# Theraphosas size



## kevin1995 (Jul 8, 2010)

Hello all!

I have recently picked up the interest in Theraphosa blondi and was wondering which Theraphosa grows the most.

Also I want to know how fast these beasts grow compared to each other.

Thanks for looking!

-Kevin


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

kevin1995 said:


> Hello all!
> 
> I have recently picked up the interest in Theraphosa blondi and was wondering which Theraphosa grows the most.-Kevin


The biggest ones that *I* have seen are T. sp. burgundy/Guyana.  ( I think Robc has one that is like 14 inches or something crazy)  Although most people new to the hobby haven't seen a real _T. blondi_



kevin1995 said:


> Also I want to know how fast these beasts grow compared to each other.Kevin


I doubt there has ever been a study witch one grows the fastest in nature and in captivity to many variables can change things (exp. temps, food intake, ect...)





kevin1995 said:


> PS. I am interested in buying T. blondi females or slings so PM me!
> 
> -Kevin


Hi Kevin, most likely the only ones you will find for sale are _Theraphosa_ sp. "Burgundy/Guyana" , Evan if the seller has them labeled as Theraphosa blondi

Later, Tom


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Well there are only two species in the genus: T. Blondi and T. Apophysis. In terms of size at maturity, I'm pretty sure T. Blondi are usually larger and stockier. (I'm sure there are exceptions). The T. Apophysis is relatively rare though and you may have a tough time finding one. In terms of growth rates you wouldn't notice a difference between them. If you pick them up as slings they should molt about 3 to 4 times a year and grow in size considerably with each molt. Then they will slow down to maybe once or twice a year when they become sub adults. I'd say grab a T. Blondi, they are cool tarantulas. I picked mine up as a sub adult (5-6) inches and it has already molted once in the 7 months or so I've had him.


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

Its 3 species



The Mack said:


> Well there are only two species in the genus: T. Blondi and T. Apophysis. In terms of size at maturity, I'm pretty sure T. Blondi are usually larger and stockier. (I'm sure there are exceptions). The T. Apophysis is relatively rare though and you may have a tough time finding one. In terms of growth rates you wouldn't notice a difference between them. If you pick them up as slings they should molt about 3 to 4 times a year and grow in size considerably with each molt. Then they will slow down to maybe once or twice a year when they become sub adults. I'd say grab a T. Blondi, they are cool tarantulas. I picked mine up as a sub adult (5-6) inches and it has already molted once in the 7 months or so I've had him.


----------



## CAK (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk said:


> Its 3 genuses


That's your response?!?  That was helpful!  :?


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

_Theraphosa apophysis_, _Theraphosa blondi_, _Theraphosa sp_. "Burgundy"


----------



## J.huff23 (Jul 8, 2010)

That would be three species, not three genus.


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

J.huff23 said:


> That would be three species, not three genus.


He he yeah


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Actually, that third species is controversial. There is no present scientific evidence to support that "Theraphosa Sp. Burgundy" is actually a separate species from Theraphosa Blondi.


----------



## Ms.X (Jul 8, 2010)

J.huff23 said:


> That would be three species, not three genus.


Correct, it would be three _species_.  Also, the plural of genus is _genera_


----------



## kevin1995 (Jul 8, 2010)

Oh haha thanks for the help

I read other posts on "Bugundy" and blondi and now I know hairs mean blondi 

Do anyone have a true blondi/apophysis?


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Actually, that third species is controversial. There is no present scientific evidence to support that "Theraphosa Sp. Burgundy" is actually a separate species from Theraphosa Blondi.


I wouldn't say its controversial at all.  With the exception of a few stubborn people its pretty well accepted that there is a 3rd sp. in the hobby.  The scientific evidence may not have been published yet , or it might be published under a whole different genus all together.  Regardless its still a 3rd sp.

Later, Tom


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

It most definitely is controversial. Have a look at this thread: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=169928

I would say there are more than "a few stubborn people" who feel the same way I do about it. Also, scientific evidence is everything when it comes to such things as classifying species. You can't just go on your own personal hunch or  because it is widely accepted in the hobby. 


- -wait, I see that you've already chimed in on that thread Philth and said yourself that you can't determine whether or not they are different species. I agree that they might look different, but I honestly think that this is more likely to be variation within the same species.


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

They already have a name for the 3rd specie that will be official soon.


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> It most definitely is controversial. Have a look at this thread: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=169928
> 
> I would say there are more than "a few stubborn people" who feel the same way I do about it. Also, scientific evidence is everything when it comes to such things as classifying species. You can't just go on your own personal hunch or  because it is widely accepted in the hobby.
> 
> ...



Actually what i said in that thread is "_Either way I would label them different. They look like different spiders to me, anybody disagree_ ?"  

Most of the people in that thread who believed they were the same , think different now.  Those 2 spiders are different from s'lings to adults.  Even if they were the same and just regional variants, why would you mix them?  (ex. panther chameleon breeders keep localities seperate even though they are the same sp.)

Why is it ok for you to label them the same when its just your "personal hunch"?   

I've beat this horse too many times

May God help the future of captive bred Theraphosa sp.:wall:

Later, Tom


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> It most definitely is controversial. Have a look at this thread: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=169928
> 
> I would say there are more than "a few stubborn people" who feel the same way I do about it. Also, scientific evidence is everything when it comes to such things as classifying species. You can't just go on your own personal hunch or  because it is widely accepted in the hobby.
> 
> ...


They are different just look at the sperathecae.
Why would ex: Rick West give them a name (spinipes) if they where exactly the same specie as the _T. blondi_????


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

I wouldn't label them the same because of my personal hunch - I would do so because there is lack of scientific evidence that would justify doing otherwise. YOU are the one taking the leap of faith here and acting on a personal hunch by making the claim that "Sp. Burgundy" is a separate species.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 8, 2010)

Uh, he's not. This has been brought up before; it does have a as yet unpublised species name, and the distinguishing characteristic is lack of hairs on the patella. I would consider that a stronger difference than T. apophysis juvenile pink stripes (and then mostly just in slings/juvies). Ergo, I would consider this a good arguement for sp. Burgundy being a separate species.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

A lack of hairs on the patella is hardly means to classify it as a new species.  Under that logic, it is okay to consider bald people a separate species than those who retain their hair


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I wouldn't label them the same because of my personal hunch - I would do so because there is lack of scientific evidence that would justify doing otherwise. YOU are the one taking the leap of faith here and acting on a personal hunch by making the claim that "Sp. Burgundy" is a separate species.


There are to many differenties for them to be the same specie.
Spermatechae, patella setae and tarsus/metatarsus.

Have you even looked at the pictures?


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I wouldn't label them the same because of my personal hunch - I would do so because there is lack of scientific evidence that would justify doing otherwise. YOU are the one taking the leap of faith here and acting on a personal hunch by making the claim that "Sp. Burgundy" is a separate species.



haha Settle down, nobodys taking leaps of faith here.   There is a lack of scientific evidence becuase it hasnt been published yet.  But the evidence *is* out there, do some research.  I don't think there has ever been a scientific paper showing the differences in _T.blondi_ and_ P.regalis_, so are they the same too?


Good luck with your future breedings.

Later, Tom


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Lol  I'm calm trust me. And believe me I HAVE done the research and I have come to the conclusion that as of now, the evidence is NOT out there. It really boils down to truly understanding the definition of a species: _A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring._

A T. blondi and P. Regalis, aside from looking very noticeably different, come from different continents and don't encounter each other in the wild. Nor have they ever been successfully mated with surviving offspring. There really would be no need to publish a paper to prove that they are separate species. 

The T. Blondi and "Sp. Burgundy" however, come from regions relatively close to each other, are not strikingly different in appearance and I think that its very likely you would get surviving offspring if you were to mate a "burgundy" and a blondi. But until these studies are done and published, the fact remains that officially there are only two species in the genus.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Lol  I'm calm trust me. And believe me I HAVE done the research and I have come to the conclusion that as of now, the evidence is NOT out there. It really boils down to truly understanding the definition of a species: _A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring._
> 
> A T. blondi and P. Regalis, aside from looking very noticeably different, come from different continents and don't encounter each other in the wild. Nor have they ever been successfully mated with surviving offspring. There really would be no need to publish a paper to prove that they are separate species.
> 
> The T. Blondi and "Sp. Burgundy" however, come from regions relatively close to each other, are not strikingly different in appearance and I think that its very likely you would get surviving offspring if you were to mate a "burgundy" and a blondi. But until these studies are done and published, the fact remains that officially there are only two species in the genus.


So the fact that Rick West has identified this as a different species in this genus is not enough for you? The name is going to be established very soon... What I don't understand is where you are coming from, bald people, was a very unapplicable analogy. Aside from that, the factors that establish one species as different from the next are evident. There is the spermathecae, hair/lack of on the patella, different coloration from sling to adult and from what I understand even the mating "dance" is different. You are going to have to define for all of us what constitutes a different species in your book, because by the notion that you seem to be functioning with, you had better go out there and start correcting everyone about all of the "different" species that 'look the same', or have very little differences, and live within proximity of one another. To refer back to the thread, they all acheive roughly the same size. In my limited experience with T. blondi, they seem to become MUCH more bulky than the T. apophysis, whereas the T. sp burgundy seems to get very bulky as well. The T. apophysis has been the largest spider I have ever seen IRL as far as legspan, I saw one at 12", biggest burgundy I've seen was 10" and I've only seen a few blondi, nothing bigger than 8", although they get much larger.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

It's actually not that difficult to comprehend Crows Arachnids. My example of bald people was perfectly applicable. If you (or Rick West for that matter) are going to claim that sp burgundy is a separate species just based on these observations of physical differences (like lack of hair on the patella) then I can also claim that a person who exhibits no hair on their head must be another species than people who do have hair on their head. "My" definition of species is the same as the scientific definition, lol I already stated it in my previous reply here:  "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."

As far as what you said here: . . "You are going to have to define for all of us what constitutes a different species in your book, because by the notion that you seem to be functioning with, you had better go out there and start correcting everyone about all of the "different" species that 'look the same', or have very little differences, and live within proximity of one another."

My point was simple. Philth gave the example of T. Blondi and P. Regalis. I pointed out that there has never been any question whatsoever that these are separate species, but a big part of that is because they live in different parts of the world and NEVER HAVE MATED OR PRODUCED LIVING OFFSPRING.

There _has_ been question however regarding the T.blondi and "Sp. Burgundy" on the other hand, because they LOOK SIMILAR AND COME FROM THE SAME PART OF THE WORLD. Therefore, it is much more likely that they are variations within the same species than would be T. Blondi and P. Regalis.

Why is that difficult to understand?


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack: The _Theraphosa sp_. "Burgundy" has been studied for years and of course not only on how they look on the outside.

But a diffirent looking speratechae speaks for it self dont you think???
If _Theraphosa blondi_ and _Theraphosa sp._ Burgundy where exactly the same specie explain the spermatechae.


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

Alright haha, Maybe _P. regalis_ was a stupid example.  But I don't think every large brown spider from south America should be labeled as _T. blondi._  As Falk pointed out , there are other differnences , besides the patella hair.

Later, Tom


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> It's actually not that difficult to comprehend Crows Arachnids. My example of bald people was perfectly applicable. If you (or Rick West for that matter) are going to claim that sp burgundy is a separate species just based on these observations of physical differences (like lack of hair on the patella) then I can also claim that a person who exhibits no hair on their head must be another species than people who do have hair on their head. "My" definition of species is the same as the scientific definition, lol I already stated it in my previous reply here:  "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
> 
> As far as what you said here: . . "You are going to have to define for all of us what constitutes a different species in your book, because by the notion that you seem to be functioning with, you had better go out there and start correcting everyone about all of the "different" species that 'look the same', or have very little differences, and live within proximity of one another."
> 
> ...



You know, I personally am ashamed of myself for wasting my time and contributing to your destruction of this thread. You are assuming that the only difference here is the hair, that is not so, go back and research again, as for the factorS (note the "s") that constitute this as a different species as far as Rick West is concerned, which I will humbly defer to him, for the sake of credibility and the fact that he has done FIRSTHAND study on this tarantula, rather than using bald people to provide retort for an opinion. As far as your analogy is concerened, because hair is not, alone, the riding factor for determining this is a different species, it is, by any standard, UNapplicable, if in fact, the hair was the only factor, it would still fail to command reason. You are asking me why it is difficult to understand? Is that a joke? An insult of intelligence? I was trying to be polite, instead of saying you are mistaken, I merely asked you to 'justify' your point of reason, beyond what you had done so far, which has proven to be weak. Are you a member of BATS? Feel free to PM me your response as you have derailed this thread enough. I would encourage you not to demonstrate such a predetermined attitude of being all knowing and assuming that us mere humans don't understand, it doesn't look good for you. In the end, I merely defer to the information I have been relayed from individuals with established mode of study in this community, aside from physical appearance of the two tarantulas in question, and a few other characteristics, I, on a personal basis, do not posess the knowledge in depth. If you do, aside from arguing it, prove it.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

lol again, you have missed the point. Don't be ashamed of yourself, just get your facts straight. I never said that hair was the only factor here in determining the species apart from the blondi, YOU did. If you were paying closer attention you would have seen that earlier in this thread, PhobetoPhile stated "the distinguishing characteristic is lack of hairs on the patella." That is why I merely used this as a specific example to show that you cannot determine/define a species simply based on these physical characteristics.

Here is another example so that you might better understand the concept of a species. . think about dogs. One might be inclined, from first glance, to consider a chihuahua a separate species than a greyhound. They have drastically different sizes, colors, different coarseness of hair, temperament, etc. But in fact they are members of the same species (all dogs are) and if you were to mate the two you would end up with living offspring as a result. Of course, they are justifiably labeled and priced differently on the market but they are NOT DIFFERENT SPECIES. 


"If you do, aside from arguing it, prove it."   

You've got it all wrong, YOU have to prove to ME that it is a separate species. I don't have to prove anything because the scientific evidence already supports my stance! The evidence does NOT support your stance.

I don't think I'm going to waste any more time trying to explain this to you. I'm not trying to come off as being "know all" but I do know a fair amount when it comes to science and biology. I have an open mind and I am not saying that it is impossible that they are different species. . but I AM saying that there isn't any sufficient evidence to support it. Deal with it.

 I just hope that my information helps the original poster to at least think for himself a bit when he sees the T.Blondi and the "Sp. Burgundy" for $150 more!


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 8, 2010)

Well, we should probably at this point get around to answering the OP actual question. 

The current World Record holder is T. blondi (12 inches I believe). But then again, that's simply the largest RECORDED size.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> lol again, you have missed the point. Don't be ashamed of yourself, just get your facts straight. I never said that hair was the only factor here in determining the species apart from the blondi, YOU did. If you were paying closer attention you would have seen that earlier in this thread, PhobetoPhile stated "the distinguishing characteristic is lack of hairs on the patella." That is why I merely used this as a specific example to show that you cannot determine/define a species simply based on these physical characteristics.
> 
> Here is another example so that you might better understand the concept of a species. . think about dogs. One might be inclined, from first glance, to consider a chihuahua a separate species than a greyhound. They have drastically different sizes, colors, different coarseness of hair, temperament, etc. But in fact they are members of the same species (all dogs are) and if you were to mate the two you would end up with living offspring as a result. Of course, they are justifiably labeled and priced differently on the market but they are NOT DIFFERENT SPECIES.
> 
> ...



I'm knocking on wood. :? With your last statement, you have defeated yourself. Case closed. I'll let the other members on AB read the rest of the thread, perhaps someone else will take the time to teach you a few things.


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack: What kind of scientific evidence already supports your stance!

You did not answer my eariler question about the spermatechae. Besides that i put more trust in Rick West and his scientists more than i do in you.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk said:


> The Mack: What kind of scientific evidence already supports your stance!
> 
> You did not answer my eariler question about the spermatechae. Besides that i put more trust in Rick West and his scientists more than i do in you.


I agree. I am just amazed that this person thinks me an ingrate, and I'm sure, most of us. He has no scientific support aside from his own spouting and bald people (This, Mr. Mack was a joke, you need not explain to me that your analogy was not scientific in nature, but rather explaining to less intelligent, inferior people such as myself we cannot determine that something is 'different' based upon physical features). Be sure to listen to his words carefully when he explains that spermathecae has nothing to do with determining a difference between species, it will be of a high calibur of intelligence, pull out your dictionary, just in case. Perhaps he will grace us with a symphony of words that beautifully depicts truth through his eloquent use of analogies....


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk: It is the LACK OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. I am making no claims. . .therefore I don't need any evidence to prove anything to you. What I meant was, the scientific facts that exist now, pertaining to the genus Theraphosa, much more likely support that they are a single species, and that all of the differences between them (Including the "spermatechae") are the results of VARIATION and not determinants of being a separate species. You can place your trust in whomever you choose. . science has nothing to do with trust. 

It seems that you people are the stubborn ones! Why can't you just accept the SCIENTIFIC FACT that as of this point in time, they are A SINGLE SPECIES. The label "Sp. Burgundy" is at best a variation within the same species!


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

Lol yeah you could have saved Rick years of hard work by telling him that. 
-No need for changing from _T. sp_ "Burgundy" to _T. spinipes_ Rick, i have it all figured it out you see, they are similar in apperance so they must be same species despite all the differences.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk said:


> Lol yeah you could have saved Rick years of hard work by telling him that.
> -No need for changing from _T. sp_ "Burgundy" to _T. spinipes_ Rick, i have it all figured it out you see, they are similar in apperance so they must be same species despite all the differences.


I should also point out, that I believe he quoted Wikipedia for the definition of 'species'. Credit where credit is due I suppose, which is odd that he continues as it further goes into the other factors that establish one species different from the other. I saw an issue with that definition, as it was not encapsulative and used the term "often" and sure enough, Wikipedia was there for all to see. By the way, that was downright hilarious.


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk said:


> Lol yeah you could have saved Rick years of hard work by telling him that.
> -No need for changing from _T. sp_ "Burgundy" to _T. spinipes_ Rick, i have it all figured it out you see, they are similar in apperance so they must be same species despite all the differences.


lol

 @ The Mack , when the paper is published , will you believe its a different sp. or will you continue to label them as T. blondi ?

Later, Tom


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

But where are all the results of these "years of work" that he has done? If he has indeed done years of experimentation on them and found time and time again under controlled conditions that the tarantulas labeled as "Sp. Burgundy" and "T. Blondi" are NOT ABLE TO MATE and PRODUCE LIVING OFFSPRING then I will have no problem believing (it won't be believing because there is evidence to support it) that they are separate species.  If he had done this and published it, there would be no question that they are separate species and we likely wouldn't be having this conversation right now.. .

This isn't exactly a cut and dry issue in biology either. Sometimes the lines that divide species can be very thin, both in physical appearance and in genetic makeup (.ie subspecies). A quick google search yielded this article:

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

and guess what. .the first example is spiders! LOL 

Now at this point, I could say "I sure trust the science department at Cal Berkeley more than I trust you," but I'm going to take the high road


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> But where are all the results of these "years of work" that he has done? If he has indeed done years of experimentation on them and found time and time again under controlled conditions that the tarantulas labeled as "Sp. Burgundy" and "T. Blondi" are NOT ABLE TO MATE and PRODUCE LIVING OFFSPRING then I will have no problem believing (it won't be believing because there is evidence to support it) that they are separate species.  If he had done this and published it, there would be no question that they are separate species and we likely wouldn't be having this conversation right now.. .
> 
> This isn't exactly a cut and dry issue in biology either. Sometimes the lines that divide species can be very thin, both in physical appearance and in genetic makeup (.ie subspecies). A quick google search yielded this article:
> 
> ...


Oh mercy. So Brachypelma vagans and Brachypelma albopilosum are the same species folks, they have produced offsping together. I'm cutting to the chase, your personal definition of species, and the determining factors that divide them, are by any scientific evaluation, wrong. Of course, I am very dull witted, you might have to clarify for me, as I don't understand your complex English too well, your statement. Are you saying that if two tarantulas can produce offspring together, they are the same species? Please be patient with me, I'm a little slow.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

What's wrong with using the wikipedia definition for species? 

Pardon me for not having well worded definitions of everything in my head at all times lol 


And it is really funny to see how much faith you put into Rick West. It's great and cute that he's your hero and all, but at the end of the day as of right now they are still one species.  I'm not undermining him or any of his research, but I haven't seen a single reference to his work (in this thread or elsewhere) that convinces me otherwise.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> If he has indeed done years of experimentation on them and found time and time again under controlled conditions that the tarantulas labeled as "Sp. Burgundy" and "T. Blondi" are NOT ABLE TO MATE and PRODUCE LIVING OFFSPRING then I will have no problem believing (it won't be believing because there is evidence to support it) that they are separate species.


The Mack, This particular point doesn't hold water either. Take Blue-winged and Golden-winged warblers which hybridize extensively along overlapping ranges yet are distinct species. Nothing currently comes to mind- as I'm much lacking in detailed study of arachnids- but I'd almost bet theres an example of it somewhere.  Cheers,

Terry


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

So then the science department at Berkeley must have it all wrong then?

If you actually read the article you would have picked this up out if it:

"Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups—but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?

If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It’s not so surprising that these blurry places exist—after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

I have never heard about B. vagans and B. albopilosum successfully mating but honestly it doesn't surprise me. And yes, that would place them in the scientific "gray area" talked about in the article above. . they could scientifically be considered members of the same species or a subspecies. . .

I don't think you're slow or stupid. .but I do think that your reasons for labeling them as separate species are other than scientific.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> What's wrong with using the wikipedia definition for species?
> 
> Pardon me for not having well worded definitions of everything in my head at all times lol
> 
> ...


Now Rick is my hero? Wow, what I need in my life, is....you, I really need your awe inspiring insight of life, and how you read people so well. Perhaps you can make my spider business the greatest empire to ever grace commerce! Wikipedia, in all of my educational experience (Of course that hasn't done a lick of good, just look at me!), in even the high school setting is not acknowledged as a legitamate source of information, as time and time again they have misinformed their faithful fans, yes I suppose Wikipedia is your hero? You did take it's word after all. Not to say that it was entirely wrong, just that you quoted them, you need to cite your information.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Terry D - It does hold water. Just after you posted that I posted an article which refers to exactly this. It basically says that the rules of defining species aren't always concrete (as in the case with your warblers). . but indeed those warblers could all be considered subspecies and are much closer on the evolutionary tree than other birds. There are a few other things to consider: all of these gray area examples will be in species that have the same basic body structure (all tarantulas have a carapace, abdomen, etc. and all birds have wings, beak etc.) 

It isn't really surprising at all when you think about the way evolution works. These organisms are very close on the evolutionary tree and the line between some species will blur.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> So then the science department at Berkeley must have it all wrong then?
> 
> If you actually read the article you would have picked this up out if it:
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I read it. Please remember I am slow, so I got nothing from it (I'm glad you addressed you don't think I'm stupid, perhaps I'll believe that once you change your perspective of how you are responding to me). Funny now you are describing this as a "gray area", a minute ago it was, with the utmost bout of confidence, the same species if they can mate. I'm sorry, but what you need to do is go to all of the "Hybridization" threads and explain to those simple folk that there is no harm in doing so, because they are the same species so identification is not an issue.


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> What's wrong with using the wikipedia definition for species?
> 
> Pardon me for not having well worded definitions of everything in my head at all times lol
> 
> ...


No they are not one specie today, One is T. blondi and the other one is T. sp. "Burgundy"

*From another board*:



The T. sp. "Burgundy" species will become the 'new combination' of Theraphosa spinipes (Ausserer, 1871), 
transferred from Lasiodora to Theraphosa. Hope that satisfies your curiosity."

Where did you find this information?


I'm in correspondence with arachnologist Rick West (Canada). The complexity with a "new" undescribed Theraphosa has ben known for several years now...since 2007 as you regard to. 
And yes...This specie will soon be official

Hi Jens,

After a few e-mail changes with Rick West, he said it no longer has to be kept a secret, as some people in Europe has been making this wide known.


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

Alot of _Poecilotheria_ sp. can reprodice together as well as alot of the Mexican _Brachypelma_ sp, and _Psalmopoues_ sp,  ect... ect...

So these are all one sp. you say?  I'd love to check out your spider collection some time, you must have some interesting labels 

Again, if sp. "burgundy" was just a regional variant,   why would you mix them?  Think of _P.irmina_ and _P. cambridgei_.  Hybrids are already out there.  It would be a shame to loose the two sp. ( or color varients) we have now and end up with one mixed up mutt of a spider.

Later, Tom


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

The information was correct, feel free to look that definition up anywhere else you'd like. It isn't "My" definition as you put it. . ITS THE ACTUAL DEFINITION. How much more clear can that be!?!?

No need to cite my sources, this isn't a research paper. I simply used their definition because it was well-worded. You have done all of this arguing, but made not a single point. Here I am, defining things, linking to articles, posting quotes that support my stance. And you have done nothing to offer any evidence or information that supports your claims.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> The information was correct, feel free to look that definition up anywhere else you'd like. It isn't "My" definition as you put it. . ITS THE ACTUAL DEFINITION. How much more clear can that be!?!?
> 
> No need to cite my sources, this isn't a research paper. I simply used their definition because it was well-worded. You have done all of this arguing, but made not a single point. Here I am, defining things, linking to articles, posting quotes that support my stance. And you have done nothing to offer any evidence or information that supports your claims.


That is because I have no need to. You are downright mistaken, or, we ALL are, of course that must be the case, as you are clearly the only one who knows what he is talking about. I'm sorry, but I have made point after point after point, I need not link, nor quote, nor cite anything, you are free to challenge my statements and information by researching yourself. If you do not cite it, and yet relay it word for word, I'm pretty sure theres a word for that, of course I wouldn't know it, I'm sure you would


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

"Alot of Poecilotheria sp. can reprodice together as well as alot of the Mexican Brachypelma sp, and Psalmopoues sp, ect... ect..."

this proves the point I just made! Sure, alot of Poecilotheria sp. CAN reproduce together. . and guess what?? THEY CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES in a broad sense.  In the strict Biological definition, however, if they reproduce together in NATURE then they are considered members of the same species. The fact that different Brachypelma sp. have been successfully mated by humans doesn't mean that I would change my labels, but it is definitely something good and valuable to know.

As for your example, the different types of Poecilotheria and Brachypelma are a whole lot closer to each other in DNA makeup (hence all classified under Poecilotheria or Brachypelma) and it really isn't surprising that they can mate with each other.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk said:


> Hi Jens,
> 
> After a few e-mail changes with Rick West, he said it no longer has to be kept a secret, as some people in Europe has been making this wide known.


Falk, Thanks! I've been waiting to hear this but didn't want to jump the gun when describing my Theraphosa sp "Burgandy". I guess I can officially call it T. subspinipes......

Terry


----------



## Terry D (Jul 8, 2010)

oops, I meant Theraphosa spinipes


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> "Alot of Poecilotheria sp. can reprodice together as well as alot of the Mexican Brachypelma sp, and Psalmopoues sp, ect... ect..."
> 
> this proves the point I just made! Sure, alot of Poecilotheria sp. CAN reproduce together. . and guess what?? THEY CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES in a broad sense.  In the strict Biological definition, however, if they reproduce together in NATURE then they are considered members of the same species. The fact that different Brachypelma sp. have been successfully mated by humans doesn't mean that I would change my labels, but it is definitely something good and valuable to know.
> 
> As for your example, the different types of Poecilotheria and Brachypelma are a whole lot closer to each other in DNA makeup (hence all classified under Poecilotheria or Brachypelma) and it really isn't surprising that they can mate with each other.


This is beautiful. Attention my beloved tarantula community, Mack has arrived! Just when you thought you understood something, think again! If you think your Brachypelma vagans is a different species than your Brachypelma albopilosum, he will be there! If you think your Poecilotheria are different species from one another, he will be there! If you are ignorant enough to believe anything this man doesn't say, HE WILL BE THERE! "THE MACK" coming to a theatre near you!


----------



## Ms.X (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> NOT ABLE TO MATE and PRODUCE LIVING OFFSPRING then I will have no problem believing (it won't be believing because there is evidence to support it) that they are separate species.  This isn't exactly a cut and dry issue in biology either. Sometimes the lines that divide species can be very thin, both in physical appearance and in genetic makeup (.ie subspecies).


There are plenty of scientifically described/recognized species that are able to mate and produce living offspring aside from spiders.  Are you saying that lions and tigers are the same species?  

You continue to ask for proof, and you have been told that a paper is forthcoming, but it seems that even this will not satisfy you.  I have the feeling that once presented with the paper, you will continue to dismiss the findings and remain argumentative regarding the results.  

Obviously I know nothing of your background, but it seems that someone who is knowledgeable within this hobby would have been aware of previous successful hybridizing of specimens that were classified as being different species.  If you are qualified to provide some sort of valid, scientific opinion on this topic then I feel that you should have been aware of this information.

Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinions and ideas, and free to express them openly on this public forum.  I am not disputing that.  What I don't understand is where you get off dismissing what you've been told by more that one person whose knowledge on this subject is extensive and backed by experience...


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> There are plenty of scientifically described/recognized species that are able to mate and produce living offspring aside from spiders.  Are you saying that lions and tigers are the same species?
> 
> You continue to ask for proof, and you have been told that a paper is forthcoming, but it seems that even this will not satisfy you.  I have the feeling that once presented with the paper, you will continue to dismiss the findings and remain argumentative regarding the results.
> 
> ...


My original point exactly, just a bit fiestier! I love it! However, be warned, you have no idea what you are talking about, this is "The Mack" we are talking to here, we stand no ground.


----------



## Fran (Jul 8, 2010)

Tehe you go:
My biggest Theraphosa "sp"
(11")


PS: I did contact Rick myself, they are a diff sp, and will be out there in the next paper review. Wheter you want to believe itor not, well dude its  up to you.


----------



## Falk (Jul 8, 2010)

Fran: How long did it take for that stunning beast to reach that size? Dont know if its true but ive heard that they can reach 16cm in one year.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Ms X., it is pretty simple. I stated that there are only two species in the genus. As of right now, that is a scientific fact. 

I would of course not dispute a sound paper published by Rick West or any other Scientist/Biologist on this topic. That paper isn't out yet, and yet here people are just 100% positive that they are separate species. I'm sorry that I have developed an opinion about the subject that differs from most folks' here, but as you said I am free to express it and argue my points. 

And as for your example with the Lions/Tigers (Ligers) Crossbreeds (which I am fully aware of), it only supports my point further. Again, it isn't too hard to imagine Lions and Tigers being able to produce living offspring considering that they are  close on the evolutionary tree. Much closer than say, a tiger and a squirrel, which I think we can both agree would never mate  But, of course Lions and Tigers are considered different species because they do not mate in NATURE. In reality, and I said earlier in this thread, it can be very difficult to truly define a new species, especially in a situation like this.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Nice tarantula man! Looks just like my Blondi but bigger


----------



## Fran (Jul 8, 2010)

Falk said:


> Fran: How long did it take for that stunning beast to reach that size? Dont know if its true but ive heard that they can reach 16cm in one year.


Oh yeah,  Jmugleston sent me some babies that were  around 2 months old, and after 2 and  half months with me one of them (female)  was 4.25" 

This girl was sent to me already huge, an after 1 molt got ridiculously big .
She was feeding a lot...

Now I have a Blondi of around 4 to 4 and a half years old and shes over 10!
last molt was exactly 10".


----------



## Philth (Jul 8, 2010)

Fran said:


> PS: I did contact Rick myself, they are a diff sp, and will be out there in the next paper review.


Because it wasn't good enough when I told you ;P


I cant believe Im still posting here 

Later, Tom


----------



## Fran (Jul 8, 2010)

Philth said:


> Because it wasn't good enough when I told you ;P
> 
> 
> I cant believe Im still posting here
> ...



Hey hey hey! 
I was only very skeptical, and then I told you you were right.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Ms X., it is pretty simple. I stated that there are only two species in the genus. As of right now, that is a scientific fact.
> 
> I would of course not dispute a sound paper published by Rick West or any other Scientist/Biologist on this topic. That paper isn't out yet, and yet here people are just 100% positive that they are separate species. I'm sorry that I have developed an opinion about the subject that differs from most folks' here, but as you said I am free to express it and argue my points.
> 
> And as for your example with the Lions/Tigers (Ligers) Crossbreeds (which I am fully aware of), it only supports my point further. Again, it isn't too hard to imagine Lions and Tigers being able to produce living offspring considering that they are  close on the evolutionary tree. Much closer than say, a tiger and a squirrel, which I think we can both agree would never mate  But, of course Lions and Tigers are considered different species because they do not mate in NATURE. In reality, and I said earlier in this thread, it can be very difficult to truly define a new species, especially in a situation like this.


Now the snake treads a different path... searching for hapless victims no doubt. Last I remember it was, if they can successfully breed, they are the same species, you see, I knew it was my lack of intelligence, because now it seems like if they can mate they are closer on the "evolutionary tree", of course he isn't changing his definition, we all just did not understand him, when he issued it the first time.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (Jul 8, 2010)

Mack (The Knife!!!),
Okay. Just because two specific species _can_ produce offspring it doesn't necessarily make them any more related than already observed and certainly not the same species. As a matter of fact, unless that hybrid offspring are fertile there is not a reason to assume that they even remotely the same species. This is the problem with Brachy/Pokie/Liger hybrids. Yes they can produce young. No they aren't fertile. Hence, they are unique species that for that reason have not produced viable offspring in nature. Thanks for trying though. You really almost convinced me that lions and tigers were the same thing.


----------



## Fran (Jul 8, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Now the snake treads a different path... searching for hapless victims no doubt. Last I remember it was, if they can successfully breed, they are the same species, you see, I knew it was my lack of intelligence, because now it seems like if they can mate they are closer on the "evolutionary tree", of course he isn't changing his definition, we all just did not understand him, when he issued it the first time.


yes, it was your lack of inteligence Jhonathan... Now shut up and send me that big arse girl ;P ;P


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

*What?!*



x Mr Awesome x said:


> Mack (The Knife!!!),
> Okay. Just because two specific species _can_ produce offspring it doesn't necessarily make them any more related than already observed and certainly not the same species. As a matter of fact, unless that hybrid offspring are fertile there is not a reason to assume that they even remotely the same species. This is the problem with Brachy/Pokie/Liger hybrids. Yes they can produce young. No they aren't fertile. Hence, they are unique species that for that reason have not produced viable offspring in nature. Thanks for trying though. You really almost convinced me that lions and tigers were the same thing.


How can you defy The Mack?!! This is heresy! He is the established source of information for all reason, you shall stand to be convicted on the scales of justice for not believing tigers and lions are the same thing!


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

Fran said:


> yes, it was your lack of inteligence Jhonathan... Now shut up and send me that big arse girl ;P ;P


She is the most gravid thing to ever murk the dark corners of my shop! You'll never get her!  Some of those babies might have your name on their butts though (maybe they are a different species too!!!)!


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

"if they can successfully breed, they are the same species, you see, I knew it was my lack of intelligence, because now it seems like if they can mate they are closer on the "evolutionary tree", of course he isn't changing his definition, we all just did not understand him, when he issued it the first time."


Wow, Crows. You truly are pretty sad. IF THEY INTERBREED IN NATURE (IN OTHER WORDS NOT HUMAN SELECTIVE BREEDING), THEN THEY ARE THE SAME SPECIES!!!

After I posted the definition of species (which I was asked to do), people came up with examples of different species of brachypelma, etc. being able to mate and said that these were exceptions to the definition of species. I only went further to explain that this is not true because these only occur in instances of human selective breeding. I haven't once contradicted myself. I think that you are much more likely the snake here. . .


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> "if they can successfully breed, they are the same species, you see, I knew it was my lack of intelligence, because now it seems like if they can mate they are closer on the "evolutionary tree", of course he isn't changing his definition, we all just did not understand him, when he issued it the first time."
> 
> 
> Wow, Crows. You truly are pretty sad. IF THEY INTERBREED IN NATURE (IN OTHER WORDS NOT HUMAN SELECTIVE BREEDING), THEN THEY ARE THE SAME SPECIES!!!
> ...


Of course they are, I mean, you said so, after all, hiss.... All terms such as 'crossbreed' in reference to nature truly are irrealvent since they are the same species anyway, no? Hiss.... You were the one that pontificated here, my friend, hiss... Also, just hit "quote" and relay your statement, no need to cut and paste or retype, whichever it is you are doing, just want to help the all knowing, hiss.... I'm no snake... hiss...


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Holy poop on a stick. . .You people all twist my words and come up with your own deranged ideas about what I've said. I NEVER SAID THAT LIONS AND TIGERS ARE THE SAME SPECIES!!! Where did you get that ? lol

Mr Awesome, you bring up a great point about the fertility of the offspring also. . I didn't mention this, but it doesn't change or really affect what I've been saying this whole time either. If the Pokies/Brachypelmas produce offspring that are fertile, they can be scientifically classified as members of the same or a subspecies. I was simply showing that these examples like Lions and Tigers are very understandable given the theory of evolution. . .I mean jeez, we share 50% of our DNA with Bananas! Everything living thing is related to each other. .  But again, none of this is nullifying my point, only supporting it!! 

YOU PEOPLE ARE THE ONES CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE SEPARATE SPECIES IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO NOT INTERBREED IN NATURE!


----------



## kevin1995 (Jul 8, 2010)

Uhh guys this debate for whatever reason is not going to end soon so could we just stop this?

It's kind of getting rid of the actual reason why I asked this
But still thanks for all the infos


----------



## Ms.X (Jul 8, 2010)

Ok "Mack", if you would like some further education and information regarding this specific topic, please see this thread:
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=169928

Quite long, but full of very interesting information.  Perhaps you may change some of your opinions regarding this.  If not, that's fine, but maybe you'll at least gain a better understanding about where many of us are coming from.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Okay, "Ms. X," I guess you didn't notice that I have already referenced that thread earlier here and I have indeed read through it. There is nothing in that thread that supports the claim that they are separate species. Period.


----------



## Ms.X (Jul 8, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Okay, "Ms. X," I guess you didn't notice that I have already referenced that thread earlier here and I have indeed read through it. There is nothing in that thread that supports the claim that they are separate species. Period.


I just thought that had you read it, you would have read this post:
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1682697&postcount=57


----------



## The Mack (Jul 8, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> I just thought that had you read it, you would have read this post:
> http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1682697&postcount=57



I did read that post. . .

Originally Posted by Falk  View Post
"Some rumour says it will be named Theraphosa spinipes "

Where is this information coming from? 

Rumors are not proof. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Xian (Jul 9, 2010)

You'll probably come to find that 'Zoltan' and Rick West are fairly knowledgeable.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

The question at hand is not whether Rick West is knowledgeable about tarantulas, but whether or not they are two separate species. Rick West may have stated that believes so, but until his research is published and reviewed by his peers in the scientific community and made official, then the proof isn't there yet, and you can't make the claim yet.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

*sigh*

Mack - Species name isn't capitalized.  Someone of your intelligence level should know this.

Crows - I'm actually surprised (pleasantly) by your lack of species name capitalization. 

Mack again - You're wrong, whether you like it or not.  By claiming that T. blondi is the same as T. sp. "Burgundy", you're also claiming that H. incei and H. sp. "Rio Napo" or H. sp. "Norte de Santander" are all the same as well.  Wrong.

Re: Claiming that lions and tigers are the same species, or lack thereof.  What exactly is the difference between this claim and that B. vagans and B. albopilosum are the same?  You claimed that the two could scientifically be considered the same, so what's the difference?  Nobody's putting words in your mouth.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I did read that post. . .
> 
> Originally Posted by Falk  View Post
> "Some rumour says it will be named Theraphosa spinipes "
> ...


You obviously did *not* read the post, just the quote that Zoltan was responding to.  

Here's what Ms. X was referring to:



Zoltan said:


> That's right. Looks like _Theraphosa_ sp. "Burgundy Goliath" is actually what is currently known as _Lasiodora spinipes_ Ausserer, 1871. It was described by Anton Ausserer in 1871 and placed in the genus _Lasiodora_. In Rogério Bertani's revision of the genus _Lasiodora_, he will transfer this species to the genus _Theraphosa_. The abstract of this revision was published as long ago as 2007 (in "Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Arachnology in Sao Paulo, Brazil"). *That being said, technically the revision is still not public, and the "new" name should not be used until the whole revision is finally, officially published.* The original description starts with something like "the largest spider known to me".


Also:



The Mack said:


> YOU PEOPLE ARE THE ONES CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE SEPARATE SPECIES IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO NOT INTERBREED IN NATURE!


Even if they did hybridize in nature, they'd still be two different species.

I didn't notice...did you ever respond to the post(s) stating that T. blondi and T. sp "Burgundy" have differently shaped spermathecae?


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Mack - Species name isn't capitalized.  Someone of your intelligence level should know this.
> 
> ...



whether species is capitalized or not is again irrelevant to the question here. You all sure love to dance around the facts!  

First off I never claimed that lions and tigers are the same species. . .Nor did I claim that B. Vagans and B Albopilosum are the same either. I said that THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED SCIENTIFICALLY IN A BROAD SENSE AND ARE CERTAINLY VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER GENETICALLY AND EVOLUTIONARILY BUT NOT IN A STRICT BIOLOGICAL SENSE CAN THEY BE CONSIDERED THE SAME SPECIES. I explained already that the lines between species can be blurred, and  I said like ten times already, that if they mate in nature (without human interjection) then they are considered to be the same species. If you read the article I referenced, you would have picked that up and not misunderstood what I said.  

Fail.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> You obviously did *not* read the post, just the quote that Zoltan was responding to.
> 
> Here's what Ms. X was referring to:
> 
> ...


 -Umm, no. Where is your proof that they are two different species to begin with?? Hybridization doesn't even come into question yet LOL, you first need to prove that they are separate species!!! Until then, sorry to burst your bubble but they are not "hybridizing" they are just breeding. Members of the same species, breeding in nature, because that's just what they do


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

I bet you all cried too when Pluto was officially taken off the list of planets?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Mack - Species name isn't capitalized.  Someone of your intelligence level should know this.
> 
> ...


I was waiting for you to mosey on over here.


----------



## Xian (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> I bet you all cried too when Pluto was officially taken off the list of planets?


Not unless it was breeding with Uranus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> *I didn't notice...did you ever respond to the post(s) stating that T. blondi and T. sp "Burgundy" have differently shaped spermathecae?*


Should I do the all-caps thing next time if you don't respond this time?  Will that get your attention?



Crows Arachnids said:


> I was waiting for you to mosey on over here.


Should have sent me a PM! :}



Xian said:


> Not unless it was breeding with Uranus.


Ha!


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

Xian said:


> Not unless it was breeding with Uranus.


Lol I suppose I deserved that one


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Where is your proof that they are two different species to begin with??


Where is your proof that they're the same species?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Should I do the all-caps thing next time if you don't respond this time?  Will that get your attention?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its like a hyped up Halo player, who thinks not with strategy, but only with his gun. He has been purely on the offense and has neglected several points of discussion and questions, or overrode them, whichever seems more appropriate. I'm still waiting for the spermathecae reply, however I believe that the retort may have been, that nothing 'physical' has any weight, if they can breed, they are the same species, end of discussion, I could be wrong though. But sure try the caps thing, it might work.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx - I said it before, but don't worry I'll say it again. Capitalized, italics, I could even change the font for ya. . . But the facts will still remain the same 

The shape of the spermithicae are NOT a determinant in "burgundy" being a new species. A pit bull's head for example is very large and stout. . a Greyhound's is long and slender. Does this make them a different species? Can I claim that they are different species because of this?  NO

Nothing has changed here.   If it helps you sleep better at night to label that brown tarantula you have as a burgundy, then be my guest. It still doesn't make it a scientific fact.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Where is your proof that they're the same species?


ha, so I suppose I would also have to prove to you that the giant purple flying spaghetti monster didn't make the universe also? Well hey, I can't prove that he didn't, so it's a possibility that he made the universe right? LOL please, your logic is terribly flawed. YOU my friend are the one who needs to provide evidence because you are making a claim (that they are two separate species.) All the evidence points to the contrary - they come from the same areas, look the same, etc.  

People use the same argument for the belief in god(s). . "you can't prove that God _doesn't _exist" Of course I can't, but that doesn't justify a belief in god in the absence of evidence that he/she/it exists! 


But like I said I am not saying that it is impossible, it just seems unlikely at this point.


----------



## kylecchh (Jul 9, 2010)

Wow, this thread seriously went off topic. Instead of 'constructive' debate, how about we all just wait patiently until scientific documents are released? Although, I'd have to agree with visible differences in spermathecae appearance, it is quite likely that T. sp. "Burgundy" is indeed a different species. If papers aren't published at all, someone should consider donating a specimen and having it dissected to see if their is any other possible differences in terms of internals/anatomy. It's still a nice tarantula, nonetheless.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> xhexdx - I said it before, but don't worry I'll say it again. Capitalized, italics, I could even change the font for ya. . . But the facts will still remain the same
> 
> The shape of the spermithicae are NOT a determinant in "burgundy" being a new species. A pit bull's head for example is very large and stout. . a Greyhound's is long and slender. Does this make them a different species? Can I claim that they are different species because of this?  NO
> 
> Nothing has changed here.   If it helps you sleep better at night to label that brown tarantula you have as a burgundy, then be my guest. It still doesn't make it a scientific fact.


Once again, an unapplicable analogy. What gives you the right to even compare dogs to tarantulas and weave this web of distortion? I'll try the caps thing as well. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THEY ARE INDEED A DIFFERENT SPECIES? Which I find to be full of satire, your response when I brought this up in the first place. You say you have nothing to prove because you have no claim, let me remind you that you say these are the same species, this is contradictary to now common belief and the findings of Rick West and the like, that defines your statement as a claim, let's see the proof.


----------



## kylecchh (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> The shape of the spermithicae are NOT a determinant in "burgundy" being a new species. A pit bull's head for example is very large and stout. . a Greyhound's is long and slender. Does this make them a different species? Can I claim that they are different species because of this?  NO


Canidae is quite different in many terms from Theraphosidae, is there any 'insect' example of this? Just to see things in a slightly more relevant perspective.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

kylecchh said:


> Canidae is quite different in many terms from Theraphosidae, is there any 'insect' example of this? Just to see things in a slightly more relevant perspective.


I was thinking something along those lines...I don't believe tarantula genomes have between 25000-35000 genes in them (as dogs do), so the comparison is quite invalid.

Time for bed.  It'll be interesting to see how many pages this thread is when I wake up.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Once again, an unapplicable analogy. What gives you the right to even compare dogs to tarantulas and weave this web of distortion? I'll try the caps thing as well. WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THEY ARE INDEED A DIFFERENT SPECIES? Which I find to be full of satire, your response when I brought this up in the first place. You say you have nothing to prove because you have no claim, let me remind you that you say these are the same species, this is contradictary to now common belief and the findings of Rick West and the like, that defines your statement as a claim, let's see the proof.


Before I reply, can I please just give you a hug. You say you have a tarantula business. . I respect that, awesome. I'm not on this forum to make a bunch of enemies. Don't be bitter towards me and take this all personal, I'm just standing up for what I truly believe. 

That being said, please understand that the approach you are taking is flawed. My take is that they are one species because the evidence and common sense just suggests so to me. But this is not a "claim." Under the logic you are using, all of my non-beliefs would be "claims." I personally don't believe in ghosts either, so is my lack of proof that they _don't _ exist considered a claim? "Hey this guy Mack here, he Claims that Ghosts don't exist!" You wouldn't say that lol, but you WOULD say "Hey this Guy Mack here claims that Ghosts DO exist!"

The belief in ghosts (and the belief that these tarantulas are two separate species) are claims. . the absence of these beliefs are NOT claims.


----------



## sharpfang (Jul 9, 2010)

*Well Ben.....*



x Mr Awesome x said:


> You really almost convinced me that lions and tigers were the same thing.


Ligers & Tygons, are the same thing 
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gTJMEP-c2fo/ST5uk1XNyOI/AAAAAAAAIqs/AdKczcUlzCQ/s1600-h/liger.jpg

*Meow*


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

kylecchh said:


> Canidae is quite different in many terms from Theraphosidae, is there any 'insect' example of this? Just to see things in a slightly more relevant perspective.


The dog example is perfectly relevant, in fact you could virtually replace any organism that doesn't reproduce asexually and the point would still be valid. 
But, guess what, I already posted an example of this in SPIDERS, LOL what more could you ask for.

here is the example that I posted earlier in this thread. It is from the following article: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml

"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."

LOL just imagine, a group of disgruntled spider keepers, all thoroughly convinced that their Theridon grallator spiders are members of a different species, because they all look different. . .  

What is so darn hard to understand about this?


----------



## moose35 (Jul 9, 2010)

@ the mack    


 :barf:


  moose


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

moose35 said:


> @ the mack
> 
> 
> :barf:
> ...



I know, sometimes the truth can be nauseating. Right back at you, ya dirty old moose.


----------



## moose35 (Jul 9, 2010)

read this... the mack  
http://translate.google.com/transla...search?q=lasiodora+spinipes+sp+burgundy&hl=en


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

moose35 said:


> read this... the mack
> http://translate.google.com/transla...search?q=lasiodora+spinipes+sp+burgundy&hl=en


Cool, I get that there is a rumor that someone emailed Rick West and he said they are separate species so it must be so! 

Now you should read this, yes it is taken from Wikipedia:

*
Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
Main article: Species problem*

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[6]

Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:

    * Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
    * Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for various reasons.

The typical textbook definition above works well for most multi-celled organisms, but there are several types of situations in which it breaks down:

    * By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the relatively few parthenogenetic multi-celled organisms. The term "phylotype" is often applied to such organisms.
    * Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
    * There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
    * In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.
    * In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept.

Horizontal gene transfer makes it even more difficult to define the word "species". There is strong evidence of horizontal gene transfer between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes; and Williamson[7] argues that there is evidence for it in some crustaceans and echinoderms. All definitions of the word "species" assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false.


----------



## billopelma (Jul 9, 2010)

Mack, the only thing here that amazes me more than your total lack of understanding of taxonomy as it applies to theraphosids, is how self righteous you are about it. I and I’m sure many others have seen ‘your type of reasoning’ here many times and I can’t believe I’m getting sucked into this waste of time. You need to forget about what what you perceive as 'official' and all your generalized analogies, get some specific info on what the bottom line is here, Theraphosid Taxonomy. 

It's too cumbersome to address each misinformed point of yours so I will also generalize. I’ve been largely unsuccessful in trying to explain this to others in the past and I’m certain I’m oversimplifying but for what it’s worth…

  For one thing it’s all orders of magnitude more complex than you seem to imagine, I for one have been reading everything about T taxonomy I see (mostly within the confines of the forums) for the last five years and still only have a vague impression of how it works. 

Taxonomy is a very specialized field and most who are directly involved seem to be very specialized in what aspects of it they work in. Different types of organisms are classified using many different ways and what works for one won’t necessarily apply to another. These ways are not only fluid and continually changing but also are driven by in some part (as is most of academia) by internal politics that also have their own ebb and flow. 

 There are not necessarily hard and fast rules as to how things are classified but rather a continuing process that is agreed upon by ‘the powers that be’ with tools such as conferencing, publication and peer review. This applies to not only to things like defining a species by which physical characteristics should be considered but also whether entire philosophies such as phylogenic relationships should count at all. Within the community of professionals who do these things there is often much disagreement on the results of these processes, and ‘official’ results are constantly called into question. They are often overturned as new info becomes available, past info is discredited or maybe even because the power structure changes. Try doing some searches on terms like ‘traditional systematics’, ‘phylogenic systematics’ and ’cladistics’, combined with ‘theraphosid’. Unfortunately I’ve just found that most of my saved links are old and no longer work but here’s a couple (not specific to t's) that survived…

http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/fish_2/pdf/compleat_cladist.pdf
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html

Many researchers will hold off ‘leaking’ results premature to publishing as other parties can use it to complete their own competing work to leapfrog ahead and publish first. And by the time they’re ready to publish, more info has come to light that changes or further solidifies the whole thing, constantly rendering the work as never really finished. 
 Others will publish hastily so as to beat the competition or even just out of some professional/personal spite to ruin the others work. As a result this work can be of questionable quality and suffers under peer review but due to ‘politics’ is still more or less accepted until another proves otherwise. 
 What happens because of all this is that some work can take a long time from when pretty solid conclusions are made and when it goes public. Those in the know are well aware that it will inevitably become 'official' but when can be anyone's guess.

There used to be a lot more open discourse by some taxonomic heavy hitters here on the boards but that largely dried up due to these types of issues, definitely a bummer for those of us ‘non professionals’ for whom this was the best source. So now we must rely on info that passes down from those people with some direct connections, usually arriving much later than in the past. Just because it isn’t ‘official’, doesn’t mean it doesn’t count for anything, when you’re in this community for long enough you start to know who tends to have the good info and who doesn’t…

Also...
http://www.theraphosidae.cz/taxonomy/key-theraphosinae.htm

<edit> I just read mack's last post after the fact and of course now feel that some of mine has become redundant.
What I don't seem to get is that all this wiki stuff just seems to support others points and contradicts many of his. I get the impression he's learning a lot as he goes along here, which is a good thing....


Bill


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

billopelma said:


> Mack, the only thing here that amazes me more than your total lack of understanding of taxonomy as it applies to theraphosids, is how self righteous you are about it. I and I’m sure many others have seen ‘your type of reasoning’ here many times and I can’t believe I’m getting sucked into this waste of time. You need to forget about what what you perceive as 'official' and all your generalized analogies, get some specific info on what the bottom line is here, Theraphosid Taxonomy.
> 
> It's too cumbersome to address each misinformed point of yours so I will also generalize. I’ve been largely unsuccessful in trying to explain this to others in the past and I’m certain I’m oversimplifying but for what it’s worth…
> 
> ...


Nowhere in any of my responses have I demonstrated a "lack of understanding of taxonomy as it applies to theraphosids." Please feel free to be specific. No, I won't just forget about "what I perceive as official," I consider the theory of gravity official and I'm not budging on that either lol. 
I think it is you in fact that is being self righteous about your claims that they are different species, despite a lack of current scientific evidence to prove so.   I am aware of the efforts and debates that take place within the scientific community to classify species, and I am aware that it isn't always done with a cut and dry single process. Again, I never made this claim, you are putting words in my mouth.  

The truth is, everything you said in your post supports my point yet again. All of these obstacles would make it just as difficult to claim that they are a separate species than it would to take the stance that they are the same species.  I appreciate the articulate, well written reply, but the information you have given doesn't change anything here.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

Bill, please do explain exactly how "all this wiki stuff" is in support of others' points? Any specific examples? Better yet, how does it contradict my points?? If anything, this information, along with what you stated about the political problems that come into play when classifying new species, only show that it will be that much more difficult to prove that these are separate species. The only point I am making is that the blondi and "burgundy" are officially a single species, despite everyone's current claims here to the contrary. 

Not one person here has provided ample evidence, or even postulated theories or hunches on WHY they should be considered separate species (aside from differences in physical characteristics which should be clear by now is not a grounds to determine a new species). 

Another point I should make is that the "theraphosid taxonomy community" as you seem to be putting it, can't be that much different from other taxonomy communities. I'm not sure if your statement about how you have been on this forum "reading everything" for the past 5 years makes you a part of this taxonomy community?. . .Either way, we are ALL living organisms. Heck, we share some of our DNA with tarantulas (not sure how much), and 50% of it with bananas. I'm sure that classifying tarantulas can be a difficult and mysterious endeavor at times (perhaps here), but I'm willing to bet that more than often it is very simple. There are many tarantulas out there that I have NO QUESTION whether or not they are a separate species. These are tarantulas that not only often have different physical characteristics, but also are distinguished by other factors such as being geographically separated and possibly being observed in nature mating with other like tarantulas. In these cases it really only takes common sense to classify them as their own species. "Hmm . . .these tarantulas live in different parts of the world, they look very different, and I've seen them only mate in nature with eachother. . yup they are definitely a separate species." No Problem!

This case is different though, and no one here has addressed this. The blondi and "burgundy" both come from South America, in fact they come from neighboring regions. I'm willing to bet that you can find "blondis" and "burgundys" in Brazil, Suriname, French Guiana, etc. On top of that, they look strikingly similar and only some specimens have small physical differences (easily attributed to variation). Indeed the chances are, tarantulas with these differences have met in nature out in a hot steamy spot in Brazil or Suriname and interbred  And by definition then, they would be the same species because they interbreed in nature. 

The common theme here seems to be "Rick West said they are separate, so it must be so." The part that makes it even funnier is that the only source of information you all seem to have to support your claims is a paper that HASN'T BEEN PUBLISHED YET and NONE OF YOU HAVE READ!! LOL 

At least I am explaining WHY I think they are not separate species and I have plenty of information to choose from. I haven't learned anything along this conversation except that this forum seems to be full of people who can't think for themselves and instead hold sway to whatever has been told to them through internet rumors and forums. The only reason this argument began is because I stated there are two species in the genus, and someone tried to correct me and say there are three. The fact still remains, after all of this, that there are TWO.


----------



## Scourge (Jul 9, 2010)

It's not a new species because Rick West says so.

It's a new species because Bertani says so ;P

Well, OK, not a new species, but a new one in this genus at least (or will be in the future if it ever gets published, anyone know why it hasn't been yet?).


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Before I reply, can I please just give you a hug. You say you have a tarantula business. . I respect that, awesome. I'm not on this forum to make a bunch of enemies. Don't be bitter towards me and take this all personal, I'm just standing up for what I truly believe.
> 
> That being said, please understand that the approach you are taking is flawed. My take is that they are one species because the evidence and common sense just suggests so to me. But this is not a "claim." Under the logic you are using, all of my non-beliefs would be "claims." I personally don't believe in ghosts either, so is my lack of proof that they _don't _ exist considered a claim? "Hey this guy Mack here, he Claims that Ghosts don't exist!" You wouldn't say that lol, but you WOULD say "Hey this Guy Mack here claims that Ghosts DO exist!"
> 
> The belief in ghosts (and the belief that these tarantulas are two separate species) are claims. . the absence of these beliefs are NOT claims.



Before I reply. Yes, I own a spider business, that is beside the point though, as it should not effect the way anyone corresponds with anyone. Also, I don't get on here to make enemies and I don't take things personal, unless they are a personal attack. You are free to state your disposition on any matter that you desire, there is no need for you to worry about me being bitter. 


You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations! Your non-beliefs are indeed claims if they are contrary to common belief or fact, which your 'claim' indeed is. I thank you so much for using this analogy because it only solidified my point and I need not compose an analogy to help you see that it is your reasoning that is flawed. You are correct, the belief of ghosts are a claim, why? I'll tell you, because the existence of the metaphysical realm is not an established, nor proven concept of reality, thus, it is contrary to common belief or fact, and is indeed a claim, which will remain to be so until it is proven. On the other hand, if ghosts were considered part of common knowledge that they exist, the one who defies that and refuses to believe they exist is now making a claim that what everyone else sees is false (I use that example because that is what your driving point is). Why is this so? Due to the fact that your statement is contrary to common belief, not an opinion of mine, fact. I'm not going to sit here and play games with you anymore, or take another route and become aggressive about this, the fact of the matter is, by established common belief, authorities in this field, along with visable, major differences, your statement is not only a claim, but will stand to be wrong until all the factors that oppress your belief are obliterated. That means, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's possible, however I do not base that on your display of intelligence, truthfully you are a 'smart' guy but it is not only raw, it is definately misused, alas I'm pontificating, you don't want to hear that. By the notions that you are working with, our entire Theraphosid community is 'incorrect' in it's entirety, which I find to be a paradox, as someone mentioned in their post earlier, you are contradictary in your statements, and Wikipedia is in opposition to you, you denied this, sorry my friend, you are wrong, again. You are selecting minor excerpts and sentences that support your points, which are woven very weakly, however if you were to read on, you would see that even Wikipedia offers more insight to the matter and the end result is a matter of discretion. That being so, discretion has been established in this community, as it has in others, meaning that you will have to go all the way back, to 'the powers that be' and rectify this unsolidified matter, eliminate the gray areas, and unify the standards that govern taxonomy before you apply the unestablished principles of one situation and try to apply to another. My suggestion to you is to stop before you get further behind. You may not have to worry about me, but you have established yourself, in the very short time that you have wreaked your havoc on this thread as a very 'defined' person in many of these member's eyes, that 'definition' I will not begin to go through, but just to back my point up, I believe this barf was used in reference to you. I have lost interest in this thread and in your very skewed, one sided, no factors enclosed, way of thinking and handling yourself, so, I'm done. That means you are free to reply, but you will not receive one in return, but let's pray that you accept my advice as it was issued to help you, and it will. Cheers. 

 -Jonathan


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations! Your non-beliefs are indeed claims if they are contrary to common belief or fact, which your 'claim' indeed is. I thank you so much for using this analogy because it only solidified my point and I need not compose an analogy to help you see that it is your reasoning that is flawed.


You couldn't be more wrong. You see up until relatively recently, the tarantulas have been considered as part of the same species. I believe since the 1800s? Either way, it has been COMMON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND NOT BELIEF that they are members of the same species for much longer than this small community of people you interact with has believed them to be separate species. You can't just come along after all this time, and expect the species classifications to change just because it has recently become "common belief" in some online communities you participate in.  If you are going to make the CLAIM that they are separate, which goes AGAINST the long-standing established scientific knowledge that already exists, then you have to back up that claim with evidence. 



Crows Arachnids said:


> You are correct, the belief of ghosts are a claim, why? I'll tell you, because the existence of the metaphysical realm is not an established, nor proven concept of reality, thus, it is contrary to common belief or fact, and is indeed a claim, which will remain to be so until it is proven. On the other hand, if ghosts were considered part of common knowledge that they exist, the one who defies that and refuses to believe they exist is now making a claim that what everyone else sees is false (I use that example because that is what your driving point is). Why is this so? Due to the fact that your statement is contrary to common belief, not an opinion of mine, fact.


Wrong again. As you have stated, the non-belief in ghosts or any other similar spiritual entities cannot be considered claims because there lacks scientific evidence to prove the existence of these things. Guess what, you are currently lacking the scientific evidence to prove that these tarantulas are separate species, so you can't go around claiming that this is "common knowledge" or "common belief." How can it be common knowledge when there isn't a single reference you can point me to except for posts in internet forums riddled with misspelled words and incorrect grammar.  You want common knowledge? Take the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. You can test them a million times over, they will never fail; They have stood the test of time and endured rigorous experimentation by countless scientists. You can find TONS of information explaining these things in great detail. The claim that these tarantulas are considered separate species is just that, a CLAIM. There isn't a lick of evidence to support it. 

But once again, if you feel better labeling that brown tarantula as "sp. burgundy" rather than "blondi" then be my guest! This still doesn't make it a new species.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> You see up until relatively recently, the tarantulas have been considered as part of the same species. I believe since the 1800s? Either way, it has been COMMON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND NOT BELIEF that they are members of the same species for much longer than this small community of people you interact with has believed them to be separate species. You can't just come along after all this time, and expect the species classifications to change just because it has recently become "common belief" in some online communities you participate in.


So you're telling me the Earth is flat?


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> So you're telling me the Earth is flat?


where do you even pull this stuff out from? How did my statements in your quote even justify this as being used as an example? There is plenty of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out there to support that the earth is indeed round. But I'm sure that when the first scientists were starting to discover that it might be round, they had to PROVE it to all the people who had believed that it was flat! I'm sure they didn't just come along and say "Mr. X says the earth is round, so it must be so!" When Galileo claimed that the earth was not at the center of the universe (which went against popular thought at the time), he had PLENTY of evidence to support his claims. Once again you have nothing for evidence, and once again you fail at trying to poke holes in my statements.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

I don't need to poke holes in your statements, they're already full of them.  You're just too stubborn to see it, that's all.

Why are we even continuing this debate?


----------



## smallara98 (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> where do you even pull this stuff out from? How did my statements in your quote even justify this as being used as an example? There is plenty of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out there to support that the earth is indeed round. But I'm sure that when the first scientists were starting to discover that it might be round, they had to PROVE it to all the people who had believed that it was flat! I'm sure they didn't just come along and say "Mr. X says the earth is round, so it must be so!" When Galileo claimed that the earth was not at the center of the universe (which went against popular thought at the time), he had PLENTY of evidence to support his claims. Once again you have nothing for evidence, and once again you fail at trying to poke holes in my statements.


Joe is right . Ok , so you are not right . I am gonna have to be on Joe's side on this thread . Like you said earlier about the pitbulls head and the grey hounds or whatever . If a pit has a big nice royal head , and a grey hound has a long , slender , little head , it DOES mean they are different species . They have names for the Theraphosa genus for a reason . A blondi is most common from what I know . A aphoyphys (spelling?) is the least most common . The burgundy is blondi , except is different and is NOT a regular blondi . Someone correct me if im wrong about anything . I have been reading this thread and laughing at the comments Joe makes to you when you fail .


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I don't need to poke holes in your statements, they're already full of them.  You're just too stubborn to see it, that's all.
> 
> Why are we even continuing this debate?


My statements have holes? Please show me where and be specific. Everyone here is very good at being general but no one has quoted a single statement that I have made that was incorrect. 

Your approach however, has been to try and twist my words and use inapplicable analogies to try and nullify my overall point, which is that they are officially separate species.


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> My statements have holes? Please show me where and be specific. Everyone here is very good at being general but no one has quoted a single statement that I have made that was incorrect.
> 
> Your approach however, has been to try and twist my words and use inapplicable analogies to try and nullify my overall point, which is that they are officially separate species.




This is merely to state: I have been quoting you this whole time, and targeting specifics, go back and read.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> My statements have holes? Please show me where and be specific. Everyone here is very good at being general but no one has quoted a single statement that I have made that was incorrect.
> 
> Your approach however, has been to try and twist my words and use inapplicable analogies to try and nullify my overall point, which is that they are officially separate species.


Right...your dog comparison was quite applicable.

I'm showing you that no matter what analogy you use, there are many examples that do not make sense based on them.

You can think what you want, we'll think what we want.  When the paper comes out, it still won't be good enough for you, and that's your deal, not mine.

This is what you're saying, in a nutshell (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

"They are not two different species because there is no scientific evidence to prove it."

Is this correct?


----------



## Zoltan (Jul 9, 2010)

smallara98 said:


> I have been reading this thread


Have you?



smallara98 said:


> The burgundy is blondi , except is different and is NOT a regular blondi .


:? *head scratch*

I have not read every single post since the first page, will do later if I'm in the mood... ;P but keep it civil and respectful if you want it to continue (not directed at anyone in particular, but everyone in general).


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

smallara98 said:


> Like you said earlier about the pitbulls head and the grey hounds or whatever . If a pit has a big nice royal head , and a grey hound has a long , slender , little head , it DOES mean they are different species . They have names for the Theraphosa genus for a reason . A blondi is most common from what I know . A aphoyphys (spelling?) is the least most common . The burgundy is blondi , except is different and is NOT a regular blondi .


Wow. 



smallara98 said:


> Someone correct me if im wrong about anything . I have been reading this thread and laughing at the comments Joe makes to you when you fail .



LOL "someone correct me if im wrong"   OK, you are wrong in just about everything you posted. Pits and Greyhounds are members of the same species. . do some RESEARCH. 

"The burgundy is blondi, except is different and is NOT a regular blondi."  Huh? What are you even saying here lol


----------



## Falk (Jul 9, 2010)

smallara98;1694040common . The burgundy is blondi  said:
			
		

> :clap::clap:


----------



## smallara98 (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What im saying is the burgundy is listed blondi "Burgundy" because it looks like a blondi , except gets larger from what I have heard and different colors . They are the same on the inside and what not , but on the inside they arent . And when I said the pit and grey hound are different , whatever made you think they are related ? Grey hounds are skinny naturaly , fast , slick , and VERY inteligent . Pitbulls are muscular , not a fast breed of dog , just normal like a rottweiler or something , and smart . Both look different , and act different . Same with blondi , and burgundy . Except both look diferrent , but act the same .


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

Fantastic, Kirk is responding. I can't wait. Smallara, your typos are going to keep you the center of ridicule my little friend, please, use caution when typing on this forum.


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

smallara98 said:


> What im saying is the burgundy is listed blondi "Burgundy" because it looks like a blondi , except gets larger from what I have heard and different colors . They are the same on the inside and what not , but on the inside they arent . And when I said the pit and grey hound are different , whatever made you think they are related ? Grey hounds are skinny naturaly , fast , slick , and VERY inteligent . Pitbulls are muscular , not a fast breed of dog , just normal like a rottweiler or something , and smart . Both look different , and act different . Same with blondi , and burgundy . Except both look diferrent , but act the same .


Really, just stop posting.  You truly do not know what you're talking about.

Dogs are all the same species, regardless of breed.  Rats are, too.

Why not take all the advice you've been given over the last couple days.  Read more, post (a lot) less.


----------



## Kirk (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Cool, I get that there is a rumor that someone emailed Rick West and he said they are separate species so it must be so!
> 
> Now you should read this, yes it is taken from Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


The reality is that there are over 20 species 'concepts' that have been proposed. While Mayr's 'biological species concept' garnered the greatest popularity in the 20th century, by no means is there consensus among biologists.

I've offered a solution here:


> Fitzhugh, K. 2009. Species as explanatory hypotheses: Refinements
> and implications. _Acta Biotheoretica_ 57: 201–248.


----------



## smallara98 (Jul 9, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Really, just stop posting.  You truly do not know what you're talking about.
> 
> Dogs are all the same species, regardless of breed.  Rats are, too.
> 
> Why not take all the advice you've been given over the last couple days.  Read more, post (a lot) less.


Man im on your side and have been agreeing with you when I read everything you wrote , and this is what I get ? Ok . Thanks .


----------



## Zoltan (Jul 9, 2010)

Since the info about _Lasiodora spinipes_ was posted here, there's no harm in posting the whole abstract (or "preview") of Bertani's upcoming revision of _Lasiodora_. Published in the Proceedings of the XVII International Congress of Arachnology (2007, São Paulo, Brazil).

*Abstract of:* Bertani, R.: On the genus _Lasiodora_ C. L. Koch 1850 (Araneae, Theraphosidae) *(in prep.)*. 

The genus _Lasiodora_ comprises the largest spiders of Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest and is known for naturalists at least since 1641 when the Dutchman Albert Eckhout illustrated one specimen in Pernambuco, Brazil. It is one of the older theraphosid genera, being derived from the division of the genus _Mygale_ and included formerly six species. Ausserer, Bertkau, Thorell, Simon and Pocock described several new species, and in 1901 Pocock choose as type species _L. klugi_, from Bahia, Brazil and transferred several species for other new genera proposed by him. Other authors such as Strand, Chamberlin and Mello-Leitão contributed describing many new species. After the synonymy of _Crypsidromus_ with _Lasiodora_ in 1996, the genus has now 38 species and one subspecies, the majority described for Brazil (24). The genus is close to _Vitalius_, _Nhandu_ and _Proshapalopus_, differing by the presence of stridulatory bristles on the prolateral coxae of legs I-IV. In this study, six species are considered valid, all them distributed only in Brazil: _L. isabellina_ (synonyms: _L. benedeni_ Bertkau, _L. curtior_ Chamberlin, _L. differens_ Chamberlin, _L. cristata_ Mello-Leitão, _L. difficilis_ Mello-Leitão and _L. mariannae_ Mello-Leitão), _L. itabunae_ Mello-Leitão, _L. subcanens_ Mello-Leitão, _L. parahybana_ Mello-Leitão and _L. klugi_ C. L. Koch. A new species was detected and is described. _L. lakoi_ Mello-Leitão belongs to the genus _Megaphobema_ and _L. spinipes_ Ausserer to _Theraphosa_. _L. sternalis_ Mello-Leitão is a synonym of _Acanthoscurria gomesiana_ Mello-Leitão. The following species are considered _nomina dubia_, since the types could not be located and the descriptions are insuficient for allowing identification: _L. acanthognatha_ Mello-Leitão, _L. boliviana_ (Simon), _L. citharacantha_ Mello-Leitão, _L. cryptostigma_ Mello-Leitão, _L. dolichosterna_ Mello-Leitão, _L. dulcicola_ Mello-Leitão, _L. erythrocythara_ Mello-Leitão, _L. fallax_ (Bertkau), _L. fracta_ Mello-Leitão, _L. moreni_ (Holmberg), _L. pantherina_ (Keyserling), _L. pleoplectra_ Mello-Leitão, _L. saeva_ (Walckenaer) and _L. striatipes_ (Ausserer). Species from Central America and Venezuela will be transferred to other genera, mainly to _Hapalopus_ Ausserer.


----------



## smallara98 (Jul 9, 2010)

Crows Arachnids said:


> Fantastic, Kirk is responding. I can't wait. Smallara, your typos are going to keep you the center of ridicule my little friend, please, use caution when typing on this fourm.


Ok sorry . I totally should have rewrote that better


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

Kirk said:


> The reality is that there are over 20 species 'concepts' that have been proposed. While Mayr's 'biological species concept' garnered the greatest popularity in the 20th century, by no means is there consensus among biologists.
> 
> I've offered a solution here:


Beautiful.


----------



## kylecchh (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> The dog example is perfectly relevant, in fact you could virtually replace any organism that doesn't reproduce asexually and the point would still be valid.
> But, guess what, I already posted an example of this in SPIDERS, LOL what more could you ask for.
> 
> here is the example that I posted earlier in this thread. It is from the following article: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml
> ...


Yes, I noticed that quite a while ago skimming through this thread. Again, that really cannot be considered an accurate example for this matter. Simple phenotypes such as coloration do not give away to the enormous, clear genetic changes present in this discussion, at least with this kind of animal we’re talking about. It's quite obvious that those spiders you have shown do not possess such OBVIOUS differential characteristics such as setae missing, different sizing of appendages, overall reshaped body form, found in different locations in the wild, and a completely reformed appearance on certain INTERAL ORGANS which are all different traits present on the Theraphosa sp. “Burgundy” (Theraphosa spinipes) in comparison with Theraphosa blondi. Theridion grallator, it’s simply just coloration. Nothing else. With the species being discussed in this thread, it’s quite a bit more than just that. In regards with your dog comment, spiders have had an otherwise completely different evolutionary pattern and cycle than Canidae, as well as a bunch of other genetic differences that would be a PITA to go through right now, and see my comment below. As mentioned before, those genetic traits in dogs are more than likely very small in terms of genetics in effect to determine those characteristics, even though they have quite the massive effect on their overall physical appearance. In the case with an organism that is massively more basic in terms of genetic makeup, one change in one trait can affect the entire organism’s lively processes in numerous ways, just because of the less genomic sequences present in the organism. That’s why animals such as arachnids and insects are placed in different classifications with such minor changes to tell them apart. If this wasn’t the case, Therephosa blondi and Hysterocrates gigas would be in the same species/genus. 

But, you mention your statements are beliefs and not claims, which, I respect. To each his own, I presume. If they are your personal beliefs, even against such obvious scientific evidence, you should just ignore this thread, less stress and wasted time on your part.  I also agree, because of that, this thread should probably die down a little, this is waaay off the original question of what Theraphosa grows the largest.


----------



## Falk (Jul 9, 2010)

smallara98 said:


> What im saying is the burgundy is listed blondi "Burgundy" because it looks like a blondi , except gets larger from what I have heard and different colors . They are the same on the inside and what not , but on the inside they arent . And when I said the pit and grey hound are different , whatever made you think they are related ? Grey hounds are skinny naturaly , fast , slick , and VERY inteligent . Pitbulls are muscular , not a fast breed of dog , just normal like a rottweiler or something , and smart . Both look different , and act different . Same with blondi , and burgundy . Except both look diferrent , but act the same .


They are not listed as "blondis" but "Burgundys" and of course they are not the same on the inside, have you missed the posts about the spermatechae?
Dogs are the same specie but different breeds.

You also mentioned that _T. blondi _ is more common than the _T. apophysis_ so i wonder where? Where you live? The whole Us? The whole world? Species that are rare or not usual in the us are often very common in Europe.
Heck...i sold B. klaasi, E. campestratus, A. versicolor, L. polycuspulatus all adult females + 1.1 G. pulchra (17cm) in a total of 9 birdspiders and 190 bucks was the best offer i sold them for
Sry for OT


----------



## smallara98 (Jul 9, 2010)

Falk said:


> They are not listed as "blondis" but "Burgundys" and of course they are not the same on the inside, have you missed the posts about the spermatechae?
> Dogs are the same specie but different breeds.
> 
> You also mentioned that _T. blondi _ is more common than the _T. apophysis_ so i wonder where? Where you live? The whole Us? The whole world? Species that are rare or not usual in the us are often very common in Europe.
> ...


What does OT mean ? And I have never seen a aphoyphys (speeling again?) for sale around here , but have seen 1 burgundy (you could tell by the triangle on its head , and pink feet) , and about 3 blondi . Where you live , are aphoyphys common ?


----------



## xhexdx (Jul 9, 2010)

smallara98 said:


> What does OT mean ? And I have never seen a aphoyphys (speeling again?) for sale around here , but have seen 1 burgundy (you could tell by the triangle on its head , and pink feet) , and about 3 blondi . Where you live , are aphoyphys common ?


OT = on-topic or off-topic, depending on context.  In this case, it meant off-topic.

As for the rest of your post...:wall:


----------



## smallara98 (Jul 9, 2010)

Guys , I agree with kylecchh . We have obiviously all wasted some of our time , and I think we should just let this thread be and let it be reserected in 6 years (by some future member who will see this ) and have THEM have the argument .


----------



## Falk (Jul 9, 2010)

Some say _T. apophysis_ is bigger/longer and the _T. blondi _ is heavier and others say that they reach the same size ect ect.
Many also say that T. blondi just reach the size of the bigger _Pamphobeteus spp._ but how true that is i dont know.

Rumors says that the _Theraphosa sp_. "Burgundy" is hardier than the T. blondi witch is a huge plus if that is true. They also seems eaiser to breed so in a few years im sure the price will go down pretty much. I dont know what the "Burgundy" slings costs in the Us but i payed 35 bucks for mine and adult females costs aprox 140 bucks.

So prices on this _Theraphosa sp_. will go down and the price for _Grammostola rosea_ will go up in a few years time (Chile is closing all exports)


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

Kirk said:


> The reality is that there are over 20 species 'concepts' that have been proposed. While Mayr's 'biological species concept' garnered the greatest popularity in the 20th century, by no means is there consensus among biologists.
> 
> I've offered a solution here:



Thanks for the reply, Kirk. I'm sure that there are indeed many species 'concepts' out there that have been proposed, all probably with relatively good reasoning and evidence supporting them. I am not claiming that Mayr's biological species concept wasn't or isn't to be questioned at all. . .all theories in science of course are up for questioning. While I'm not claiming that Mayr is 100% correct either, he definitely makes many valid points and presents a sound and solid case. That is why his concept has been taught in biology textbooks and has been prominent for so long. 

I must say though that I personally think his theory is the best that I have heard (though I haven't heard many others) concerning the concepts of species. It just makes sense. . and the main places where it does 'break down,' are usually when there is human interjection/selective breeding,  the organisms are asexual, or because the organisms are so close genetically and evolutionarily that it is difficult to define them as different species. And as I have said many times before in this thread, that is to be expected considering that every living organism on this planet is related evolutionarily.
In this particular example, it seems that the third condition is what will present the most trouble for establishing the sp. burgundy as a new species. They are likely closely related evolutionarily and it will be difficult to provide the evidence necessary to establish that they are indeed separate. 

But even if Mayr isn't correct, and some other unknown problems exist in defining new species, then this would only make it _more_ difficult to define these tarantulas as separate species, not make it easier. Not to mention, no one here has referred to any of these alternate theories or reasons as to why it should be considered that these tarantulas are separate species. In essence, they have just attacked (though mostly subtly and respectfully ) the theories and facts that I have presented without a specific alternate theory. 


It reminds me of the method of debate among creationists. They try to poke holes in the theory of evolution all day long, but they never actually present a solid scientific theory to explain their position.


----------



## Endagr8 (Jul 9, 2010)

Zoltan said:


> Species from Central America and Venezuela will be transferred to other genera, mainly to _Hapalopus_ Ausserer.


To _Hapalopus_?!?! :?


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

Zoltan said:


> A new species was detected and is described. _L. lakoi_ Mello-Leitão belongs to the genus _Megaphobema_ and _L. spinipes_ Ausserer to _Theraphosa_.


Thank you very much for posting this, it was interesting. But I must ask, where is the evidence to support WHY L. spinipes is being transferred to Theraphosa. Also, this part doesn't make sense: Why then wouldn't all these "sp burgundy" tarantulas have been labeled as L. spinipes? If it has been thought all this time that they were L. spinipes, and NOT "sp burgundy," then why haven't they been labeled as so? I do understand that this is just the abstract. . .
Also, why is there virtually no information available on this L. spinipes? :? 
Seems a little odd . . .


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Thanks for the reply, Kirk. I'm sure that there are indeed many species 'concepts' out there that have been proposed, all probably with relatively good reasoning and evidence supporting them. I am not claiming that Mayr's biological species concept wasn't or isn't to be questioned at all. . .all theories in science of course are up for questioning. While I'm not claiming that Mayr is 100% correct either, he definitely makes many valid points and presents a sound and solid case. That is why his concept has been taught in biology textbooks and has been prominent for so long.
> 
> I must say though that I personally think his theory is the best that I have heard (though I haven't heard many others) concerning the concepts of species. It just makes sense. . and the main places where it does 'break down,' are usually when there is human interjection/selective breeding,  the organisms are asexual, or because the organisms are so close genetically and evolutionarily that it is difficult to define them as different species. And as I have said many times before in this thread, that is to be expected considering that every living organism on this planet is related evolutionarily.
> In this particular example, it seems that the third condition is what will present the most trouble for establishing the sp. burgundy as a new species. They are likely closely related evolutionarily and it will be difficult to provide the evidence necessary to establish that they are indeed separate.
> ...


So am I the only one that sees the problems and contradictions riddled in this statement? Who else notices that he mentions "poking holes", when that is what he is doing to long established convention in the Theraphosid community? Who else recognizes that he acknowledges that there is more than one proposition as to the concept of the term 'species' and he yet, continues, I suppose on the basis that his concept is more appropriate. Who else finds it hilarious that he is attacking this issue based on the automatic fact that these established conventions and proposed definitions for said term, are brought about by mankind! Yet on that very same token, he seems to think that he has some sort of inherent right to dictate the definition based on his supreme level of intelligence, is he not of mankind? I can go on forever, but does anyone else see this?


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

kylecchh, thank you for your replies. They have been some of the more grounded and coherent ones out of the bunch. As for your last post:



kylecchh said:


> Yes, I noticed that quite a while ago skimming through this thread. Again, that really cannot be considered an accurate example for this matter. Simple phenotypes such as coloration do not give away to the enormous, clear genetic changes present in this discussion, at least with this kind of animal we’re talking about.


So what are these "enormous, clear genetic changes present" between the blondi and the "burgundy" that you speak of? As far as I have seen, there hasn't been any research done or presented on the genetic makeup of these tarantulas, so I'm not sure how you can make this comment. Are you claiming now that there are definite genetic changes in these "two types" of tarantula? This in itself would be a whole new claim. .  And coloration actually has just as much pull in terms of being a determinant of a new species as do missing setae or different sizing of appendages. All in all, none of these differences confirm that they are different species.  



kylecchh said:


> It's quite obvious that those spiders you have shown do not possess such OBVIOUS differential characteristics such as setae missing, different sizing of appendages, overall reshaped body form, found in different locations in the wild, and a completely reformed appearance on certain INTERAL ORGANS which are all different traits present on the Theraphosa sp. “Burgundy” (Theraphosa spinipes) in comparison with Theraphosa blondi. Theridion grallator, it’s simply just coloration. Nothing else. With the species being discussed in this thread, it’s quite a bit more than just that.


You are missing the point. "Obvious" differential characteristics aren't enough by themselves to determine a new species. What might seem obvious at first could always turn out to be something totally different. And your use of body form as an example reinforces points I have made earlier here, and it further collapses your point. T. blondi and "sp. burgundy" certainly do not have completely reshaped body forms. They both look very much alike, have the same number of legs, a carapace, abdomen, etc. so the body form is very much alike. We look at them both and think "tarantula." This makes it totally plausible that they are just variations (if that) of the same species.  



kylecchh said:


> In regards with your dog comment, spiders have had an otherwise completely different evolutionary pattern and cycle than Canidae, as well as a bunch of other genetic differences that would be a PITA to go through right now, and see my comment below. As mentioned before, those genetic traits in dogs are more than likely very small in terms of genetics in effect to determine those characteristics, even though they have quite the massive effect on their overall physical appearance. In the case with an organism that is massively more basic in terms of genetic makeup, one change in one trait can affect the entire organism’s lively processes in numerous ways, just because of the less genomic sequences present in the organism. That’s why animals such as arachnids and insects are placed in different classifications with such minor changes to tell them apart. If this wasn’t the case, Therephosa blondi and Hysterocrates gigas would be in the same species/genus.


Sure, dogs and tarantulas have different evolutionary paths and genetic makeups, but the mechanisms of evolution are the same for every organism.  Regardless of whether or not it takes a small genetic mutation to express itself drastically or a large mutation to express itself minutely, the fact is you have no evidence or even any suggestive research regarding any of these genetic circumstances. I do understand that arachnids and insects are placed in different classifications for SOMETIMES minor changes, but as I also said in many instances it is obvious. In this instance, of course, it is NOT obvious, and as of now there isn't enough proof to determine that they are new species.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 9, 2010)

So then, given differences in the shape of internal organs, morphological characteristics, and other aspects such as (supposedly) color and size, how would you classify T. "burgundy" in the scheme of species? Obviously, it's not the EXACT same tarantula as T. blondi, and I personally am of the oprinion they represent, along with _T. apophysis_, a group of very closely related, but genetically distinct, species. In other words, how would you organize the tarantulas of the genus _Theraposa_?


----------



## Crows Arachnids (Jul 9, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> So then, given differences in the shape of internal organs, morphological characteristics, and other aspects such as (supposedly) color and size, how would you classify T. "burgundy" in the scheme of species? Obviously, it's not the EXACT same tarantula as T. blondi, and I personally am of the oprinion they represent, along with _T. apophysis_, a group of very closely related, but genetically distinct, species. In other words, how would you organize the tarantulas of the genus _Theraposa_?


No, although great question, my dear Pheobe, that is not enough. He is challenging, through his words, the entire mode of classification that we currently abide by. I hope he actually answers your question, without an unapplicable analogy that he managed to muster up based on what Wikipedia tells him, I would love to know how the Soverign one would classify tarantulas period.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> So then, given differences in the shape of internal organs, morphological characteristics, and other aspects such as (supposedly) color and size, how would you classify T. "burgundy" in the scheme of species?


Firstly, I haven't seen any documentation or references to the studies regarding the differences in the shapes of internal organs in these specific tarantulas (though I am not necessarily refuting that it exists), but there would certainly need to be much more information to be able to conclude anything at this point in time. If you could point me to them, I would be very interested in the findings of studies like this.  For example, are they simply VARIATIONS of the same internal organs, or entirely different organs that serve different purposes? What kind of evidence supports this? Again, not to beat the dog examples to death, but if a greyhounds lung is bigger and differently shaped than a chihuahua's, that wouldn't be grounds for calling it a new species. The organ simply took on a new shape as a variation. 
You need to be more specific about these "morphological characteristics" you are referring to. Size? Color? We already discussed those things. . .



PhobeToPhile said:


> Obviously, it's not the EXACT same tarantula as T. blondi, and I personally am of the oprinion they represent, along with _T. apophysis_, a group of very closely related, but genetically distinct, species. In other words, how would you organize the tarantulas of the genus _Theraposa_?


Actually, it isn't obvious at all that they are not the "exact same" tarantula. In fact, all of the current facts point to them being members of the same species. I wouldn't organize the tarantulas of the genus any differently than they are now. As I said before, "sp burgundy" I think is just a _variation _of the species T. blondi AT BEST.  Like the "normal" and "flame" variations of the G. rosea. They are still the same species though. Its up to you if you want to label them differently or pay different prices for them.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 9, 2010)

More to the point...let me give you an example to work with. There is the common reed, _Phragmites australis_. In North America, this plant is simultaneously native and invasive. How is this possible? There are two different subspecies: _Phragmites australis australis_ originates in Europe, while _Phragmites australis americanus_ is our native subspecies. The native subspecies coexists with native plants and doesn't grow out of control. The invasive one, however, grows completely out of control to the point it can entirely supplant that native flora community, including the native species of phragmites. In this context, would you classify the two spiders as the exact same, or as two different sub species within the same species?

By exact same, I meant that they are visibly different. As was stated before, the spermthecae shape differs from the known spermthecae shape of T. blond and T. bugundy lacks setae on the patella that are present on T. blondi, and this idfference is present throughout their entire life. Of course, we are always left with the possibility that we have the priviliege of witnessing the begining of a new species diverging from its parent species...and does anyone know what the corresponding ranges of T. blondi and T. burgundy are?


----------



## Terry D (Jul 9, 2010)

The Mack said:


> This case is different though, and no one here has addressed this. The blondi and "burgundy" both come from South America, in fact they come from neighboring regions. I'm willing to bet that you can find "blondis" and "burgundys" in Brazil, Suriname, French Guiana, etc. On top of that, they look strikingly similar and only some specimens have small physical differences (easily attributed to variation). Indeed the chances are, tarantulas with these differences have met in nature out in a hot steamy spot in Brazil or Suriname and interbred  And by definition then, they would be the same species because they interbreed in nature.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> The Mack, Come on, man! Besides the second sentence, this entire paragraph is full of conjecture on your part. You're drowning. You've been informed that the powers that be have been working on it and no doubt can already "address" this for you- just wait for the paper. Go get yourself a beer or something.............


----------



## The Mack (Jul 9, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> More to the point...let me give you an example to work with. There is the common reed, _Phragmites australis_. In North America, this plant is simultaneously native and invasive. How is this possible? There are two different subspecies: _Phragmites australis australis_ originates in Europe, while _Phragmites australis americanus_ is our native subspecies. The native subspecies coexists with native plants and doesn't grow out of control. The invasive one, however, grows completely out of control to the point it can entirely supplant that native flora community, including the native species of phragmites. In this context, would you classify the two spiders as the exact same, or as two different sub species within the same species?


Interesting. . I use dogs as an example and I am criticized because tarantulas and dogs are "too dissimilar to be applicable" but comparing tarantulas to plants is totally acceptable. LOL, Makes perfect sense. :? Anyhow, I will still entertain your example of the Phragmites plants because they are indeed valid comparisons. 

I am no expert in botany or plants so I did use wikipedia for some basic information about them. Please let me know if any of it is incorrect. . .

This section here says it all, 

"It is now known that the North American native forms of Phragmites  are markedly less vigorous than European forms; the recent marked increase in Phragmites in North America may be due to a more vigorous, but otherwise almost indistinguishable European form of the species, best detectable by genetic  analysis[citation needed]. This is causing serious problems for many other North American wetland plants, including native Phragmites.[3]  Gallic acid released by Phragmites is degraded by ultraviolet light to produce mesoxalic acid, effectively hitting susceptible plants and seedlings with two harmful toxins.[4]

Recent studies have characterised morphological distinctions between the introduced and native stands of Phragmites in North America. The Eurasian genotype can be distinguished from the North American genotype by its shorter ligules of up to 0.9 millimetres (0.04 in) as opposed to over 1.0 millimetre (0.04 in), shorter glumes of under 3.2 millimetres (0.13 in) against over 3.2 millimetres (0.13 in) (although there is some overlap in this character), and in culm characteristics. Recently, the North American genotype has been described as a distinct subspecies, Phragmites australis subsp. americanus Saltonstall, Peterson, and Soreng; the Eurasian variety is referred to as Phragmites australis subsp. australis[citation needed]."

So, according to this article, these two types of Phragmites were only established as possibly being separate species because there was scientific evidence present (aside from physical characteristics). In this case it was genetic evidence. Someone had the hunch that these types of reeds might be different, sounds like that hunch was initially based on their different behavior (invasive vs. non-invasive). They took the extra step, which was doing testing on them for any genetic differences, and eureka! They found that the genetic structure of the two reeds in question were different significantly enough to classify them as separate species. No such testing or experimentation with regards to the tarantulas in question has even been mentioned here, and to be quite honest I expected there to be at least a few references with relevant information about this. Interesting that in this particular case of the Phragmites you have mentioned, it seems that it wasn't until sometime after the genetic research was established that the morphological differences between them began to be measured and documented. This suggests that the visible physical differences between them are very small or not detectable to the naked or untrained eye, and not always certain (just as in the case with these tarantulas. I'm sorry, but they look very similar). 

Even then, have a close look at the criteria for determining between these sub-species of Phragmites. They are shakily defined and sometimes unreliable. For example, "The Eurasian genotype can be distinguished from the North American genotype by its shorter ligules of up to 0.9 millimetres (0.04 in) as opposed to over 1.0 millimetre (0.04 in), shorter glumes of under 3.2 millimetres (0.13 in) against over 3.2 millimetres (0.13 in) (although there is some overlap in this character), and in culm characteristics."  

So anything under .13 inches is a member of one species of reed, and anything over .13 inches is considered a member of the other species of reed? Just think, if one happens to grow over that .13 inches one night, does it then change species overnight? Is it considered one species up until that point, then another species after it grows beyond the .13 inch mark?
lol. It doesn't take much to see that these kind of weak morphological criteria don't serve much in the way of accurately determining new species. This is the approach you are taking with the missing setae, lack of hairs on patella, etc. being determinants of the "sp burgundy species" or sub-species or whatever you are calling it at this point. This has been one of the concepts I have tried to get across this whole time. The lines are fuzzy in some cases. This is one of those cases unfortunately. It just isn't clear cut that these two tarantulas are separate species.


----------



## Zoltan (Jul 10, 2010)

The Mack said:


> But I must ask, where is the evidence to support WHY L. spinipes is being transferred to Theraphosa.


You will find it in Bertani's paper when it's published.  Taking a look at the holotype's spermathecae would be a good start, and if any males have been found (described), the palpal bulb on those. Also see:


Fran said:


> E mail from Rick West regarding the matter;
> 
> I have been informed that the "Burgundy goliath birdeating spider" is a known theraphosid species that was placed in the wrong genus over 100 years ago. As part of a larger generic revision, this species will be transferred to the genus Theraphosa to become a third species under that genus - Theraphosa. This is not a 'new' species nor is it a 'hybrid', as claimed/debated on many tarantula forums. I hope this will appease some curious questions until the paper becomes available. This is my final comment on this matter and any further queries on this subject will not be answered to respect the ongoing research surrounding this, inpart, species.
> Rick C. West
> ...





The Mack said:


> Also, this part doesn't make sense: Why then wouldn't all these "sp burgundy" tarantulas have been labeled as L. spinipes? If it has been thought all this time that they were L. spinipes, and NOT "sp burgundy," then why haven't they been labeled as so?


It was not thought all this time, see above. Why _Cyriopagopus_ sp. "blue" wasn't labeled as _Lampropelma violaceopes_ and _Holothele_ sp. "Guyana" as _Maraca cabocla_ right away? Actually those two cases are different. If _Lampropelma violaceopes_ is actually a _Cyriopagopus_ as some people think, then when the species entered the hobby, I guess someone knowledgeable enough identified them as _Cyriopagopus_ and didn't compare them with other genera/species. The misidentification of _Maraca cabocla_ was just out of pure ignorance. It seems obvious to most people that _Theraphosa_ sp. "Burgundy" belongs to the genus _Theraphosa_, hence why no one bothered to compare it to random _Lasiodora_ species. However I wonder how many people actually know what makes something _Theraphosa_. ;P  Again, as you will find in Rick West's e-mail above, _Lasiodora spinipes_ is/was sitting in the wrong genus for a long time.



The Mack said:


> Also, why is there virtually no information available on this L. spinipes? :?


There are a lot of tarantula species like that...


----------



## The Mack (Jul 11, 2010)

Zoltan said:


> You will find it in Bertani's paper when it's published.  Taking a look at the holotype's spermathecae would be a good start, and if any males have been found (described), the palpal bulb on those. Also see:


Thanks again for the replies, Zoltan. I agree that the spermathecae and the palpal bulb would be good places to _start_, but will the paper not have to prove that these differences aren't attributable to variation within the same species? Perhaps Bertani will present some genetic evidence which proves that they are indeed different. . .



Zoltan said:


> It seems obvious to most people that _Theraphosa_ sp. "Burgundy" belongs to the genus _Theraphosa_, hence why no one bothered to compare it to random _Lasiodora_ species.


Exactly. So do you suppose that the original establishment of L. spinipes as a distinct species was characterized by these differences in spermathecae, palpal bulbs, etc.? If so, why wasn't any of this information kept as a species description? When they entered the hobby, people labeled them as being T. blondi because, as you said, it seems obvious. So why then after all this time is there suddenly an urge to establish them as being separate species?

I suppose there is also a certain element of practicality here along with scientific merit. We often classify and label organisms based on their observable differences because it helps us to organize and better understand nature. At the moment it is unclear to me how even giving these tarantulas separate labels is justified, let alone establishing them as being entirely different species. What purpose does it serve to consider them separate species when there really aren't even any documented concrete observable differences between them? Perhaps these differences are unseen by simply looking at the tarantulas, and perhaps they will be revealed in this upcoming paper, but I doubt that these "differences" have eluded all of the curious hobbyists that have since examined and observed them over the years. Either way, I will be very interested to see what these defining characteristics are and if they are indeed morphological or "blurry" in the sense that sometimes they overlap and you can't definitively tell whether some individual tarantulas are members of one species or the other.       



Zoltan said:


> However I wonder how many people actually know what makes something _Theraphosa_. ;P


Please do tell! This is interesting stuff. . by the way, that 'curious taxonomy' site you have linked there is cool! And I have a feeling the meaning of that quote you have, "we are all taxonomists" is quite relevant to the topic at hand


----------



## Falk (Jul 11, 2010)

Im sure many importers-exporters-dealers knew or suspected that this was another specie but sold them as _T. blondi_


----------



## OneSickPuppy (Jul 13, 2010)

Im almost enjoying the read ... 

wolf
Genus: 	Canis
Species: 	lupus

dog
Genus: 	Canis
Species: 	familiaris

While certainly the two cannot produce fertile offspring when crossbred? If a german sheperd and a basset hound were to mate would the offspring be able to reproduce? Yes. They look nothing alike by any stretch of the imagination. They are are the same species though. Maybe we should be breaking this down into subspecies to continue this in a positive fashion or rewrite the scientific classification description. Im trying to understand exactly what your argument is and this is the best im able to relate so far. 

Mack ... please align your argument with scientific information and how it relates rather than fighting at this point. Whether right or wrong I do enjoy seeing a challenge and scientific argument. They can be productive in gaining insight and knowledge.

Im not going to take either side as it seems that neither side is seeing exactly what the other is saying. I think the "argument" here could use a little less pointless hostility and a little more direction toward scientific facts and classification discussion so this can go somewhere beyond a 9 page doctrine of facetious jabs back and forth. This is not posted in the tarantula chat section afterall. That would be the place for such commentary if im not mistaken. If you think hes missing the point, why post a comment without scientific knowledge to show your standpoint? 

Tarantula Questions & Discussions 
This forum is for scientific discussions and questions pertaining to Tarantulas.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 13, 2010)

SickPuppy, thanks for joining the conversation. 



OneSickPuppy said:


> Im almost enjoying the read ...
> 
> wolf
> Genus: 	Canis
> ...


We have actually already discussed this, and it is difficult to imagine how these facts would help to support the hypothesis that these tarantulas are separate species. If anything, these facts illustrate that classifying them as  separate species based on their physical characteristics (lack of hairs, spermathecae, pulpal bulbs, etc.) is not justified without further indicative scientific evidence. The odd part about this particular situation is that, while a basset hound and a German shepherd have many immediately obvious differences in physical characteristics, the tarantulas in question here do not. When you look at a German shepherd and a basset hound, you see drastic differences. So much so that one might be inclined to interpret them as being different species. But if you were to look at a T. blondi and a tarantula labeled as "sp burgundy" and compare them, you would find them to be virtually identical. The differences between them apparently are only noticeable after thorough examination, which then begs the question: Why is everyone so sure all of a sudden that they are separate species?

To touch on a few other points you made. . .You say that a German Shepherd and a Basset Hound look "nothing alike by any stretch of the imagination." I would have to say that you are wrong. They both have the same basic body structure (4 legs, tails, ears, two eyes etc.) and it isn't hard to comprehend them being as members of the same species when you consider the differences in body form between a german shepherd and say,  a bird. A German shepherd and a bird are so distantly related on the evolutionary tree that they now look almost nothing alike physically.   

There are also many other animals like this in the world; take horses and zebras for example. Zebras pretty much look like horses with stripes, but we know that they are different species because they inhabit different regions of the world and they _do not interbreed in nature_.  I also made this point earlier, seems that you missed it but it is worth illustrating again. An important part of this discussion revolves around understanding the definition of a species, which I have posted here already. I have also linked to this information earlier in the thread, I would suggest reading over it, especially the section on Mayr's biological species concept and the section about the "species problem."  

So once you understand that definition, you will see that these tarantulas come from the same geographical regions and there is no reason to believe that they do _not _interbreed in nature. Therefore, it is unclear to me on what grounds they are being classified as separate species. 





OneSickPuppy said:


> Im trying to understand exactly what your argument is and this is the best im able to relate so far.
> 
> Mack ... please align your argument with scientific information and how it relates rather than fighting at this point. Whether right or wrong I do enjoy seeing a challenge and scientific argument. They can be productive in gaining insight and knowledge.


I have "aligned" my argument with plenty of scientific information so far, and I think I've done a pretty decent job of explaining exactly how it relates to my point.  My point of course is that these tarantulas can't be considered separate species simply based on the relatively small physical differences that exist between them. There would need to be some other kind of scientific proof to justify it.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 14, 2010)

Well, I've done a little thinking, and have good reason to believe that their range is not _entirely_ the same. Why? Because if that was the case, I would expect to see only one form of _T. blondi_, and not _T. blondi _and _T sp. _"burgundy". Why? Because for all intents and purposes, I think it can be safely assumed that these two spiders occupy the _exact same niche_. 

 Therefore, where both forms are present they should compete and one should be dominant (competitive exclusion principle), or else blend into a single form (in which case, we should be looking for a third "hybrid" form on the market). The only way for them to avoid competing would be for one form to use the same resources differently or exploit a different set of resources, which given their physical similarity I find to be unlikely.

 So, we should either being seeing a fourth unidentified "species"  (which would just be _T. blondi x burgundy_) or there should be some sort of feature that separates the populations. Heck, (and I know I'll probably be lambasted for this) we might even create these hybrids in order to identify wild caught ones. But "true" _T. blondi_ seem to be rare enough in the hobby these days without muddying the waters further.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 14, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> Well, I've done a little thinking, and have good reason to believe that their range is not _entirely_ the same. Why? Because if that was the case, I would expect to see only one form of _T. blondi_, and not _T. blondi _and _T sp. _"burgundy". Why? Because for all intents and purposes, I think it can be safely assumed that these two spiders occupy the _exact same niche_.


What exactly are you referring to when you say "their range is not entirely the same" ?  Geographical range, range of physical attributes, etc. ?  Also, why wouldn't you expect to see various "forms" of the same species? We see this all throughout nature with many different organisms, it is not unusual at all. As far as them "occupying the same niche,"  of course they occupy the same niche! They are the same species   But if you meant that they are different species occupying the same niche. . well first you'd have to prove that they are different species, then you would have to provide evidence that they are competing for the same resources/food/habitat etc. This hasn't been done, so I don't think its safe at all to assume that they are different species occupying the same niche.



PhobeToPhile said:


> Therefore, where both forms are present they should compete and one should be dominant (competitive exclusion principle), or else blend into a single form (in which case, we should be looking for a third "hybrid" form on the market). The only way for them to avoid competing would be for one form to use the same resources differently or exploit a different set of resources, which given their physical similarity I find to be unlikely.


I think perhaps you are getting ahead of yourself a bit here. The competitive exclusion principle already assumes that there are two separate species competing for the same resources. We are still at the stage of trying to scientifically establish whether these _are_ in fact different species, or even if they are worth labeling as different "forms" or variations. Not to mention, little is known about their actual diet in the wild, so it is possible that they are _not_ directly competing for the same resources. . .Also, there are many unexplained violations of this principle that can be observed in nature even when different species _are_ competing for the same resources. Bottom line, this principle has little relevance yet. . the spiders need to be determined officially as separate species first before anything else. 




PhobeToPhile said:


> So, we should either being seeing a fourth unidentified "species"  (which would just be _T. blondi x burgundy_) or there should be some sort of feature that separates the populations. Heck, (and I know I'll probably be lambasted for this) we might even create these hybrids in order to identify wild caught ones. But "true" _T. blondi_ seem to be rare enough in the hobby these days without muddying the waters further.


I'm not sure what you mean here, you've pretty much lost me. Why would we be looking for a fourth species? We are still trying to find out if there are even 3 !


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 14, 2010)

Okay, I need to reword what I'm trying to say. What I MEAN to say is this: In a nutshell, won't one or the other (phenotype/species) become dominant in an area where the two overlap? _P. murinus_ 's color variations are regional, but if they all occurred over each other's range then one morph should be dominant. I do have the perspective that they (The theraphosa greoup) are separate, but very closely related, species. Even if the *species* competition is not a factor, the *genetic* competition in the area should result in one type being selected as the dominant inhabitant of that area. The alternative being that the two mate and produce yet another local variant, which we should expect to see listed as a fourth _Theraphosa_ species in dealers'/exporters' lists.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 14, 2010)

PhobeToPhile said:


> Okay, I need to reword what I'm trying to say. What I MEAN to say is this: In a nutshell, won't one or the other (phenotype/species) become dominant in an area where the two overlap?


Okay, let me back up a bit. We are talking about these big brown spiders right now that come from Brazil, Suriname and French Guiana. They look alike and come from the same places, grow to the same sizes and exhibit the same colors and behaviors. So what makes you think that they are separate species?  Wouldn't it seem obvious that they are the same species? 



PhobeToPhile said:


> _P. murinus_ 's color variations are regional. I do have the perspective that they are separate, but very closely related, species.


I'm not too familiar with the P. murinus color forms, but although there _are _color variations, they are still members of the P. murinus species. They can't just be called new species because they exhibit different colors. 



PhobeToPhile said:


> Even if the *species* competition is not a factor, the *genetic* competition in the area should result in one type being selected as the dominant inhabitant of that area. The alternative being that the two mate and produce yet another local variant, which we should expect to see listed as a fourth _Theraphosa_ species in dealers'/exporters' lists.


You are postulating theories that go beyond the scope of the discussion. You should be focusing on trying to prove that these spiders in question are indeed different species. . .


----------



## Xian (Jul 14, 2010)

The Mack said:


> Okay, let me back up a bit. We are talking about these big brown spiders right now that come from Brazil, Suriname and French Guiana. They look alike and come from the same places, grow to the same sizes and exhibit the same colors and behaviors. So what makes you think that they are separate species?  Wouldn't it seem obvious that they are the same species?


Then with that line of thinking all Aphonopelmas would be the same species, as well as Brachypelmas, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Jul 14, 2010)

Alas, I cannot prove that-I can provide reasons why I do not think they are. Which is why I brought up something I thought was valid in this discussion. And thanks for catching my mistake on the _P. murinus_ color forms. I meant to use them as an example to compare the Theraphosa group.

At the very least, we can agree that there are two different but very similar spiders. It would be interesting to know if "True" T. blondi come from one area and the "burgundy" species(my view)/phenotype (your view)/whatever you feel it is come from an adjacent area, or if there is some other factor that separates them.


----------



## The Mack (Jul 14, 2010)

Xian said:


> Then with that line of thinking all Aphonopelmas would be the same species, as well as Brachypelmas, etc. etc. etc.


No, not really. Many of the Aphonopelmas and Brachypelmas actually look considerably different in terms of color and size _and _also come from different geographical regions. For example the Aphonopelma seemani has the distinct "zebra stripes" on it's legs, while the Aphonopelma chalcodes has the "blond" coloring. These color differences are consistent. On top of these consistent color differences, they are significantly separated by geographical region. The A. seemani is found in Costa Rica while the A. chalcodes is found only in Arizona and in parts of Mexico.  These two very important differences, when together, make it very implausible that these two kinds of tarantulas ever meet in the wild and mate. Therefore, they can be classified as different species. The same goes for the Brachypelmas. . consider the B. smithi and the B. albopilosum. They both consistently look very different, and one comes from Mexico while the other is native to Central America. Hence, they are different species because they don't mate together in nature.  This is not the case with the big brown spiders in question. . . They all come from the same areas, same coloring, probably mate together, so there is no reason to even think in the first place that they might be separate species!


----------

