# What's the difference between a Grammostola rosea and a Grammostola cala?



## Autumnvicky (Jun 13, 2009)

When I bought my Rose hair tarantula they labeled her 'Rose Hair' and never gave me a scientific name. I heard the scientific name is changed now and then. I'd like to get Matika a boyfriend but it'd be easier if I knew the scientific name to look for. I don't want to accidentally get the wrong species. 

Which is which? What's the difference between them?


----------



## mythicdawn07 (Jun 13, 2009)

Autumnvicky said:


> I'd like to get Matika a boyfriend but it'd be easier if I knew the scientific name to look for. I don't want to accidentally get the wrong species.
> 
> Which is which? What's the difference between them?


post a picture, also are you sure it's a she? (Sometimes they are not what it says on the tin hehe) also if they are not ready to mate the female will eat the male.


----------



## gvfarns (Jun 13, 2009)

All rose hairs are G rosea.  A lot of times pet stores will label them cala or other things to make it seem like they are a different, less common species.  Very common to see red color form rosea labeled as cala.  

My understanding is that there is a real G cala, but you are not going to run across one in the hobby, so you can comfortably just grab a G rosea for your project.

Other synonyms for G rosea: Grammostola gala, Phrixotrichus cala, Grammostola spatulata or combinations of these.


----------



## cacoseraph (Jun 13, 2009)

G. cala is not recognized as a valid species by Platnick

Schmidt synonymized (i really hate that word, can never spell it) them in 1998 with rosea being the senior name

Schmidt also said rosea was the senior synonym of G. spatulata in 1996


i don't know if there is some secret paper in the works or whatever... but according to Platnick (reading Schmidt) both cala and spatulata are not valid species


http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/THERAPHOSIDAE.html


----------



## joshuai (Jun 13, 2009)

what about G. north


----------



## cacoseraph (Jun 13, 2009)

also, the "change" i have seen is for G. porteri, which *is* a valid species


i expect a big reworking (complete with DNA) of the species would be useful, but not gonna happen any time soon





if someone wants to find and buy me the original species descriptions i might be able to tell you more =P

G. porteri was originally described as *Lasiodora* porteri: Mello-Leitão, 1936
G. rosea was originally described as Mygale rosea Walckenaer, 1837


----------



## Lennie Collins (Jun 13, 2009)

gvfarns said:


> All rose hairs are G rosea.  A lot of times pet stores will label them cala or other things to make it seem like they are a different, less common species.  Very common to see red color form rosea labeled as cala.
> 
> My understanding is that there is a real G cala, but you are not going to run across one in the hobby, so you can comfortably just grab a G rosea for your project.
> 
> Other synonyms for G rosea: Grammostola gala, Phrixotrichus cala, Grammostola spatulata or combinations of these.


He sum it up! Just a way to "sale" mo' Rose Hairs!


----------



## Stan Schultz (Jun 13, 2009)

gvfarns said:


> All rose hairs are G rosea.  A lot of times pet stores will label them cala or other things to make it seem like they are a different, less common species.  Very common to see red color form rosea labeled as cala. ...


And, don't forget to mention the commensurately higher price tag!



gvfarns said:


> ... My understanding is that there is a real G cala, but you are not going to run across one in the hobby, so you can comfortably just grab a G rosea for your project.
> 
> Other synonyms for G rosea: Grammostola gala, Phrixotrichus cala, Grammostola spatulata or combinations of these.


All of this is true, plus ...

1. You can get a complete listing of all synonyms plus a lot of other information by visiting Dr. Platnick's webpage at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/THERAPHOSIDAE.html. Use your web browser's search function to look for _Grammostola_ until you find the genus heading

Gen. *Grammostola* Simon, 1892 [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidergen:00224]

Then, scroll down a few screens until you find

mf *rosea* (Walckenaer, 1837)....................Bolivia, Chile, Argentina [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002024]

Under that heading you will find the whole gruesome history of how we haven't been able to make up our minds about what this little treasure should be called!

2. For the last several years some hobbyists (mostly in the European contingent, but there are a few supporters in North America as well) have held the opinion that what we are calling _G. rosea_ in the hobby is really three different species, although any big-name taxonomists who have bothered to look at the issue are remarkably quiet on the matter. However, up til now no one has actually published a real scientific paper that offers any believable data or telling argument to support that contention. Until and unless such a paper is published by someone with some official standing or believable reputation, what you see in Platnick's list stands: They're all _G. rosea_.

(If and when any of you ever see such a scientific paper, please get back to me ASAP with a full reference listing so I can study it in detail.)

The latest effort to upset the apple cart is a rumor that a lot of what we think are _G. rosea_ in the hobby are really _G. porteri_ based on all sorts of questionable "data." Again, until and unless such a paper is published by someone with some official standing or believable reputation, what you see in Platnick's list stands: They're all _G. rosea_.

3. Lastly, we started out thinking that there were three color phases of _G. rosea_. It's beginning to look more like there is actually almost a smooth gradation from a uniform, dull, dark gray through various flavors of pink to a bright red with a coppery carapace. The color seems to be coordinated somewhat with the individual's place of origin. All this is not too surprising since we've seen the same phenomenon in all sorts of other plants and animals. However, this variation in coloring is one of the driving forces behind the "different species" contention, and has been used as an excuse for labeling most, if not all, captive _G. rosea_ as hybrids between any number of species.

All this is complicated beyond redemption by the fact that no one has come up with a bullet proof definition of what a "species" really is, so whether we consider _G. rosea_ to be one, two, or even seven species depends almost exclusively on a very loosey-goosey definition and a lot on somebody's personal opinion. And that, in turn, can be largely defendant on how much money, self esteem, or reputation is at stake.

There's not enough meat in that hamburger. I'm not buying it.


----------



## Autumnvicky (Jun 13, 2009)

Size reference picture, I'll post more pictures of her when I can find my camera. *darts off to find it*


----------



## cacoseraph (Jun 13, 2009)

er, the point of all the good posts is that we won't actually know what species you have



but, as i said... if someone wants to get me those papers i would be happy to break it down and post it up


----------



## Stan Schultz (Jun 13, 2009)

It is normally considered bad form for a poster on such lists as these to respond to their own postings, but I think I need to anyway. I drawn your attention to the following except:



Pikaia said:


> ...
> 2. For the last several years some hobbyists (mostly in the European contingent, but there are a few supporters in North America as well) have held the opinion that what we are calling _G. rosea_ in the hobby is really three different species, although any big-name taxonomists who have bothered to look at the issue are remarkably quiet on the matter. ..."


This is not entirely true. Over the last decade and a half or more G. Schmidt has addressed some of the issues associated with the proper placing of this species in the grand scheme of things, and he needs to be mentioned, if not commended, for his efforts.


----------



## Londoner (Jun 14, 2009)

One of the more reputable importers over here in Britain is absolutely convinced that RCF and NCF G. rosea are two seperate species...NCF= G. porteri and RCF= G. rosea. He claims their habitats are miles apart and the RCFs are less bulky and don't get as large. Apparently NCF has been sold wrongly for the last decade as G. rosea. He claims untill the new paper on the classification of Chilean tarantulas is published, they're labeled NCF and RCF to keep the two species apart :? . Who knows? Guess I'll continue to call mine G. roseas untill this paper appears.


----------



## gvfarns (Jun 14, 2009)

Londoner said:


> One of the more reputable importers over here in Britain is absolutely convinced that RCF and NCF G. rosea are two seperate species...NCF= G. porteri and RCF= G. rosea. He claims their habitats are miles apart and the RCFs are less bulky and don't get as large. Apparently NCF has been sold wrongly for the last decade as G. rosea. He claims untill the new paper on the classification of Chilean tarantulas is published, they're labeled NCF and RCF to keep the two species apart :? . Who knows? Guess I'll continue to call mine G. roseas untill this paper appears.


If there's a reclassification, this discussion board will be among the first to know.  Witness all the people calling Chacos G Pulchripes.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Jul 9, 2009)

Londoner said:


> One of the more reputable importers over here in Britain is absolutely convinced that RCF and NCF G. rosea are two seperate species...NCF= G. porteri and RCF= G. rosea. He claims their habitats are miles apart and the RCFs are less bulky and don't get as large. Apparently NCF has been sold wrongly for the last decade as G. rosea. He claims untill the new paper on the classification of Chilean tarantulas is published, they're labeled NCF and RCF to keep the two species apart :? . Who knows? Guess I'll continue to call mine G. roseas untill this paper appears.


I realize that this comment is very late, but upon reviewing some of my posts I decided it deserves mention.

In the wonderful, wild, weird, wacky world of tarantula taxonomy location and color, by themselves, do not a new species make. 

"Show me the beef!"

"There's not enough meat in that hamburger. I'm not buying it."


----------



## Sathane (Jul 9, 2009)

What the?!  I wouldn't listen to a word that person has to say.  

My cat is actually a rare dwarf lion species.  I don't have any documentation to prove this because the paper just hasn't been published yet but, when it gets published, you will all see....  




Londoner said:


> One of the more reputable importers over here in Britain is absolutely convinced that RCF and NCF G. rosea are two seperate species...NCF= G. porteri and RCF= G. rosea. He claims their habitats are miles apart and the RCFs are less bulky and don't get as large. Apparently NCF has been sold wrongly for the last decade as G. rosea. He claims untill the new paper on the classification of Chilean tarantulas is published, they're labeled NCF and RCF to keep the two species apart :? . Who knows? Guess I'll continue to call mine G. roseas untill this paper appears.


----------



## Drachenjager (Jul 12, 2009)

Autumnvicky said:


> When I bought my Rose hair tarantula they labeled her 'Rose Hair' and never gave me a scientific name. I heard the scientific name is changed now and then. I'd like to get Matika a boyfriend but it'd be easier if I knew the scientific name to look for. I don't want to accidentally get the wrong species.
> 
> Which is which? What's the difference between them?


MAtika ? seriously? ROTFLOL that cracks me up


----------



## endoflove (Jul 12, 2009)

*lol*

at my pet store there is an old tang from... idk the date bat the rose hair is G. cola yes like the soda!!!!


----------



## Rhodin (May 8, 2013)

Yes this is a necro, and I know someone will give me a hard time about it but instead of creating a new thread about an issue I thought I might just bump this one in search of an answer. Surely over the past 3+ years someone must have decided if the "NCF roseas" are g. porteri or not. I understand the title of the thread is about G.cala which I know to be inaccurate but me and a friend have had a debate and he insists that RCF g.rosea is the true g.rosea and the NCF are G.porteri. Any and all help is appreciated
-Rhodin


----------



## Stan Schultz (May 9, 2013)

Rhodin said:


> Yes this is a necro, and I know someone will give me a hard time about it but instead of creating a new thread about an issue I thought I might just bump this one in search of an answer. Surely over the past 3+ years someone must have decided if the "NCF roseas" are g. porteri or not. I understand the title of the thread is about G.cala which I know to be inaccurate but me and a friend have had a debate and he insists that RCF g.rosea is the true g.rosea and the NCF are G.porteri. Any and all help is appreciated
> -Rhodin



Short answer: No. Sorry.

Long answer: For the last decade or more I have been telling people that the various color forms of Chilean rose (as commonly understood) were all the same species based on three reports that I had received of people who had had eggsacs hatch. These three people reported that all three color forms (by whatever alphabet soup we labelled them) had come from each eggsac. If this is true, there are only two possibilities to explain the fact:

1) All three color forms are merely variants of _Grammostola rosea_.

2) The various colored offspring were in fact the results of hybridization (at least generation F2 or greater) between more than one distinct species, either in the wild or in captivity.

One April 1, 2013, Craig McInnes sent me an E-mail asking for more data on this topic. (Strangely, it was April Fools Day!) I attempted to track down those original three enthusiasts. However, one (Dr. Robert Gale Breene III) was deceased. I couldn't locate another, and the third couldn't remember.

Two other enthusiasts who had been blessed with eggsacs reported that only one color had arisen from theirs.

I've posed queries on a couple of forums for more data. But, as usual got no responses.

So, as best I can tell, the jury is still out on that one. And, *cacoseraph* was correct: We need to wait until someone takes a serious look at the genus as a whole, complete with DNA typing.

*Platnick* lists at least 20 species of _Grammostola_ scattered over most of South America (the northern tier of coastal countries being about the only exceptions). Because of this, an in-depth treatment of the genus is not likely to be an easy chore, based on the ordeal Brent Hendrixson and his lab is experiencing with the 54 nominal species of _Aphonopelma_ in the USA.

We peons can only sit, hold our breath, and wait for the big time taxonomists to do their thing.


Enjoy your little 8-legged *WHAT IS THAT?*


----------



## Rhodin (May 10, 2013)

Pikaia said:


> Short answer: No. Sorry.
> 
> Long answer: For the last decade or more I have been telling people that the various color forms of Chilean rose (as commonly understood) were all the same species based on three reports that I had received of people who had had eggsacs hatch. These three people reported that all three color forms (by whatever alphabet soup we labelled them) had come from each eggsac. If this is true, there are only two possibilities to explain the fact:
> 
> ...


Well thank you very much, I can't say that it was the exact reply I was hoping for but I'm glad you took the time to type it out for me. Hopefully one day we'll be able to sort out every genus and people can have papers for their Ts much like people do for dogs


----------



## Hydrazine (May 11, 2013)

Sadly, the Grammostola genus, like a lot of arachnids, is not considered "cute" for the main bulk of human population, nor endangered, medically significant or with any other significance except for the hobby, hence its research (read research FUNDING) is not prioritized. I'm afraid the rest of the world can't understand the importance of taxonomy in the hobby like we do and there are less and less people in the world who'd do it FOR SCIENCE! or because they are interested in the subject themselves..and those who do have trouble getting a grant for it for the aforementioned reasons.

Guess we have to wait till an AB or other website member (or members) lose patience, get a degree in the proper field and do it themselves  (or raise children who do so)


----------



## netr (May 11, 2013)

A cursory search on the following didn't turn up a great deal, although the search process on this site is an art to be honed. It would be interesting to read some confirmed reports from anyone (from hobbyist to breeder to arachnologist) on having ever 'crossbred' G. rosea colour forms (if indeed there are colour forms, rather than, as Stan has earlier suggested, individuals variously spanning a certain range of colouration), and of course on the resulting offspring. I'm not what you'd call scientifically educated and can't pretend the remotest expertise on the subject of tarantula classification and taxonomy, so I scarcely feel entitled to any judgement on this at all. But for what it's worth (and here I pass the point of having any idea what I'm talking about) I'd feel more comfortable about the forms representing the same species if we observed more such colour variation among tarantulas in general. Like everyone else, I'd love to know what's special about G. rosea!

I recently bought a subadult male rose (and a lovely fellow he is too) to pair with my female when the time comes. Purchased as a subadult from a pet shop a decade ago, I'm going to guess she wasn't the result of captive breeding. The handsome new stud, bought on my behalf from an expo, who knows. Without complete certainty about either individual there's nothing useful to the issue to be gained from the breeding, but all the same, since they're both 'NCF', I'll be very interested to see what (if anything) crawls out of the sac.


----------

