# G. pulchra commonly wild-caught with negative consequences?



## Rinfish (Jan 28, 2018)

Hey all! At an exotics convention I was told by a lovely seller that the G. pulchra I was excited to obtain is tough to come by, mainly due to the fact that they are mostly wild-caught, with negative repercussions on the environment. The seller did not offer them for this reason (and none of the other tarantula booths had them for sale).

I was really thankful that the seller notified me of this issue, but I had no idea this was the case! Do you guys also find that the Brazilian black is often wild caught?


----------



## johnny quango (Jan 28, 2018)

Rinfish said:


> Hey all! At an exotics convention I was told by a lovely seller that the G. pulchra I was excited to obtain is tough to come by, mainly due to the fact that they are mostly wild-caught, with negative repercussions on the environment. The seller did not offer them for this reason (and none of the other tarantula booths had them for sale).
> 
> I was really thankful that the seller notified me of this issue, but I had no idea this was the case! Do you guys also find that the Brazilian black is often wild caught?
> 
> On a side note: While asking different vendors, some passerby convention goer criticized the fact that I used the common name instead of the latin name when asking vendors if they sold that particular spider.  Spent a few minutes mansplaining how easy it is to memorize and put in more effort when referring to all the tarantula species. Lmao!


Actually the seller wasn't 100% correct, I'm not saying it doesn't happen because I'm not stupid enough to believe they don't get smuggled. I believe it is illegal to sell wild caught G pulchra because they are covered under cites. (I may be wrong). Anyway the truth is G pulchra is sometimes hard to find because they take an age to mature and apparently they aren't as easy to breed as other species in this genus so they just simply aren't available that often

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2


----------



## cold blood (Jan 28, 2018)

CITES pertains to Brachypelma as far as I know.

I don't know how much importation there is of pulchra, but I would guess not a lot because I believe their export is indeed restrictive.

They're rare and expensive because most _are_ CB and they take a long time to grow to breeding size or the adult size most people seem to want to obtain.   I have heard they aren't the easiest to get sacs from as well, which would also cause higher costs along with the slow growth factor.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 28, 2018)

Whether Grammostola pulchra in the pet trade is wild caught or not is an interesting question.  Back in March 2016 Dr. Fernando Perez-Miles sent an open letter to arachnid societies concerning the smuggling of a Uruguayan Grammostola species called Grammostola quirogai.  The letter details the collection and attempt at smuggling this species from Uruguay for the pet trade.  Grammostola quirogai is large and black and resembles Grammostola pulchra.  Ever since I read this open letter from Dr. Perez-Miles I have wondered if the pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. guirogai.

What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul".  Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Argentina.  I don't know if Mello-Leitao is saying Grammostola pulchra is located in Uruguay near Rio Grande do Sul or if it is in Rio Grande do Sul near Uruguay.  I have no clue what this author was saying as I don't know what the "E." in "E. do R. Grande do Sul" would mean in Portuguese.  Either way, without locality information on pet trade G. pulchra, it isn't useful for identification anyway.

So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it might share a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra.  Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra?

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 14 | Love 1 | Award 1


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 28, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> Whether Grammostola pulchra in the pet trade is wild caught or not is an interesting question.  Back in March 2016 Dr. Fernando Perez-Miles sent an open letter to arachnid societies concerning the smuggling of a Uruguayan Grammostola species called Grammostola quirogai.  The letter details the collection and attempt at smuggling this species from Uruguay for the pet trade.  Grammostola quirogai is large and black and resembles Grammostola pulchra.  Ever since I read this open letter from Dr. Perez-Miles I have always wondered if the pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. guirogai.
> 
> What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul".  Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Paraguay.  The distribution of G. quirogai is the same as G. pulchra being in Uruguay east of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
> 
> So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it apparently shares a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra.  Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra?


 Okay, so is another fracta/ simoensi issue.


----------



## cold blood (Jan 28, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it apparently shares a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra?


Interesting as that's not a species you even hear about in the pet trade...I've personally never heard of it.  So once smuggled in, they are _clearly_ not being sold as such, leading much credibility to what you are saying.   The fact that they share the same home range is also interesting...

It _could_  be possible that the two are actually similar, yet easily_ confused_ species...or as you speculate, that we don't _actually_ have pulchra in the pet trade at all, just mis-labeled quirogai....as they were all originally brought in from somewhere.


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 28, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> Okay, so is another fracta/ simoensi issue.


That is what I am wondering.  I only raise the doubt on the identification of pet trade Grammostola pulchra based on another species known to be smuggled from Uruguay that looks just like it.  I am definitely _not_ saying that is truly the case.  Unfortunately, to investigate the matter people will need to check the tibial spur of their  G. pulchra and key it with Montes de Oca (2015) to either prove or disprove G. pulchra is properly identified.  As far as I know, there is no way to reliably distinguish female G. pulchra from G. quirogai.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 29, 2018)

So what you are stating AphonopelmaTX is that what we have in the hobby is not Brazilian black, but most likely Uruguay Black. It is not Grammastola Pulchra, but Grammostola quirogai (That is fun to say lol)  and we have another “Mess” as usual.  From my understanding most everything, if not everything, in the hobby is from Uruguay not Brazil. Individuals just assumed they were found in both Brazil and Uruguay I guess. Well there is a mm listed here in the invertsonals perhaps the male eboli, tibia spurs can be examined to start with that.

Here we go round the merry go round.......

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 29, 2018)

If it’s true that we may have both species in the hobby, than possibly hybrid has occurred between the two.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Sad 2 | Face Palm 1


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 29, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> So what you are stating AphonopelmaTX is that what we have in the hobby is not Brazilian black, but most likely Uruguay Black. It is not Grammastola Pulchra, but Grammostola quirogai (That is fun to say lol)  and we have another “Mess” as usual.  From my understanding most everything, if not everything, in the hobby is from Uruguay not Brazil. Individuals just assumed they were found in both Brazil and Uruguay I guess. Well there is a mm listed here in the invertsonals perhaps the male eboli, tibia spurs can be examined to start with that.
> 
> Here we go round the merry go round.......


That is not what I am saying at all. As I said in my last post "I only raise the doubt on the identification of pet trade Grammostola pulchra based on another species known to be smuggled from Uruguay that looks just like it. I am definitely _not_ saying that is truly the case."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 29, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> That is not what I am saying at all. As I said in my last post "I only raise the doubt on the identification of pet trade Grammostola pulchra based on another species known to be smuggled from Uruguay that looks just like it. I am definitely _not_ saying that is truly the case."


 Sorry I know that’s what you meant. What m I meant was, it might be possible that we may have the Grammostola quirogai from Uruguay, and if it’s true than we simply need to do a correction of the ID of the spider.@AphonopelmaTX did you get a chance to take a look at this http://arachnoboards.com/threads/g-pulchra-male-ready-to-breed.303387/??? And if so do you have access how to compare the tibial hooks?

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 29, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> Sorry I know that’s what you meant. What m I meant was, it might be possible that we may have the Grammostola quirogai from Uruguay, and if it’s true than we simply need to do a correction of the ID of the spider.@AphonopelmaTX did you get a chance to take a look at this http://arachnoboards.com/threads/g-pulchra-male-ready-to-breed.303387/??? And if so do you have access how to compare the tibial hooks?


I'm going to stop posting about this since it looks like I opened a can of worms here without meaning to.   The question of this thread was "is G. pulchra often wild caught?" and my response is basically "Maybe, maybe not. There is another big black Grammostola species has been known to be collected from the wild and exported from Uruguay so maybe we don't actually have G. pulchra."  That is where I am going to leave it.  Whether pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. quirogai is just a question that popped in my head two years ago after reading Dr. Perez-Miles open letter.  If someone wants to investigate this question, by all means, but I won't discuss my own question on hobby G. pulchra anymore publicly.


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 29, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> I'm going to stop posting about this since it looks like I opened a can of worms here without meaning to.   The question of this thread was "is G. pulchra often wild caught?" and my response is basically "Maybe, maybe not. There is another big black Grammostola species has been known to be collected from the wild and exported from Uruguay so maybe we don't actually have G. pulchra."  That is where I am going to leave it.  Whether pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. quirogai is just a question that popped in my head two years ago after reading Dr. Perez-Miles open letter.  If someone wants to investigate this question, by all means, but I won't discuss my own question on hobby G. pulchra anymore publicly.


 I don’t think you open a can of worms, I’m in agreement that the possibility of the hobby pulchra maybe in fact G. quirogai. It’s pretty much same information I’m receiving from my other resources.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 29, 2018)

This statement was made by a member (Delfina Rynka) on AB Facebook group. I was giving permission by her to post her statement: Here in Argentina some people are selling WC tarantulas as "G. pulchra" but they are not. Over time they start to look brownish. And of course, in Argentina it doesn't exist pulchra in the wild. There are some other species that "look like" pulchra. Same in Uruguay. When a G. pulchra is old or is in pre-molt, it looks greyish, but not brownish. I agree with Jose that there's a mess with this species and that could be a reason to say it's a hard to breed.


----------



## thevez2 (Jan 29, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> If it’s true that we may have both species in the hobby, than possibly hybrid has occurred between the two.


Or maybe we have both species in the hobby, and that's why we have a hard time breeding them?

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## Olan (Jan 29, 2018)

I definitely am interested for someone with a MM to carefully look at the hooks and compare to that paper. Unfortunately my two G. pulchras are female, so someone else will have to do it. Or send me a male.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Jan 29, 2018)

thevez2 said:


> Or maybe we have both species in the hobby, and that's why we have a hard time breeding them?


 That can also be considered as well.


----------



## viper69 (Jan 30, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> I'm going to stop posting about this since it looks like I opened a can of worms here without meaning to.   The question of this thread was "is G. pulchra often wild caught?" and my response is basically "Maybe, maybe not. There is another big black Grammostola species has been known to be collected from the wild and exported from Uruguay so maybe we don't actually have G. pulchra."  That is where I am going to leave it.  Whether pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. quirogai is just a question that popped in my head two years ago after reading Dr. Perez-Miles open letter.  If someone wants to investigate this question, by all means, but I won't discuss my own question on hobby G. pulchra anymore publicly.



@AphonopelmaTX I don't think you opened a can of worms at all. Not sure why you think that? It makes MORE sense to have information out there, not less. I'm glad you brought up that species.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## sjl197 (Jan 30, 2018)

*
Just want to go back to this text above (with no fancy links sorry, just copy-paste!) -*
"What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul". Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Argentina."

*Mello-Leitão actually writes "Uruguayana" both in original 1921, and later in 1923, firstly written exactly as "Uruguayana (Rio Grande do Sul). Importantly, there's both a city and a municipality called Uruguaiana (note: slightly different spelling) within the Brasilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and its just across the Rio Quaraí (aka Cuareim River) from Uruguay. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaraí_River*

and
"I don't know if Mello-Leitao is saying Grammostola pulchra is located in Uruguay near Rio Grande do Sul or if it is in Rio Grande do Sul near Uruguay. I have no clue what this author was saying as I don't know what the "E." in "E. do R. Grande do Sul" would mean in Portuguese. Either way, without locality information on pet trade G. pulchra, it isn't useful for identification anyway."

*Mello-Leitão was often vague and regularly inaccurate, often made worse as he didn't collect these or many others himself, so relying on information about origins from others. You're right that he later adds a mysterious letter E giving  "Uruguayna (E do Rio Grande do Sul)" ... i'd guess the E might mean => east ('leste'), but Uruguayana is in the West (oeste) of the state - that's a question for the Brazilians!*

*Anyway, just to also point out that in the recent paper by Montes de Oca et al 2016, they also include comparison specimens/samples which they called G.pulchra, but they only say "from Brazil" which i thought was far too vague for clarity. So i went and looked in the files of their accessioned genetic data for that, and those are all labeled as "source=Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul".   Therefore, that paper treats their "G.pulchra from Rio Grande do Sul" as separate and distinct from any Uruguay samples.*


Then
"So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it might share a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra? "

*So, on the last part, let's speculate that original REAL G. pulchra described in Mello-Leitão 1921 was from Uruguaiana, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
If so, I think the data at present doesn't show that G.quirogai and G.pulchra share a range, because it seems the type locality of the latter is separated a big river and country border from Northern Uruguay (and by an even larger river and border with Argentina), plus recently these two have been argued to be both genetically and morphologically distinct (from both each other and other Uruguay Grammostola spp).... Now, if that's the case, let's go back to the funner question about whether hobby collectors (i.e. particularly those with networks in Uruguay) really got stock of "G. pulchra" from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil?*

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4 | Useful 1


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Jan 30, 2018)

sjl197 said:


> *Just want to go back to this text above (with no fancy links sorry, just copy-paste!) -*
> "What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul". Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Argentina."
> 
> *Mello-Leitão actually writes "Uruguayana" both in original 1921, and later in 1923, firstly written exactly as "Uruguayana (Rio Grande do Sul). Importantly, there's both a city and a municipality called Uruguaiana (note: slightly different spelling) within the Brasilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and its just across the Rio Quaraí (aka Cuareim River) from Uruguay. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaraí_River*
> ...



That makes so much more sense.  Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on the location!

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Feb 1, 2018)

The latest statement made by Fernando Perez Miles: 

"The genus Grammostola is the tomb of the crack, all the taxonomists who have studied it have faced great difficulties because of the homogeneity of the species and because after they are dead and fixed in alcohol for collection they lose very important characteristics to recognize them that can only be appreciated when they are alive.

G. pulchra and G. quirogai are extremely similar and it is almost impossible to distinguish them morphologically and without appealing to the use of DNA. For worse, G. quirogai is in the north of Uruguay and G. pulchra can be found at least until Uruguayana, in the south of Brazil.

If what they sell in Argentina, US and Europe is from Uruguay, it is very likely G. quirogai, which is the most captured species for the pet market, because where it is present it has very dense populations. On the other hand, we have no evidence that G. pulchra is present in Uruguay and is only indicated for Brazil in the scientific literature.

Both species are quite black, unlike our southern species G. anthracina, which is more brown and even though it has recently been dumped, it seems blacker, with the sides of the legs with reddish-brown hairs.

Finally I have no idea if they can hybridize in nature, in the laboratory sometimes cross-copulations occur, but they never gave offspring."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 4


----------



## ThisMeansWAR (Feb 2, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> Finally I have no idea if they can hybridize in nature, in the laboratory sometimes cross-copulations occur, but they never gave offspring."


If hybridization of pulchra and quirogai never gave offspring in a laboratory situation, wouldn't this mean that the ones bred in the hobby are from the same species as they get offspring? And does that mean that we can infer that there's a big chance that they "hobby form" pulchra is actually the quirogai?


----------



## JoeRossi (Feb 2, 2018)

ThisMeansWAR said:


> If hybridization of pulchra and quirogai never gave offspring in a laboratory situation, wouldn't this mean that the ones bred in the hobby are from the same species as they get offspring? And does that mean that we can infer that there's a big chance that they "hobby form" pulchra is actually the quirogai?



With the hybrid question aside....If all of the following spoken in this thread is valid then there are no "Pulchra" in the hobby or very few.  From my knowledge importation of the species currently in the hobby and in question is from Uruguay only and "Pulchra" is found only in Brazil.  The very few from Brazil that may have made there way in the hobby were just that..... very few.  I look forward to future development and those I am bringing in will and should be labeled accordingly not to be mixed until all is confirmed they are in fact quirogai.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Feb 2, 2018)

ThisMeansWAR said:


> If hybridization of pulchra and quirogai never gave offspring in a laboratory situation, wouldn't this mean that the ones bred in the hobby are from the same species as they get offspring? And does that mean that we can infer that there's a big chance that they "hobby form" pulchra is actually the quirogai?


 Most of us know that Brazil has never opened for exportation therefore Grammostola pulchra most likely has never been in the hobby, unless they were smuggled out of the country. Ever since this thread was posted I’ve spoken with a few people about this issue, and the things that were stated verbally and in writing about the Grammostola pulchra vs Grammostola quirogai, Grammostola quirogai seems to be the species that’s in the hobby. I understand that Rick West has Grammostola pulchra and Grammostola quirogai listed on his website  that they are both from Uruguay, the only thing I have to say to that is, that Rick West has been known to mislabel species identification to a few of his pictures in the past of what species they are etc. However, his website is informative but there are a few issues that needs attention to.
So, if this pulchra’s were always collected in Uruguay than I have no reason but to believe that more and likely this are Grammostola quirogai. As to what Fernando Perez Miles stated and he was very clear about his statement, that there’s no evidence that Grammostola pulchra is from Uruguay. Grammostola pulchra is found as far south of Uruguayana Brazil.
So if there is absolutely no pulchra’s in the hobby than there may not be any hybridization between pulchra an quirogai. That being said I’ve heard that same story before that certain tarantulas can’t hybrid, well that’s not always the case.......


----------



## AphonopelmaTX (Feb 2, 2018)

JoeRossi said:


> From my knowledge importation of the species currently in the hobby and in question is from Uruguay only and "Pulchra" is found only in Brazil.  The very few from Brazil that may have made there way in the hobby were just that..... very few.  I look forward to future development and those I am bringing in will and should be labeled accordingly not to be mixed until all is confirmed they are in fact quirogai.


If importers/ exporters are open and honest about the source of their G. pulchra, or the descendants of imported adults, then all we need is to know they came from Uruguay to confirm that hobby G. pulchra is G. quirogai.  The trick maybe getting that kind of honesty since Uruguay prohibits the collection and exportation of their wildlife.  Knowing where any of these big, black tarantulas were collected from is key, not really the country they were exported from.  Who is to say exports aren't being sent from another South American country without wildlife exportation restrictions?

As I was saying to Jose yesterday off the boards here, this feels similar to the hobby B. smithi situation that has recently been clearing up since Jorge Mendoza published his research.  Before Mendoza's research on Brachypelma smith and B. hamorii was published, we all knew we had B. smithi up until Mendoza clarified that the two species has distinct ranges and the majority of "B. smithi" being exported for the pet trade was coming from the area B. hamorii occurs in.  The conclusion then was that the majority of hobby B. smithi was in fact B. hamorii and anyone who buys a B. smithi will have a higher chance of actually buying a B. hamorii.  Unlike G. pulchra and G. quirogai, the two red-kneed Brachypelma species can be easily be told apart from the shape of the basal plates of the spermatheca or palpal bulbs of males.  The two Grammostola "twins" can't be so easily identified. Females are not able to be distinguished from each other at all except by location.  However, the description of G. quirogai makes specific mention that they turn brown nearing a molt.  Hardly a sure-fire way to tell the two apart, but I'm under the impression brown G. pulchra is really G. quiogai.  Don't quote me on that though, it's just a hunch.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Venom1080 (Feb 2, 2018)

@KezyGLA  didn't your pulchra turn brown near a molt?


----------



## Dovey (Feb 2, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> This statement was made by a member (Delfina Rynka) on AB Facebook group. I was giving permission by her to post her statement: Here in Argentina some people are selling WC tarantulas as "G. pulchra" but they are not. Over time they start to look brownish. And of course, in Argentina it doesn't exist pulchra in the wild. There are some other species that "look like" pulchra. Same in Uruguay. When a G. pulchra is old or is in pre-molt, it looks greyish, but not brownish. I agree with Jose that there's a mess with this species and that could be a reason to say it's a hard to breed.


Holy sh**!  I was just posting about the fact that my pulcra baby  from PetcenterUSA seems to be growing into a big brown petulant adolescent (see My Big Fat Ugly Pulcra). I really, REALLY hope this is wrong. Somebody get me some oxygen. Seriously, I'm going downstairs right now to make myself a good stiff drink. I don't know if I'm cut out for tarantulas. This kind of trauma can bring on a heart attack.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dovey (Feb 2, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> This statement was made by a member (Delfina Rynka) on AB Facebook group. I was giving permission by her to post her statement: Here in Argentina some people are selling WC tarantulas as "G. pulchra" but they are not. Over time they start to look brownish. And of course, in Argentina it doesn't exist pulchra in the wild. There are some other species that "look like" pulchra. Same in Uruguay. When a G. pulchra is old or is in pre-molt, it looks greyish, but not brownish. I agree with Jose that there's a mess with this species and that could be a reason to say it's a hard to breed.


Holy sh**!  I was just posting about the fact that my pulcra baby  from PetcenterUSA seems to be growing into a big brown petulant adolescent (see My Big Fat Ugly Pulcra). I really, REALLY hope this is wrong. Somebody get me some oxygen. Seriously, I'm going downstairs right now to make myself a good stiff drink. I don't know if I'm cut out for tarantulas. This kind of trauma can bring on a heart attack.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## cold blood (Feb 2, 2018)

I have know a few people who's pulchra turned brown in pre-molt ( @Cassiusstein )....So far this _seems_ like the logical (but not definitive) way to understand what we have, as it was stated that pulcra should turn grey in pre-molt, and not brown like the quirogai.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cold blood (Feb 2, 2018)

Dovey said:


> Holy sh**!  I was just posting about the fact that my pulcra baby  from PetcenterUSA seems to be growing into a big brown petulant adolescent (see My Big Fat Ugly Pulcra). I really, REALLY hope this is wrong. Somebody get me some oxygen. Seriously, I'm going downstairs right now to make myself a good stiff drink. I don't know if I'm cut out for tarantulas. This kind of trauma can bring on a heart attack.


They have the same basic personality, and aside from  these differentiating* pre-molt* colors, are supposed to be indistinguishable...so don't go freaking out...lol.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Tia B (Feb 2, 2018)

Mine definitely turns grey in premolt, not brown.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Dovey (Feb 2, 2018)

cold blood said:


> They have the same basic personality, and aside from  these differentiating* pre-molt* colors, are supposed to be indistinguishable...so don't go freaking out...lol.


I'll dial back the freak out at exactly the moment I open the bin and behold a vision of velvety black loveliness, rather than the frass brown patchwork of attitude I currently have. 

Seriously, I scrimped big time to get this girl as a wee sling. I do hope she's a pulcra, or at least a pulcra look alike. There are days I look at her and look at my H gigas, and say to myself "Hmm...."  They could be cousins! Maybe I should set up a pool in my pulcra's tank and see if she wants to go in for a swim.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Beer 1


----------



## JoeRossi (Feb 2, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> If importers/ exporters are open and honest about the source of their G. pulchra, or the descendants of imported adults, then all we need is to know they came from Uruguay to confirm that hobby G. pulchra is G. quirogai.  The trick maybe getting that kind of honesty since Uruguay prohibits the collection and exportation of their wildlife.  Knowing where any of these big, black tarantulas were collected from is key, not really the country they were exported from.  Who is to say exports aren't being sent from another South American country without wildlife exportation restrictions?
> 
> As I was saying to Jose yesterday off the boards here, this feels similar to the hobby B. smithi situation that has recently been clearing up since Jorge Mendoza published his research.  Before Mendoza's research on Brachypelma smith and B. hamorii was published, we all knew we had B. smithi up until Mendoza clarified that the two species has distinct ranges and the majority of "B. smithi" being exported for the pet trade was coming from the area B. hamorii occurs in.  The conclusion then was that the majority of hobby B. smithi was in fact B. hamorii and anyone who buys a B. smithi will have a higher chance of actually buying a B. hamorii.  Unlike G. pulchra and G. quirogai, the two red-kneed Brachypelma species can be easily be told apart from the shape of the basal plates of the spermatheca or palpal bulbs of males.  The two Grammostola "twins" can't be so easily identified. Females are not able to be distinguished from each other at all except by location.  However, the description of G. quirogai makes specific mention that they turn brown nearing a molt.  Hardly a sure-fire way to tell the two apart, but I'm under the impression brown G. pulchra is really G. quiogai.  Don't quote me on that though, it's just a hunch.



Since you quoted me I will return the favor and 1st say I appreciate the fact you brought the topic up.  I was confused while I followed the thread to see why you felt that you should have never brought it up in the first place.  This is how we get to a common understanding between taxonomist, hobbyists, and those with a foot on both sides.  I can go back to my research on Hapalopus (small/large) and we still do not have a defined species listed.  Jose, who has done a great job here, simoensi,Rose Hairs, Genic vs Brock, and several Brachys goes above and beyond to research and speak to all to find out pertinent information.  I assure you I have been on the journey with him through out most if not all.  My point is it is beneficial for all to do what they can to sort out the mess of many species in the hobby not just post  what others have stated and run.  I am not stating this has been done in all circumstances, but am encouraging all to help in the communication process.  As far as defining them 100% as quirogai I will wait until more communication has been done (which I have been a part of) to determine for sure that is what it is.  We have 2 abstracts defining the tibial spur differences of pulchra and quirogai so I look foward to seeing pictures of mature males to compare.  In the mean time again labeling them apart is important.  I will not make the mistake again of labeling Hapalopus sp. Large Hapalopus formosa based on a picture from West and a single abstract.  I will wait as I did with hamorii and smithi until more definitive facts are presented.

As far as the smuggling spiders or bringing them into other countries with out legal importation I think you would have a very long list of species now in our hobby that are currently avaliable if you wanted to count them up.  I am glad I can say that they are legal to me in the U.S and all paper work is filled out.  As far as digging up spiders and doing it legal vs illegal in others countries....  if the difference is paying uncle Government (our Sam) to do it or not paying and the result is still the same then that is up to their judgement and risk.  Now a discussion of a species that can not be bred, reintroduced, sustained, and is going extinct that is an entire other discussion with many opinions.  I will stick to trying to figure out facts and making sure my part is legal and ethical to the best of my ability.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 1 | Love 4


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Feb 2, 2018)

AphonopelmaTX said:


> If importers/ exporters are open and honest about the source of their G. pulchra, or the descendants of imported adults, then all we need is to know they came from Uruguay to confirm that hobby G. pulchra is G. quirogai.  The trick maybe getting that kind of honesty since Uruguay prohibits the collection and exportation of their wildlife.  Knowing where any of these big, black tarantulas were collected from is key, not really the country they were exported from.  Who is to say exports aren't being sent from another South American country without wildlife exportation restrictions?
> 
> As I was saying to Jose yesterday off the boards here, this feels similar to the hobby B. smithi situation that has recently been clearing up since Jorge Mendoza published his research.  Before Mendoza's research on Brachypelma smith and B. hamorii was published, we all knew we had B. smithi up until Mendoza clarified that the two species has distinct ranges and the majority of "B. smithi" being exported for the pet trade was coming from the area B. hamorii occurs in.  The conclusion then was that the majority of hobby B. smithi was in fact B. hamorii and anyone who buys a B. smithi will have a higher chance of actually buying a B. hamorii.  Unlike G. pulchra and G. quirogai, the two red-kneed Brachypelma species can be easily be told apart from the shape of the basal plates of the spermatheca or palpal bulbs of males.  The two Grammostola "twins" can't be so easily identified. Females are not able to be distinguished from each other at all except by location.  However, the description of G. quirogai makes specific mention that they turn brown nearing a molt.  Hardly a sure-fire way to tell the two apart, but I'm under the impression brown G. pulchra is really G. quiogai.  Don't quote me on that though, it's just a hunch.


 On post #23 Joe addresses that the importation of the pulchra’s are from Uruguay.


----------



## Ungoliant (Feb 2, 2018)

cold blood said:


> I have know a few people who's pulchra turned brown in pre-molt ( @Cassiusstein )....So far this _seems_ like the logical (but not definitive) way to understand what we have, as it was stated that pulcra should turn grey in pre-molt, and not brown like the quirogai.


Both of my females tend to turn brown as a molt approaches.


----------



## BACKWOODS (Feb 3, 2018)

JoeRossi said:


> Since you quoted me I will return the favor and 1st say I appreciate the fact you brought the topic up.  I was confused while I followed the thread to see why you felt that you should have never brought it up in the first place.  This is how we get to a common understanding between taxonomist, hobbyists, and those with a foot on both sides.  I can go back to my research on Hapalopus (small/large) and we still do not have a defined species listed.  Jose, who has done a great job here, simoensi,Rose Hairs, Genic vs Brock, and several Brachys goes above and beyond to research and speak to all to find out pertinent information.  I assure you I have been on the journey with him through out most if not all.  My point is it is beneficial for all to do what they can to sort out the mess of many species in the hobby not just post  what others have stated and run.  I am not stating this has been done in all circumstances, but am encouraging all to help in the communication process.  As far as defining them 100% as quirogai I will wait until more communication has been done (which I have been a part of) to determine for sure that is what it is.  We have 2 abstracts defining the tibial spur differences of pulchra and quirogai so I look foward to seeing pictures of mature males to compare.  In the mean time again labeling them apart is important.  I will not make the mistake again of labeling Hapalopus sp. Large Hapalopus formosa based on a picture from West and a single abstract.  I will wait as I did with hamorii and smithi until more definitive facts are presented.
> 
> As far as the smuggling spiders or bringing them into other countries with out legal importation I think you would have a very long list of species now in our hobby that are currently avaliable if you wanted to count them up.  I am glad I can say that they are legal to me in the U.S and all paper work is filled out.  As far as digging up spiders and doing it legal vs illegal in others countries....  if the difference is paying uncle Government (our Sam) to do it or not paying and the result is still the same then that is up to their judgement and risk.  Now a discussion of a species that can not be bred, reintroduced, sustained, and is going extinct that is an entire other discussion with many opinions.  I will stick to trying to figure out facts and making sure my part is legal and ethical to the best of my ability.


yes i totaly agree i get angry when i go to a pet store and see a pinktoe three inch for forty bucks what spiecies origin thats why i only buy from trusted dealers that i know and who knows how many novice keepers have bought petstore pinktoes and crossbred unknowingly thinking they done something special


----------



## BACKWOODS (Feb 3, 2018)

BACKWOODS said:


> yes i totaly agree i get angry when i go to a pet store and see a pinktoe three inch for forty bucks what spiecies origin thats why i only buy from trusted dealers that i know and who knows how many novice keepers have bought petstore pinktoes and crossbred unknowingly thinking they done something special


it is our responsibility as keepers to keep the bloodlines of these magnificent arachnids liniage pure


----------



## KezyGLA (Feb 3, 2018)

Venom1080 said:


> @KezyGLA  didn't your pulchra turn brown near a molt?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tia B (Feb 3, 2018)

KezyGLA said:


> View attachment 265309






This is what premolt looked like for my guy. He just started looking a little more dull gray and losing some hairs, but it was not a drastic change.


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Feb 3, 2018)

Exoskeleton Invertebrates said:


> The latest statement made by Fernando Perez Miles:
> 
> "The genus Grammostola is the tomb of the crack, all the taxonomists who have studied it have faced great difficulties because of the homogeneity of the species and because after they are dead and fixed in alcohol for collection they lose very important characteristics to recognize them that can only be appreciated when they are alive.
> 
> ...


 I’m quoting my own post of the statement made by Fernando Perez Miles. He clearly says, for worse, G. quirogai is in the north of Uruguay and G. pulchra can be found at least until Uruguayana, in the south of Brazil. Well I’m a bit confused with that statement bacause a snake was being preyed upon under a rock by an adult female G. quirogai in a region of grasslands with hills and rocky outcrops called Serra do Caverá (-30.3594°S, -55.2500°W, WGS 84, 301 m elev.), in the municipality of Rosário do Sul, state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. So if that’s the case than Grammostola quirogai is also found in Brazil. *See link: * https://biotaxa.org/hn/article/download/23156/25075

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Feb 3, 2018)

I think people jus need to examine their dead mature males that were sold as pulchra. Use the abstract documents of the Grammostola quirogai etc. for a possible ID of your specimens.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## Exoskeleton Invertebrates (Feb 3, 2018)

KezyGLA said:


> View attachment 265309


 Haha! Maybe it’s a hybrid.


----------



## ThisMeansWAR (Feb 3, 2018)

cold blood said:


> I have know a few people who's pulchra turned brown in pre-molt ( @Cassiusstein )....So far this _seems_ like the logical (but not definitive) way to understand what we have, as it was stated that pulcra should turn grey in pre-molt, and not brown like the quirogai.


My 3 inch female turned “ashy” and dull a couple of months before molting, never any brown. I’m confused.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## ThisMeansWAR (Feb 3, 2018)

I wish they made a home dna testing kit for species identification. One day...


----------



## Olan (Feb 3, 2018)

Mine also is grey during premolt

Reactions: Agree 2


----------

