okay...... lets see it- Your knowledge as it pertains to this 3rd species. From what I've read thus far there hasn't been a thing except circling around and comparisons of everything else except these 3 spp. Yet you still argue the point  TerryD



Bill


----------



## The Mack (Aug 1, 2010)

billopelma said:


> What a horrible, useless generalization...This is relatively meaningless in the taxonomy of Tarantulas, if you knew *anything* about Tarantula classification you'd know at least this. Even if they looked exactly the same it doesn't get you much, but 'similar' . I can't believe I would have to explain this to anyone here...


How can this be useless when you and everyone else here is trying to establish that they are different species based on physical characteristics like lack of hair on the patella and different spermethecae? Oh I see, you must have twisted this to fit your personal hunch just as you do with other scientific definitions and theories that don't coincide with your opinions. So physical appearance is useless then, except when the it supports your view that they are different species!  LOL please, your fallacies are too easy to point out. 

It is just common sense to immediately look at two organisms that look considerably alike, and assume that they are relatively close on the evolutionary tree. It is not safe to assume that they are scientifically different species based on this single observation, but it certainly isn't "meaningless" as you put it.   






billopelma said:


> There are lots of different Tarantula species (disclaimer; Tarantula species as defined by the classification system currently in place, must spell everything out for you lest you take it the wrong way) that inhabit the same areas, so again, relatively meaningless.


Hmm, you seem to still be living in your own world where the definition of species is whatever you want it to be. I can't really argue with this type of ignorance. . there really is no way to convince you that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't control my thoughts either. . .

Please then, enlighten me with this "special" definition of species that exists for tarantulas which doesn't exist for other organisms. I would love to see this definition that you have tucked away somewhere. . 



billopelma said:


> Whether or not they can interbreed is yet again, relatively meaningless within the scope of this discussion. Lots of different Tarantula species (see above disclaimer) can interbreed within their own genus, hence the often discussed term 'hybrid'. I have never seen that used in the definition of a Tarantula species. Can you point me to an example perhaps?
> 
> As far as I am aware no species of Tarantula (see above disclaimer) has ever been specifically defined/classified by genetic testing. So, yet still again, meaningless .


I cannot point you to an example of this, because there simply are no examples! The research doesn't exist, and therefore you can't be making claims about species lol.

At least you are starting to understand (though unconsciously I suppose) the inherent problems with tarantula taxonomy and especially with classifying these tarantulas as separate species in a scientific sense. The interbreeding is not at all meaningless, and your saying so only illustrates your ignorance of how important this concept is in identifying new species of organisms in the world.





billopelma said:


> You must have me confused with some of your other Troll Bait, I never said anything that remotely suggests just anyone can define/classify a species, quite the opposite in fact.
> It somehow sounds like you still think with worms or rats, spermathecae shape or presence of tibial apophysis can be used as a point for classification?:? Who's world are we talking about here?
> 
> I think Terry D summed it up nicely;
> ...


Oh good, so then you are agreeing with me that it simply isn't clear whether or not these spiders are separate species. And you are also agreeing with me that a single paper (which everyone here seems to always refer to) cannot change that status. Great, I'm glad we are on the same page now.


----------



## Tindalos (Aug 1, 2010)

all the lps in my area sell T.sp burgundy but the keep as the Goliath bird eater. 
i asked an owner about this and he said that they dont sell T.blondi and they actually have not seen one in a long time so they sell T. sp burgundy as the Goliath bird eater. But they dont hi jack the prices, usually a sub adult will run 80-99 dollars. 

they said that burgundy are actually easier to keep than blondi or apophosys (is that how it is spelled?). more tolerant to dry conditions than the other two, but doesn't get as large as them. 

does this ring true?


----------



## Falk (Aug 1, 2010)

Tindalos said:


> all the lps in my area sell T.sp burgundy but the keep as the Goliath bird eater.
> i asked an owner about this and he said that they dont sell T.blondi and they actually have not seen one in a long time so they sell T. sp burgundy as the Goliath bird eater. But they dont hi jack the prices, usually a sub adult will run 80-99 dollars.
> 
> they said that burgundy are actually easier to keep than blondi or apophosys (is that how it is spelled?). more tolerant to dry conditions than the other two, but doesn't get as large as them.
> ...


Yes it does


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

Falk said:


> Yes it does


Hmm not sure about it.

I have had 3 females (SP) around de 11" mark...
And I have seen many 10+

I have never seen a 12" blondi, althought it doesnt mean they are not out there...
So the difference in sizes might be really small, if any...


----------



## Falk (Aug 2, 2010)

Fran said:


> Hmm not sure about it.
> 
> I have had 3 females (SP) around de 11" mark...
> And I have seen many 10+
> ...


You are correct, i read what Tindalos wrote to fast and i missed the size question.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 2, 2010)

Well, Mr. Fran, I assume you were aware that you were opening another can of worms. The Mack, I'm sure you recall very well, we have had this discussion before. You may be aware that there are more than one species concept, I truly believe that as you tried to use that in your argument last time, however you seem to think that you have the soverign right to decide which species concept we should abide by. I will make that notion short and sweet, you don't, if you think you do, leave this hobby and start your own, based entirely off of your own ideals, that should prove fruitful, after all, you are consistent with the thought, that we, along with professionals in this field, have no idea what we are doing. I will not repeat what I mentioned prior, but I warn you now Mugleston, you are saying the same thing I did, it does not register. Once again Mack, you will have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, no, taxonomy in it's entirety, once you do that, along with unifying the species concept that various fields abide by (Note various, unfortunately for your claim that it is universial and we cannot pick which concept to abide by, it rings with error) your statements may hold water.


Now, on to more appropriate things. What I don't understand is the complaint about the "jacked up" pricing, because we are "slapping" a new name on it. First off, it is a huge spider, especially in "LPS" and that abiding retail world, size is more money, secondly, prices are based off of cost of import etc. in fact the mark-up percentage for them is hardly stark, there was only one dealer that I was aware of that ran with the "Burgundy" thing and jacked the prices accordingly, other than that, I have yet to see it. Also, if it were a new species, in contrast to current belief (Theraphosa blondi/burgundy are different) the price would soar, as compared to availability. If we had Theraphosa blondi (No comment from you Mr. Mack, please) right now, I would venture to say that you would pay $400+ for a female of appropriate size. So, a fair price, which I believe is in direct corralation with Fran's original post, what is it? $100? $200? $60?


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 2, 2010)

Please excuse my english! its not my firs languge!


I 100% agree with Mack! People everywhere already refere to the 3, sell them in the 3 diff types! Just because they might look a bit diff to each other doesnt make them diff sp! almost every living thing in the world will look diff to its exact same sp compared to what it eats, temps, humidity, its everyday encounters changes the way they look & behave even to what size they grow, colour etc... and they are then also born slightly diff through the years! EVALUTION! If i can go to the 'ape' that was an example! same sp apes that dont even live that far from each other carry diff carictaristics! They might have longer hair they might have bigger hands they might have smaller bodies diff colours etc.. But this doesnt make them diff sp!! everything makes a diff eg: the spacific food thats in the erea, the elements, sea level, how hard or soft the grownd is every bit of their saroundings make a diff to how they look, act, breed, feed etc...
As we all know alot of resurch will have to be done to prove above reasonable doubt that there is a 3rd! 
Just anothere topic alltogether maybe or maybe not!?-- I bread Acanthoscurria insubtilis 1 year ago, some babies are close to black and others brown!? some answers to that maybe?

******Anyhow we all love spides and hope it all gets straitened out! I just dont enjoy people that jump the gun to make a buck or 2 or for whatever reason! wait for undoubtable proof first!*****


----------



## Falk (Aug 2, 2010)

spiderworld said:


> Please excuse my english! its not my firs languge!
> 
> 
> I 100% agree with Mack! People everywhere already refere to the 3, sell them in the 3 diff types! Just because they might look a bit diff to each other doesnt make them diff sp! almost every living thing in the world will look diff to its exact same sp compared to what it eats, temps, humidity, its everyday encounters changes the way they look & behave even to what size they grow, colour etc... and they are then also born slightly diff through the years! EVALUTION! If i can go to the 'ape' that was an example! same sp apes that dont even live that far from each other carry diff carictaristics! They might have longer hair they might have bigger hands they might have smaller bodies diff colours etc.. But this doesnt make them diff sp!! everything makes a diff eg: the spacific food thats in the erea, the elements, sea level, how hard or soft the grownd is every bit of their saroundings make a diff to how they look, act, breed, feed etc...
> ...


Come on read the threads
They have different patella, pedipalps, tarsus and metatarsus and spermatechae and that says a whole lot of things. And you talk about evalution!!! Theraphosids hasnt evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. Why do you think they are called primitive spiders?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Falk said:


> Come on read the threads
> They have different patella, pedipalps, tarsus and metatarsus and spermatechae and that says a whole lot of things.


Please do tell, what exactly is this "whole lot of things" these differences tell us? Be specific. They certainly don't tell us that they are different species for sure. . .



Falk said:


> And you talk about evalution!!! Theraphosids hasnt evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. Why do you think they are called primitive spiders?


Of course they haven't evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. . the present form of the spiders we see today is the product of who knows how many hundreds of thousands/millions of years worth of evolution. The idea isn't that they are evolving before our very eyes, but that the differences you are seeing today in these Theraphosa spiders (different pedipalps, patella, etc.) are EASILY attributable to genetic variations within the same species that have _already taken place_.


----------



## Falk (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Please do tell, what exactly is this "whole lot of things" these differences tell us? Be specific. They certainly don't tell us that they are different species for sure. . .
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. . the present form of the spiders we see today is the product of who knows how many hundreds of thousands/millions of years worth of evolution. The idea isn't that they are evolving before our very eyes, but that the differences you are seeing today in these Theraphosa spiders (different pedipalps, patella, etc.) are EASILY attributable to genetic variations within the same species that have _already taken place_.


Different sex organs dont make them the same specie.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

_B. auratum_, _B. smithi_. These two spiders look nearly identical (if not that, very, very similar) and can interbreed. Yet they are listed as separate species, not morphs of the same species. _B. albopilosum _crosses with _B. vagans _(two spiders which look VERY different) to form a fertile (I believe) hybrid. These are STILL considered to be separate species by the taxonomy. Would anyone care to elaborate on this?

 Mack, do you have _proof_ that T. sp. burgundy and T. blondi hybridize in nature? Do you know if there is not a barrier that does not keep the two from interbreeding regularly? Keep in mind what is not a long distance for us may be much, much longer for an animal that is mostly sedentary. Furthermore...can you explain why if burgundy and T. blondi are identical, why there are not more of what WE are calling T. blondi coming from the same area that T. burgundy is coming from? If they are to hybridize, the range MUST have overlap, and if they overlap both must be present in the same area. Furthermore, there should be "intermediates" which display a phenotypic mix of traits. In other words: give us some HARD evidence rather than just speculating that they probably breed together in the wild.

 We already have Rick's abstract telling us that they are in fact different species; combined with the physical traits, that is the hard evidence for our arguement.

My popcorn is done, btw.

Edit: This is just a suggestion, Mack, but around half your posts are in this kind of thread. Maybe it'd be a good idea to post in other topics as well? Just a thought.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

If they _aren't_ an entirely different species (which they _obviously_ are due to having a totally different spermathacae to _Theraphosa blondi_) then why did Bertani release an abstract from his current work in the genus _Lasiodora_ stating about moving the species _Lasiodora spinipes_ into the genus _Theraphosa_ in the view that the _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ are to be classified as _Theraphosa spinipes_???

:?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 2, 2010)

spiderworld said:


> Please excuse my english! its not my firs languge!
> 
> 
> I 100% agree with Mack! People everywhere already refere to the 3, sell them in the 3 diff types! Just because they might look a bit diff to each other doesnt make them diff sp! almost every living thing in the world will look diff to its exact same sp compared to what it eats, temps, humidity, its everyday encounters changes the way they look & behave even to what size they grow, colour etc... and they are then also born slightly diff through the years! EVALUTION! If i can go to the 'ape' that was an example! same sp apes that dont even live that far from each other carry diff carictaristics! They might have longer hair they might have bigger hands they might have smaller bodies diff colours etc.. But this doesnt make them diff sp!! everything makes a diff eg: the spacific food thats in the erea, the elements, sea level, how hard or soft the grownd is every bit of their saroundings make a diff to how they look, act, breed, feed etc...
> ...


Who is making a buck or two? In fact if I sell it as a Theraphosa blondi, then I'll be making a buck, as an "Sp. Burgundy", I'm not, sorry, but highly inaccurate.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> The Mack, I'm sure you recall very well, we have had this discussion before. You may be aware that there are more than one species concept, I truly believe that as you tried to use that in your argument last time, however you seem to think that you have the soverign right to decide which species concept we should abide by.


I think that you (and most others here) are confused as to how the species concepts can be applied to this situation. You are  referring to the species concepts as if they _help_  your claims that these are different species, when in reality they only make it more difficult for you to prove so. And I did not at any point suggest that you should "abide by" any certain species concept, but it is a fact that the 'biological species concept' is currently the most widely accepted and most often used. I never said that there weren't any exceptions to the biological species concept, but I can show you that there is no exception when it comes to these Theraphosa spiders. 

Let's start with the definition of the biological species concept: "The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."

We use this concept to define species so often, that most if not all of the animals and organisms you know today (from dogs to fish to plants and insects) were all defined and classified using this method. So why then are you questioning it now? If these spiders come from the same geographical place and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are potentially interbreeding in nature, then the facts seem to point that they are a single species. I'm not saying that this is for sure, but until there is sufficient evidence which suggests otherwise, it is just logical to label them as one species. 

Now let's get to the problems and exceptions with the biological species concept, and we can understand why they actually work against your claims rather than for them. In nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this "biological species" definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually.The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually. But do these spiders produce asexually? Nope. So the first exception is irrelevant to this situation. 


"Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups—but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?"  The second exception are for organisms that hybridize in nature. In this situation, no one can be sure if these spiders were at one time separate species and then began to hybridize, so it really is unclear and very difficult to prove that they are either the same or separate species. Again, this exception is working against you, not for you. 

Now just for kicks, we can explore these other species concepts, so that you understand no matter which one you choose, you still can't prove the claim that these spiders are separate species. 

*Recognition species concept: a species is a set of organisms that can recognize each other as potential mates.  Guess what? These spiders i'm sure recognize each other as potential mates in nature (and in captivity). So under that concept they would be considered the same species.

*Phenetic species concept: a species is a set of organisms that are phenotypically similar and that look different from other sets of organisms. According to this concept, phenotypic similarity is all that matters in recognizing separate species. Since the Theraphosa spiders look the same, they would be considered the same species according to the phenetic species concept. Sorry, you can't go with this species concept either.

*Phylogenetic species concept: a species is a “tip” on a phylogeny, that is, the smallest set of organisms that share an ancestor and can be distinguished from other such sets. Under this definition, a ring species is a single species that encompasses a lot of phenotypic variation. Again, under this concept our spiders would be considered a single species. 




Crows Arachnids said:


> Once again Mack, you will have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, no, taxonomy in it's entirety, once you do that, along with unifying the species concept that various fields abide by (Note various, unfortunately for your claim that it is universial and we cannot pick which concept to abide by, it rings with error) your statements may hold water.


Funny how because I have challenged and corrected your false unsupported claims that you think I am on some mission to "rectify taxonomy in it's entirety."  That is hardly the case, I think a better solution would be for you to do some research and better understand taxonomy and its inherent challenges and then you might see why you can't be sure that these are different species. . .


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

Don't T. Blondi, T. apophysis, and T. sp. "Burgundy" come from adjacent, but separate, geographical regions? Seems to be what I can recall.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

Mack,

Did you pay a whole load of money for an adult female _Theraphosa blondi_ and it turned out to be a _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ and now your in some sort of denial???


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Falk said:


> Different sex organs dont make them the same specie.


:wall:  A man and a woman have different sex organs, but they are the same species.



mcluskyisms said:


> Mack,
> 
> Did you pay a whole load of money for an adult female _Theraphosa blondi_ and it turned out to be a _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ and now your in some sort of denial???


I own a big brown spider which I purchased from Ken the bug guy for $100. It is a member of the _single species_ commonly referred to as either T. blondi or "sp. burgundy."  ;P


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> :wall:  A man and a woman have different sex organs, but they are the same species.


Yes, but the same sex of the same species have the same reproductive organs where as _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ and _Theraphosa blondi_ differ...

Your argument is flawed.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> :wall:  A man and a woman have different sex organs, but they are the same species.


False analogy. I"f two females have different sex organs, are they still the same species" would be a more valid arguement. Ditto "Do two males have the same sex organs".

Edit: Beat me to it.

Edit 2: What does it matter? It's still a large spider of the theraphosa genus. Burgundy get huge too.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I own a big brown spider which I purchased from Ken the bug guy for $100. It is a member of the _single species_ commonly referred to as either T. blondi or "sp. burgundy."  ;P


So that was a _yes_ then.....


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> _B. auratum_, _B. smithi_. These two spiders look nearly identical (if not that, very, very similar) and can interbreed. Yet they are listed as separate species, not morphs of the same species.


Well you tell me, do you think that it helps make better sense of the world to label them as being separate species? If you just saw one B. smithi/B. auratum in the wild, do you honestly think that you could differentiate them? 
If you were to ask any biologist, they would tell you that these spiders could definitely be considered to be members of the same species scientifically. 
This is where things get sloppy in tarantula taxonomy. . .



PhobeToPhile said:


> _B. albopilosum _crosses with _B. vagans _(two spiders which look VERY different) to form a fertile (I believe) hybrid. These are STILL considered to be separate species by the taxonomy. Would anyone care to elaborate on this?


Yet another example where the line is blurry and it isn't a clear definition of whether they are the same or separate species. These examples make it more difficult to make the claims. .and remember you are the one making this claim, not me. 




PhobeToPhile said:


> Mack, do you have _proof_ that T. sp. burgundy and T. blondi hybridize in nature? Do you know if there is not a barrier that does not keep the two from interbreeding regularly?


You fail to get this: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS PROOF, not me. Of course I don't have proof that these spiders do or don't hybridize in nature. Nobody does because it would be nearly impossible to prove whether they were at one point separate species that began to hybridize or whether they have just been the same species all along with variations.  But I am not the one who would need to provide this proof, because I am not claiming anything here. You are claiming that they are separate, which goes against the current species concepts used to classify species, so YOU need to provide evidence in support of your claims. Someone else in the last thread tried using this red herring argument.  It won't work this time either. . .



PhobeToPhile said:


> Keep in mind what is not a long distance for us may be much, much longer for an animal that is mostly sedentary.


It is _more_ than likely that these Theraphosa spiders have migrated and inhabited these neighboring regions in South America. It took millions of years for them to evolve, and that is plenty, plenty, plenty of time for them to inhabit the relatively small area where they are found.  



PhobeToPhile said:


> Furthermore...can you explain why if burgundy and T. blondi are identical, why there are not more of what WE are calling T. blondi coming from the same area that T. burgundy is coming from?


Are you personally in Brazil, Suriname and French Guiana collecting specimens? How can you know for sure which spiders come from where? I am willing to bet that even if you were in any given one of these places, you would find specimens that fit the descriptions of "T. blondi," "T. apophysis" and  "sp burgundy" all from the same place. In other words, they are all the same species with minor variations. 






PhobeToPhile said:


> We already have Rick's abstract telling us that they are in fact different species; combined with the physical traits, that is the hard evidence for our arguement.


Imagine if the only proof that our earth was round was a single paper. Or the only proof of gravity was a single paper written by a single "expert." Or if the only evidence for evolution was a single paper. . I can go on lol

Relying on one single authority is NOT science. 



PhobeToPhile said:


> Edit: This is just a suggestion, Mack, but around half your posts are in this kind of thread. Maybe it'd be a good idea to post in other topics as well? Just a thought.


Why? What does it matter what threads my posts are in?



PhobeToPhile said:


> False analogy. I"f two females have different sex organs, are they still the same species" would be a more valid arguement. Ditto "Do two males have the same sex organs".
> 
> Edit: Beat me to it.
> 
> Edit 2: What does it matter? It's still a large spider of the theraphosa genus. Burgundy get huge too.


Not at all. You actually have the flawed argument. They really aren't even "different sex organs." They are the same sex organs with some variation. If they are totally different sex organs, then I suppose you will need to come up with a new name for them too? lol 

I am open to this possibility, however, if you can show me some solid pictures/evidence that they are truly different organs altogether.


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

I only wish Rick West would show up here,(he wont) althought im affraid you, The Mack, will still keep on arguing with your very boring crap.

Once thing is, AGAIN, have a mind of your own and question certain authorities, another is being a simple pain in the but.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Not at all. You actually have the flawed argument. They really aren't even "different sex organs." They are the same sex organs with some variation. If they are totally different sex organs, then I suppose you will need to come up with a new name for them too? lol
> 
> I am open to this possibility, however, if you can show me some solid pictures/evidence that they are truly different organs altogether.


Your unbelievable, your either incredibly stupid or just bored you should run for congress....


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Fran said:


> I only wish Rick West would show up here,(he wont) althought im affraid you, The Mack, will still keep on arguing with your very boring crap.
> 
> Once thing is, AGAIN, have a mind of your own and question certain authorities, another is being a simple pain in the but.


You wish he would show up here because you haven't a single clue as to how to rationally or scientifically back up your argument...All you do is parrot what you've been told by "experts" over the internet.

Between your jumbled grammar and misspelled words (despite the built in spell check) it is hard to take your opinion seriously.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

Ah, I simply think it's good to read/post in more than one area (diversity is always a good thing). That's all. 

As for the separation...if they're all in the same area, like I said it makes me wonder why we see so much of the "burgundy" and nowhere near as much blondi and apophysis. If all three live together, they should be present in relatively equal quantities, but most of the WC stuff we see is burgundy from what I understand. If all three were equally available I'd see your point, but it seems they are not. And this is why I'm not getting why one particular morph has become so abundant if all three of these very similar in apearance spiders were _living in the same area_.  

As for auratum and smithi...it'd be difficult, but I probably could distinguish them if I was more familiar with the Brachypelma. 

In theory, you could prove whether they could hybridize in the wild. You'd need several mature females from both species, the same number of mature males, and a very, very, very large enclosure, as well as certain knowledge they share the same range. First, put only the males of one species in, and see if the females produce fertile sacks. (cameras near and in the brurrows to monitor activity would be helpful as well). Then introduce the males of the other species and see which females produce fertile sacks. A control group should also be used, in smaller enclosures where males were matched to specific females. The offspring and video should provide evidence.

Edit: I think that people are simply getting sick and tired of the arguement/debate, Mack. Frustrated, as well.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Your unbelievable, your either incredibly stupid or just bored you should run for congress....


Right. So you make the claim that they possess totally different sexual organs, you provide NO evidence whatsoever for your claim, and _ I'm_ the unbelievable one! 

:?

You people are a mystery.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

You know fair well of the differences, your just bored......

I hope your still about when it gets described and classified.


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> You wish he would show up here because you haven't a single clue as to how to rationally or scientifically back up your argument...All you do is parrot what you've been told by "experts" over the internet.
> 
> Between your jumbled grammar and misspelled words (despite the built in spell check) it is hard to take your opinion seriously.


The one not having a clue is you. The one whos using the science word as a back up of NOTHING AT ALL is you...Are you not  in your right mind? Did you read your own posts?

Second, you smart arse, you should have notice from my name or because of my hundreds of posts stating so,that Im a darn foreign. English is not my native language, althought, what the hell does that has to do with what we are talking about here?

Are you so short on arguments that you have to bring up orthography into an spider discussion?

You are the one looking like a brave ignorant trying to shove us that you have the edge on what others have been studying and dedicating all his life.
That is not only dumb but conceded.

Do yous seriously think ANY of the questions you ask yourself on this matter they didnt ask themselves before writing the propper orders and revision of the Genus??? I mean what is your background, what is your expertise here?
Are we dealing with some sort of guru on this matter or with a simple STUBBORN guy who thinks that knows better than anybody else?

How in the the world can you think that a recogniced SCIENTIST (not what you are, no)is gonna write  a revision or contribute to a paper on something he is not sure about?


----------



## Anastasia (Aug 2, 2010)

I really don't want to get in any arguments

The Mack,
Am not sure what point are you trying to proof here,
I read whole thread and must missed it somehow
Am also not sure how much you been involved with a hobby and to what extent   
you been going back and forth with pretty large group of experienced tarantula keepers that been keeping breeding observing and studying this genus for long time
and here is quite a bit of info been collected over the years and posted and not just here possibly
so, please tell me what don't you understand in term 'three different species'?
there is possibly more then three, but its so far three been discussed
very good friend of mine also very long time tarantula keeper/breeder said ones all cats are gray in the dark, quick look, they all looks same, but when light on they all different, of course we not talking cats, but just seems like


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

Well said Fran, don't let him bother you, Ive checked some of his previous threads on this matter and it turns out that this is his forte, arguing a point that is flawed.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> As for the separation...if they're all in the same area, like I said it makes me wonder why we see so much of the "burgundy" and nowhere near as much blondi and apophysis.


There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps the person who collects them from the wild rejects the ones that aren't hairy enough, or only collects the ones with a certain color, or some other personal/aesthetic reason, and this is why you see so many similar specimens. The bottom line is you don't know, and you can't draw any conclusions from it. 

But in all honesty, even spiders labeled as "sp burgundy" look like T. blondi and vice versa. I'm sure there is plenty of debate over it among "experts" when it comes to actually labeling them. So if it was obvious that they should be separate species, then why would this debate occur in the first place!

You talk about the apophysis, but have you ever really seen on in person? How sure could you be that it wasn't a blondi or a burgundy? Would you be able to tell? I don't think so. (And I don't think you'd be able to do it with the Brachypelmas smithi and auratum either for that matter.)

You have to take a step out of your viewpoint here for a second. When you look at these brown spiders you are making the assumption that some of them are eligible to be classified as different species. You make this assumption not based on your own intuition or reason, but only because you have been told this by others.


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps the person who collects them from the wild rejects the ones that aren't hairy enough, or only collects the ones with a certain color, or some other personal/aesthetic reason, and this is why you see so many similar specimens. The bottom line is you don't know, and you can't draw any conclusions from it.
> .


Ha ha ha, Obviously you have not much of an idea on how in the majority of cases they are collected in the wild.


The Mack said:


> But in all honesty, even spiders labeled as "sp burgundy" look like T. blondi and vice versa. I'm sure there is plenty of debate over it among "experts" when it comes to actually labeling them. So if it was obvious that they should be separate species, then why would this debate occur in the first place!
> .


Either you dont know how to read, or you have a really bad memory.
THE SP WAS VERY WELL KNOWN. IT WAS PLACED IN THE WRONG GENUS.


The Mack said:


> You talk about the apophysis, but have you ever really seen on in person? How sure could you be that it wasn't a blondi or a burgundy? Would you be able to tell? I don't think so. (And I don't think you'd be able to do it with the Brachypelmas smithi and auratum either for that matter.)
> .


ANYBODY with a minimun amount of experience  and a couple of eyes will tell them appart.


The Mack said:


> You make this assumption not based on your own intuition or reason, but only because you have been told this by others.



I guess you dont believe in atoms, or in the gravity force equation .
In fact if you belive on it is only because you have believed what "others" have said about it.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps the person who collects them from the wild rejects the ones that aren't hairy enough, or only collects the ones with a certain color, or some other personal/aesthetic reason, and this is why you see so many similar specimens. The bottom line is you don't know, and you can't draw any conclusions from it.
> 
> But in all honesty, even spiders labeled as "sp burgundy" look like T. blondi and vice versa. I'm sure there is plenty of debate over it among "experts" when it comes to actually labeling them. So if it was obvious that they should be separate species, then why would this debate occur in the first place!
> 
> ...


Ok, lets break it down for you.....

Why does one in sling to juvenile stages have pink/white tarsi on legs I & II when the other one has no pink/white tarsi in the same stages at all?

Why does one have no hairs on the Pattela and the other one does?

Why do both species have totally different scientifically described spermathacae?

Why has qualified taxonomist R.Bertani decided to release an abstract saying that that _Theraphosa sp."Burgundy"_ is to classified as its own species?

Why is one lot easier to get a good valid egg sac from than the other?
_
Because they are two closely related but entirely separate species......_


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Fran said:


> The one not having a clue is you. The one whos using the science word as a back up of NOTHING AT ALL is you...Are you not  in your right mind? Did you read your own posts?


I have provided more "backup" here than anyone else. My replies are thorough and insightful, unlike yours. All you do is complain about why people aren't labeling these spiders to your liking, but you do no research or contributing to help understand the dilemma we are having. It is ignorance like this that only compounds the problem. . .



Fran said:


> Second, you smart arse, you should have notice from my name or because of my hundreds of posts stating so,that Im a darn foreign. English is not my native language, althought, what the hell does that has to do with what we are talking about here?




I should have known that you were foreign because your name is Fran? Have you ever seen the Nanny? LOL  And I'm sorry I didn't research your "hundreds of posts" stating that you are a "Foreign" but I do apologize, I wasn't trying to take a stab at you for your ethnicity or nationality. 




Fran said:


> You are the one looking like a brave ignorant trying to shove us that you have the edge on what others have been studying and dedicating all his life.
> That is not only dumb but conceded.


I don't have "the edge" on anything. And you can study and dedicate your whole life to astrology but do you think it makes you right? 



Fran said:


> How in the the world can you think that a recogniced SCIENTIST (not what you are, no)is gonna write  a revision or contribute to a paper on something he is not sure about?


 Did you know that at one point in history, homosexuality was officially deemed a mental disorder? At the time, there was "evidence" to prove it. The "experts" of the time were so sure that it was a disease (just as you are sure that these are separate species). This occurred because of the results from only a few "authorities" papers on the subject and very little peer review to confirm whether or not these claims were true. It eventually made it into the books as a disorder because of lousy science like this and gullible people like you.


----------



## syndicate (Aug 2, 2010)

It's gettin old Mack!Why not just wait for the paper to be published and move on?All your doing here is messing up this thread and starting tons of drama.
The original topic is why aren't dealers labeling these accordingly!Whether or not there a dif species they need to be kept separate for the obvious reasons stated a million times recently on the forum.
-Chris


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Fran said:


> Ha ha ha, Obviously you have not much of an idea on how in the majority of cases they are collected in the wild.


oh, so you personally go out and collect these spiders from the wild? Please enlighten me then on how they are collected. . .



Fran said:


> Either you dont know how to read, or you have a really bad memory.
> THE SP WAS VERY WELL KNOWN. IT WAS PLACED IN THE WRONG GENUS.


Um, no. The species is not well known at all. In fact there is very little known about it at all, which is why there is a problem classifying them in the first place.




Fran said:


> ANYBODY with a minimun amount of experience  and a couple of eyes will tell them appart.


Not true at all. I have heard multiple accounts from many experienced keepers that it is virtually impossible to tell them apart. This is partly why I am convinced that they are a single species. 




Fran said:


> I guess you dont believe in atoms, or in the gravity force equation .
> In fact if you belive on it is only because you have believed what "others" have said about it.


I don't understand where you pulled this out from. Of course I believe in atoms. . .and no I don't believe it because "others" have told me about it, I believe it because I can test it if I want at any time as many times as I want and come up with the same results. Can I do that with these tarantulas? No. I only believe things that can be tested and proved. And you should to, or else you might end up believing in some silly things


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Um, no. The species is not well known at all. In fact there is very little known about it at all, which is why there is a problem classifying them in the first place.


f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).

I guess it was known some time back no? Seen as though this is its actual taxonomy hence the reason behind the forthcoming move into the genus _Theraphosa_.....


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

While not well known, my understanding is that T. sp. "burgundy" was described as _Lasiodora spinipes_.

As for collecting...given how similar the three are, the collectors probably would just grab the ones they find. It's a numbers game after all-the more spiders they collect, the more money they make when they sell them. Which is the reason why I expressed my concerns about the three living together, yet only having T. sp. "burgundy" available in abundance. If they can get all three, it would make sense to sell all three.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Ok, lets break it down for you.....
> 
> Why does one in sling to juvenile stages have pink/white tarsi on legs I & II when the other one has no pink/white tarsi in the same stages at all?


Short answer: Variation. 



mcluskyisms said:


> Why does one have no hairs on the Pattela and the other one does?


Short answer: Variation. 



mcluskyisms said:


> Why do both species have totally different scientifically described spermathacae?


Show me the documentation of this, and even then, they are still SPERMETHACAE. Just because the lung, for example, of a poodle is a different size and shape than the lung of a greyhound, doesn't mean that they can be considered different species. That's just silly.  



mcluskyisms said:


> Why has qualified taxonomist R.Bertani decided to release an abstract saying that that _Theraphosa sp."Burgundy"_ is to classified as its own species?


At this point, I'm sure your guess is as good as mine. Did he find genetic evidence? doubt it. Did he find some other sort of observational evidence that suggested so? Who knows. . .All I know is that from a scientific viewpoint, it will be very difficult for a single paper/person to definitively and scientifically prove whether they are they same species or not.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> While not well known, my understanding is that T. sp. "burgundy" was described as _Lasiodora spinipes_.


Correct, someone who _actually_ has a clue!!!

:clap:



The Mack said:


> At this point, I'm sure your guess is as good as mine. Did he find genetic evidence? doubt it. Did he find some other sort of observational evidence that suggested so? Who knows. . .All I know is that from a scientific viewpoint, it will be very difficult for a single paper/person to definitively and scientifically prove whether they are they same species or not.


Not trying to be blunt but..... 

*f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).*

Lots of "short" answers there for someone so articulate, wouldn't you like to go into a little more detail and emphasize on some of your reasoning?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
> L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
> L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).
> 
> I guess it was known some time back no? Seen as though this is its actual taxonomy hence the reason behind the forthcoming move into the genus _Theraphosa_.....


LOL, great. So you have a name for the spiders that was given to them in the 1800s. Someone saw it for the first time, named it, and now you think that it is "well known" ? There is only a handful of literature available on tarantulas in general, much less any specific species. For example, other than the documented name, what other credible info can you find on these Theraphosa spiders?


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> oh, so you personally go out and collect these spiders from the wild? Please enlighten me then on how they are collected. . .
> 
> :


Allow me to enlight you.

My brothers in laws are the main head of the Geography department of the "Universidad central de Venezuela, UCV" ( University of Caracas Venezuela ). They work on research on several matters in the middle of the heart of the Venezuelan jungle.

They know how they collect this animals. Most of the times are simply local people who get paid to bring as many tarantulas as they can catch.
Using all sorts of methods, from water to gas, to just  sticking their hands on any burrow they see.
They give them to the person in chargue , they get paid some Bolivares and thats about it. They dont have ANY clue of what they are getting,taxonomy wise.



The Mack said:


> Um, no. The species is not well known at all. In fact there is very little known about it at all, which is why there is a problem classifying them in the first place.


Again, not sure what to think of you anymore. either you are just troling or you just dont comprehend your language....I dont really know how to explain you that they are catalogued, they know the sp.
 :?



The Mack said:


> I don't understand where you pulled this out from. Of course I believe in atoms. . .and no I don't believe it because "others" have told me about it, I believe it because I can test it if I want at any time as many times as I want and come up with the same results. Can I do that with these tarantulas? No. I only believe things that can be tested and proved. And you should to, or else you might end up believing in some silly things


:?

So you think that when they label a specie, when they ctalogue one, when they put them in a genus...they do it basically just randomly? Just out of their arse?

How can you post what you post and then try for us to believe your claims and show yourself as believing only in whats testable and all that great sounding stuff?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Not trying to be blunt but.....
> 
> *f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
> L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
> ...


I don't feel that I need to explain the mechanics of genetic variation and evolution to you, but I will address an example. You say that one of the things which makes these spiders a "different species" is the lack of hair on the patella on some specimens. I think that we can agree that this is a characteristic of the spider's physical appearance, right? Good. Now take the following into consideration:

Organisms may look different and yet be the same species. Many characteristics can vary within a single species. For example, the plant hydrangea may have pink “flowers”—they’re actually modified leaves—or blue “flowers.” But that doesn’t mean that we should classify the two forms as different species. In fact, you could cause a blue-“flowered” plant to become a pink-“flowered” plant just by changing the pH of the soil and the amount of aluminum taken up by the plant.

How do you know that these differences in hair on patella aren't caused by a simple genetic variation or even a unique diet within the same species?


----------



## BlackCat (Aug 2, 2010)

Troll (n.): *One who purposely and deliberately starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers.* He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. 

(n.) One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the *intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. *

Troll on, Mack.

trololol


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> LOL, great. So you have a name for the spiders that was given to them in the 1800s. Someone saw it for the first time, named it, and now you think that it is "well known" ? There is only a handful of literature available on tarantulas in general, much less any specific species. For example, other than the documented name, what other credible info can you find on these Theraphosa spiders?


That is a classified taxonomic description of a tarantula that was first described in 1871 by Anton Ausserer, upon sifting through and trying to sort out the genus _Lasiodora_ R.Bertani found that the taxonomic report made by Ausserer matched up to that of the recently "found" _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ which has been in this hobby undoubtedly unnoticed since before you were probably even in nappy's. Therefore upon completion of Bertani's work the species known to us hobbyists as _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ will be classified into the genus _Theraphosa_ as _Theraphosa spinipes...._

Is it seriously that hard to grasp?   

:?


----------



## ZooRex (Aug 2, 2010)

I think one of the biggest problems for describing and sorting through any theraphosid complex (in this case Theraphosa) would be the idea and probability of cross breeding. It’s apparent that there are many new species to describe and classify, but how to distinguish between a true blondi, a sp burgundy and a blondi-burgundy cross seems to complicate the issue even more.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> That is a classified taxonomic description of a tarantula that was first described in 1871 by Anton Ausserer, upon sifting through and trying to sort out the genus _Lasiodora_ R.Bertani found that the taxonomic report made by Ausserer matched up to that of the recently "found" _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ which has been in this hobby undoubtedly unnoticed since before you were probably even in nappy's. Therefore upon completion of Bertani's work the species known to us hobbyists as _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ will be classified into the genus _Theraphosa_ as _Theraphosa spinipes...._
> 
> Is it seriously that hard to grasp?
> 
> :?


if it is recently found then how could it have been "in the hobby since I was in diapers," please lol you have contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Nothing was recently found, these spiders have all been here, in their present form for longer than HUMANS HAVE EXISTED so your guess is as good as mine is as good as Bertani's or whoever else as to whether they are separate or the same species. If all it takes is a single guy to say, "Hey that kinda fits the description I have here, lets change the name!" and then everyone just accepts it, then I really have no problem with it. I personally consider them the same species because the evidence suggests so currently. I am totally open to any evidence that may be presented in these papers, but your explanation is hardly convincing.



BlackCat said:


> Troll (n.): *One who purposely and deliberately starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers.* He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
> 
> (n.) One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the *intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. *
> 
> ...


I am hardly here to start arguments in an offensive or attacking manner. I am voicing my view on this subject and supporting it every step of the way. I'm sorry if I speak up for what I think is right. If I have inspired even one person to be more inquisitive about the origin of the classification of species and tarantulas then I consider this to a be a productive discussion. 

Ironically though, your last post could be considered "trolling," by the very definition you posted


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> if it is recently found then how could it have been "in the hobby since I was in diapers," please lol you have contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Nothing was recently found, these spiders have all been here, in their present form for longer than HUMANS HAVE EXISTED so your guess is as good as mine is as good as Bertani's or whoever else as to whether they are separate or the same species. If all it takes is a single guy to say, "Hey that kinda fits the description I have here, lets change the name!" and then everyone just accepts it, then I really have no problem with it. I personally consider them the same species because the evidence suggests so currently. I am totally open to any evidence that may be presented in these papers, but your explanation is hardly convincing.


I wrote "found" as in it was always actually there, I know from time to time the English sarcasm can sometimes gets lost in cross atlantic translation although you are actually doing a good job of emphasizing the factor....

Yawn, your boring, you haven't a decent argument for a few pages at all, the only reason I'm still commenting on this thread is because I'm bored.....


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I think that you (and most others here) are confused as to how the species concepts can be applied to this situation. You are  referring to the species concepts as if they _help_  your claims that these are different species, when in reality they only make it more difficult for you to prove so. And I did not at any point suggest that you should "abide by" any certain species concept, but it is a fact that the 'biological species concept' is currently the most widely accepted and most often used. I never said that there weren't any exceptions to the biological species concept, but I can show you that there is no exception when it comes to these Theraphosa spiders.
> 
> Let's start with the definition of the biological species concept: "The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."
> 
> ...


All you do is shoot your gun, but you have not yet hit your target. Your words are senseless praddle, I'm being frank here. First off, I would suggest you cease with your condescending undertone, not only have I grown weary of it, it is riddled with so much disrespect, I don't appreciate how you are handling yourself with the individuals in this thread, this is a discussion, not a forum for you to attack individuals for their lack of English command. In the end I do not think you are articulate, as some have stated, you merely compose praddle, as mentioned above. Secondly, you suffer from severe tunnel vision in the realms of discussion, all you see is your arguement. What I don't understand is, you have provided naught but ash on this subject, merely refuting that which has yet to be established as fact, and yet continue to ramble on about how much disproof you have provided, I'm sorry, by the way you type to me, you must take me for an idiot, so let's run with that, please, in a single post, outline the proof that these are indeed the same species. Don't you muster up enough nerve to  tell me that I misunderstand your words, they are as clear as day. You are telling me that the current functioning for taxonomy and the governing factors that determine tarantulas as different;species from one another, that we are currently abiding by, is wrong, period. Your "disproof* (In reality it is anything but) on this particular matter would unconstitute MANY other species as being different from one another, so yes, you challenge the entire mode of taxonomy that we currently function with. If you don't, then you have grossly misworded your conjured, on a whim and wikipedia, refute. Now look here, I'm anything but narrow-minded, so I acknowledge the possibility that we are all wrong, including the professionals, however you have less than we do to work with, despite what your distorted little brain tells you. I care not, in the end what happens, whether it is acknowldeged as a variant or otherwise, but once again, the very notions that would discern this issue and establish them as a single species, would have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, case closed. I should think that I do not need to get into complexities, your response may illicit that however. For future reference, stop manipulating the flexibility of species, in it's definitions, to formulate a point, it makes you look even more ignorant. This hobby has chosen one of those definitions, as established by ongoing convention, you have chosen another, do I see a hypocrite? Was this message a tad condescending? Just wanted to see how you like it.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Yawn, your boring, you haven't a decent argument for a few pages at all, the only reason I'm still commenting on this thread is because I'm bored.....


Sure, the biological species concept might be boring, but it is reality. I'm not even sure what 'excitement' you would get out of labeling these tarantulas as separate species?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Sure, the biological species concept might be boring, but it is reality. I'm not even sure what 'excitement' you would get out of labeling these tarantulas as separate species?


You just got owned on post 99, give it up and wait for the paper, you might be right or 80% of this thread might be right...

Lets see if you have much to say when its published?


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> You just got owned on post 99, give it up and wait for the paper, you might be right or 80% of this thread might be right...
> 
> Lets see if you have much to say when its published?


It doesnt matter, it appears as Jhonathan has stated that he abides different rules. Its an entire new diff hobby what he has in mind.

He wants to reinvent whats already invented, pretty much.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> All you do is shoot your gun, but you have not yet hit your target. Your words are senseless praddle, I'm being frank here. First off, I would suggest you cease with your condescending undertone, not only have I grown weary of it, it is riddled with so much disrespect, I don't appreciate how you are handling yourself with the individuals in this thread, this is a discussion, not a forum for you to attack individuals for their lack of English command. In the end I do not think you are articulate, as some have stated, you merely compose praddle, as mentioned above. Secondly, you suffer from severe tunnel vision in the realms of discussion, all you see is your arguement. What I don't understand is, you have provided naught but ash on this subject, merely refuting that which has yet to be established as fact, and yet continue to ramble on about how much disproof you have provided, I'm sorry, by the way you type to me, you must take me for an idiot, so let's run with that, please, in a single post, outline the proof that these are indeed the same species. Don't you muster up enough nerve to  tell me that I misunderstand your words, they are as clear as day. You are telling me that the current functioning for taxonomy and the governing factors that determine tarantulas as different;species from one another, that we are currently abiding by, is wrong, period. Your "disproof* (In reality it is anything but) on this particular matter would unconstitute MANY other species as being different from one another, so yes, you challenge the entire mode of taxonomy that we currently function with. If you don't, then you have grossly misworded your conjured, on a whim and wikipedia, refute. Now look here, I'm anything but narrow-minded, so I acknowledge the possibility that we are all wrong, including the professionals, however you have less than we do to work with, despite what your distorted little brain tells you. I care not, in the end what happens, whether it is acknowldeged as a variant or otherwise, but once again, the very notions that would discern this issue and establish them as a single species, would have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, case closed. I should think that I do not need to get into complexities, your response may illicit that however. For future reference, stop manipulating the flexibility of species, in it's definitions, to formulate a point, it makes you look even more ignorant. This hobby has chosen one of those definitions, as established by ongoing convention, you have chosen another, do I see a hypocrite? Was this message a tad condescending? Just wanted to see how you like it.


None of my replies are "praddle," whatever that is lol. I just describe time after time why you are wrong, supplemented with evidence which you can freely research yourself. You are running in circles, I agree, and this isn't really going anywhere for you. I'm sure a few others were able to get something out of this thread other than you though, so it evens out 

And let's get this straight. If anyone is "rectifying the hobby" it is you. YOU are making the change by labeling them as separate. They are currently considered the same officially, remember? They have been considered one species this whole time, up until recently. So YOU are the one "rectifying,"  not me. I'm sure you will repeat this though as if you never read it in your next reply. . .:wall:



Fran said:


> It doesnt matter, it appears as Jhonathan has stated that he abides different rules. Its an entire new diff hobby what he has in mind.
> 
> He wants to reinvent whats already invented, pretty much.


It is YOU that abides by different rules. Please tell me, what is YOUR definition of a species then for tarantulas, since you obviously don't agree with the universally accepted species concepts that I have previously discussed. You have to have some kind of rule or definition for a species of tarantula. .or do you just change the definition to match whatever you fancy labeling them?


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> And let's get this straight. If anyone is "rectifying the hobby" it is you. YOU are making the change by labeling them as separate. They are currently considered the same officially, remember? They have been considered one species this whole time, up until recently. So YOU are the one "rectifying,"  not me. I'm sure you will repeat this though as if you never read it in your next reply. . .:wall:



I don't know about over there in the USA, but over here in the UK and England they are known as a separate species???


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> It is YOU that abides by different rules. Please tell me, what is YOUR definition of a species then for tarantulas, since you obviously don't agree with the universally accepted species concepts that I have previously discussed. You have to have some kind of rule or definition for a species of tarantula. .or do you just change the definition to match whatever you fancy labeling them?


We are all the same sp.Tarantulas, us, any animal. 
The same.
In the end, we are live organisms , right?
In fact since everything seems to come from the same singularity,everything in the universe must be the same.Only variations, but the same in fact.

PS: I have always suspected it since everybody says that I look like a refrigerator.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> None of my replies are "praddle," whatever that is lol. I just describe time after time why you are wrong, supplemented with evidence which you can freely research yourself. You are running in circles, I agree, and this isn't really going anywhere for you. I'm sure a few others were able to get something out of this thread other than you though, so it evens out
> 
> And let's get this straight. If anyone is "rectifying the hobby" it is you. YOU are making the change by labeling them as separate. They are currently considered the same officially, remember? They have been considered one species this whole time, up until recently. So YOU are the one "rectifying,"  not me. I'm sure you will repeat this though as if you never read it in your next reply. . .:wall:


Times passed amounts to nothing. Everything is a learning experience, if they were the 'same' in the past, and are being counted as different now, that just sheds light on the beauty that is taxonomy and furthered understanding. Let's get this straight, you have NEVER proven me wrong, nor have you EVER provided plausible retort. Praddle, you aren't sure what it means? I find that amazing as you are ever so intelligent, your sarcasm does not befit you. I do not seek to rectify the taxonomy, I am the one who is sitting back letting the professionals handle it, I merely take the same stand you do, I am just stating what I belive in, not a good comparison however as you have very little ground to stand on. Also, making a change does not, in any realm, insist one seeks to rectify the hobby in this situation, that was a deplorable leap. If I'm running in circles, you are in a coma, come on, anyone and everyone can read what was discussed between you and I, here and in the other thread, you only dug a hole for yourself, and now it's getting deeper. I hope you like the taste of your shoe, my mysterious paradox.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> I don't know about over there in the USA, but over here in the UK and England they are known as a separate species???


You can be wherever you want and call them whatever you want, that doesn't change their _scientific_ status as being a single species.

We also call poodles poodles and pitbulls pitbulls but does that make them scientifically different species? Of course not. . .


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> They are currently considered the same officially, remember? They have been considered one species this whole time, up until recently.


Err...technically, at the moment, T. sp "Burgundy" is actually a Lasiodora due to being originally labeled as such over 100 years ago, and that is what they have been considered since then. It's not that T. sp. "Burgundy" popped out of nowhere, it's just it's being recategorized into theraphosa.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Fran said:


> We are all the same sp.Tarantulas, us, any animal.
> The same.
> In the end, we are live organisms , right?
> In fact since everything seems to come from the same singularity,everything in the universe must be the same.Only variations, but the same in fact.
> ...


Um, no everything is not the same. There is no question that a giraffe is a different species than a mouse. They don't look alike and would never mate in nature. Agreed? Agreed. But these spiders. . .they look alike, live in the same parts of the world and have very likely mated in nature. Therefore, you can't sit here and be so sure that they are different species.  And yes, you do look like a refrigerator. You could probably pop my head like a grape lol.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> You can be wherever you want and call them whatever you want, that doesn't change their _scientific_ status as being a single species.
> 
> We also call poodles poodles and pitbulls pitbulls but does that make them scientifically different species? Of course not. . .


They are a different species though.....

Everyone has finally learnt to accept it, why cant you?

Whats your problem? I seriously think that maybe you have bought a _Theraphosa blondi_ and upon all the information available right now on various forums and the internet you've actually discovered it is in fact a _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"_ and therefore cant get over it?

Your hurting yeah? "How can I make such a mistake when I think I know so much etc, am I wrong? I cant accept that I am wrong or even more so proven wrong....."

You must live in a tiny little world with a very close knit small friend base that en-compromises only you. 

The only person your cheating is yourself, wake up.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> Err...technically, at the moment, T. sp "Burgundy" is actually a Lasiodora due to being originally labeled as such over 100 years ago, and that is what they have been considered since then. It's not that T. sp. "Burgundy" popped out of nowhere, it's just it's being recategorized into theraphosa.


No, they haven't been considered since then, and I made this point in a previous thread. I begged that very question, why then haven't we seen "L. spinipes" on the market ever? I'm willing to bet because the specimens being collected fit the T. blondi label very easily and they still do to this day. 

 Who even came up with the label "burgundy" and on what grounds? 

If it was documented over 100 years ago, then why hasn't it been thought this whole time that these brown spiders were L. spinipes? Was this "knowledge" just lost? This doesn't make sense. . .


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> No, they haven't been considered since then, and I made this point in a previous thread. I begged that very question, why then haven't we seen "L. spinipes" on the market ever? I'm willing to bet because the specimens being collected fit the T. blondi label very easily and they still do to this day.


Because people like you wouldnt accept that over 50% of the _Theraphosa blondi_ market was in fact _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"......_

I swear to god that you have to be the utmost most annoying person I have ever crossed paths with be it in real life or the internet, you are a troll.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> They are a different species though.....
> 
> Everyone has finally learnt to accept it, why cant you?
> 
> ...


You are drawing big assumptions about me with very little evidence to support, you are going on your false intuitions, much like you are doing with this very topic: ignoring the obvious scientific evidence and driving your personal beliefs hard with fallacy after fallacy. The best part about it all is that you don't even know exactly what this paper is going to say yet, but you are so sure that it is going to have all the evidence you need. You are just eager to call these spiders different species, for whatever reasons, I can sense it. My interest in this topic is purely from a scientific standpoint, I think it is important not to abuse taxonomy by leaving it up to a single person or paper like you are doing here I will admit that. You are silly to think that I am motivated by feeling cheated out of my tarantula because its not a "pure blondi."  LOL please, you couldn't even tell the "difference" if you tried. No matter how good it makes you feel to label them as whatever you want, they are still one species. And an awesome species at that.


----------



## pouchedrat (Aug 2, 2010)

Considering the number of tarantulas that aren't in the hobby currently and have certainly never been seen by most hobbyists, and don't even have photos that are readily accessible to public, how can you even argue that?  It's a species that popped up years back, was mislabeled by dealers and hobbyists early on, and has stayed that way ever since.  The vast majority of them are imported wild caught.  Who's to say what these locals are grabbing and sending off to us?  And some species not requested are regularly shipped off as well in imports. 

Quite honestly, I can tell the difference between the Theraphosa species better than I can with most Aphonopelma and Avicularia... and those are often cross-bred and hybridized

I think most people who argue it are those who bought a T. "blondi" and don't want to be told they paid money for something that isn't what it was, since there's some sort of macho man thing that goes with owning a true T. blondi, like owning a pit bull.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

Maybe just no one looked into it. Things do get buried and forgotten, you know. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happened. Seem to recall it happening with other animals/plants, but it was quite a while. And the hobby didn't get really started as I understand it until long after the species was described.

  As to why we haven't seen them marketed as L. spinipes...is because when you look at the spider it is a Theraphosa, not a Lasiodora. It was improperly categorized, so when it ended up introduced to the hobby people called it Theraphosa sp. "burgundy" to distinguish it from the blondi and apophysis. That's my guess as to what happened. Either way, there is a spider from the Lasiodora genus (Lasiodora spinipes) that is being moved to the Theraphosa genus.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Because people like you wouldnt accept that over 50% of the _Theraphosa blondi_ market was in fact _Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy"......_
> 
> I swear to god that you have to be the utmost most annoying person I have ever crossed paths with be it in real life or the internet, you are a troll.


How do "people like me" have any influence whatsoever on the status of the official documentation of the taxonomy of these spiders? I am asking, if these spiders were labeled as L. spinipes long ago, then why haven't they been labeled as such ever since? You claimed that they have been, and i pointed out that you were wrong. At what point did the name L. spinipes cease to be used to describe these big brown spiders? I am asking rhetorically because I know you don't have the answer. . you don't know either, just like you don't know for sure about any of this, you can't even tell me what defines a species of tarantula!


----------



## Terry D (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> No matter how good it makes you feel to label them as whatever you want, they are still one species. And an awesome species at that.


Famous last words!


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> You are drawing big assumptions about me with very little evidence to support


Nah you are a troll



The Mack said:


> you are going on your false intuitions, much like you are doing with this very topic: ignoring the obvious scientific evidence and driving your personal beliefs hard with fallacy after fallacy.


You actually just described yourself



The Mack said:


> The best part about it all is that you don't even know exactly what this paper is going to say yet, but you are so sure that it is going to have all the evidence you need.


The abstract _already_ released says eveything that we have been trying to tell you....



The Mack said:


> You are just eager to call these spiders different species, for whatever reasons, I can sense it. My interest in this topic is purely from a scientific standpoint


Then as a so called scientist why can you accept a _proper_ scientists work?



The Mack said:


> I think it is important not to abuse taxonomy by leaving it up to a single person or paper like you are doing here I will admit that. You are silly to think that I am motivated by feeling cheated out of my tarantula because its not a "pure blondi."  LOL please, you couldn't even tell the "difference" if you tried. No matter how good it makes you feel to label them as whatever you want, they are still one species. And an awesome species at that.


This is the actual underlying factor, you bought a _Theraphosa sp. "burgundy"_ and you cant accept its not a _Theraphosa blondi_

In the immortal words of Cartman, Laaaaaaaaaame.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

I think he is waiting for the paper to be properly released and reviewed before accepting its findings, as I vaguely recall from the last thread. Not sure about that though.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> Nah you are a troll
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your ignorance astounds me, but your childish antics don't surprise me at all. Trust me, I have no emotion invested in this matter, unlike you and others here I make my judgments based on only evidence and nothing else. I am certainly not the type of ignoramus who gives two chicken turds about how macho I am with my "pure blondi" LOL!  Call it a big brown spider for all I care, or a sp burgundy or a blondi, call it whatever you want, it is still a member of the same species as all these other brown spiders in question. 

But yeah, I'm done with you also. I don't think you are able to pick up much more from this thread other than a few childish kicks.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> But yeah, I'm done with you also. I don't think you are able to pick up much more from this thread other than a few childish kicks.


You were owned, only because your so tunnel visioned 

Night night


----------



## Fran (Aug 2, 2010)

:                     )


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 2, 2010)

Exactly


----------



## pouchedrat (Aug 2, 2010)

most tarantulas look alike though...  I guess we should just label them all the same *shrug*.  

it's just a big brown fuzzy spider and people shouldn't care that they're not the same species.  I mean, hell, tigers and lions can cross-breed, as can most all cat species.  They're ALL just cats!  Who cares?  just different colors and variations and different localities of a big cat.  In the end it's just a large cat and should be classified as the same.


----------



## Falk (Aug 2, 2010)

The Mack said:


> No, they haven't been considered since then, and I made this point in a previous thread. I begged that very question, why then haven't we seen "L. spinipes" on the market ever? I'm willing to bet because the specimens being collected fit the T. blondi label very easily and they still do to this day.
> 
> Who even came up with the label "burgundy" and on what grounds?
> 
> If it was documented over 100 years ago, then why hasn't it been thought this whole time that these brown spiders were L. spinipes? Was this "knowledge" just lost? This doesn't make sense. . .


Half of the _Lasiodora spp._ is not even in the hobby


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

pouchedrat said:


> most tarantulas look alike though...  I guess we should just label them all the same *shrug*.
> 
> it's just a big brown fuzzy spider and people shouldn't care that they're not the same species.  I mean, hell, tigers and lions can cross-breed, as can most all cat species.  They're ALL just cats!  Who cares?  just different colors and variations and different localities of a big cat.  In the end it's just a large cat and should be classified as the same.


Wow, one by one you all try to go down the same dead end road with your arguments. How is it that you jump to these ridiculous notions? 

Sure, most tarantulas look alike in terms of body structure, but many of them are noticeably different and live in different places of the world. In these cases, it is obvious that they are separate species. Take for example, H. lividum and a P. Irminia. Both look considerably different in terms of color scheme _and_ they inhabit different regions of the earth _and_ they do not interbreed in nature. Therefore, they are considered different species and rightfully so without any question. But this isn't the case with these Theraphosa tarantulas, as I have pointed out a hundred times already in these threads, but it just doesn't sink in. 

And don't even go down the lions and tigers route, it has been tried before by someone else here. It didn't get them anywhere and it won't get you anywhere either.  Lions and tigers look considerably different and they do NOT INTERBREED in nature, so that is why they are classified as different species. Just because they CAN possibly produce offspring when selectively bred by humans does not mean that they are the same species, lol. 

Once again, FAIL.



Falk said:


> Half of the _Lasiodora spp._ is not even in the hobby


Okay, and this means what exactly? :?  I don't see how this helps to support your claims at all. . .


----------



## Falk (Aug 2, 2010)

Mack species names are not capitalized



The Mack said:


> Okay, and this means what exactly? :?  I don't see how this helps to support your claims at all. . .


Beacuse you said Why havent we seen the _L. spinipes _in market before.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 2, 2010)

Falk said:


> Mack Species names are not capitalized


Oh i see, so it isn't okay for me to call you out on grammatical / spelling errors, but somehow it is relevant and perfectly okay for you to point out my minute error of capitalizing the species name. Got it, makes perfect sense. 



Falk said:


> Beacuse you said Why havent we seen the _L. spinipes _in market before.


Think about what you are saying here. And I mean that, THINK.  You are suggesting then, that the reason we haven't seen L. spinipes on the market before is because it simply never entered the hobby until recently? 

LOL earlier you were saying that it has been in the hobby the whole time, but just recently got a name change.  

You can't even keep your story straight, it really is rather comical.


----------



## Falk (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Think about what you are saying here. And I mean that, THINK.  You are suggesting then, that the reason we haven't seen L. spinipes on the market before is because it simply never entered the hobby until recently?
> 
> LOL earlier you were saying that it has been in the hobby the whole time, but just recently got a name change.
> 
> You can't even keep your story straight, it really is rather comical.


Nah, you dont get it.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Falk said:


> Nah, you dont get it.


Clearly I don't get it, because you haven't adequately explained your view. With your statement, "half of the Lasiodora sp. isn't even in the hobby" you clearly must have meant that you believe this "sp burgundy" was one of these spiders. . .if not, then by all means explain what you meant. 

Either way, it has no real merit or relevance to the topic at hand, which is correctly labeling these tarantulas. Fran started this thread talking about how he doesn't like the "mislabeling" of species happening by dealers and others. I simply have shown that you can't prove whether any specific specimen is "mislabeled" or not. The answer will change depending on who you talk to, which expert, dealer, etc. If it were obvious that these spiders were different species, then there wouldn't even be a debate about this at all. This is important to understand.

The disagreements about which species they are already exist, because it is scientifically UNCLEAR whether they are separate or the same. . .so what makes you think they will stop magically after a single paper is published?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Wow, one by one you all try to go down the same dead end road with your arguments. How is it that you jump to these ridiculous notions?
> 
> Sure, most tarantulas look alike in terms of body structure, but many of them are noticeably different and live in different places of the world. In these cases, it is obvious that they are separate species. Take for example, H. lividum and a P. Irminia. Both look considerably different in terms of color scheme _and_ they inhabit different regions of the earth _and_ they do not interbreed in nature. Therefore, they are considered different species and rightfully so without any question. But this isn't the case with these Theraphosa tarantulas, as I have pointed out a hundred times already in these threads, but it just doesn't sink in.
> 
> ...


Really? One by one? Obviously what occurs in your mind is hardly reality, see someone. The lions and tigers, they didn't get anywhere? You jest, that retort stomped you flat. Although I don't agree with the prior statement that they look the same etc. many of them do, and yet are different species. You have yet to prove anything except that you are distasteful, disrespectful, know how to use Wikipedia, cut and paste, read, display some sort of mental distortion, and know a couple definitons of species. I keep telling you, but it "doesn't sink in", you are, based on current factors that divide a "species", in this hobby, wrong. Once again, FAIL.


----------



## Fran (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I simply have shown that you can't prove whether any specific specimen is "mislabeled" or not. The answer will change depending on who you talk to, which expert, dealer, etc. If it were obvious that these spiders were different species, then there wouldn't even be a debate about this at all. This is important to understand.


Now seriously, I really think you are not in your right mind.
Either you are fooling us or you are not really in your right mind.

Im done with you. You have wasted my time.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Really? One by one? Obviously what occurs in your mind is hardly reality, see someone. The lions and tigers, they didn't get anywhere? You jest, that retort stomped you flat. Although I don't agree with the prior statement that they look the same etc. many of them do, and yet are different species. You have yet to prove anything except that you are distasteful,l disrespectful, know how to use Wikipedia, cut and paste, read, display some sort of mental distortion, and know a couple definitons of species. I keep telling you, but it "doesn't sink in", you are, based on current factors that divide a "species", in this hobby, wrong. Once again, FAIL.


Yes. One by one. I have seen the same fallacies reused by different people on numerous posts here, and the lions and tigers example was one of them. Lions and tigers are classified as being DIFFERENT SPECIES, despite their ability to produce offspring when selectively bred by humans. It isn't that difficult to understand! You consider any opinion that differs from yours as disrespect, I cannot help that. You speak about "current factors that divide species in this hobby" but I already know that you are unable to elaborate on these factors and define to me exactly what they are. At this point, I am sure that if the paper is published, and the reasoning behind why the species is being changed simply says "because I said so, dammit!"  that you will readily and willingly accept this explanation and not question it at all. 

If Rick West told you to jump off a bridge also, I think you might just do it lol.



Fran said:


> Now seriously, I really think you are not in your right mind.
> Either you are fooling us or you are not really in your right mind.


Fran, I just noticed after scrolling down the page and looking at some "similar posts" that you made a post which read:  "Looking for "Hairy","fuzzy", true Theraphosa Blondi Females"

LOL how sloppy can we get? You use terms like "hairy" and "fuzzy" to define a separate species.  . . I thought there was a lot more than just these traits which differentiated the two?  Why didn't you include them in your post? Surely you can't think that just because some are more "hairy" and "fuzzy" than others that they are members of a whole different species!?


----------



## skippy (Aug 3, 2010)

so, by your logic mack- an african serval and a domesticated cat are the same species because they can produce a viable hybrid? ie: a savannah cat?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

skippy said:


> so, by your logic mack- an african serval and a domesticated cat are the same species because they can produce a viable hybrid? ie: a savannah cat?



Like I said, one by one. It seems like second nature for you to go for this bogus analogy.  

Skippy, by "my logic" (and every other biologists/scientists logic) an african serval and a domesticated cat are NOT the same species because they do NOT INTERBREED IN NATURE. I've said this countless times, but I guess it won't hurt to say it yet again. Just because they CAN produce a living offspring when selectively bred by humans does not mean that they are the same species. Not to mention, African servals are much larger than domesticated cats, they have a consistently different color scheme, and live in different climates/habitats. 

Nice try, but no.


----------



## skippy (Aug 3, 2010)

that's what i figured you'd say, i'm done with your pathetic arguments now.

i suggest that the rest cease feeding the troll.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

skippy said:


> that's what i figured you'd say, i'm done with your pathetic arguments now.
> 
> i suggest that the rest cease feeding the troll.


yes, run back into your hole after offering absolutely nothing but a false analogy and an insult. You're the pathetic one, not me.


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 3, 2010)

Hey Bud! 

I agree with you! *2* diff sp! your post refures to 2 diff sp! and i totally agree with that!
T blondi & T apophysis! a 3rd/ i say bring the undoubtable proof!

Have a fantastic day everyone!



mcluskyisms said:


> Ok, lets break it down for you.....
> 
> Why does one in sling to juvenile stages have pink/white tarsi on legs I & II when the other one has no pink/white tarsi in the same stages at all?
> 
> ...


***In the above post you are refurring to 2 sp the whole time! i tke it t blondi and t apophysis!? i thought your arguement was for a 3rd!?***


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Yes. One by one. I have seen the same fallacies reused by different people on numerous posts here, and the lions and tigers example was one of them. Lions and tigers are classified as being DIFFERENT SPECIES, despite their ability to produce offspring when selectively bred by humans. It isn't that difficult to understand! You consider any opinion that differs from yours as disrespect, I cannot help that. You speak about "current factors that divide species in this hobby" but I already know that you are unable to elaborate on these factors and define to me exactly what they are. At this point, I am sure that if the paper is published, and the reasoning behind why the species is being changed simply says "because I said so, dammit!"  that you will readily and willingly accept this explanation and not question it at all.
> 
> If Rick West told you to jump off a bridge also, I think you might just do it lol.



When that paper is published, it will contain all factors as to why it is a different species. Yes, I can tell you what determines a tarantula as a different species from another, you cannot seem to grasp, that I am anything but an idiot, in fact, you are the one overlooking some factors that have been overtly stated, time and time again, refer to my original post to you in the first thread. Also, your opinion is fine, although it is flawed and lead by absolute insanity, it is your condescending undertone that is disrespectful. Did you make an appearance at BATS or not? I wouldn't mind having this discussion with you face to face, perhaps you won't speak to me like a child, as you type to me as if I were. Where is the bridge? What is this praddle about Rick West? He is far from the zenith, but his word has value, yours, at this point, is less than garbage in my eyes. You have woven this web of fallacies, you are nothing but a hypocrite who cannot comprehend anything other than what your original opinion is. You have made another stink, in another thread, congratulations. At this point, because you have failed to do so thus far, you have no concrete evidence to disprove that they are different species, so you are done. Reply with senseless, distorted, "Mack-reasoning" all you want, as I'm sure you will, but it will get you nowhere, one by one they go down, game over "one".

To a certain extent I do believe that the current methods of determining species of tarantulas is inadequate, but I don't think it really presents much of a problem except for situations like this. I am not claiming anything, it is everyone's claim that these spiders are different species that I am doubting. And I'm not doubting just to get a rise from people, but because the evidence and current available knowledge just points me in that direction.

Mack's statement.


I just saw this, the first sentence, thank you. Consider your empire of contradiction firmly established.


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Please do tell, what exactly is this "whole lot of things" these differences tell us? Be specific. They certainly don't tell us that they are different species for sure. . .
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they haven't evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. . the present form of the spiders we see today is the product of who knows how many hundreds of thousands/millions of years worth of evolution. The idea isn't that they are evolving before our very eyes, but that the differences you are seeing today in these Theraphosa spiders (different pedipalps, patella, etc.) are EASILY attributable to genetic variations within the same species that have _already taken place_.


Well put mack! Thanx for clearing that up on my behalf!



Crows Arachnids said:


> Who is making a buck or two? In fact if I sell it as a Theraphosa blondi, then I'll be making a buck, as an "Sp. Burgundy", I'm not, sorry, but highly inaccurate.


Sorry for you! not highly inaccurate! think a little further! 
To create a 3rd sp creates the demand! more people will want the 'trio'! in other words more sales! 'inaccurate' lol

Another way to make a buck!
Its going to get messed up! another eg of what gets done when 2 or 3 spiders look too alike, like a couple others are! Lasiodore for eg: once you have sold all your clients the Parahybana babies that you have, you have so many left over that in a couple months you sell to the same clients the same spider as L klugi! This will now happen to the Theraphosa!!
It happens constantly!


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

spiderworld said:


> Sorry for you! not highly inaccurate! think a little further!
> To create a 3rd sp creates the demand! more people will want the 'trio'! in other words more sales! 'inaccurate' lol
> 
> Another way to make a buck!
> ...


You are downright hilarious. We did not "create" a third species, it has existed, highly inaccurate. The term quick buck, in this instance was used in reference to price spiking, which I have yet to see happen except once, so yes, highly inaccurate. Your Lasiodora example is degrading to read. Did I think far enough? Just let Mack do the talking for you.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> To a certain extent I do believe that the current methods of determining species of tarantulas is inadequate, but I don't think it really presents much of a problem except for situations like this. I am not claiming anything, it is everyone's claim that these spiders are different species that I am doubting. And I'm not doubting just to get a rise from people, but because the evidence and current available knowledge just points me in that direction.
> 
> Mack's statement.
> 
> ...


How have I contradicted myself? I still stand by that statement fully... In fact I have received PMs from people on this site who are much more informed than you on the subject and they too have said that they don't always agree with the current methods for classifying species of tarantulas. 

Your replies have slowly morphed into your own personal rants and criticisms of me, and have lost all hope of providing any relevant logic or reasoning anymore. You are way too emotionally invested in this, (most likely because you are a supposed "dealer" and you want to justify charging different prices for the same spiders). 

And just as I suspected, you will continue to ask me for proof when it is you who is making the claims here which require the proof. I am done trying to get you to understand this, either you aren't mentally capable of grasping the concept or you are just too stubborn. 

Imagine this situation: I claim that the flying spaghetti monster exists. You naturally ask, where is your evidence and proof to support this claim?

But then I answer, "You can't prove that he doesn't exist, so therefore he must exist!" 

LOL this is exactly what you are doing here, such an obvious fallacy!


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> You are downright hilarious. We did not "create" a third species, it has existed, highly inaccurate. The term quick buck, in this instance was used in reference to price spiking, which I have yet to see happen except once, so yes, highly inaccurate. Your Lasiodora example is degrading to read. Did I think far enough? Just let Mack do the talking for you.


Sorry! i have never refured to price spiking! you went that root not me! degrading yes! but it gets done! ive supplied you with very accurate ways where people will make a buck or two! if you are going to insult me have your facts and a decent cumback please! why do you want to fight! its just a discussion!


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> How have I contradicted myself? I still stand by that statement fully... In fact I have received PMs from people on this site who are much more informed than you on the subject and they too have said that they don't agree with the current methods for classifying species of tarantulas.
> 
> Your replies have slowly morphed into your own personal rants and criticisms of me, and have lost all hope of providing any relevant logic or reasoning anymore. You are way too emotionally invested in this, (most likely because you are a supposed "dealer" and you want to justify charging different prices for the same spiders).
> 
> ...


"Supposed" dealer? Implication? The fact still stands, you challenge the current system we abide by, which in that statement you acknowledged, however denied when I said that to you multiple times. Who are these individuals? They are more informed are they? Let's hear what they have to say. It is not in my best profit interest to label them as Sp. Burgundy, they fetch far less than Theraphosa blondi. We have provided proof, look again, if you do not find it, look again, if you still cannot find it, look yet again. The proof we have provided has been enough to establish species as different from one another in the past, why should we have thought differently now? My point still stands, you challenge our entire system, stop wasting our time complaining about it and quoting Wikipedia, fix it.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> You are downright hilarious. We did not "create" a third species, it has existed, highly inaccurate. The term quick buck, in this instance was used in reference to price spiking, which I have yet to see happen except once, so yes, highly inaccurate. Your Lasiodora example is degrading to read. Did I think far enough? Just let Mack do the talking for you.


What he was saying isn't hilarious at all. It is perfectly correct. The incorrect assumption that these are separate species will undoubtedly make it easier for dealers to pull stunts like this and resell buyers the same tarantulas over again with different labels. 

If you were to take the specimens from a single "litter" of Theraphosa spiderlings, and depending on which expert you consult, after maturing some will grow up to fit the "true t. blondi" description and some will fit the "sp burgundy/L. spinipes" description. Gullible buyers who don't know any better could easily buy the same spider twice, just with a new label and a minor variation of hair/color/etc.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

spiderworld said:


> Sorry! i have never refured to price spiking! you went that root not me! degrading yes! but it gets done! ive supplied you with very accurate ways where people will make a buck or two! if you are going to insult me have your facts and a decent cumback please! why do you want to fight! its just a discussion!



What are you talking about? This isn't a fight. I stated facts and opinions, is that so wrong? You didn't refer to price spiking and yet, you made your first post to me based on what? I was referring to price spiking, if you weren't, than you shouldn't have posted anything.



The Mack said:


> What he was saying isn't hilarious at all. It is perfectly correct. The incorrect assumption that these are separate species will undoubtedly make it easier for dealers to pull stunts like this and resell buyers the same tarantulas over again with different labels.
> 
> If you were to take the specimens from a single "litter" of Theraphosa spiderlings, and depending on which expert you consult, after maturing some will grow up to fit the "true t. blondi" description and some will fit the "sp burgundy/L. spinipes" description. Gullible buyers who don't know any better could easily buy the same spider twice, just with a new label and a minor variation of hair/color/etc.



They will fit only one description, if they were the same species and only a variant, that would still stand to be true, one description. The same "litter" would yield one variant, the mistake would be on behalf of the "expert", they would look identical. Are you claiming that the Theraphosa blondi, and what us fools believe as a different species, Theraphosa spinipes, come from the same sack?


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> You are downright hilarious. We did not "create" a third species, it has existed, highly inaccurate. The term quick buck, in this instance was used in reference to price spiking, which I have yet to see happen except once, so yes, highly inaccurate. Your Lasiodora example is degrading to read. Did I think far enough? Just let Mack do the talking for you.


Yes i agree that whether there is a 3rd is up for discussion! but if you cant agree that what ive said about the 'macking a buck' which is very logic and im sure everyone would agree with! then how can anything else you say be taken seriosly!

have a great day!


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> "Supposed" dealer? Implication? The fact still stands, you challenge the current system we abide by, which in that statement you acknowledged, however denied when I said that to you multiple times. Who are these individuals? They are more informed are they? Let's hear what they have to say. It is not in my best profit interest to label them as Sp. Burgundy, they fetch far less than Theraphosa blondi. We have provided proof, look again, if you do not find it, look again, if you still cannot find it, look yet again. The proof we have provided has been enough to establish species as different from one another in the past, why should we have thought differently now. My point still stands, you challenge our entire system, stop wasting our time complaining about it and quoting Wikipedia, fix it.


Yes, you said that you are a dealer. . do you have a website? Reviews? Links? 

I'm not going to say who wrote that message to me. . I figure they sent it privately for a reason. If they wish to post it here in the thread then that's up to them. I don't challenge the entire system you abide by (even though you don't even understand the very foundation of this system), I simply challenge your claim that these Theraphosa spiders are separate species. 

Your "proof" is about as valid as the bible is "proof" that god created the world. Your stubborn, non-evidence based approach might get you into trouble down the line, be careful.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

spiderworld said:


> Yes i agree that whether there is a 3rd is up for discussion! but if you cant agree that what ive said about the 'macking a buck' which is very logic and im sure everyone would agree with! then how can anything else you say be taken seriosly!
> 
> have a great day!



Your "macking a buck" thing, was degrading, I didn't say I disagreed. Also, have a great day


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> They will fit only one description, if they were the same species and only a variant, that would still stand to be true, one description.


How can you be so wrong all the time and never realize it? You say "even if they were the same species and only a variant" that they would still fit one description? Guess what.. . a poodle is a variant of the dog species, and a pitbull is another variant. Do they fit ONLY ONE DESCRIPTION?? Of course not! We describe them as being different variants (pitbulls and poodles) of the same species (dog). 



Crows Arachnids said:


> Are you claiming that the Theraphosa blondi, and what us fools believe as a different species, Theraphosa spinipes, come from the same sack?


I am not explicitly claiming this, but It is certainly possible! It isn't unreasonable to imagine this happening at all. . .many siblings (brothers and/or sisters) often look very different even though they are from the same "litter."


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> What are you talking about? This isn't a fight. I stated facts and opinions, is that so wrong? You didn't refer to price spiking and yet, you made your first post to me based on what? I was referring to price spiking, if you weren't, than you shouldn't have posted anything.


Correct! i made the first post about making a buck! you jumped to the price spike! i just corrected you by telling you that im not refuring to price spike! so why should i have not posted anything? you dont have a cumback for my reasons so you get personil!? Please


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Yes, you said that you are a dealer. . do you have a website? Reviews? Links?
> 
> I'm not going to say who wrote that message to me. . I figure they sent it privately for a reason. If they wish to post it here in the thread then that's up to them. I don't challenge the entire system you abide by (even though you don't even understand the very foundation of this system), I simply challenge your claim that these Theraphosa spiders are separate species.
> 
> Your "proof" is about as valid as the bible is "proof" that god created the world. Your stubborn, non-evidence based approach might get you into trouble down the line, be careful.



My website is being composed, although that hardly registers someone as a dealer, look for the reviews  I don't care if I'm a dealer or a well postioned hobbyist, I have a business license for what I do, along with permits, this, however is besides the point.

What do you mean "who", an indication of one person? A moment ago I could have swore it was multiple. I don't understand the foundation of this system? Really? I'm glad you understand my comprehension better than I. You contradicted yourself again, I quoted your statement in reply to Mugleston, and you now say you don't challenge it, so you agree with it? Either way, it's a contradiction. Your "proof" is about as valid as the woman who can communicate with cats via telepathy, she's there, and she keeps telling us, but she makes no sense and we all think she is insane. As far as trouble, please.



The Mack said:


> How can you be so wrong all the time and never realize it? You say "even if they were the same species and only a variant" that they would still fit one description? Guess what.. . a poodle is a variant of the dog species, and a pitbull is another variant. Do they fit ONLY ONE DESCRIPTION?? Of course not! We describe them as being different variants (pitbulls and poodles) of the same species (dog).
> 
> 
> 
> I am not explicitly claiming this, but It is certainly possible! It isn't unreasonable to imagine this happening at all. . .many siblings (brothers and/or sisters) often look very different even though they are from the same "litter."



Flawed comparison. The spiders will fit one description, if a Theraphosa comes out of the sac and develops hair on the patella and all the other factors presented, as the one without and lack of factors, only then would your statement be true. Slight color, etc. is not what I refer to, I meant the factors we presented to describe them as a different species, you knew that, I hope. Under those circumstances, they fit ONE description.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> My website is being composed, although that hardly registers someone as a dealer, look for the reviews  I don't care if I'm a dealer or a well postioned hobbyist, I have a business license for what I do, along with permits, this, however is besides the point.
> 
> What do you mean "who", an indication of one person? A moment ago I could have swore it was multiple. I don't understand the foundation of this system? Really? I'm glad you understand my comprehension better than I. You contradicted yourself again, I quoted your statement in reply to Mugleston, and you now say you don't challenge it, so you agree with it? Either way, it's a contradiction. Your "proof" is about as valid as the woman who can communicate with cats via telepathy, she's there, and she keeps telling us, but she makes no sense and we all think she is insane. As far as trouble, please.


Please be specific on how I have contradicted myself? I know it will be difficult for you, but try to concisely explain how I have done so. . ? 

Let's make it clear: I DO CHALLENGE YOUR CLAIMS THAT THESE SPIDERS ARE SEPARATE SPECIES, DESPITE WHETHER RICK WEST SAYS SO OR NOT. 

You should also know that there is much debate even among the heavy hitters in the field about the taxonomy and classification of tarantula species. I'm sure there are people much smarter than me out there who share my same viewpoint on this matter. And here you go again with the "proof" thing. . . how many times must I tell you, I need no proof because I am not making the claim. YOU NEED THE PROOF!


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> My website is being composed, although that hardly registers someone as a dealer, look for the reviews  I don't care if I'm a dealer or a well postioned hobbyist, I have a business license for what I do, along with permits, this, however is besides the point.
> 
> What do you mean "who", an indication of one person? A moment ago I could have swore it was multiple. I don't understand the foundation of this system? Really? I'm glad you understand my comprehension better than I. You contradicted yourself again, I quoted your statement in reply to Mugleston, and you now say you don't challenge it, so you agree with it? Either way, it's a contradiction. Your "proof" is about as valid as the woman who can communicate with cats via telepathy, she's there, and she keeps telling us, but she makes no sense and we all think she is insane. As far as trouble, please.


Wow! and i thought we were having a discussion about Theraphosa!!!???
anyway i must go work now! hope when i get back the topic will be back on Tarantulas we love so much! remember!

Hoop jelle he n lekker dag wat vir julle voor le! (Afrikaans)
Hope you enjoy the rest of your day!


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Flawed comparison. The spiders will fit one description, if a Theraphosa comes out of the sac and develops hair on the patella and all the other factors presented, as the one without and lack of factors, only then would your statement be true. Slight color, etc. is not what I refer to, I meant the factors we presented to describe them as a different species, you knew that, I hope. Under those circumstances, they fit ONE description.


So then, you are saying that if a Theraphosa comes out of the sac and develops hair on the patella (And all "other factors" as you put it) then it can be considered one species. And if it doesn't, then it can be considered another species. Under this concept, these spiders are changing species throughout their lives! LOL very interesting.

And you act as if the hair on the patella has more significance than "slight color" . . .what do you base this on? Your own personal hunch? NONE OF THE FACTORS you are using to describe these as different species are valid or reliable. Face it.  

You're so lost here it is getting hilarious.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Please be specific on how I have contradicted myself? I know it will be difficult for you, but try to concisely explain how I have done so. . ?
> 
> Let's make it clear: I DO CHALLENGE YOUR CLAIMS THAT THESE SPIDERS ARE SEPARATE SPECIES, DESPITE WHETHER RICK WEST SAYS SO OR NOT.
> 
> You should also know that there is much debate even among the heavy hitters in the field about the taxonomy and classification of tarantula species. I'm sure there are people much smarter than me out there who share my same viewpoint on this matter. And here you go again with the "proof" thing. . . how many times must I tell you, I need no proof because I am not making the claim. YOU NEED THE PROOF!



Difficult for me? Hardly. You say that these two particular spiders are indeed the same species, acknowledged. Your reasoning on this is based entirely off of one definition of species concept that, I suppose, you deem a more appropriate one than that of the current. Perhaps you have more reasons, or I am mistaken, but I shall continue. The very reasoning you are ranting with, would in turn dispute MANY species, defined differently in our current standing. So I in turn say to you, the current mode of taxa we abide by is inaccurate, based off of your ideals for this one situation (Theraphosa), you deny that. Yet in a mere breath later, you mention in your reply to Joey, that you feel that the current mode of taxa is indeed inaccurate. Look bud, you are a walking, breathing paradox, I have never seen anything like this, I am intrigued! You sorely need to look up the definition of 'claim', I know, perhaps Wikipedia will shed some light on it! We made a claim, you made a claim, you have less reason for your standpoint than we do, although I will have to side with you in absolutes, our reasoning is strictly in adherence to our long established convention, you are trying to think far outside the box, where I have no interest. As far as your monster analogy, that was brutally hilarious.



The Mack said:


> So then, you are saying that if a Theraphosa comes out of the sac and develops hair on the patella (And all "other factors" as you put it) then it can be considered one species. And if it doesn't, then it can be considered another species. Under this concept, these spiders are changing species throughout their lives! LOL very interesting.
> 
> And you act as if the hair on the patella has more significance than "slight color" . . .what do you base this on? Your own personal hunch? NONE OF THE FACTORS you are using to describe these as different species are valid or reliable. Face it.
> 
> You're so lost here it is getting hilarious.


You and Spiderboy are the only ones who think I'm lost, so I can live with that. The factors are MORE than enough to determine them as a different species, less has been used to determine different species in the past, once again, mindless babble, go back and rectify this hobby! Face it. You're so lost here it's getting hilarious. Adding this, they will not come out of the same sac, so your assumption of my message is not only impossible, it discredits you further.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> You and Spiderboy are the only ones who think I'm lost, so I can live with that. The factors are MORE than enough to determine them as a different species, less has been used to determine different species in the past, once again, mindless babble, go back and rectify this hobby! Face it. You're so lost here it's getting hilarious. Adding this, they will not come out of the same sac, so your assumption of my message is not only impossible, it discredits you further.


You are obviously too dense to understand the natural dilemma with taxonomy, not only in tarantulas but in other species as well. Sometimes it is obvious whether two organisms are different species,  sometimes it isn't, that's all I am going to say to you Crows Arachnids. I will no longer reply to you here. 

On a side note, for anyone interested, I found this very cool thread on taxonomy which is relevant to the topic at hand and just interesting in general to think about. Check it out if you want: 

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/serious-discussion/91792-controversy-of-human-taxonomy.html

goodnight.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> You are obviously too dense to understand the natural dilemma with taxonomy, not only in tarantulas but in other species as well. Sometimes it is obvious whether two organisms are different species,  sometimes it isn't, that's all I am going to say to you Crows Arachnids. I will no longer reply to you here.
> 
> On a side note, for anyone interested, I found this very cool thread on taxonomy which is relevant to the topic at hand and just interesting in general to think about. Check it out if you want:
> 
> ...



Not at all, I am very aware. In fact I mentioned this when I said you were thinking far outside the box, but a fool I was for thinking you intelligent enough to register that. I'm glad to hear you are done, let us all hope you are a man of your word. Goodnight.


----------



## Jmugleston (Aug 3, 2010)

Perhaps we can stop this endless circle....or just get another post count....I wonder what comes after arachnoangel....I was more fond of arachnodemon....but I digress:

Mack

What is your experience in this hobby? (A few months?)

How many Theraphosa blondi, Theraphosa apophysis, and Theraphosa sp. do you have?(A single one in your collection right?) 
*
Do you feel this is a fair taxon sampling when possibly three species may be involved? *Pictures don't count. You discounted those much earlier in this thread.

Is one specimen in your captive collection enough to make claims about breeding populations? 

Can you even give me locality data for your spider? 

Why is it that people should listen to your opinion?

If you answer "it is not an opinion" to the above, what evidence do you have for mating and the production of fertile offspring under natural conditions? 

Do you have range overlap information from your hours you spent perusing museum specimens and mapping locality data? 

I'm sure we'd all love to hear about your time spent in the field finding ways to verify the species according to Mayr's Biological Species Concept....though you seem to favor whichever species concept best suits you on a post to post basis.....so perhaps it is a different concept you favor now. I hope it is not Morphological or Phylogenetic species concept because once we start talking characters and character states, you basically just switched to our side. Either way, feel free to offer counter evidence. We stated a claim and showed where others, experts in the field, agreed with us, but you're above that.....I'll address that below.

What is it that puts you above taxonomists both past and present? 

You scoffed at the "single" publication idea earlier....how is your claim more supported than theirs. They've been doing it longer than you. They understand characters and character states better than you. They definitely know theraphosids better than you. I'm sure they can justify their reasoning for using the species concept they've chosen better than you. They probably even stick with a single species concept instead of jumping about as you do. ("They look the same" doesn't fly with BSC.....) I'm sure their CV shows much more experience in this field than you. 

Why should someone listen to a budding hobbyist that has no experience in taxonomy, systematics, biology, or anything else that might take you away from getting to 150 argumentative posts on arachnoboards?

What is your problem with Rick West? 
You mention him multiple times and every time it is in a negative manner. I'm sure you have reasons and it isn't just you shooting your mouth off to get attention.

Are you aware that a description paper is not the final word? 
I'm sure with your venture into taxonomy you know that it is a hypothesis based on the data which are available. It can be changed, updated and even tested. We're okay with that. If we weren't we wouldn't be defending the switch from Lasiodora to Theraphosa.

If you are so certain that you know more than the experts (not hobbyists but working taxonomists) why don't you refute the claim through proper channels instead of regurgitating the same argument over and over again?

I fear that you have no experience, no credentials, no training, and no real knowledge of the scientific community. Perhaps you will surprise me.


----------



## gumby (Aug 3, 2010)

I have to admit when the third Theraphosa sp. started showing up I thought it was just a way to get people in the hobby to spend a little more money on a different color form but not a different species. After talking with Jmugleston just a few times and having him tell me what the differences he knew of were Im far more inclined to think there is a 3rd Theraphosa sp. I wouldnt be surprised if several more Theraphosa sp. showed up over time. what makes us think we have found all the Theraphosa sp. in the world?

to Jmug I think ive been an arachnoprince for like a year!


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Jmugleston said:


> Mack
> 
> What is your experience in this hobby? (A few months?)
> 
> How many Theraphosa blondi, Theraphosa apophysis, and Theraphosa sp. do you have?(A single one in your collection right?)


Yes, I haven't been "in the hobby" as people here put it, for very long, but that is in no way relevant to the universal concept being applied here. There are people who spend their whole lives learning about astrology, and have "tons of experience" in astrology, but this doesn't make them scientifically valid or even any more knowledgeable about the workings of the world than an average lay person. Whether you have collected spiders for one year or fifty years has nothing to do with the scientific validity of your claims. . .

You may have made more observations than me, but if anything this would be indicative of a CORRELATION and NOT A CAUSATION. This is a common mistake people make. . .just because you make observations doesn't make you a scientist or  an expert. You have to use these observations to draw data and formulate a falsifiable theory. Without this falsifiable theory which is available for all to test, it really is ALL arbitrary.  







Jmugleston said:


> Do you feel this is a fair taxon sampling when possibly three species may be involved? [/B]Pictures don't count. You discounted those much earlier in this thread.
> 
> Is one specimen in your captive collection enough to make claims about breeding populations?


Of course a single specimen isn't enough to make claims about breeding populations, although as I have pointed out before, I AM NOT MAKING CLAIMS, YOU ARE! :wall:   I simply bring to light that there is POSSIBILITY that these spiders have interbred (either currently or in the past) in nature. You seem so opposed to this idea for some reason. . please explain to me why I SHOULDN'T even consider this possibility? You haven't provided one reason yet. . .



Jmugleston said:


> Can you even give me locality data for your spider?


I can give you the same minimal "data" about my spider that is available to everyone else in this hobby. Once again, very little is known and/or documented about these tarantulas. This makes it all the more difficult to run around making claims about the status of their species classifications.



Jmugleston said:


> Why is it that people should listen to your opinion?


 You may not always agree, but a simple consideration of others' views is essential to the process of learning. 




Jmugleston said:


> If you answer "it is not an opinion" to the above, what evidence do you have for mating and the production of fertile offspring under natural conditions?


My answers/points about this topic can be considered an "opinion" in the same sense as it is Darwin's (and most every other biologist/scientist's) "opinion" that evolution is the process by which we have come to be. Nothing we can know for sure, and as you stated, even well established scientific theories are open for challenge and falsifiability. 

I don't have evidence which proves mating and production of fertile offspring under natural conditions, but it isn't me who needs this evidence. It would be YOU who needs the evidence that they ARE NOT breeding in nature in order to classify these as different species (according to the widely accepted biological species concept). It is 100% reasonable and plausible that they ARE interbreeding. . when you come along and make the claim that they are separate species (changing the way we view organisms in the world) you have to have the proof and evidence to support it. Not me. . .





Jmugleston said:


> Do you have range overlap information from your hours you spent perusing museum specimens and mapping locality data?


Once again, it would be YOU who needs this information because YOU are making the claims here. 



Jmugleston said:


> I'm sure we'd all love to hear about your time spent in the field finding ways to verify the species according to Mayr's Biological Species Concept....though you seem to favor whichever species concept best suits you on a post to post basis.....so perhaps it is a different concept you favor now.


No, I haven't spent hours in South America collecting these tarantulas. I _have_ spent plenty of time studying biological anthropology, however, which I honestly think can provide more insight into this than just collecting spiders and observing them. 

Not once have I "jumped" from one species concept to the next. This accusation you are making only illustrates your ignorance of these concepts and the significance of their relationships with each other. The only reason that there are multiple species concepts is because scientists can't always agree on a single definition. When problems with the biological species concept were found, other species concepts were created to help explain these gray areas. Time and time again I have shown that this is one of those gray areas, and it is nearly impossible to  be 100% sure that these spiders are either separate species or the same.  




Jmugleston said:


> What is it that puts you above taxonomists both past and present?


Nothing puts me "above taxonomists," but I can tell you what puts you below them: The fact that you don't understand the inherent problems with taxonomy and if you did, you would realize how difficult it is to make the claim that these are separate species. 



Jmugleston said:


> You scoffed at the "single" publication idea earlier....how is your claim more supported than theirs.


You have all the wrong reasoning behind your efforts. The more "supported" a claim is is totally arbitrary, unless you are talking about SCIENTIFIC and FALSIFIABLE support (which you have none of). Just because millions of people "support" the idea of Jesus being a savior doesn't make it so. Just because they have spent countless hours studying religion and praying doesn't make them any more knowledgeable. 



Jmugleston said:


> They definitely know theraphosids better than you. I'm sure they can justify their reasoning for using the species concept they've chosen better than you.


You are sure THEY can justify their reasoning, but YOU certainly can't. You are basically admitting that you're just taking their word for it, not even thinking for yourself at all on the matter. Quite sad actually. . .



Jmugleston said:


> Why should someone listen to a budding hobbyist that has no experience in taxonomy, systematics, biology, or anything else that might take you away from getting to 150 argumentative posts on arachnoboards?


You know nothing about my experience in biology or in other sciences, so once again you are making assumptions without any evidence. You really shouldn't do that, it already has you confused enough. 



Jmugleston said:


> What is your problem with Rick West?
> You mention him multiple times and every time it is in a negative manner. I'm sure you have reasons and it isn't just you shooting your mouth off to get attention.


I have nothing against Rick West. It is just funny how he is the only person/source people here can refer to. You have to admit, only one source/expert provides ALL the knowledge you people accept. . .pretty suspect. 




Jmugleston said:


> I fear that you have no experience, no credentials, no training, and no real knowledge of the scientific community. Perhaps you will surprise me.



Perhaps I am a theoretical physicist or a cultural anthropologist, or maybe I flip burgers at McDonald's or pour coffee at Starbucks. Either way, my points are still completely valid. Once again, you place far too much emphasis on authority rather than evidence. Big mistake.


----------



## Fran (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Perhaps I am a theoretical physicist


 Theoretical Physicist (only by typing it I giggle) .


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Fran said:


> Theoretical Physicist (only by typing it I giggle) .


Any luck yet finding that "hairy" and "fuzzy"  "Pure blondi"  ?


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

Hi
Out of interest if there is no evidence to show that they are not interbreeding in the wild, what evidence is there to show that they are?

In regards to this question I mean the term breeding as in produceing offspring. I am not just talking mating.
thanks
John


----------



## Versi*JP*Color (Aug 3, 2010)

Jmugleston said:


> Perhaps we can stop this endless circle....or just get another post count....I wonder what comes after arachnoangel....I was more fond of arachnodemon....but I digress:
> 
> Mack
> 
> ...





gumby said:


> I have to admit when the third Theraphosa sp. started showing up I thought it was just a way to get people in the hobby to spend a little more money on a different color form but not a different species. After talking with Jmugleston just a few times and having him tell me what the differences he knew of were Im far more inclined to think there is a 3rd Theraphosa sp. I wouldnt be surprised if several more Theraphosa sp. showed up over time. what makes us think we have found all the Theraphosa sp. in the world?
> 
> to Jmug I think ive been an arachnoprince for like a year!


Finally I find some hobbyists in Utah,I agree with Jmug.

SO CAN WE END THIS !!!


----------



## Fran (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Any luck yet finding that "hairy" and "fuzzy"  "Pure blondi"  ?


I have some already.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

John Kanker said:


> Hi
> Out of interest if there is no evidence to show that they are not interbreeding in the wild, what evidence is there to show that they are?
> 
> In regards to this question I mean the term breeding as in produceing offspring. I am not just talking mating.
> ...


Firstly let me explain to you, as I have earlier in this thread, why this is a fallacious argument. Consider the following example: 

I claim that a spaghetti monster exists. You naturally challenge my claim and ask me for some supporting evidence. I retort by saying, "You can't prove that he _doesn't exist_, so why should I listen to you?? He exists as long as I say he does and for as long as you can't prove he doesn't!"  This is a way of pulling the entire topic out of the scientific realm and into your own personal realm, where the "truth" is free to sway from person to person. With this reasoning, you can justify _anything_ as long as it can't be thoroughly and scientifically tested. 

Whoever is making the claim needs to have the evidence. Because the label "sp burgundy" has only recently popped up (they have always been simply called T. blondi before this), that means that some people are making the CLAIM that these are in fact separate species. Therefore, they need to provide the undeniable SCIENTIFIC evidence for this (not just because he or she said so). 

With that being said, I can tell you why it is _very reasonable to assume that these spiders are breeding in nature. _ Firstly, the fact that they are very similar in appearance, color, and size suggest that they are very closely related evolutionarily. As of right now, you could take any given specimen (captive or wild) and there is no way at all you could be 100% sure that it was a T. blondi or some other closely related but different species without doing a DNA test. This fact makes it very difficult to ever know if they are just variants of a single species or in fact genetically separate species. Also because they are all found in the same geographical area of the world (a select region of South America), this suggests that they are all one species that simply has spread about and varied over time. 

The problem is that people are already taking the approach that they are different species and that they are interbreeding, when in fact they are all just members of the same species.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

Mack, I get the feeling not a whole lot of people are working in theraphosid taxonomy, from previous discussions on the topic here on the board. You should also probably recognize your field of study/profession/research is very different from taxonomy, whatever it may be.

However, you are _very_ wrong in saying you don't have to provide evidence. Any hypothesis must be supported by evidence before _anyone_ can take it seriously. A hypothesis with nothing more than pure speculation to back it up is just that-speculation. We have noted traits which act as evidence for our hypothesis and Rick West's supporting paper. You, on the other hand, have used speculation backed up by reasoning. This _isn't_ to say you don't have a good start; everything needs a basis on which to begin. But it's high time for you to find the evidence supporting your hypothesis. 

 Even if you're right, which you may very well be, you need evidence to back it up. And at the moment, you have _none_, including for range overlap. You also need to explain why there is a difference in the abundance of the three species in the hobby, coming in from the dealers, if they are one and the same. Again, you need more than just speculation.

What will be your position when Rick West's paper is published, and _Theraphosa spinipes_ is an established name in the literature? At that point, you'll need to produce hard evidence to back up your claim.

Edit: How much do you know of the history of the hobby? "Always have been" is a pretty broad statement. And again, it is easy to tell the difference between T. blondi and T. spinipes if you actually bother to look. No comment on apophysis, as I am not as familiar with it.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> However, you are _very_ wrong in saying you don't have to provide evidence. Any hypothesis must be supported by evidence before _anyone_ can take it seriously. A hypothesis with nothing more than pure speculation to back it up is just that-speculation. We have noted traits which act as evidence for our hypothesis and Rick West's supporting paper. You, on the other hand, have used speculation backed up by reasoning. This _isn't_ to say you don't have a good start; everything needs a basis on which to begin. But it's high time for you to find the evidence supporting your hypothesis.


You really should read the entire thread that I linked to earlier. . .parts of the following are from the thread, please read and understand this:

Taxonomy is how we classify species. The premise of taxonomy is that we group species hierarchically based on how similar they are.

However, this raises the question of what we mean by similar. Do certain characteristics take precedence over others? Why?

*The point is that grouping species together simply because they happen to have anatomical similarities carries a bias; it isn't objective, and it may not actually "tell" us anything about the relationship those species share. It is, in a single word, arbitrary.*

For example, should a whale be classified as a fish since it swims or a mammal since it has mammary glands? Should bats be classified with the birds because they fly?

*There is one sensible (i.e. objective) way to group species, however, and that is based on their evolutionary relationships. Evolutionary relationships reflect genetic similarity, which is an objective measure that actually tells us something meaningful about the species in question.*

Applying this kind of taxonomy, we know to classify whales as mammals, and an analysis of their DNA confirms this. It isn't arbitrary at all.


This is why ALL OF THE FACTORS you are relying on to differentiate these spiders as different species are unreliable and actually tell us nothing meaningful about the species other than "some have hairs on patella and some don't." 

This is a case where the biological species concept is blurry, because these tarantulas are so similar. In this case, aside from the normal biological species concept factors, the only way to really know would be DNA testing.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

Hopefully, that will be included in the paper when it comes out then (DNA testing). Until then, I think we all just have to agree to disagree. I really don't think this discussion is going to change anyone's mind, no matter how many of them we have.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> I really don't think this discussion is going to change anyone's mind, no matter how many of them we have.


I know that I have at least opened yours a bit to these possibilities. Perhaps you won't just accept all taxonomy at face value anymore?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> Mack, I get the feeling not a whole lot of people are working in theraphosid taxonomy, from previous discussions on the topic here on the board. You should also probably recognize your field of study/profession/research is very different from taxonomy, whatever it may be.
> 
> However, you are _very_ wrong in saying you don't have to provide evidence. Any hypothesis must be supported by evidence before _anyone_ can take it seriously. A hypothesis with nothing more than pure speculation to back it up is just that-speculation. We have noted traits which act as evidence for our hypothesis and Rick West's supporting paper. You, on the other hand, have used speculation backed up by reasoning. This _isn't_ to say you don't have a good start; everything needs a basis on which to begin. But it's high time for you to find the evidence supporting your hypothesis.
> 
> ...


I wholeheartedly agree with you on the 'evidence' portion. If someone says the spahgetti monster exists, you naturally say, where is it? His retort, similar to the routes he takes now, is, you *can't* prove he doesn't exist! Our retort? Where is he? Let's see it. In other words, evidence, proof. No matter how many times he continues to huff and puff about it's reality, it is only a claim, not true, until it has more validity, via being seen by others. He thought this was an applicable analogy, but he is so far off the focus, it is daunting. Firstly, we have literal spiders, with literal differences, literal species concepts, and literal study on the matter. More than that he dismisses our evidence and reasoning as to why they are different, even going so far as to say that we have provided nothing to determine them as different. His analogy cannot be used as he illustrated something that is, according to current knowledge and science, impossible, whether he was comparing our standpoint to that, I am unaware, but either way, let no one think this analogy was a proper retort to anything but the wind that he tells is blowing in the wrong direction. He is making a claim, whether he understands that or not is no longer the issue at hand, until he PROVES that they are one in the same, just like the authorities, yes, the one's whose word means nothing, prove and test their results, his arguement has been driven into the ground. It, at this point is agree and disagree, taxonomy is a deep and complex issue, even though we don't understand that according to him, I think he needs to realize that it is a little above him as well, if it weren't, he would have never started this arguement, or he would have 'won' long ago.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

I said that I wouldn't respond to your reused fallacious arguments anymore, but of course being the argumentative "pain in the butt" that I am, I just can't resist. . .



Crows Arachnids said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with you on the 'evidence' portion. If someone says the spahgetti monster exists, you naturally say, where is it? His retort, similar to the routes he takes now, is, you *can't* prove he doesn't exist! Our retort? Where is he? Let's see it. In other words, evidence, proof.




No, no, no. You my friend are the one making the claim about the spaghetti monster, NOT ME. Don't you understand this?  You are one of many who are MAKING THE CLAIM that these are separate species. Longstanding knowledge about them suggests that they are the same species, and it has been that way for a very long time. Now, all of a sudden, you are the one coming along making the claim that they are separate (just like one makes the claim about the spaghetti monster) and YOU are the one who needs the evidence. Once you start asking me for evidence to the contrary, you are starting to drift off into a fallacious argument. Just focus on providing concrete scientific evidence to support your claims, don't spend your time trying to say that it must be so just because there isn't any testable evidence to show otherwise. You can't test that god doesn't exist, does that make him scientifically real? NO!


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I said that I wouldn't respond to your reused fallacious arguments anymore, but of course being the argumentative "pain in the butt" that I am, I just can't resist. . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. I expected this, I knew you couldn't resist. Sorry, you are looking at it entirely different as the rest of the world. We HAVE provided our reasoning, and evidence as to why it is different. I have owned both, have you? Have you even seen, in real life what we are talking about? Don't forget that the current factors that determine a species different, is what we used for this one, so by CURRENT STANDING AND CURRENT SPECIES CONCEPT THAT WE ABIDE BY, we are not wrong. In the absolute sense, above and beyond what we currently abide by, perhaps we are, that seems to be your arguement, it holds no ground here. I remember it being told to you, see the powers that be. You are the one claiming the monster exists, funny how you use the fact that it has been long-standing, thus we make the claim, yet you discredit former and current species concepts utilized in these instances, you are entirely lost. You are the one telling people gravity doesn't exist when the idea was first represented. In the end, this hobby, nor any memeber on this forum has nothing to prove to YOU, it has been proven and the general populous of hobbyists agree, they are different. If you were really as deep and complex as you think you are, then you would recognize that even if they were the same species, in the end, is just another choice for a buyer of that morph, they look different, and price will be dictated as such, as it is in the reptile trade and others. Do you not charge more for an "OBT" red phase than you do the orange? They are the same species... You are making the claim that the monster exists, it fits you so very well if I may add, long standing belief does not dictate whether one is making a claim or otherwise, the fact of the matter is, WE have the evidence, WE have the proper reasoning, WE have the experience, WE have a system for identifying spiders, YOU have Wikipedia, misconstructed words, disagreements, and fallicious views, and a level-headed opinion base, just guided so very differntly from mankind... I say to you, Mr. Mack, where is the monster?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Let me even further explain this "spaghetti monster" analogy and extrapolate it to our situation so that you can really understand your error:

Imagine that you have been keeping spiders for 30 years, and you've owned many T. blondis in the past. Then one day, you go to a dealer and see a spider that looks exactly like all your other T. blondis, but it has this new "sp burgundy" label on it. Naturally you will question this label, and immediately think "hey this looks like my T. blondis, why do they have this different label on it?" In other words, you will NATURALLY WANT SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NEW CLAIM/LABEL. 

Imagine then, that you ask the dealer "what's the deal with this new label?" and the dealer simply says, "Jim Bob said they are different species, so it must be so." Then he says, "you can't prove that they are the same concretely either, so they must be separate!" 

I hope you understand how fallacious your approach is. You keep making this same error in every one of your posts. Trust me, there IS an objective truth here, and you aren't even close to reaching it. My analogy is perfectly applicable, but you're just trying to twist it around to fit your position.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Let me even further explain this "spaghetti monster" analogy so that you can understand your error:
> 
> Imagine that you have been keeping spiders for 30 years, and you've owned many T. blondis in the past. Then one day, you go to a dealer and see a spider that looks exactly like all your other T. blondis, but it has this new "sp burgundy" label on it. Naturally you will question this label, and immediately think "hey this looks like my T. blondis, why do they have this different label on it?" In other words, you will NATURALLY WANT SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NEW CLAIM/LABEL.
> 
> ...


The only one twisting things is you, as you have been thus far. If I have been keeping them for 30 years and a dealer tells me that I have an Sp. Burgundy, and he tells me that it must be so, just because, as you imply, I seek for the evidence. I mosey on over to this site and find this thread and the like and find out that they have different spermathacae, tarsus, mating 'ritual', and the list continues, I say, Wow, I have been keeping what is now known as the Sp. Burgundy, I had better get my hands on the Theraphosa blondi. Once again, jumping to conclusions, when will you quit? Analogy, now not only unapplicable, but very presumptious. You continue to ramble about not being able to prove anything, that is only true on your end, we have provided a plethora of evidence, you just choose to dismiss it, just because you are blind to our reason, doesn't make you right.


----------



## Fran (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Let me even further explain this "spaghetti monster" analogy and extrapolate it to our situation so that you can really understand your error:
> 
> Imagine that you have been keeping spiders for 30 years, and you've owned many T. blondis in the past. Then one day, you go to a dealer and see a spider that looks exactly like all your other T. blondis, but it has this new "sp burgundy" label on it. Naturally you will question this label, and immediately think "hey this looks like my T. blondis, why do they have this different label on it?" In other words, you will NATURALLY WANT SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS NEW CLAIM/LABEL.
> 
> ...




You FAIL TO UNDERSTAND , you narrow conceided mind, that Rick C. West, along with the people regarding the revision, ARE NOT JIM BOB .
They are the ultimate authority on the matter. If you think the system is wrong, WHO THE HELL CARES till you come out and prove why is it and provide a better, more logical and rational system????
 How in the name of  God can I make you understand that your opinion has no weight whatsoever regarding this matter?
Cant you understand that you SIMPLY CAN NOT compare yorself with them?


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

> Whoever is making the claim needs to have the evidence. Because the label "sp burgundy" has only recently popped up (they have always been simply called T. blondi before this), that means that some people are making the CLAIM that these are in fact separate species. Therefore, they need to provide the undeniable SCIENTIFIC evidence for this (not just because he or she said so).


Well I think the people who do the paper will show evidence in the paper as to why they feel the "sp burgundy" is a different species and not a T. blondi. 
From what I know it is thought (not proven) that this "sp burgundy" has been in the hobby for almost if not the same amount of time as those (for want of a better word) fuzzy T. blondi, only because they look so similiar it had been looked over. I do know however that even as much 8 years back (probably more) there were a number of people that suspected there were two forms of T. blondi based mainly on the failed breeding atemps.
The only breeding success I know of and I can only count about two handfuls have only been between T, blondi (fuzzy) x T, blondi (fuzzy) or "sp burgundy" x "sp burgundy" and have personly never heard of a successful breeding between T, blondi (fuzzy) x "sp burgundy" have you? or anyone else?

I have heard of plenty of matings but no success. On this Limited evidence I would be more inclind to think to think of them as different species regardless of any taxonmical date, like differences of spermatheca, lack of hairs or what ever.



> With that being said, I can tell you why it is very reasonable to assume that these spiders are breeding in nature. Firstly, the fact that they are very similar in appearance, color, and size suggest that they are very closely related evolutionarily.


Nobody deputes that they are very closely related evolutionay or otherwise, which I suspect is the reason why the "sp burgundy" which was found to be the one that was described as Lasiodora Spnipies is now being put into Theraphosa.
I like you find it very reasonable to assume that these may mate in nature but the question is do they breed? Is is reasonable to say possibly not, based on captive specimens? If they can they why can we not recreate this in captivity when we can recreate a successful breeding between "same forms" ? 

So this is why I feel that they could be different species regardless of any taxonomy. Now if you can show me a successful breeding between "sp burgundy" X T. blondi it may hold alot more weight to your arguement.

Feel free to shout me down as I will add I have no scientiffic background what so ever.
thanks
john


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> If I have been keeping them for 30 years and a dealer tells me that I have an Sp. Burgundy, and he tells me that it must be so, just because, as you imply, I seek for the evidence. I mosey on over to this site and find this thread and the like and find out that they have different spermathacae, tarsus, mating 'ritual', and the list continues,


And so where did you get this information from? You admit yourself, that you consult threads on arachnoboards.com for your scientific knowledge about species classification. That is hardly acceptable "evidence" by any standards. 

Not to mention, this "list" as you put it (which I have yet to see in its entirety because it seems to keep growing, now it contains also 'mating rituals' LOL.) isn't even officially documented. Show me this list? Where do you get it from? Who made this list? Why are you so sure that it is the truth?

Just because some people posted this on the internet, OR EVEN BECAUSE A SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER STATES SO doesn't make it sound or acceptable evidence by scientific standards. It might be good enough for you, but definitely not for anyone with a little more scientific knowledge and inquiry than you possess.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> And so where did you get this information from? You admit yourself, that you consult threads on arachnoboards.com for your scientific knowledge about species classification. That is hardly acceptable "evidence" by any standards.
> 
> Not to mention, this "list" as you put it (which I have yet to see in its entirety because it seems to keep growing, now it contains also 'mating rituals' LOL.) isn't even officially documented. Show me this list? Where do you get it from? Who made this list? Why are you so sure that it is the truth?
> 
> Just because some people posted this on the internet, OR EVEN BECAUSE A SINGLE PUBLISHED PAPER STATES SO doesn't make it sound or acceptable evidence by scientific standards. It might be good enough for you, but definitely not for anyone with a little more scientific knowledge and inquiry than you possess.


Excuse me? Your garbage analogies have less face value than what 80% of the individuals on the Arachnoboards post. It was merely an example, to show that I could retrieve the evidence. Thank you for illustrating that you cannot read and comprehend an entire message, look at the original post from me in the first thread, there is no "now" on the 'ritual', I have noted this MYSELF and that means something. I HAVE SEEN THE DIFFERENCES, I SAW THE SPERMATHACAE, I HAVE SEEN BOTH OF THEM, AND OWNED BOTH OF THEM, ME, ME, ME. I fight you with personal experience.  IF the list keeps growing, it further helps you dig your grave. You don't see me refrencing papers and publications because I see the difference, and for the 100th time, by current species concept that makes them a different species, should I doubt my own eyes in favor of your mental distortion? You continue with your mindless babble about me being an ingrate and all the individuals who posess a better scientific prowess than I, first, I could not care less, secondly, why have you lost this arguement countless times? If I were such an ingrate, why have you yet to refute anything properly? Don't say that is my opinion, you have TONS of individuals here who would agree.



John Kanker said:


> Well I think the people who do the paper will show evidence in the paper as to why they feel the "sp burgundy" is a different species and not a T. blondi.
> From what I know it is thought (not proven) that this "sp burgundy" has been in the hobby for almost if not the same amount of time as those (for want of a better word) fuzzy T. blondi, only because they look so similiar it had been looked over. I do know however that even as much 8 years back (probably more) there were a number of people that suspected there were two forms of T. blondi based mainly on the failed breeding atemps.
> The only breeding success I know of and I can only count about two handfuls have only been between T, blondi (fuzzy) x T, blondi (fuzzy) or "sp burgundy" x "sp burgundy" and have personly never heard of a successful breeding between T, blondi (fuzzy) x "sp burgundy" have you? or anyone else?
> 
> ...


This could explain the consistent failures. Mr. Joey Mugleston has bred out the Sp. Burgundy, perhaps he can shed some light on the situation. Not too long ago, I knew a guy who mated the Theraphosa Sp. Burgundy/blondi, and yeilded no results. Not only that, there was no thumping, padding, dancing, nothing. From what I understand the Theraphosa blondi, has a very sophisticated ritual and have the capability of padding at eachother if they are even in the same room. I have mated the Theraphosa Sp. Burgundy 20 times + and one time did they dance, but no padding. Joey, care to enlighten us on the process yours engaged in? Or anyone for that matter.



The Mack said:


> It seems funny that people are so concerned about this. Officially as of now, there are only two species in the Theraphosa genus.  T. blondi and T. apophysis . . .and even the distinction between these two can be very difficult to make!  A few variations among individuals of the same species hardly merits classifying them as separate species and/or re-labeling them!


I just saw this, your first post. There is less of a physical difference between the Theraphosa apophysis and Thereaphosa blondi, what makes them different? Tibial spurs on the male are just as invalid as different spermathacae, right? They must be the same!


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> I just saw this, your first post. There is less of a physical difference between the Theraphosa apophysis and Thereaphosa blondi, what makes them different? Tibial spurs on the male are just as invalid as different spermathacae, right? They must be the same!


Quite arguably, they _can_ be considered the same species. Think about it, we have genetic/DNA testing now, something which didn't exist when these tarantulas were originally given these names back in the 1800's. It is possible now to come to an objective conclusion with genetic testing, but until that is done, you and I can't know for sure. The old classifications and species names for tarantulas can easily be wrong, they often used sloppy and unreliable evidential standards (like hair on patella/mating rituals) to identify species. . don't doubt this for a second. 

In fact, if you did a little bit of research, you would know that there is a current debate among scientists as to whether or not to move chimpanzees over to the Genus Homo (our genus) and then we would have to consider ourselves apes. Some scholars (like Jared Diamond) go even further. He notes that the genetic difference between humans and chimps is smaller than that between some species that are classified under the same genus (he cites lions and tigers as an example--so, unbelievable as it may seem, the genetic difference between a lion and tiger is greater than between a human and a chimp). Thus, he argues that chimps should really be called "Homo Troglodytes."

There are debates all over taxonomy (including human taxonomy as in this example) and if you truly understood the nature of these debates and the inherent dilemma with taxonomy, then you wouldn't be so stubborn in your certainty that these are genetically separate species.


----------



## sharpfang (Aug 3, 2010)

*I choose You - *Duh-na-nuh-na~Nauhhhh, Duh-na-nuh-na~Nauhhhhhh**

Return of the Mack = the Mack is back, baby.....the Mack is back! 

Sorry :8o I could Not resist....watched the Movie all-the-way through, just last night. What part of the Bay Area do ya live in Goldie ? :razz:
http://www.impawards.com/1973/mack_xlg.html

Jonathan: You know what is Really Funny  How I, and others are SO scrutinized and Flamed, for conducting "Controlled breeding Experiments", w/ over-lapping localed Sp. of Brachy's.......Yet the Theraphosa "Goliath" Genus has been PURPOSEFULLY, and/or unwittingly "Hybridized", w/ Comparitively little Scrutinizing and such  
{Not that I feel they should be}
How many "TRUE BLONDIE" MM's are in collections currently ~ a Dinner-plate full ? 

All I can do is just stand, well....Roll back, and Laugh  

Let's ALL just have a Coke and a Smile


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

sharpfang said:


> Return of the Mack = the Mack is back, baby.....the Mack is back!
> 
> Sorry :8o I could Not resist....watched the Movie all-the-way through, just last night. What part of the Bay Area do ya live in Goldie ? :razz:
> http://www.impawards.com/1973/mack_xlg.html
> ...


I'm glad someone caught the reference! I love that movie, pretty classic 
The soundtrack by Willie Hutch is pretty darn awesome too, if you appreciate some groovy '70s blaxploitation funk! 

I actually live about 40 mins from Oakland in a suburb outside of San Francisco. I love it here, can't beat it! I see you're in Sonoma Co., I have some good friends out there, near Santa Rosa. . .


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

> Quite arguably, they can be considered the same species. Think about it, we have genetic/DNA testing now, something which didn't exist when these tarantulas were originally given these names back in the 1800's. It is possible now to come to an objective conclusion with genetic testing, but until that is done, you and I can't know for sure. The old classifications and species names for tarantulas can easily be wrong, they often used sloppy and unreliable evidential standards (like hair on patella/mating rituals) to identify species. . don't doubt this for a second.


Hi 
Just something I think that can be related to this.
B. smithi and B. annitha look very much the same, they can be bred together and produce ofspring yet the acording to DNA testing by Stuart Longhorn  the Divergence annitha-smith = 57/600 nucleotide sites.
Here is where I get this from-
http://atshq.org/forum/showpost.php?p=39279&postcount=22
Like Blondi and burgandy the spiders can be found in near enough the same area as one another but these acording to DNA are seprate species.
Now if this is the case with these why can it not be the case with the blondi and burgandy?
sorry in advance if I got this all wrong.
John


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Quite arguably, they _can_ be considered the same species. Think about it, we have genetic/DNA testing now, something which didn't exist when these tarantulas were originally given these names back in the 1800's. It is possible now to come to an objective conclusion with genetic testing, but until that is done, you and I can't know for sure. The old classifications and species names for tarantulas can easily be wrong, they often used sloppy and unreliable evidential standards (like hair on patella/mating rituals) to identify species. . don't doubt this for a second.
> 
> In fact, if you did a little bit of research, you would know that there is a current debate among scientists as to whether or not to move chimpanzees over to the Genus Homo (our genus) and then we would have to consider ourselves apes. Some scholars (like Jared Diamond) go even further. He notes that the genetic difference between humans and chimps is smaller than that between some species that are classified under the same genus (he cites lions and tigers as an example--so, unbelievable as it may seem, the genetic difference between a lion and tiger is greater than between a human and a chimp). Thus, he argues that chimps should really be called "Homo Troglodytes."
> 
> There are debates all over taxonomy (including human taxonomy as in this example) and if you truly understood the nature of these debates and the inherent dilemma with taxonomy, then you wouldn't be so stubborn in your certainty that these are genetically separate species.


Once again, you are jumping to conclusions of my misunderstanding. You seem to think that 'official' as dictatated by science is the absolute. Sometimes simplicity is the most convincing of complexities, a monkey is a monkey, a human is a human, everything along some sort of line or another will have relativity to one thing or another, we all live on the same planet. Why don't you give up your useless babble about taxonomy here and take this up with the ones who drive the species concept we use, correct them, and once again, as I have said plenty of times, although you denied the notion, rectify this hobby. This entire time you have missed my ultimate point, you may be right, in the very absolute sense, outside our box, above our accepted species concept, but not within it. You ramble on and on about misunderstanding when you are riddled with it. Instead of trying to view everything the same, I would rather appreciate the beauty that is variation. Science doesn't have all the answers, and remember it is dictated by man, you are fighting convention of man, with convention of man, you are a paradox, now be done with this and rectify this hobby, for the last time!


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

> Theraphosa "Goliath" Genus has been PURPOSEFULLY, and/or unwittingly "Hybridized", w/ Comparitively little Scrutinizing and such


 Have they? do you know of successful breedings between the two then?


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

On the issue of mating rituals: if the two rituals are different enough, this alone could prevent interbreeding between the species (behavioral isolation as opposed to geographic isolation; known to happen in other animals as well). Let alone producing fertile offspring. Any hard observations on successful and failed breeding attempts?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

sharpfang said:


> Return of the Mack = the Mack is back, baby.....the Mack is back!
> 
> Sorry :8o I could Not resist....watched the Movie all-the-way through, just last night. What part of the Bay Area do ya live in Goldie ? :razz:
> http://www.impawards.com/1973/mack_xlg.html
> ...


Jason, what exactly does this have to do with this thread? I'm serious, I really don't get it. If you are persecuted for crossing species that is another token entirely. The very fact that you say people have "hybridized" them means you acknowledge them as two seperate species, although I don't believe that. As far as cross breeding, everyone has a view on that, most are negative, you do what you want to do, it hasn't stopped you in the past, so more power to you I suppose. Sorry if you have suffered scrutiny in this hobby, thank passion for that, I suppose, again.



PhobeToPhile said:


> On the issue of mating rituals: if the two rituals are different enough, this alone could prevent interbreeding between the species (behavioral isolation as opposed to geographic isolation; known to happen in other animals as well). Let alone producing fertile offspring. Any hard observations on successful and failed breeding attempts?


Yes, I have seen many failed breeding attempts. By none other, than me.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> On the issue of mating rituals: if the two rituals are different enough, this alone could prevent interbreeding between the species (behavioral isolation as opposed to geographic isolation; known to happen in other animals as well). Let alone producing fertile offspring. Any hard observations on successful and failed breeding attempts?


The _actual process of reproduction_ is what is important here, not the mating rituals.  Many humans have different mating rituals.. . .it doesn't matter if you breakdance in war paint or say grace before you have sex, you still have the same reproductive process (sperm and egg) as the rest of the members in your species. These spiders all reproduce in the same way, so your analogy isn't valid. . . and A mating ritual would never alone be a valid reason to differentiate a species.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> The _actual process of reproduction_ is what is important here, not the mating rituals.  Many humans have different mating rituals.. . .it doesn't matter if you breakdance in war paint or say grace before you have sex, you still have the same reproductive process (sperm and egg) as the rest of the members in your species. These spiders all reproduce in the same way, so your analogy isn't valid. . . and A mating ritual would never alone be a valid reason to differentiate a species.


Alone, no, I agree. Humans have intelligence to guide their 'rituals', tarantulas have instinct, your analogy is unappreciated.


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

so where is the evidence to show that sp. burgandy and blondi can reproduce?


----------



## sharpfang (Aug 3, 2010)

*I see, I see - Do Not enter a thread w/ Master-Debators, unless expecting Arguments, O.K. *Tee-Hee**


Insert Token into Laugh Machine :razz:



John Kanker said:


> Have they? do you know of successful breedings between the two then?


I beleive that I do.....and I will be making a Video of my neighbors specimens, sometime very soon...
All my obtained Blondi specimens, have come from Germany, since re-entering Hobby. Approximately 8 years ago....when I was involved w/ Arachnids.....These Sp. "Burgundy's", were Not around.....Yet people keep attempting to mate their LTC Theraphosa Blondi's, w/ these *new* MM's = Anyways  
{I don't FLAME them for it though - Most do Not discern a difference}



Crows Arachnids said:


> Jason, what exactly does this have to do with this thread? I'm serious, I really don't get it. If you are persecuted for crossing species that is another token entirely. The very fact that you say people have "hybridized" them means you acknowledge them as two seperate species, although I don't believe that. As far as cross breeding, everyone has a view on that, most are negative, you do what you want to do, it hasn't stopped you in the past, so more power to you I suppose.


I try to Mellow the Down-talking, and Ego-Drivin' Arguments on AB, w/ a little harmless joking, I mean "Seriously"  U can always call me, 2 discuss.

I detect frustration from ya.....figured we got along fine, w/ differences of Opinions...Thanx for being interested in my *project* on the phone, and welcoming 20 group A & B specimens, yet - your comment now, *hinting* @ non-support of Publicly  I say nice things bout' you - what else do ya REALLY think of me, and my efforts/involvement in the Hobby  
{Which is "SUPPOSED" to be Fun - GL 2 ya @ That}

Alotta argueing going on lately I see, re: T. Blondi's, yet Few seem to have Breeding, Genetic and Locale data to support their Debates  

Ponder THIS, if it is Determined to be relating/relative to yall:

Why have so Many Goliath matings in rescent years.... Turned out Poorly in various ways ? The two forms appear so Very similar, and are usually willing to attempt to breed w/ each other. Interesting to me, is that these supposed Sp. "Burgundy's", have cute little Pink Leggings, like an 80's exercise facility  T. Blondi's - Do Not  And there is I feel, something to that.

Now that is just My Opinion, and like Dennis Miller = "I could be Wrong".
{I can admit when I am wrong - Can any of you? w/ out a givin headache from "Debating"}


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

sharpfang said:


> Insert Token into Laugh Machine :razz:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure where you are coming from Jason. You are reading too much into what I said, I didn't hint anything, many people view it negatively, frankly it doesn't truly bother me, but I don't engage in it, you knew that from the get-go. As far as what I REALLY think of you, I belive I told you over the phone. I will push this notion till the end, so sue me. I think looking beyond the "senseless debating" would help you, this is an issue that needs input and settling. You seem to be agreeing with me, I'm sorry Jason, maybe I misunderstand your text. As far as admitting if we/he/she/I/ is/are/am wrong, no one has seen that yet, the views are starkly opposite. We get along just fine Jason, if you needed a public declaration, you got one. For the record, especially to you Jason, because it seems that I offended you, I am truly sorry if you interpret my demeanor as being frustrated, rude, or otherwise, I do not intend those things, I find this to be a serious matter, thus I get to the point, I sincerely did not understand your last post so I asked.


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

> I beleive that I do.....and I will be making a Video of my neighbors specimens, sometime very soon...
> All my obtained Blondi specimens, have come from Germany, since re-entering Hobby. Approximately 8 years ago....when I was involved w/ Arachnids.....These Sp. "Burgundy's", were Not around.....Yet people keep attempting to mate their LTC Theraphosa Blondi's, w/ these *new* MM's = Anyways
> {I don't FLAME them for it though - Most do Not discern a difference}


So at the moment you don't know because you have yet to make a video of the breeding. 
sp burgundys were thought to be around a while back only like I said because they look so similar to blondi they were over looked, although even back then some did believe there was a different form of blondi going around due to the lack of breeding success 
Infact I have just seen that sp. burgundy was around as far back as 1977 as there is a picture of one in a book by Dale Lund (publish date is 1977).
BTW I don't think I have ever flamed you or? so why the reference to this all the time?


> Ponder THIS, if it is Determined to be relating/relative to yall:
> 
> Why have so Many Goliath matings in rescent years.... Turned out Poorly in various ways ? The two forms appear so Very similar, and are usually willing to attempt to breed w/ each other. Interesting to me, is that these supposed Sp. "Burgundy's", have cute little Pink Leggings, like an 80's exercise facility  T. Blondi's - Do Not  And there is I feel, something to that.


so now you are saying they are different or what?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

I believe he has been saying that this whole time.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> The _actual process of reproduction_ is what is important here, not the mating rituals.  Many humans have different mating rituals.. . .it doesn't matter if you breakdance in war paint or say grace before you have sex, you still have the same reproductive process (sperm and egg) as the rest of the members in your species. These spiders all reproduce in the same way, so your analogy isn't valid. . . and A mating ritual would never alone be a valid reason to differentiate a species.


It does, however, serve as an indicator of genetic isolation from the rest of the population, which in turn can mark the beginning of species formation. After long enough, it becomes one of the differences between what are now two separate species. At least one African species of bird has two genetically isolated populations due to this kind of difference.


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

> I believe he has been saying that this whole time.


Oh ok. Sorry I just find his posts are really confusing. or I am reading them wrong.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

John Kanker said:


> So at the moment you don't know because you have yet to make a video of the breeding.


Why do so many fail to understand that it isn't my standpoint that needs to provide the evidence. You are claiming that there is a third species (a spaghetti monster as I used before), and then after people like me or sharpfang ask you for evidence to support this, you turn around and say "well _you_ don't have proof that they _are_ mating in nature so therefore you can't be sure!"

John Kanker, please understand that I don't need evidence to support my view that they are the same species, just as someone who doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster doesn't need any evidence to support theirs. It is YOU who needs to show the evidence, because YOU are the one making the claim about the flying spaghetti monster/third species.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Why do so many fail to understand that it isn't my standpoint that needs to provide the evidence. You are claiming that there is a third species (a spaghetti monster as I used before), and then after people like me or sharpfang ask you for evidence to support this, you turn around and say "well _you_ don't have proof that they _are_ mating in nature so therefore you can't be sure!"
> 
> John Kanker, please understand that I don't need evidence to support my view that they are the same species, just as someone who doesn't believe in the flying spaghetti monster doesn't need any evidence to support theirs. It is YOU who needs to show the evidence, because YOU are the one making the claim about the flying spaghetti monster/third species.



No, John, you are correct. As it has been stated before and by a famous Judge, "Sometimes people can only see through their own eyes". Both sides of this debate need evidence, stick to your guns. Whether or not it is Mack's confusion of claim, at this point is no longer valueable, he needs to back it up.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> It does, however, serve as an indicator of genetic isolation from the rest of the population, which in turn can mark the beginning of species formation. After long enough, it becomes one of the differences between what are now two separate species. At least one African species of bird has two genetically isolated populations due to this kind of difference.


You are contradicting yourself. If the populations are GENETICALLY ISOLATED as you say, then there is DNA testing that can be done to confirm this. The whole reason these birds are considered separate species then is based on this _genetic_ isolation which has nothing to do at all with their mating rituals. Without this key genetic isolation, you wouldn't be able to claim that they were separate species based on their mating rituals.  

Sure, some species may have different mating rituals, but this is just as unreliable as using color or amount of hair to classify species. It really tells us NOTHING about the species itself at all.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. The two populations still belong to the same species in the bird example: However, they are reproductively isolated, and do not interbeed, indicating that they may well diverge into separate species in the future. It was just some food for thought. Actual infertility is another matter entirely.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> No, John, you are correct. . . . he needs to back it up.


Okay, I'm working on it. Just after I finish writing a paper providing evidence that the flying spaghetti monster _doesn't_ exist. Because if I don't finish that paper and provide my "evidence,"  then this flying spaghetti monster debate could go on for ever!





PhobeToPhile said:


> I think you are misunderstanding what I said. The two populations still belong to the same species in the bird example: However, they are reproductively isolated, and do not interbeed, indicating that they may well diverge into separate species in the future. It was just some food for thought. Actual infertility is another matter entirely.


This is interesting, I would love to read further about this. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where members of the same species genetically speaking are reproductively isolated in the wild. . .at least that we can prove anyway. Do you have a link to this ?


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 3, 2010)

so post 181 means nothing then well thats fine because I gave you some limited evidence showing how there has been no captive breeding success between blondi x burgendy yet there has been breeding success between burgendy x burgendy and blondi x blondi. Ok I know full to well that this is not be all and end all but it is a dam sight more evidence to show they are different to what you have given to show they are the same. Oh but don't have to give any evidence to this as I forgot you don't have to give any evidence to say that something is the same.

did you see post 191? that is an interesting DNA look at things but will off course not be able to be taken into account for the simple reason you do not want to take it into account. 
You only have one way of looking at this and do not even consider a different view from your own so it is dead end descussion. There really is no point to continue. Even if the DNA evidence was there you would not beleive them to be different because it is fix set in youir head and you are not even open to the idea that they even might be different.
This is fine by me as long as it is fine with you that I will be treating them as if different species.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> This is interesting, I would love to read further about this. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where members of the same species genetically speaking are reproductively isolated in the wild. . .at least that we can prove anyway. Do you have a link to this ?


It was several yaers back in an issue of Science News...give me a bit to see if I could find a link. As I recall, it had something to do with either mating habits or song.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

John Kanker said:


> so post 181 means nothing then well thats fine because I gave you some limited evidence showing how there has been no captive breeding success between blondi x burgendy yet there has been breeding success between burgendy x burgendy and blondi x blondi. Ok I know full to well that this is not be all and end all but it is a dam sight more evidence to show they are different to what you have given to show they are the same. Oh but don't have to give any evidence to this as I forgot you don't have to give any evidence to say that something is the same.
> 
> did you see post 191? that is an interesting DNA look at things but will off course not be able to be taken into account for the simple reason you do not want to take it into account.
> You only have one way of looking at this and do not even consider a different view from your own so it is dead end descussion. There really is no point to continue. Even if the DNA evidence was there you would not beleive them to be different because it is fix set in youir head and you are not even open to the idea that they even might be.
> This is fine by me as long as it is fine with you that I will be treating them as if different species.


Of course I am open to the DNA evidence. Perhaps this is what will be unveiled in this much anticipated paper, but to be honest, I am doubtful of this. If it is there, and documented, then I will have no problem at all accepting that these are separate species. 

The reason why you are wrong about me having to provide evidence that they are the same is because it is just natural to assume so. Just as it is natural to assume that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There has been NO EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise, so why would I believe in it?

Although I can't PROVE that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist, I can give you PLENTY of sound logical reasons why I don't accept that he exists. In the same way that I have already given you countless reasons (The entire species concepts, DNA/Genetic and evolutionary relationships, etc)  for why I don't accept that they are different species. 

All of my reasoning for not accepting that they are separate species (and not accepting that a spaghetti monster exists) is well established, readily available and reliable information that you are free to research yourself. In contrast, your evidence is limited to your personal experiences, online stories, and other unreliable word of mouth. You even said it yourself, that you provided "limited evidence,"  there really is no such thing. You either prove something or you don't. Until it is proven, you can't make the claims. .  

I encourage you to explore the foundations of taxonomy and when you do you will realize that is never safe to make such stubborn assumptions are you and many others are doing here.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

Alright, think I found it. There is hybridization going on, but the rate is estimated to be very low (0.8%).

Here's a link to an article the birds in question. Technically, they are separate species, but they are very, very closesly related an appear to have only differentiated very recently (interfertility is demonstrated in at least one case within the article). While searching I found some instances of other birds isolating due to human influences, but this is almost definately the one I remember from several years back. What we're looking at would fall under "sympatric speciation".


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> Technically, they are separate species, but they are very, very closesly related


This is what I figured. The reproductive isolation (which can be PROVEN in this case of the birds) is a big part of why they are considered different species. You said earlier that they were the same species, but yet genetically isolated . . . this by definition isn't possible (to my knowledge).

I hope you realize that you were mistaken and that this supports my view that they are same species.

These birds in your example could just as easily be these Theraphosa spiders in question. They look very similar, yet are found in different parts of the world and are labeled differently. But as you put it yourself, they are TECHNICALLY MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES. This is the possibility that no one wants to accept. 



PhobeToPhile said:


> While searching I found some instances of other birds isolating due to human influences, but this is almost definately the one I remember from several years back. What we're looking at would fall under "sympatric speciation".


human influences are entirely irrelevant, especially since people in this hobby are so concerned with "preserving the natural bloodlines." We are focused on defining them as species with regards to natural factors, no selective human breeding or other interference would give us any reliable or helpful information about these species.


----------



## sharpfang (Aug 3, 2010)

*Goliath Sized Debate - 10"+ Tarantula*

W/ seemingly LESS hairs lately - 2 bad Not less Urticating ones 



John Kanker said:


> Have they? do you know of successful breedings between the two then?


Again, as I already stated, YES. I have obtained a couple "supposed-hybrid" specimens = They Appear Identical to Sp. "Burgundy" examples I have, that came from different sources, incl. a member in thread {but Not directly } I am "known" 2 B confusing ....Do Not intend to be - Sorry.



Crows Arachnids said:


> Sorry if you have suffered scrutiny in this hobby, thank passion for that, I suppose, again.


I Thank No One for being Scrutinized, Flamed, Spoken down to, or other like assertions towards myself, or Any other friendly & Fair Hobbyist on AB. Especially when I consider them to be unnescessary.



John Kanker said:


> So at the moment you don't know because you have yet to make a video of the breeding.
> sp burgundys were thought to be around a while back only like I said because they look so similar to blondi they were over looked, although even back then some did believe there was a different form of blondi going around due to the lack of breeding success
> Infact I have just seen that sp. burgundy was around as far back as 1977 as there is a picture of one in a book by Dale Lund (publish date is 1977).
> BTW I don't think I have ever flamed you or? so why the reference to this all the time?
> ...


I did Not mean you.....I have gotten a hard time on this site in past months, from "Hybridizing" Albopilosum X Vagans Brachy's. Yet we have "Labra-Doodles" and What-Not, that is O.K. cause they're Fuzzy & Soft  But contribute almost Nothing, in sake of Genetic Research, or understanding, the Over-Lapping boundaries and genetic relationships between closely related Tarantulas in the Wild 



Crows Arachnids said:


> I believe he has been saying that this whole time.


They seem Obviously different to Me, @ my experience Level - IMO

Furthermore: I do Not, and Have Not, suggested that Sp. "Burgundy's" have Not existed in the Wild....and thus perhaps on Occasion in Past Decades, in private collections. I never saw one in person, or in photo, {that I recognized as appearing subtly different} when in the Hobby previously. So to Clarify ~ I feel that "True" Blondi's, have become more scarce in the US T-Hobby, since my re-entry. Perhaps due to Locales of Collection and exportation, in native environs.



Crows Arachnids said:


> I think looking beyond the "senseless debating" would help you, this is an issue that needs input and settling.


{Appology accepted ~ perhaps I am the Sorry 1, for entering thread }
It does, it does.....but:

After 12-13 pages {Not that this is the 1st thread regaurding Topic} of building Argueing and Insults on members character and/or Opinions......I choose {*Duh-na-nuh-na-nuh* } to insert a bit of, I will admit sometimes = Out-of-place HUMOR, and ya know that about me 
Fran knows where I am coming from - Don't ya Fran Don't turn Green - I kid, I kid }

When more detailed and SCIENTIFIC data/proof becomes available world-wide, we will ALL have more to discuss On Topic ~ Untill then........ Let's some of us, share experiences/knowledge on subject, and then Agree to Dis-Agree - w/ out "poking & jabbing" - No one IMO - Including Mr. West, has guaranteed FACTS re: this Theraphosa genetics = Otherwise would be Published Already.

Care to Help out on some of the Known Facts "Zoltan", and others, that are more experienced on the subject than most of us ?

Just Tarantulas people, just tarantulas.....{deep breath.....} Relax  I am gonna go Enjoy the Californian Sunshine now....then some of my Tarantulas - Stick a Fork in me & Have @ it


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

sharpfang said:


> No one IMO - Including Mr. West, has guaranteed FACTS re: this Theraphosa genetics = Otherwise would be Published Already.


:clap:
*sigh of relief*  Finally, _someone_ who isn't afraid to think for themselves! If the scientific (genetic) evidence were out there, this debate wouldn't even be happening!


----------



## Fran (Aug 3, 2010)

Do you have a job? Or a life?

Cos you have been here pretty much 24h straight since yesterday posting the same.

Reading around the net doesnt make you a scientist, by the way.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> human influences are entirely irrelevant, especially since people in this hobby are so concerned with "preserving the natural bloodlines." We are focused on defining them as species with regards to natural factors, no selective human breeding or other interference would give us any reliable or helpful information about these species.


Eh, like I said it was several years since I read the article. The only thing that actually prevents them from interbeeding though are the songs. When one species lays in the nest of another, the resulting offspring breed with the usual species that parasitizes that host. Judging by the inidviudal they found in the article, the resulting hybrids are _fertile as well_, but due to the general host-based isolation it seems that outward differences vanish within a few generations until they blend back in.

I don't recall saying T. blondi and T. sp. burgundy are one and the same though-and you're right about human influence not being relevant. It's why I didn't post the other examples I found.

Edit: Just a thought...but the reason the paper isn't published yet may very well be because L. spinipes to T. spinipes isn't the only change being made.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> :clap:
> *sigh of relief*  Finally, _someone_ who isn't afraid to think for themselves! If the scientific (genetic) evidence were out there, this debate wouldn't even be happening!


By that logic, no one has any facts on any subject in the world. Why? We have provided facts, you have chosen to overlook them.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> By that logic, no one has any facts on any subject in the world. Why? We have provided facts, you have chosen to overlook them.


Technically, this is correct. There are no "facts" in science, only falsifiable theories which best explain natural phenomena. 

But you haven't acknowledged this at all before, so why in the heck would you now?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Technically, this is correct. There are no "facts" in science, only falsifiable theories which best explain natural phenomena.
> 
> But you haven't acknowledged this at all before, so why in the heck would you now?


Oh but I have, you just fail to read between the lines. Natural human inclination drives the need for understanding, if determining the difference between two things is dictated by factors that the majority of individuals understand, the one who seeks a 'deeper' understanding based on a man established mode of testing beliefs, needs to first weigh his desires against this truth. You complicate a very simple issue. No matter how deep taxonomy is, superficial ideals are woven in and amongst it.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Oh but I have, you just fail to read between the lines. Natural human inclination drives the need for understanding, if determining the difference between two things is dictated by factors that the majority of individuals understand, the one who seeks a 'deeper' understanding based on a man established mode of testing beliefs, needs to first weigh his desires against this truth. You complicate a very simple issue. No matter how deep taxonomy is, superficial ideals are woven in and amongst it.


Huh? Now you are just rambling. You already have made countless errors and tried numerous fallacies, but you fail every time. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE. . no matter how you slice it. 

There is no need to talk about 'testing beliefs' or 'deeper understandings' here, you are getting way off the point. You said that by "my logic" no one has any facts about the world. Guess what, it isn't just my logic, but the universally accepted logic of all scientists! No matter how you try to squirm out of your previous statement, you were wrong. There are no facts in science.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Huh? Now you are just rambling. You already have made countless errors and tried numerous fallacies, but you fail every time. THERE ARE NO FACTS IN SCIENCE. . no matter how you slice it.
> 
> There is no need to talk about 'testing beliefs' or 'deeper understandings' here, you are getting way off the point. You said that by "my logic" no one has any facts about the world. Guess what, it isn't just my logic, but the universally accepted logic of all scientists! No matter how you try to squirm out of your previous statement, you were wrong. There are no facts in science.


No. You just agreed with me, you don't get it. You cannot understand text, this is something that is very harmful for you, as you should at least understand what you read. Countless errors and fallacies, that would be you. It is far from the point, you are playing cards from that realm, "universally accepted logic of all scientits!", come now, how do you not recognize yourself as a hypocrite? I said there were no facts, read it again. In fact stop posting unless you understand what is being written, which you have yet to represent thus far. I'm not squirming out of anything, I stand by everything I said, besides, I have no need to, you have hardly an existent position for me to do so.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> No. You just agreed with me, you don't get it. You cannot understand text, this is something that is very harmful for you, as you should at least understand what you read. Countless errors and fallacies, that would be you. It is far from the point, you are playing cards from that realm, "universally accepted logic of all scientits!", come now, how do you not recognize yourself as a hypocrite? I said there were no facts, read it again. In fact stop posting unless you understand what is being written, which you have yet to represent thus far. I'm not squirming out of anything, I stand by everything I said, besides, I have no need to, you have hardly an existent position for me to do so.


No, I never agreed with you. And now you are trying to say that you agree there are no such thing as facts? You claim that I didn't understand what you originally posted? Okay, let's take a look at what you said word for word then: 



Crows Arachnids said:


> By that logic, no one has any facts on any subject in the world.


Your tone here, implied that you found it silly (a few minutes ago when you made the reply) that I was suggesting that there are no such thing as "facts."

You further go on to say, 


Crows Arachnids said:


> We have provided facts, you have chosen to overlook them.


You have clearly stated here that you HAVE FACTS, and then directly after posting this you claim that you don't believe there are such things as facts. If that isn't blatant hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> No, I never agreed with you. And now you are trying to say that you agree there are no such thing as facts? You claim that I didn't understand what you originally posted? Okay, let's take a look at what you said word for word then:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two different context forms, entirely. I say there are no facts, it doesn't mean that I truly believe that, I merely placated your notion, which I suppose could be true, objectively speaking. Facts exist, whether science says so or not, or do you have a different definition for that word as well? My car is more expensive than yours, a truth, is that a fact? I have recieved NUMEROUS PMs, emails, and phone calls from individuals telling me that I cannot reason with your insanity, I'm starting to believe that, I had hope, however. If you cannot grasp concept within your next reply, this discussion will halt, with you still in a very 'red' position.


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Two different context forms, entirely. I say there are no facts, it doesn't mean that I truly believe that, I merely placated your notion, which I suppose could be true, objectively speaking.


wow, you can't even decide yourself whether or not you believe "facts" exist.
Don't have this internal struggle in this thread, do you own research and come to an educated conclusion.



Crows Arachnids said:


> Facts exist, whether science says so or not, or do you have a different definition for that word as well? My car is more expensive than yours, a truth, is that a fact?


I'm glad you tried this example. You say your car is more expensive than mine. . when did you buy it? Have you taken into consideration the time value of money? Inflation? What if I had to sacrifice my left arm for my car, then would you still consider yours "more expensive." Again, there are no such things as facts, only interpretations of our surroundings. I think Friedrich Nietzsche said this exact quote. 

Again, you are the one squirming about here, trying ever so hard to justify and talk your way out of all your errors and misinformation. Nice try, but no cigar.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Aug 3, 2010)

The Mack said:


> wow, you can't even decide yourself whether or not you believe "facts" exist.
> Don't have this internal struggle in this thread, do you own research and come to an educated conclusion.
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Facts exist, if you want to distort context, be my guest. Dismiss what we have provided all you want, in the end you mean very little, I only continued this thinking you would grasp understanding, I admit, I have failed. No squirming here, have no need to. You are so demeaning, I don't have an internal struggle, if I did, you wouldn't have faced defeat so many times in two threads. You have yourself who believes in you, I say, more power to you. I have reached the brinks of your insanity, I see no light, with your last bout of ramble, this is over. Reply and rant all you want, each one further deters you as a man of integrity, as you made a public note you were not going to reply after said point. I have been doing this all on my handheld phone, in and amongst my tempestous responsiblities, I no longer have the patience and time to waste for you, in this thread. The 'authorities' will have the official documentaion out soon, there are two different spiders folks, and in the bottom of this abyssmal distortion these two tarantulas look different, you can expect to pay a different priced, based solely on that FACT. It was amusing Mack, it's a good thing you don't smoke, not even close.


----------



## Ace_Man (Aug 3, 2010)

When I posted pix of my Theraphosa... which was labelled a Blondi. Everyone told me it was an Apophysis. Then, the second this Burgundy stuff came up, everyone said that's what it was. Does anyone have a pic of a Blondi/Aphophysis Hybrid? Or did I miss it in this thread?


----------



## The Mack (Aug 3, 2010)

Ace_Man said:


> When I posted pix of my Theraphosa... which was labelled a Blondi. Everyone told me it was an Apophysis. Then, the second this Burgundy stuff came up, everyone said that's what it was. Does anyone have a pic of a Blondi/Aphophysis Hybrid? Or did I miss it in this thread?


LOL, perfect example. You bought it as a blondi, then the "experts" here on AB told you it was an apophysis, then once the sp burgundy label popped up people were calling it a "burgundy!"  

Solidifies my point even more: _There's no way to know for sure!_ 

But all the evidence so far points to them being the same species.


----------



## Falk (Aug 4, 2010)

The Mack said:


> :clap:
> *sigh of relief*  Finally, _someone_ who isn't afraid to think for themselves! If the scientific (genetic) evidence were out there, this debate wouldn't even be happening!


Even if they have everything clear it will still take a long time.


----------



## Jmugleston (Aug 4, 2010)

Ace_Man said:


> When I posted pix of my Theraphosa... which was labelled a Blondi. Everyone told me it was an Apophysis. Then, the second this Burgundy stuff came up, everyone said that's what it was. Does anyone have a pic of a Blondi/Aphophysis Hybrid? Or did I miss it in this thread?


Here is a picture of all three side by side. Until recently it was thought that the pink tarsi were only found on T. apophysis. Therefore, slings with pink tarsi were called T. apophysis. It was also thought that the spiders coming in from Guyana were Theraphosa blondi. Not to surprise anyone, but few hobbyists check their collection against species descriptions to be sure that is what they really have. Recently it was made known that there was a third species of large brown spider that was not T. blondi or T. apophysis. In the hobby it was given the name "burgundy goliath." In the scientific literature it was named long while ago as Lasiodora spinipes. Once we realized we were dealing with a third species we started paying more attention to our spiders. I have all three in my collection. Side by side they are as easy to differentiate as B. smithi from A. geniculata. Earlier in this thread I list a number of morphological characters that also differ between the three.


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 4, 2010)

But Jmugleston they all look similar so ipso facto they are the same, no ifs, no buts, no gray areas, Mack is 100% right. 
It doesn't matter about all those small differences, the fact is they all come from South America.
And no he doesn't need to prove anything because he is the only person who could be right ok. everyone else is wrong.


----------



## mcluskyisms (Aug 4, 2010)

Yeah John, you pretty much hit the nail on the head there, I stopped posting on this thread about 100 posts ago, sometimes some people will just not take on board the information that's _actually_ there.

I'm sure that once the papers published that "The Mack" will either ditch his screen name and come back as someone else to save face or maybe even keep it and argue about the said paper.... Le sigh


----------



## gumby (Aug 4, 2010)

John Kanker said:


> But Jmugleston they all look similar so ipso facto they are the same, no ifs, no buts, no gray areas, Mack is 100% right.
> It doesn't matter about all those small differences, the fact is they all come from South America.
> And no he doesn't need to prove anything because he is the only person who could be right ok. everyone else is wrong.


Well here I go to change all the names on my Avics to Theraphosa sp. :liar: because my Avics are from South America.


----------



## John Kanker (Aug 4, 2010)

mcluskyisms said:


> I'm sure that once the papers published that "The Mack" will either ditch his screen name and come back as someone else to save face or maybe even keep it and argue about the said paper.... Le sigh


Only if it shows DNA evidence. The guy has basicly said that all character based taxonomy is useless due to no DNA evidence. 
I also think in some respects he is right on this but this is only one view in what is known as the* species problem *. The fact is the species problem is, and probably always will be an ongoing debate with biologists and the like as there are no clear cut answers. Every theory, definition, and concept has its gray areas which is why I do not pass Mack's arguement (what there is of it) out of hand.
On the other hand I would not, as Mack seems to do, pass out all the other arguements either. 
He may think of himself as enlightened and as someone who thinks for himself, but if he is closed to every concept apart from the one he believes then he can't be. Unfortunately he is also someone who feels that they have to be unnessary patronizing when trying to put across his arguement.
anyway thats how I read the the thread.
peace out
John


----------



## billopelma (Aug 4, 2010)

> I'm sure that once the papers published that "The Mack" will either ditch his screen name and come back as someone else to save face or maybe even keep it and argue about the said paper.... Le sigh


You still don't get it!? Poor Mack is so continually misunderstood. 
He will obviously turn it around so as to argue that it completely supports what he's been saying all along, and question why the spaghetti monster's DNA analysis wasn't included in the paper. There is no end-game here or there...


Bill


----------



## spiderworld (Aug 4, 2010)

Falk said:


> Even if they have everything clear it will still take a long time.


 thats cool! always great to chat about something! even better when its about big spiders!

enjoy your day Falk!



Jmugleston said:


> Here is a picture of all three side by side. Until recently it was thought that the pink tarsi were only found on T. apophysis. Therefore, slings with pink tarsi were called T. apophysis. It was also thought that the spiders coming in from Guyana were Theraphosa blondi. Not to surprise anyone, but few hobbyists check their collection against species descriptions to be sure that is what they really have. Recently it was made known that there was a third species of large brown spider that was not T. blondi or T. apophysis. In the hobby it was given the name "burgundy goliath." In the scientific literature it was named long while ago as Lasiodora spinipes. Once we realized we were dealing with a third species we started paying more attention to our spiders. I have all three in my collection. Side by side they are as easy to differentiate as B. smithi from A. geniculata. Earlier in this thread I list a number of morphological characters that also differ between the three.


The second T is the same spider as the first T just after a fresh molt!--
Just kidding! ill send you some pics of the couple i have to see what you think!

Have a great day!


----------



## The Mack (Aug 6, 2010)

billopelma said:


> You still don't get it!? Poor Mack is so continually misunderstood.
> He will obviously turn it around so as to argue that it completely supports what he's been saying all along, and question why the spaghetti monster's DNA analysis wasn't included in the paper. There is no end-game here or there...
> 
> 
> Bill


Not true at all. There is definitely an "end" to this, and it needs to come in the form of genetic isolation evidence for it to be definitive. Oh, and the spaghetti monster's DNA analysis won't be included in the paper, unless you guys are making the claim that he exists along with your claim that these spiders are separate species. . .


----------



## Fran (Aug 20, 2010)

I have gotten some info about the revision Brazilian taxonomists are working on regarding the Theraphosa genus...
And the answer was "no idea when"...


----------



## sharpfang (Aug 20, 2010)

*The info I'd like Fran:*

Is how is your Female w/ the cool overhang environment Doin' - Sacked like Aaron Rodgers or what ?  GL - J


----------



## NevularScorpion (Aug 21, 2010)

spiderworld said:


> thats cool! always great to chat about something! even better when its about big spiders!
> 
> enjoy your day Falk!
> 
> ...


I almost believe you lol


----------



## Jon3800 (Feb 17, 2011)

I think perhaps, I'm the only person on youtube that has made a video showing the major differentiation between the 3 species.

Like Fran says, they're relatively easy to tell apart if you have a good eye and look closely.  Differences are visible as adults (even I tell geniculata apart from brocklehursti).  However, the striking difference are as spiderlings.  I've made many changes to my labels for this particular species...first thought it was T.blondi...then found out it was actuallyT. sp.burgundy/ T.spinipes, now it's called T.stirmi.

I don't want to get involved in these arguments started by theMack.  It is what it is, and I just accept it.


----------

