# Hybrid Tarantulas



## Weapon-X (Nov 11, 2002)

hi just wondering if any of ya out there had some info on the topic, some questions though, is it legal to make hybrib t's, how is it possibly to do(like could i breed a H. Lividum with a H. Schmidti?), what would be the big problem with hybrids on the market????, i personaly think it would be awesome to breed some hybrids for myself if i could even do it , thanks---Jeff


----------



## Theraphosa (Nov 11, 2002)

hmm I don't know Jeff but I have a crazy idea  what if you take the eggs from the female and the sperms from the male. Join it together. yeah of coz the female and male would dead if you use this method   yeah that is my thought how to mixed breed with different tarantulas  
Michael


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

You should look out your window for the peasants with torches and pitchforks about now...

Intentionally breeding hybrid Ts is pretty close to having sex with dead goats for the sort of reactions it will get you on these boards, and if you are looking to becoming a dealer, prepare to get cut off from many of the other breeders and suppliers if you ever did this and tried to sell them.

The problem with hybridising Ts is that it's a dead end. It's so hard to breed Ts in general, what is the point in breeding Ts that are sterile (in the case of true hybrids)? Or Ts that wind up being the mix of what should more properly be called subspecies, but are now out there ready to pollute the purebred lines for someone who doesn't realise they've got a "mutt"? Every time someone breeds a hybrid eggsac, that's a complete waste of time and energy for the hobby. The same amount of effort that it took to yield a bunch of Ts that most people will not buy for any price and are either genetic deadends or, worse, potential genetic polluters, could have yielded an eggsac from a rare species that is scarce in the hobby.

There are over 800 species of tarantulas, and more than 200 in the pet trade, there is absolutely no good reason to produce hybrids unless you're a taxonomist verifying species status. Anyone who does produce hybrids with the intention of selling them deserves to be blacklisted from the rest of the hobbyists for even the smallest of trades.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Theraposa _
> *hmm I don't know Jeff but I have a crazy idea  what if you take the eggs from the female and the sperms from the male. Join it together. yeah of coz the female and male would dead if you use this method   yeah that is my thought how to mixed breed with different tarantulas
> Michael *


Actually, just like with closely related species such as horses and donkeys, many Ts of the same genus will breed and produce offspring all on their own. These offspring are usually sterile and a waste of effort to breed, but they are produced commonly by taxonomists to verify species status. 

Plus, in vitro ferstilisation is impossible for Ts even of the same species given current knowledge.


----------



## Lycanthrope (Nov 11, 2002)

amen to code monkey, banish the infidels!;P


----------



## King_Looey (Nov 11, 2002)

BURN THEM!!!


----------



## zoobugs (Nov 11, 2002)

Like the rest have said, hybridizing on purpose tends to get a cold reception in the invert community(although it is widely accepted in the herp community). There is talk of the "species' Brachypelma
baumgartneri and annitha to actually be man-made as no exact founder specimen has ever been found. BTW Code, I chuckle with your "having sex with dead goats" analogy as there just may be some folks here that may not think that that is not too bad. Hell, I remember "Juicy Lucy and her trained Gila monster" very well! LOL!


----------



## Mojo Jojo (Nov 11, 2002)

That is funny.  I was just thinkiing of the hybridization of tarantulas this morning.  In particular, I was wondering what a Chromatapelma cyanopubecens crossed with a Cyclosternum fasciatum would look like.  There has been talk of changing "Chromatapelma" to Cyclosternum.  So I think that they could probably produce a sub-species that was fertile.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Big Dragonfly _
> *That is funny.  I was just thinkiing of the hybridization of tarantulas this morning.  In particular, I was wondering what a Chromatapelma cyanopubecens crossed with a Cyclosternum fasciatum would look like.  There has been talk of changing "Chromatapelma" to Cyclosternum.  So I think that they could probably produce a sub-species that was fertile. *


Actually, no they probably wouldn't.

You can cross two related "species" and get fertile offspring ONLY if they were really only subspecies to begin with. If you have two *species* closely related enough to breed, the offspring will be sterile. And, regardless, the offspring of two species or subspecies, is always a hybrid - it only gets to be subspecies if it was born from two subspecies, then it would be listed as _Foospecies subfoospecies1 x subfoospeciess hybrid_.

The very definition of species is that individuals can freely breed and produce fertile offspring.

EDIT: Of course this does raise a whole other issue I have with arachnid taxonomy - it steadfastly refuses to recognise subspecies preferring to grant species status regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary. Regardless, it's pretty obvious that tigerrumps and greenbottles are different species.

This also highlights another reason why hybrids are such a bad idea, the average person getting involved in them does not have even a basic understanding of the genetic principles behind it (no disrespect intended).


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by zoobugs _
> *Like the rest have said, hybridizing on purpose tends to get a cold reception in the invert community(although it is widely accepted in the herp community).*


I suspect that this is why it gets such cold reception. It's a genie out of the bottle that can't be put back, but why let the same thing happen to the T hobby? 



> *There is talk of the "species' Brachypelma
> baumgartneri and annitha to actually be man-made as no exact founder specimen has ever been found.  *


Actually, baumgarteni is now accepted as a valid species although it was originally suspected to be a klaasi/boehmi hybrid.
 I'm not sure where the idea that annitha was a hybrid ever came from. Although I've heard it repeated many times, that is not nor never was the controversy: the controversy is that it is nothing more than a color morph of B. smithi and not a separate species.


----------



## zoobugs (Nov 11, 2002)

I stand corrected. I do remember someone saying that annitha is just a color variant of smithi which makes your statement about not recognizing subspecies and making every T found a new species seem logical. The next time Rick West is at the chat, we should ask him about this.


----------



## Weapon-X (Nov 11, 2002)

*re*

hmmm, very educating, i was only going to keep them for myself if i did such a thing , but i lack the exsperience to even pull it off, very intresting though, still i would need sufficent info to even attempt such an experiment anyhow, know of any books out there with info?---Jeff


----------



## Weapon-X (Nov 11, 2002)

*re*

by the way the reason i was asking about why they were bad for the market was because i heard someone tried to sell one(not gonna say who) and a small group of people had jumped all over his case(not gonna say who that was either), was wondering why they were flipping was all..., personaly i think it would be cool to have a few hybrids, just my opinion though. if i was a dealer i would'nt try to even sell one for the fact that i would'nt want people on my case, proly just give em away,lol--Jeff


----------



## Doug H (Nov 11, 2002)

*mutts*

   ;P ;P  take your mutts and go home


----------



## Phillip (Nov 11, 2002)

*Sex with dead goats....*

Is no where near as bad a screwing up the hobby with hybrids. Especially when there are so many screwed up hard to ID ones out there already. The Monkey has already covered everything I would have including Baumgarteni being legit. Founder was supposedly found in Mexico.  

Oh yeah one other point. The ol I'll just keep them or give them away thing sounds good but the problem is this. Once people know you have hybrids how can they ever trust that what you are selling as a legit species is indeed pure? They can't because you have already compromised your morals once so why would you not do it again. I had someone ( who for the sake of being nice shall go un named )  send be a B auratum male which I mistakenly put with one of my female smithi quite a while back before finding out that the slight difference in appearance was from being a different species not from being male. Thank the spider gods that she didn't produce a sack as I would have had to flush it but flush it I would have done. You see this is where the ID problems come in the babies would have passed as smithi but it would have been wrong to keep them. What really sucked was that I had to put her to the side for nearly a year waiting for her to molt and couldn't try another male with her as I would not have known which male the father was. Lot's of lost time for nothing due simply to someone not knowing what they were sending me and myself not having seen a mature male auratum before.    Bottom line..... hybrids suck as do mis ID ed spiders.

Phil


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: re*



> _Originally posted by Weapon-X _
> * if i was a dealer i would'nt try to even sell one for the fact that i would'nt want people on my case, proly just give em away,lol--Jeff *


That will get people on your case all the same. IF you insist on doing your own home experiments, you need to kill every single one you aren't personally preprared to care for or it doesn't matter. The whole controversy isn't just that people will sell them, it's that they'll put them into the hobby at all. 

Let's say for the sake of argument that H. lividium and H. schmidti really were just subspecies and you crossed them and got a viable sac. So, you wind up with 150 slings, keep 10 and give away 140. There is no way that you know that many people who could be trusted to never attempt to breed them or otherwise give them away themselves.

One of your bastard slings winds up being sent to Rick West or Volker when eight years down the road and two owners separated, someone is trying to determine what this unidentified "species" that they picked up at a swap is -> you just wasted an experts valuable time and possibly sent them off chasing shadows if they don't recognise it as a hybrid (and odds are they wouldn't).

Another of your bastard slings looks like an interesting color variation of H. lividium, so eight years later and three owners separated, someone who traded for it from someone else under the impression it was an H. lividium, goes ahead and breeds it with his newly emerged male and sells all of those slings to a large scale dealer as H. lividium. They all are dispersed throught the hobby as H. lividium even though nothing could be further from the truth. Alternatively, you could assume that they weren't subspecies, so no danger of completely ruining a genetic line, but instead the unknowing owner wastes his very nice male in a futile attempt to breed it with your bastard sling.

And I could cook up more scenarios, but hopefully you get the picture. Hybrid slings should never, ever be sold, given away, or dispersed in tiny bottles in the ocean. They should be treated like infectious waste. If you really can't contain your curiosity, at least have the respect of the hobby to destroy any specimens you don't personally want to assume responsibility for.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phillip (Nov 11, 2002)

*exactly.....*

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Phil


----------



## arachnopunks (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Big Dragonfly _
> *That is funny.  I was just thinkiing of the hybridization of tarantulas this morning.  In particular, I was wondering what a Chromatapelma cyanopubecens crossed with a Cyclosternum fasciatum would look like.  There has been talk of changing "Chromatapelma" to Cyclosternum.  So I think that they could probably produce a sub-species that was fertile. *


Actually, you should look into the the Peruvian Cobalt Redrump- Cyclosternum sp.  We had one about three years ago and thought it looked similar to a C. cyaneopubescens.   They are really hard to find since they have not been classified yet.  They are really nice spiders, a little nervous, but docile for the most part.  We wondered about it being a cross of the above species too, but side by side they look much different.  There is a photo of one at Rick West's site of an adult female:

http://www.birdspiders.com/archive/1/0209.htm


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arachnopunks _
> *Actually, you should look into the the Peruvian Cobalt Redrump- Cyclosternum sp.  We had one about three years ago and thought it looked similar to a C. cyaneopubescens.   They are really hard to find since they have not been classified yet.  They are really nice spiders, a little nervous, but docile for the most part.  We wondered about it being a cross of the above species too, but side by side they look much different.  There is a photo of one at Rick West's site of an adult female:
> 
> http://www.birdspiders.com/archive/1/0209.htm *


Phil, you want to take this one? I know you've got a personal stake in someone f'in with one of your favorite and nearly extinct in the hobby species...


----------



## Phillip (Nov 11, 2002)

*all I have to say is this...*

When Rick West puts a species on his site unless it states that it is a hybrid then it is not. He is far more of an ID expert than myself and he has recognized the cobalt redrump as being the real deal. That is good enough for me. And no they look nothing like a greenbottle nor do they behave like one. They are also a good bit smaller when grown.

And yes it is one of my faves..... cryin shame that it didn't have a large enough following to actually get it bred and keep it in the hobby. I have tried but as of yet mine has yet to make a sack. She has been bred but still nothing to get pumped up about. On the bright side she hasn't molted either so she still could.

Phil


----------



## Mojo Jojo (Nov 11, 2002)

EDIT: Of course this does raise a whole other issue I have with arachnid taxonomy - it steadfastly refuses to recognise subspecies preferring to grant species status regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary. Regardless, it's pretty obvious that tigerrumps and greenbottles are different species.

Oops!  My bad.  I was mixing up genus with species.  From what I understand, there is talk of changing the genus of Chromatapelma to that of Cyclosternum.  

But I have seen some pictures of tarantulas within the same genus that have been crossed:

http://birdspiders.com/archive/1/0134.htm

I believe that I have also seen a hybrid between B. vagans and B. albopilosum.

So would these be sterile?


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Big Dragonfly _
> *But I have seen some pictures of tarantulas within the same genus that have been crossed:
> 
> http://birdspiders.com/archive/1/0134.htm
> ...


Yep, if you cross a curly and redrump you get a curiosity piece and nothing more, which is about the only saving grace for most hybrids. Unfortunately, they can still cause a ton of confusion if it is later presented to a taxonomist as an unknown species.


----------



## VI6SIX (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: all I have to say is this...*



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> *When Rick West puts a species on his site unless it states that it is a hybrid then it is not. He is far more of an ID expert than myself and he has recognized the cobalt redrump as being the real deal. That is good enough for me. And no they look nothing like a greenbottle nor do they behave like one. They are also a good bit smaller when grown.
> 
> And yes it is one of my faves..... cryin shame that it didn't have a large enough following to actually get it bred and keep it in the hobby. I have tried but as of yet mine has yet to make a sack. She has been bred but still nothing to get pumped up about. On the bright side she hasn't molted either so she still could.
> ...


 I've actualy attempted to breed this sp. several times but as of yet have had no luck


----------



## VI6SIX (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *Yep, if you cross a curly and redrump you get a curiosity piece and nothing more, which is about the only saving grace for most hybrids. Unfortunately, they can still cause a ton of confusion if it is later presented to a taxonomist as an unknown species. *


  well I know I'll take a BUNCH of crap for this but I have a mature male albogans (vagans albopillosum hybrid) and I think he's gonna see a couple of ladies namely a female vagans and a female curly ......... but on the extreme outside chaqnce I get a fertile sac out of the deal I plan on feeding the off spring to other larger spiders I just have to know for myself


----------



## conipto (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: all I have to say is this...*

First off...


QUOTE]_Originally posted by Phillip _
*
And yes it is one of my faves..... cryin shame that it didn't have a large enough following to actually get it bred and keep it in the hobby. I have tried but as of yet mine has yet to make a sack. She has been bred but still nothing to get pumped up about. On the bright side she hasn't molted either so she still could.

Phil *[/QUOTE] 

Phil, you're right, that is an amazing looking species.  If ever you manage to breed one, let me know, and I'll be happy to get a few off of you.  In fact I may start searching for slings from any source pretty soon.  

Second off..

While I might get a bit of a rouse from this, I personally do not see a problem with hybridizing IF you seriously plan to keep every last offspring for yourself.  I think it's something that should be left for people with the capability (and desire) to raise 2-8 hundred of the same species of T, should they succeed.  However, I think it's something that should be done for more scientific reasons (such as the aforementioned taxonomical use), rather than trying to create the 'ultimate pet T' that is quite obviously portrayed in 'The Tarantula Keepers Guide' by the schultzes.  I think human tendency to study, manipulate, and generally F up every other species on the planet will probably eventually lead into the T hobby, though.  Unfortunate as that is. The biggest limiting factor I see is that to be truly successful, it would take several lifetimes worth of raising and breeding T's, and there are enough wonderful species out there to really not even bother.

Bill


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by VI6SIX _
> *well I know I'll take a BUNCH of crap for this but I have a mature male albogans (vagans albopillosum hybrid) and I think he's gonna see a couple of ladies namely a female vagans and a female curly ......... but on the extreme outside chaqnce I get a fertile sac out of the deal I plan on feeding the off spring to other larger spiders I just have to know for myself *


I don't see where you'll take crap. In this case, you're verifying a hypothesis and plan to handle the results of the null-hypothesis responsibly. It should not be possible to cross an albogans with anything, but if you can, feed them spiderlings to others and let us know.

That's a whole different scenario than saying you want to make some hybrids and give them away.


----------



## Gillian (Nov 11, 2002)

CM,
     Thank you for putting into words what I myself could not do, after a long day at work.

     About breeding for yourself...you would have several hundred or more babies to contend with

Peace,
Gillian


----------



## AlbinoDragon829 (Nov 11, 2002)

Strong words, CM


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AlbinoDragon829 _
> *Strong words, CM *


Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I've been taking quite a bit of flack in the watering hole for strong words lately 

@Conipto - Re responsible experimentation: same idea as what I said VI6SIX. If a hobbyist really wants to responsibly cross two tarantulas I think it's a waste of time and effort, but I'm not going to say NEVER do that as the Ts are theirs to do with what they want. *You* know it's a hybrid and you know exactly what went into it, so long as they start and stop with you, no harm, no foul. It's that whole, "I could sell them" or "Wouldn't it be cool, I'll just give them away" that is the issue - at that point it ceases to be a personal matter.  

Just stick to your guns about keeping the hybrids contained. I don't think too many people necessarily grasp just how long these things live except as a number. How many people on this board have had female tarantulas that have died of old age for them? I've done it, and I saw how my life changed, how my total interest in the Ts waxed and waned over these periods, etc. Now that I'm older, I can say with some confidence that I'm in it for the long haul so I'm more comfortable getting 30+ Ts. But when Bob the enthusiastic newbie actually succeeds in breeding super-T X and gives them out to some of his friends, I'd say it's a sure bet that if they don't kill them, at least 75% of them will wind up given away/sold at some point. And if a T passes through enough people, who knows what its ID'd as, and all it takes is a few to wind up in "improbable" situations to cause a lot of damage to the hobby or at least waste the efforts of people trying to breed for good, sound reasons.


----------



## Vys (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *
> Re responsible experimentation: same idea as what I said VI6SIX. If a hobbyist really wants to responsibly cross two tarantulas I think it's a waste of time and effort, but I'm not going to say NEVER do that as the Ts are theirs to do with what they want. *You* know it's a hybrid and you know exactly what went into it, so long as they start and stop with you, no harm, no foul.  *


I still think they're worth some measure of respect eventhough they can't solve a Rubic's Cube. 
Besides, trying to mate a hybrid of species A and B with species A and B just to see if you can get a fertile eggsac sounds quite uninteresting to me(although this is just a subjective view), and who knows what the next step will be? I'm not accusing you as a person Vis6x, I'm just saying the lust for experimenting prolly resides more or less in every individual, and it constantly battles with ethics and compassion. 

That rest yadda yadda though Code, I agree with.


----------



## Weapon-X (Nov 11, 2002)

*re*

yeah i guess your right there monkey, and you to phil, if i do ever do something like that(but i doubt i would be able to), i'll just keep a few of the females for conversation pets and use the rest for fodder or something---Jeff


----------



## arachnopunks (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: all I have to say is this...*

I know.  Ours was a mature male and we sent it off to breed to someone who had 2 females.  Sandly, the person we sent it to felt that our spider looked "a little curled up" and felt it fit to poison it.  We were beyond mad.  I have some photos of him but I do not have a scanner or I would post him.  IMO they are one of the best balances between color and temperment in a tarantula.

BTW....of course a Puruvian Cobalt isn't a hybrid, I was just pointing out that if he would be interested in that he should check those out.  I have owned a Greenbottle for 2 years and had the Cobalt Redrump for about that long before the unfortunate incident.   Clearly they are different, especially close up. 



> _Originally posted by Phillip _
> *When Rick West puts a species on his site unless it states that it is a hybrid then it is not. He is far more of an ID expert than myself and he has recognized the cobalt redrump as being the real deal. That is good enough for me. And no they look nothing like a greenbottle nor do they behave like one. They are also a good bit smaller when grown.
> 
> And yes it is one of my faves..... cryin shame that it didn't have a large enough following to actually get it bred and keep it in the hobby. I have tried but as of yet mine has yet to make a sack. She has been bred but still nothing to get pumped up about. On the bright side she hasn't molted either so she still could.
> ...


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: all I have to say is this...*



> _Originally posted by arachnopunks _
> *BTW....of course a Puruvian Cobalt isn't a hybrid, I was just pointing out that if he would be interested in that he should check those out.  I have owned a Greenbottle for 2 years and had the Cobalt Redrump for about that long before the unfortunate incident.   Clearly they are different, especially close up. *


I got what you were getting at, and I assume Phil did too, he just neglected to post as strongly as he sometimes has in the past.

The Cobalt redrump is nearly gone in the hobby because they're not imported anymore (being from Peru) and due to a combination of misguided "price fixing" from the dealers and perceptions of cheap avaiability from the hobbyists, were never bred much when adults were common. Given that, the implied recommendation that if someone were looking to hybridise with Cyclosternum species they should look at Cobalt redrumps seemed particularly irresponsible. If someone has a breedable Cobalt redrump and they want to breed it, they damn well better be trying to breed it with another redrump, anything else is really insulting to the hobby.

If I totally misread your intentions for bringing up the redrump, my apologies for posting on the subject again, but if I didn't...


----------



## Chris (Nov 11, 2002)

This does seem to dredge up a lot of ill will amongst tarantula people... I can see reasons on both sides of the argument.

To be honest I really couldn't care less if someone successfully cross breeds a tarantula... as long as it is CLEARLY labelled so.  Most people never breed the tarantulas they have anyway.

Dogs, cats, reptiles and all kinds of other creatures have been cross bred to make new breeds.  While I am a fan of keeping bloodlines pure... I am also rather curious as to what breeds could be created from it.

What if we could get the colours of a P. Irminia in a spider that is as docile as a rose hair?  Or a Versicolour the size of a T. Blondi?

Although I will never cross breed, it is all fodder for the imagination.


----------



## arachnopunks (Nov 11, 2002)

BTW, we are against hybridizing tarantulas in any instance.


----------



## Code Monkey (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Chris _
> *Dogs, cats, reptiles and all kinds of other creatures have been cross bred to make new breeds.  While I am a fan of keeping bloodlines pure... I am also rather curious as to what breeds could be created from it.
> 
> What if we could get the colours of a P. Irminia in a spider that is as docile as a rose hair?  Or a Versicolour the size of a T. Blondi?
> ...


OK, one last post and then I'll move onto greener pastures for playing curmudgeon 

Dogs: every single dog, no matter what the breed is Canis lupus familiaris. They're not hybrids in any way, they are the results of selective breeding *within* species.

Cats: see dogs.

Reptiles: very bad situation only made possible by people's willingness to spend money on a wasteful practice.

True hybrids are sterile. You don't get to keep crossing and selecting for what you want, you make the cross and stop there. This is the major drive behind finding such great hybrids in commercial agriculture: you have to keep going back to the source to get more seed. If the plants do produce viable seed it is nothing like the parents.

If a hybrid is fertile, then what you did was cross two subspecies and it is closer in spirit to the dog scenario above in one sense. However, given the huge introduction of variability from what was two completely separate breeding populations, the odds of getting anything desirable and stably breeding from such a situation is minute at best compared to the genuine danger of accidentally contributing to mucking up the pure subspecies lines. Further, given the timeline of selectively breeding successive generations of Ts, I don't see any of these would be Frankensteins following their work to completion. An educated guess says that it would take at least four to five generations to get a stably breeding crossbreed from two closely related subspecies, that's at least ten years with the fastest growing Ts, and more like thirty years or more in all likelihood. That's also thirty years of meticulous record keeping and maintenance of dozens to hundreds of individuals. 

But, most important to note, because you will only get viable offspring from what was essentially the same species with some coloration or slight size difference, you would have been so much better off just trying to selectively breed within the same species to start with if what you wanted to do was improve it.


----------



## Lost_Tarantula (Nov 11, 2002)

I am against hybrids. Why muck up the waters?

Death to the heathens!

*picks up his pitchfork and chases people around*

 







P.S. I don't mean any disrespect to those who expressed an interest in hybrids. While I am against it, I am just passing time with the whole pitchfork thing.


----------



## VI6SIX (Nov 12, 2002)

at present I have about 25 hundred spiders in my care I personaly don't see the use of breeding curly's any more
not only are they imported but since they are so easy to breed  i prefer to leave them to the novice and I have no desire to "muck up" the hobby with a bunch of hybrids I feel I know what I'm doing and am ready to use any offspring from my attempts as fodder for bigger T's the only reason I even think it might work is that I believe vagans and albopillosum are actualy sub sp. of each other that got sepperated geographicaly some time ago by probucing offspring I will have effectivly proved this point as true hybrids are sterile .This is not like mixing totally different animals like avics and blondis . I believe there is a chance this might actualy work and since I have a mature curly vagans hybrid male at my disposal I say why the hell not
 I must admit though that if it does work I'll probaly keep 10 or so and try for a third generation oh and just for every ones curiosity I've been interested in spiders since I saw my first one been a hobbyist for about 12 years and work full time with them for about 16 months now I understand how delicate the hobby is and would never do anything to jepordize it.
  I am just curious on how closely related vagans and curlys are and only know of one good way to find out and if this male produces offspring I'll know


----------



## Chris (Nov 12, 2002)

Thats quite fascinating... keep us posted on the outcome of your experiment!


----------



## AlbinoDragon829 (Nov 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Code Monkey _
> *Is that a good thing or a bad thing?*


I'd say it's a good thing for putting opinions out there, even if others consider them radical.  Although I think "hybridizing" tarantulas isn't a bad thing, so long as you keep the offspring quarantined from any contact with other "official" tarantulas.


----------



## Alonso99 (Nov 12, 2002)

I believe hybrids would be a good waste of time. Why obtain sterile Tarantulas when you can try to breed all the ones we have at our disposal, make other Tarantulas more available, such as X.immanis and X.Monstrosa, Breeding these tarantulas would give off FERTILE slings that can reproduce later on meaning more tarantulas in the hobby.  There are so many Tarantulas out there that we have no or little knowledge of, making hybrids is pointless unless you are doing scientific research.


----------



## VI6SIX (Nov 12, 2002)

> There are so many Tarantulas out there that we have no or little knowledge of, making hybrids is pointless unless you are doing scientific research. [/B]


 I didn't actualy breed the albogans male I obtained him from a very reliable source who shall remain nameless I currently have around 60 different sp. of breedable females and try to breed as many different sp. as possible and for the record this will be my first attempt at this sort of thing and the only reason I'm doing it is like I stated earlier 1 I already have the hybrid male and 2 I can't think of a better way of finding out how closely related the 2 sp. are 3 if by chace I do get offspring I will have proven something others have only speculated at .finaly I'm not realy trying to create a new sp of tarantula just trying to see if 2 already known sp. are actualy sub sp. of each other in the only way I know how


----------



## VI6SIX (Nov 12, 2002)

> There are so many Tarantulas out there that we have no or little knowledge of, making hybrids is pointless unless you are doing scientific research. [/B]


 I didn't actualy breed the albogans male I obtained him from a very reliable source who shall remain nameless I currently have around 60 different sp. of breedable females and try to breed as many different sp. as possible and for the record this will be my first attempt at this sort of thing and the only reason I'm doing it is like I stated earlier 1 I already have the hybrid male and 2 I can't think of a better way of finding out how closely related the 2 sp. are 3 if by chace I do get offspring I will have proven something others have only speculated at .finaly I'm not realy trying to create a new sp of tarantula just trying to see if 2 already known sp. are actualy sub sp. of each other in the only way I know how


----------



## Blackprizm (Mar 3, 2013)

zoobugs said:


> Like the rest have said, hybridizing on purpose tends to get a cold reception in the invert community(although it is widely accepted in the herp community). There is talk of the "species' Brachypelma
> baumgartneri and annitha to actually be man-made as no exact founder specimen has ever been found. BTW Code, I chuckle with your "having sex with dead goats" analogy as there just may be some folks here that may not think that that is not too bad. Hell, I remember "Juicy Lucy and her trained Gila monster" very well! LOL!


http://mantid.nl/tarantula/baumgarteni.html
http://mantid.nl/tarantula/annitha.html


----------



## Stan Schultz (Mar 3, 2013)

First, you need to put on your asbestos long johns! Wait! You already know that. Sorry.

:biggrin:



Weapon-X said:


> hi just wondering if any of ya out there had some info on the topic, ...


Then, you need to do your homework.

*WARNING: INCOMING, UNABASHED, SELF-SERVING SALESPITCH
If this sort of thing offends you, please move to the next post in this thread, or to the next thread.*​
Read "Hybridization" beginning on page 296 of *The Tarantula Keeper's Guide, Third Edition*.

*END WARNING*​
Then read *G. Rosea forms*.

Then read *Hybridizing Tarantulas - Further comments*.

Do not fail to follow up the subsidiary links in those webpages.

Out of curiosity you can also perform searches on this and about any other arachnid forum you know of using the following search strings:

*hybrid
hybridization
hybridisation
gene
genetics
inheritance
natural selection
artificial selection
cull*

(They get farther afield as you go down my list.)

There! That ought to keep you out of the bars for a few days!

Then make sure your bomb shelter is fully stocked and no one on these forums knows even what country you live in!

Oh! You already did that. Smart person.


Enjoy your little 8-legged doomsday prepper!

:roflmao:


----------



## cerialkiller (Mar 4, 2013)

While reading through this thread I became curious , is this how we get new species to collect or do they just spring up out of no where?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Meezerkoko (Mar 4, 2013)

No, hybridization is not how we get new species.  They also don't really pop up out of nowhere, they're just waiting to be discovered by some intrepid scientist, arachnologist, or hobbyist.  Once they get discovered it typically takes years before they really show up in the hobby if they ever do.


----------



## SuzukiSwift (Mar 5, 2013)

Seen as this thread has been raised from the dead I want to chuck a question out there, what about breeding two Ts of the same species but different colour phase? (like for example, an orange colour form and usambara OBT, or an RCF and rose coloured rosea) Would the slings be fertile and what would they look like?


----------



## Shrike (Mar 5, 2013)

cerialkiller said:


> While reading through this thread I became curious , is this how we get new species to collect or do they just spring up out of no where?
> 
> Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2


Nope, that isn't how new species arise.  If you're interested in how speciation occurs you'll find this slide show interesting:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

Read and enjoy.  The power of science compels you!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tarac (Mar 5, 2013)

SuzukiSwift said:


> Seen as this thread has been raised from the dead I want to chuck a question out there, what about breeding two Ts of the same species but different colour phase? (like for example, an orange colour form and usambara OBT, or an RCF and rose coloured rosea) Would the slings be fertile and what would they look like?


Many people get upset by that, some don't.  It's because the "color phase" difference may or may not be an actual morph vs. a different species.  Holothele incei, for example, comes in gold and green.  Some breeders only want to keep gold with gold and green with green.  For a portion of those pro-segregation folks it is done to ensure they produce more gold babies by not mixing with green.  Others think it might be a totally different species and so don't breed to avoid accidental hybridizing.  Who knows who is right so we tend to ere on the side of caution and not mix just in case it turns out they aren't the same species.  RCF and NCF rosies are a good example- some people believe they are two distinct species.  

Also note that just because an animal is a hybrid does not necessarily mean it will be sterile.  The likelihood of sterility will be very specific to what kind of cross you have.  Some organisms regularly hybridize themselves in the wild and produce an assortment of perfectly fertile offspring while others may hybridize regularly but never once have fertile progeny.  It's hard to say which route a tarantula hybrid would follow and it may very well be that some crosses always produce fertile offspring and others do not.

The best example I can think of are orchids where interspecific hybrids occur all the time in the wild and the progeny are almost always fertile.  It is one of the things that is responsible for the incredible diversity of orchids on earth (over 25,000 species known, estimated to be between 30-40K species so largest family on earth next to Coleoptera).  But wait!  It gets even _more_ complicated.  Orchids can also, and do, produce *intergeneric* hybrids with some regularity, both in the wild and in cultivation.  That would be comparable to crossing a Grammastola with a Euathlus or something.  

It's not taboo in orchid culture so people cross things over and over such that new generic names have to be invented to cover them all.  You have Cattleya, Laelia and you have Brassavola.  If you cross the first two, you get Laeliocattleya.  If you cross the second two you have Brassolaelia.  If you cross the two crosses you have Brassolaeliocattleya.  Take that and cross it with Sophronitis and suddenly the name is so darn long that we just call it Potinara, a completely aritificial, man-made but perfectly fertile "genus," sometimes referred to as a "nothogenus" meaning _bastard genus_.  And to make it more complicated, selfing of even species orchids results in a variety of forms because the levels of ploidy in orchids are often very high and variable.  So when you cross that same artificially generated Potinara with itself there is a good chance that you would see equal or even less diversity in the offspring than you might if you crossed on of the original parent species with itself.  Confusing and crazy, huh? 

Of course this happens with Orchidaceae because they are very rapidly and recently evolving so the barriers between genera are much more fluid.  Good chance that this can't happen with something as primitive as a tarantula, but certainly the interspecific hybrids have happened.  Really couldn't be sure what would happen besides ending up with muddied and artificial genera, if they are fertile at all.  It is always a risk though and fertile hybrids could mean more and more hybrid genome leaking into the hobby populations hence it is discouraged.  

I have never been able to sort out why it's any different than hybridizing the heck out of orchids which are also highly endangered, usually very endemic and also at extreme risk of complete extirpation due to habitat destruction.  Sounds a lot like a T to me other than orchids do hybridize on their own in the wild and tarantulas are not documented to do such a thing as far as I am aware.  Still seems like making a mess out of an already messy family personally, but hey- the desire to have a giant, gaudy, eye-popping flower (inferior to the species forms and fragrances IMO) has driven that market and it is quite profitable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## poisoned (Mar 5, 2013)

Tarac said:


> I have never been able to sort out why it's any different than hybridizing the heck out of orchids which are also highly endangered, usually very endemic and also at extreme risk of complete extirpation due to habitat destruction.  Sounds a lot like a T to me other than orchids do hybridize on their own in the wild and tarantulas are not documented to do such a thing as far as I am aware.  Still seems like making a mess out of an already messy family personally, but hey- the desire to have a giant, gaudy, eye-popping flower (inferior to the species forms and fragrances IMO) has driven that market and it is quite profitable.


I don't think it's possible to do very distinct hybrids with Ts. Maybe over a few generations, but that requires lots of time and hobby is still young. Maybe all those sp. "Cool Color Name" are hybrids, but we don't know it.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Mar 5, 2013)

SuzukiSwift said:


> Seen as this thread has been raised from the dead I want to chuck a question out there, what about breeding two Ts of the same species but different colour phase? (like for example, an orange colour form and usambara OBT, or an RCF and rose coloured rosea) Would the slings be fertile and what would they look like?


(Note: I hesitate to use the term "species" for reasons covered in a thread linked to in a previous posting.)

If the arachnologists/taxonomists are correct in their opinion that the parents really are the same "kinds" of tarantula, the offspring would almost surely be fertile and their appearances would be controlled by the basic rules of genetics much like Mendel's peas, pet hamsters, and humans. Yes, that is an evasion. I didn't answer your question directly because exactly how the offspring will appear (their "*phenotype*") is a rather complicated issue.

In general, when crossing two *disparate* parents the first generation offspring (called *F1 - "first filial"* - in the science of genetics*) usually look like an average of the two parents "*melded*" together. The joke in the field of genetics is that they all inherit the worst characteristics of both parents! (See *Africanized Bees* for an example.) Hybrid tarantulas tend to be rather *grubby* intermediates of their parents, for instance. And, all members of the F1 generation commonly look very much alike.

Significant differences between the individuals appear only after these F1 offspring are inter-crossed again to produce a so-called F2 generation. This allows the chromosomes to reshuffle into the full spectrum of combinations allowed by probability and genetics.

This presents us with a bit of a problem because the F1 individuals that arachnoculture enthusiasts are currently presented with are not truly representative of the full spectrum of possible variations, and any opinions made about them are of necessity vastly uninformed. We won't know the true story about hybridizing until these F1 individuals mature and some enterprising enthusiast inter-crosses them to produce an F2 generation. And, even then, a lengthy period of time will be required before the F2 individuals have a chance to grow and develop their adult characteristics. At that point, the F2 individuals will be segregated into pools of like individuals and selective breeding will produce stable varietal lines of tarantulas with collections of characters not found in nature, but in high demand in the hobby.

My prediction, based on what happened with pigeons, orchids, tropical fish, and reptiles is that the results are going to blow your socks off! And, while you may demean what happened in those hobbies, there are still a lot of people out there who fairly drool over the hybrids, color, and pattern variations at every show. In fact, they probably outnumber the purists by a wide margin!

What happens if the parents *AREN'T* truly the same "species?" There is a very wide spectrum of possibilities ranging from one possible parent merely eating the either, through mating (or not), through various levels of embryonic development (or not), through various levels of survivability (or not), through various levels of fertility (or not). The game of effective reproduction requires that everything in a long and complex chain of circumstances and events must go almost exactly right. (Are you familiar with the child's game, "*Simon Says*?") Otherwise it doesn't work.

These inherent natural restraints in reproduction are probably a big reason why we do perceive something akin to "species," to segregate organisms into different kinds rather than presenting us with one huge, seething mass of mating bunnies. And, which allowed Darwin and Wallace to write *The Book*. Something "out there" really does exist, but our current understanding of "it" suffers some serious shortcomings.

[Too many links? Sorry.  I was afraid a lot of people wouldn't understand some of the finer or more technical points, so I linked to outside references and definitions to make it easier for them.]


Enjoy your little 8-legged "poodle," named Foo-Foo!


* Note that geneticists do not normally concern themselves with concepts such as species. To a geneticist, a hybrid is the result of a cross between any two differing individuals, and the term is most often used to describe a combination of two different visible characters ("phenotype," e.g., hybrid for petal color), or two demonstrably different genetic characters or traits ("genotype," e.g., hybrid for _NLGN1_) in an organism. And, since the results of researches in Genetics are always consistent and reproducible, Genetics can be considered a true science.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jecraque (Mar 5, 2013)

I was going to point out some examples in which our working definitions of species seem to fall short, but Tarac's orchid points are well taken. If you are interested in hybridization in animals, there are a number of bird and salamander examples which may be applicable here, including intergeneric hybrids in birds, and salamander lineages so convoluted in the wild that they exist primarily in the literature as species complexes rather than species/subspecies/varieties. Biology is a terribly messy science and too often our definitions are much too simplistic. Look into the species problem, ring species, etc. if you are interested in hybridization.

Hybridization is not how new species are formed as a rule, but on occasion hybrids drive speciation. Some evidence supports the red wolf, for example, as a hybrid species of gray wolves and coyotes. The jury's still out on that as far as I know. There are lots of insect examples of hybrid speciation as well. But Shrike's link is an excellent starting point for how speciation occurs, and I'd encourage anyone to peruse any and all of the Berkeley evolution resources. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of hybrid speciation in tarantulas, in any case.

I'm not entirely too sure where the idea that hybrid tarantulas would be infertile comes from. Are there documented cases from anyone who has experience with hybrids? Are we extrapolating from mammals/other animals? I'd be interested to know more on this.

For the record, I'm not advocating the pursuit of hybrids in the tarantula-keeping hobby, but I think we ought to keep an open mind toward wild hybrids, if they exist naturally, and certainly study accidental hybrids where they occur in the hobby.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Mar 5, 2013)

jecraque said:


> ... I'm not entirely too sure where the idea that hybrid tarantulas would be infertile comes from. Are there documented cases from anyone who has experience with hybrids? Are we extrapolating from mammals/other animals? I'd be interested to know more on this. ...


A decade or more ago, one or more German enthusiasts were hybridizing tarantulas (Hence, we know it's possible), and I vaguely remember a reference that claimed that at least one such putative hybrid was indeed fertile. However, that was a long time ago and I've lost the reference to it. Perhaps another reader can find a specific reference.


Enjoy your little 8-legged "Heinz 57!"


----------



## SuzukiSwift (Mar 5, 2013)

Thanks everybody, that's very interesting information! I'm not gona pretend like I understand all of it lol (science has never really been my thing) but I can see that hybridization is certainly best left to researchers and should not be done by us hobbyists

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alltheworld601 (Mar 6, 2013)

SuzukiSwift said:


> Thanks everybody, that's very interesting information! I'm not gona pretend like I understand all of it lol (science has never really been my thing) but I can see that hybridization is certainly best left to researchers and should not be done by us hobbyists


you absolutely hit the nail on the head there.  As far as the hobby goes for collectors who want to know exactly what they have, and breeders who cater to that market, mixing up bloodlines is a horrible idea.  Things like this done in a lab, however, for educational purposes, can I'm sure reveal a lot of new knowledge about theraphosids in general, as there's a whole lot that we still don't know!  I'd always be interested in any official scientific experiments involving hybrids...but when joe schmo does it in his basement just for kicks, I get mad.  As does, you know, 99% of hobbyists.


----------



## poisoned (Mar 6, 2013)

Alltheworld601 said:


> you absolutely hit the nail on the head there.  As far as the hobby goes for collectors who want to know exactly what they have, and breeders who cater to that market, mixing up bloodlines is a horrible idea.  Things like this done in a lab, however, for educational purposes, can I'm sure reveal a lot of new knowledge about theraphosids in general, as there's a whole lot that we still don't know!  I'd always be interested in any official scientific experiments involving hybrids...but when joe schmo does it in his basement just for kicks, I get mad.  As does, you know, 99% of hobbyists.


Define official scientific experiment. Define lab.

The problem here is, that much research on theraposids is done by hobbyists themselves. Not many "official" scientists care for them. But why can't hobbyist become a scientist and call his basement lab? If this hobbyist doesn't spread the hybrids around and has everything well labeled I don't see a reason why shouldn't s/he do some research.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alltheworld601 (Mar 6, 2013)

I suppose, those things would have to be "judged" on a case by case basis though...such a sticky topic.  I don't really have any specific definitions for you.  I would hope most people would put pride away and only do such an experiment if they could be professional about it, and as you said, not spread them around.  But *shrug*....I felt I got my point across, however, vague.  The entire topic is vague, so that was the best I could do


----------



## Stan Schultz (Mar 6, 2013)

poisoned said:


> Define official scientific experiment. Define lab. ...


Very good points!

I can answer these questions in a rather specific sort of way, but they're only my definitions, nothing you'd find in a dictionary.

An "official scientific experiment" is one performed under the auspices and oversight of an accredited research institution. This usually infers a strict, organized set of standards, an "Animal Care Committee" (ACC) set up to ensure that animal experiments are both worth the sacrifice of the animal and that due caution is taken to make the procedures as humane as possible. And, if humans are used as experimental subjects, an "Institutional Review Board" (IRB) of some sort that authorizes the experiments and monitors the rights and safety of the subjects.

What's a "lab?" My kitchen table back when I was hybridizing orchids and breeding tarantulas. My garage now that I'm getting filthy, stinking rich making crystal meth. Or, the place where an "official scientific experiment" may be performed.

:laugh:



poisoned said:


> ... The problem here is, that much research on theraposids is done by hobbyists themselves. Not many "official" scientists care for them. But why can't hobbyist become a scientist and call his basement lab? If this hobbyist doesn't spread the hybrids around and has everything well labeled I don't see a reason why shouldn't s/he do some research.


Also good points. And in fact, since "official scientific experiments," while currently being performed, are nowhere near numerous enough to meet our insatiable demand for more information about these amazing creatures, experimenting by amateurs is about the only way a lot of it's going to get done.

And, the reason that more "official scientific experiments" aren't being done is *NOT* that there aren't enough interested or qualified people. There are lots of scientists who would love to experiment on arachnids because arachnids are so different. We gain an immense understanding of basic biology by comparing and contrasting them to better known organisms.

*WARNING: INCOMING, UNABASHED, POLITICAL OPINION!
If this sort of thing offends you, please move to the next post in this thread, or to the next thread.*​
The major problem is that our governments are much more interested in funding stopgap social programs with no future, no apparent progress, and no foreseeable endpoint rather than space exploration or basic research. But that devolves from the fact that there are more welfare recipients than research scientists.

*NOTE WELL that this is definitely not to become a part of the open discussion on this thread! If you wish to comment or carry this discussion further, copy and paste relevant parts to a thread in the Watering Hole.*
*END WARNING*​
Research scientists are only human too. They need to put food on the table, clothes for the kids, the rent or mortgage payment paid. Throwing a few *sheckels* at the spouse every now and again doesn't hurt either.

:biggrin:

The major problems with amateurs experimenting are the lack of standards, a strict set of moral and ethical guidelines; and the lack of a strict, impartial, logical straightjacket that "official scientists" have placed on themselves to ensure that their results are real, not just figments of overactive imaginations or personal opinions. And, that brings us full circle to my tirade in several of *my earlier essays*.


Enjoy your little 8-legged research associate!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tarac (Mar 6, 2013)

The other thing is that "official" researchers are trained to execute controlled studies.  It is such a difficult thing to do- to ensure that the results you are getting are really what you think they are, that we not only do it as many independent ways as we can BUT we also have countless examples of MAJOR oversights that our training did not teach us to think about, we were too excited to notice, etc.  So if someone who is genuinely trying to understand something and has long term training and practice has difficulty executing a meaningful study then it is almost absurd to expect a lay person to be able to just throw together some project in their basement.  It does happen but it is so infrequent that we hear about it when it does.  Kind of like when a credentialed scientist intentionally fudges data.  It does happen, but so infrequently that it is news-worthy.  The more common case is simply drawing conclusions that aren't exactly represented by the data you gather.  We do this very assignment with "real" papers all the time with students, at least once a week- read this "legitimate" publication from X highly reputed journal, tell me what it says and tell me why it shouldn't have said that.  That's generally why we work in teams from an assortment of specialties, right?  To avoid oversights that people from other backgrounds would/will catch.

You can set up some project in your basement and call your self an "official scientist" and a "lab" if you want, but no one will believe you until someone else in a more controlled setting with verifiable training can reproduce your results.  In all likelihood, unless you are one of those very rare cases, they won't be able to or will be able to find a myriad of other obvious explanations for what you are seeing counter to what you concluded.

---------- Post added 03-06-2013 at 02:42 PM ----------




poisoned said:


> I don't think it's possible to do very distinct hybrids with Ts. Maybe over a few generations, but that requires lots of time and hobby is still young. Maybe all those sp. "Cool Color Name" are hybrids, but we don't know it.


You missing my point a bit here- not talking about whether it's possible because as you said that has yet to really be tested (no one would give it a chance, so not gonna happen in the current climate), more wondering why it is ethically acceptable to do with orchids (or any other plant for that matter- very little regard for "species purity" due to this are of study and production we call horticulture) or parrots or cats but not in the "herp" related hobbies specifically.  Snake people get angry (though there was a rash of hybrids for a while), dart frog people will eat your soul if you present a hybrid specimen, tarantula people can't resist flaming you.  Somehow seem to be highly defensive of this particular realm.  Anything you can buy in a "reptile" store or expo is more or less of limits to would-be hybridizers yet there is really no outrage or distress or even much conversation at all about hybrids with most other hobby animals.

I don't think it is about a very distinct hybrid.  Look at hybrid macaws.  There is very little distinguishable difference between parent and hybrid offspring in very many cases yet they are ubiquitous and fetch the same dollar as the species adults.  Cats are likewise- in fact the whole purpose with most cats is to get an animal that looks like the wild parent but doesn't require a wild cat permit.  So in this case we are purposely trying to make them confusingly similar.  Do we not also run the risk of losing track of who is what with cats?  Isn't that the concern with hybrid spiders?

Just always thought that was kind of funny, like either people should be more angry about all the other hybrid animals being produced or be less angry about hybrid Ts and snakes and frogs and stuff.  That's all.

Just want to mention that this is a very good conversation about hybrids and such as well, it didn't get ugly and flushed out some very good points.  Glad it is going so well, makes it interesting instead of just another boring hybrid trashing thread.

---------- Post added 03-06-2013 at 03:00 PM ----------




Pikaia said:


> * Note that geneticists do not normally concern themselves with concepts such as species. To a geneticist, a hybrid is the result of a cross between any two differing individuals, and the term is most often used to describe a combination of two different visible characters ("phenotype," e.g., hybrid for petal color), or two demonstrably different genetic characters or traits ("genotype," e.g., hybrid for _NLGN1_) in an organism. And, since the results of researches in Genetics are always consistent and reproducible, Genetics can be considered a true science.


I'm not sure I agree with this though- a great many times it is the geneticists who ultimately decide where to split the species, or at least confirm that the taxonomist was correct.  Some make their living this way.  "Differing" of course is very relative, but as you have hinted at and discussed in other threads species are a somewhat fluid set of animals that fall on a curve.  At some point they are decidedly "the same" relatively as the others on the curve and the "differing" individuals are found to fall on another curve.  The level of tolerance is always questioned but even geneticists do eventually decide that there is an overwhelming amount of similarity between a set of X individuals that they can barely be considered "differing" in any meaningful way such as we find in humans, for example.  I know you do not concern yourself with species, but being able to categorize and track the changes within a population that is considered a species by virtue of it's relative lack of differences from individual to individual has plenty of useful applications in an assortment of fields of studies and so this approach persists and will likely persist forever.


----------



## poisoned (Mar 6, 2013)

Tarac said:


> The other thing is that "official" researchers are trained to execute controlled studies.  It is such a difficult thing to do- to ensure that the results you are getting are really what you think they are, that we not only do it as many independent ways as we can BUT we also have countless examples of MAJOR oversights that our training did not teach us to think about, we were too excited to notice, etc.  So if someone who is genuinely trying to understand something and has long term training and practice has difficulty executing a meaningful study then it is almost absurd to expect a lay person to be able to just throw together some project in their basement.  It does happen but it is so infrequent that we hear about it when it does.  Kind of like when a credentialed scientist intentionally fudges data.  It does happen, but so infrequently that it is news-worthy.  The more common case is simply drawing conclusions that aren't exactly represented by the data you gather.  We do this very assignment with "real" papers all the time with students, at least once a week- read this "legitimate" publication from X highly reputed journal, tell me what it says and tell me why it shouldn't have said that.  That's generally why we work in teams from an assortment of specialties, right?  To avoid oversights that people from other backgrounds would/will catch.
> 
> You can set up some project in your basement and call your self an "official scientist" and a "lab" if you want, but no one will believe you until someone else in a more controlled setting with verifiable training can reproduce your results.  In all likelihood, unless you are one of those very rare cases, they won't be able to or will be able to find a myriad of other obvious explanations for what you are seeing counter to what you concluded.


Every person that has some kind of college degree should know scientific methods. Of course, I might overlook something, but even "official" scientists do. And they do it very often, that's why we get researchs on same subjects with totally different results. But if you ever read a scientific work you know it's mostly talking about methods used in experiment. Results and explanation are often taking up very small part of whole publication. There's a reason behind that, it makes other people think where I was wrong and do it better. Or even make their own conclusions based on my work. That's how science works. Reiterating, questioning and experimentation.

And who says I can't set up controlled setting? We live in time of free information. I can gather college level knowledge from almost any field you can think of. Of course, it will take time, but I myself spend on average more than 4 hours a day learning even though I'm not going to school anymore and am working full time.


----------



## jecraque (Mar 6, 2013)

poisoned said:


> Every person that has some kind of college degree should know scientific methods. Of course, I might overlook something, but even "official" scientists do. And they do it very often, that's why we get researchs on same subjects with totally different results. But if you ever read a scientific work you know it's mostly talking about methods used in experiment. Results and explanation are often taking up very small part of whole publication. There's a reason behind that, it makes other people think where I was wrong and do it better. Or even make their own conclusions based on my work. That's how science works. Reiterating, questioning and experimentation.


I'll agree heartily that this should be how it is, but it doesn't seem to be so far... As a former educational researcher in the nature of science and evolution education, I can state with reasonable certainty that not only is this not the case for non-science major college grads, but actual biology majors in undergrad have very poor understandings of evolution and NoS, as do secondary science educators. 

I haven't seen research on this bit, but I'd guess this declines as you look at educators of younger groups--by the time my kids get to me they're positive that science is all about proving things and theories maturing into laws. I'd also suspect that working scientists publishing most of their important work behind a paywall probably isn't helping much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jakykong (Mar 6, 2013)

jecraque said:


> I'll agree heartily that this should be how it is, but it doesn't seem to be so far... As a former educational researcher in the nature of science and evolution education, I can state with reasonable certainty that not only is this not the case for non-science major college grads, but actual biology majors in undergrad have very poor understandings of evolution and NoS, as do secondary science educators.
> 
> I haven't seen research on this bit, but I'd guess this declines as you look at educators of younger groups--by the time my kids get to me they're positive that science is all about proving things and theories maturing into laws. I'd also suspect that working scientists publishing most of their important work behind a paywall probably isn't helping much.


Right, that's why every college graduate *should* know scientific methods.  But in any case, the converse holds as well: People who have no formal education, but listen, read, and pay attention can learn how to do properly controlled experiments just fine. (I personally fall into the "college student" category, but I value science very highly, so I may not be a representative sample.) It's not just evolution that people are ignorant of, either. But evolution in particular (at least in the USA) has had to fight against rampant creationism continually, so its teaching is utterly abysmal, and even where it is taught well, many students simply refuse to learn for religious reasons.

Nevertheless, I don't think a controlled experiment testing most hypotheses about hybridization would require a complete understanding of evolution. A Mendelian concept of heredity is probably sufficient for anything a hobbyist would have the resources to test. I'll happily consider counterexamples.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tarac (Mar 11, 2013)

poisoned said:


> Every person that has some kind of college degree should know scientific methods. Of course, I might overlook something, but even "official" scientists do. And they do it very often, that's why we get researchs on same subjects with totally different results. But if you ever read a scientific work you know it's mostly talking about methods used in experiment. Results and explanation are often taking up very small part of whole publication. There's a reason behind that, it makes other people think where I was wrong and do it better. Or even make their own conclusions based on my work. That's how science works. Reiterating, questioning and experimentation.
> 
> And who says I can't set up controlled setting? We live in time of free information. I can gather college level knowledge from almost any field you can think of. Of course, it will take time, but I myself spend on average more than 4 hours a day learning even though I'm not going to school anymore and am working full time.


Of course it is theoretically possible, we have some examples of it.  But as I also said, they are few and far between.  This is because no matter how much literature you gather you really have to understand fully which techniques to apply to each study and the nuances and shortcomings of your assorted tests in order to draw any meaningful conclusions.  It would take so long just to learn all the background information that it lends itself to poorly designed experiments with conclusions not supported by the data.

In fact, methods usually describe how tests were done in a very general manner- which techniques, technologies and conditions are involved.  The reason they take up so much space (and frequently not the bulk of the paper- discussion and background introduction are often very hefty sections relatively, that is highly dependent on the publisher and the requirements) is because one has to describe the experimental conditions so that they can be repeated and critiqued as well as to include multiple methods used for verifying what results a research group thinks they are seeing.  Discussion and presentation of resulting data are in fact the bulk of the paper in most cases I would wager.  For each technique there is a corresponding result and then a discussion of each (sometimes altogether, depends on publisher at this point).

Also, your information isn't really free.  Subscriptions, correspondences with people who expect to be paid for the time and specialized knowledge, access.  Those are all luxuries of being associated with some kind of body that has institutional permission.  I have it, you might have it and certainly many other people have it but that also means we have day jobs (and institutions that own our intellectual property if it makes use of any of those luxuries we have by virtue of our employment with them).  A few big journals here and there are freely available, but the majority of them- especially those for tarantulas, since that is our subject here- are not at all free.  It often takes years and years for a professional group to generate a publishable quality study and this is with all the resources, literature and time at their disposal PLUS the required background knowledge already under their belt.  Rarely do people even jump fields even after they have specialized.  To take on something with only access to college level information is even more rare and to do so successfully is practically impossible.  

It's fairly obvious why it would be so difficult for someone to just decide they wanted to do experimental research without being a specialist in at least a neighboring field.  Hence we have so few examples of successful work along these lines.  Sure, if one devotes every single free moment of their time and money to a particular study it _might_ be possible (assuming unlimited resources of course).  But it's also possible for someone to build a ship and fly to the moon on one's on time and money.  How often does it happen?  I understand ideologically what you are getting at but you have to also be pragmatic about the limitations, extra challenges and the established system which we have work with.  Why do you think most work is so guarded?  I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is what it is.  I'm sure in large part this why tarantulas remain as mysterious as they are to date- not easy for even an arachnologist (a rare thing these days anyway) to devote time and money to it let alone a hobbyist.  Sad, but true.

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 09:57 AM ----------




jakykong said:


> Right, that's why every college graduate *should* know scientific methods.  But in any case, the converse holds as well: People who have no formal education, but listen, read, and pay attention can learn how to do properly controlled experiments just fine. (I personally fall into the "college student" category, but I value science very highly, so I may not be a representative sample.) It's not just evolution that people are ignorant of, either. But evolution in particular (at least in the USA) has had to fight against rampant creationism continually, so its teaching is utterly abysmal, and even where it is taught well, many students simply refuse to learn for religious reasons.
> 
> Nevertheless, I don't think a controlled experiment testing most hypotheses about hybridization would require a complete understanding of evolution. A Mendelian concept of heredity is probably sufficient for anything a hobbyist would have the resources to test. I'll happily consider counterexamples.


Mendelian genetics are very very simple in the scheme of things.  The viability of your study with only Mendelian genetics under your belt would depend greatly on what you were trying to accomplish by hybridizing.  If you are just trying to make an extra colorful tarantula it is first- not really that interesting, more like a marketing issue within the hobby and second maybe tangentially saying something about the apparent heritability of one or two qualities with tarantulas (even that, if you wanted to make any real conclusions, would require confirmation with molecular data these days anyway).  A "study" along those lines is much more akin to a high school science fair project (and even those are usually far more sophisticated these days with kids now able to tag on to their mom and dad's laboratories, etc. making things you know that they could not afford to do without the benefits of their parent's institutional connections).

I think you underestimate the power of the "system" or the overestimate the significance of crossing tarantulas to see if you get more or less colorful/hairy/etc.  Even that would barely be considered a study of tarantula genetics.  You could publish it in a rudimentary journal but the thing about the "system" is that people won't believe you or won't even come across your information if it's in the back of some publication that a few online users are a part of.  It's crappy that money is so involved in everything nowadays but the kind of information we don't have and what we require to convincingly demonstrate it necessitates this.  Gone are the days of crossing peas together to see what color flowers and height of plant you get I'm afraid.


----------



## jakykong (Mar 11, 2013)

Tarac said:


> Also, your information isn't really free.  Subscriptions, correspondences with people who expect to be paid for the time and specialized knowledge, access.  Those are all luxuries of being associated with some kind of body that has institutional permission.  I have it, you might have it and certainly many other people have it but that also means we have day jobs (and institutions that own our intellectual property if it makes use of any of those luxuries we have by virtue of our employment with them).  A few big journals here and there are freely available, but the majority of them- especially those for tarantulas, since that is our subject here- are not at all free.  It often takes years and years for a professional group to generate a publishable quality study and this is with all the resources, literature and time at their disposal PLUS the required background knowledge already under their belt.  Rarely do people even jump fields even after they have specialized.  To take on something with only access to college level information is even more rare and to do so successfully is practically impossible.


To me, this is iconic of a flaw in our institutions. I understand the economic, and in some cases historical, reasons underlying this, but really, this is the information age; it seems like publications should be open to the public, at least after some time. The result of NOT doing that is that the general public is so utterly uninformed that they've got decades of catching up to do. It only lends credence to the unfortunate perspective that scientists are on airs, living in this high-falutin' world of academia and passing down commandments rather than, what _should_ be the case, scientists presenting findings and evidence clearly enough that the general public can grasp it.

Ugh. I'm waxing idyllic here; perhaps we'll find a solution to this problem someday, but I doubt it'll be any time soon.


----------



## Tarac (Mar 11, 2013)

jakykong said:


> To me, this is iconic of a flaw in our institutions. I understand the economic, and in some cases historical, reasons underlying this, but really, this is the information age; it seems like publications should be open to the public, at least after some time. The result of NOT doing that is that the general public is so utterly uninformed that they've got decades of catching up to do. It only lends credence to the unfortunate perspective that scientists are on airs, living in this high-falutin' world of academia and passing down commandments rather than, what _should_ be the case, scientists presenting findings and evidence clearly enough that the general public can grasp it.
> 
> Ugh. I'm waxing idyllic here; perhaps we'll find a solution to this problem someday, but I doubt it'll be any time soon.


Exactly.  I agree 100%.  There is a major disconnect between modern science and the general public and it causes much grief where none should be.  Evolution, which should be fairly easy to convey, is a great example.  And it's hard for public who haven't been involved in some facet of research to distinguish the names on the study from the assorted names of the funding agencies, hosting institutions and publishers and how that effects the type and format of the studies that are undertaken.  It's frustrating for everyone.

On the other hand, some information is not possible to clearly convey to people who do not share your background in X characters or less.  At least with NIH and several other big contributers to research all studies have to made public.  It doesn't mean they are intelligible if it's not your specialty- indeed I have trouble with quite a few papers myself that are not far from what I do because the information contained within deals with incredibly small details of something I didn't study myself.  But at least I have all those nice subscriptions via my institution so I can try to clarify it in an efficient manner.  Part of it is funding issues and credit for institutions involved in supporting the work and part of it is simply due to having figured out much of the "easy" stuff so now we're down to tiny little mechanisms of this and that and models that only a biophysicist can understand, etc.  Just the nature of our ever growing knowledge base.  It is no longer possible to be a "renaissance" man in the classic sense because the sea of information is practically limitless.  All we can do is try our best and to learn how to distinguish between "probably correct" and some random .org web page pandering to our sensibilities.


----------



## jakykong (Mar 11, 2013)

Tarac said:


> Exactly.  I agree 100%.  There is a major disconnect between modern science and the general public and it causes much grief where none should be.  Evolution, which should be fairly easy to convey, is a great example.  And it's hard for public who haven't been involved in some facet of research to distinguish the names on the study from the assorted names of the funding agencies, hosting institutions and publishers and how that effects the type and format of the studies that are undertaken.  It's frustrating for everyone.
> 
> On the other hand, some information is not possible to clearly convey to people who do not share your background in X characters or less.  At least with NIH and several other big contributers to research all studies have to made public.  It doesn't mean they are intelligible if it's not your specialty- indeed I have trouble with quite a few papers myself that are not far from what I do because the information contained within deals with incredibly small details of something I didn't study myself.  But at least I have all those nice subscriptions via my institution so I can try to clarify it in an efficient manner.  Part of it is funding issues and credit for institutions involved in supporting the work and part of it is simply due to having figured out much of the "easy" stuff so now we're down to tiny little mechanisms of this and that and models that only a biophysicist can understand, etc.  Just the nature of our ever growing knowledge base.  It is no longer possible to be a "renaissance" man in the classic sense because the sea of information is practically limitless.  All we can do is try our best and to learn how to distinguish between "probably correct" and some random .org web page pandering to our sensibilities.


I consider the likes of Carl Sagan, Anne Druyan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and, despite having some disagreement with his tone, Richard Dawkins to be exemplars of the proper way to do science. Even NASA during the '60s. While it is true that a layman will not be able to comprehend a research paper, it is also certainly true that someone who understands what is going on should be able to summarize in plain language. We still need experts, but if those experts are living in an ivory tower, it serves only to alienate the public.


----------



## iPippin (Mar 11, 2013)

Pikaia said:


> (Note: I hesitate to use the term "species" for reasons covered in a thread linked to in a previous posting.)
> 
> If the arachnologists/taxonomists are correct in their opinion that the parents really are the same "kinds" of tarantula, the offspring would almost surely be fertile and their appearances would be controlled by the basic rules of genetics much like Mendel's peas, pet hamsters, and humans. Yes, that is an evasion. I didn't answer your question directly because exactly how the offspring will appear (their "*phenotype*") is a rather complicated issue.
> 
> ...


This made me want to try doing hybrids.. Lol.


----------



## Gesandte (Mar 12, 2013)

I feel guilty to hybrid Ts.....


----------

