# What a way to start the hobby !



## imjim (Nov 21, 2007)

I've ordered some tarantulas listed in another thread.

But today I went out for supplies and found a Chilean Rose Hair with egg sack. The egg sack is about the size of a quarter (US 25 cent piece)

What are the chances of it hatching (if thats the correct terminology)


----------



## Drachenjager (Nov 21, 2007)

fair chance


----------



## Steven Valys (Nov 21, 2007)

do you have any experience hatching egg sacs?


----------



## imjim (Nov 21, 2007)

I have no experience period.






Steven Valys said:


> do you have any experience hatching egg sacs?


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Nov 21, 2007)

imjim said:


> I have no experience period.


Well then your chances just went down a little bit, not much though, most of this is luck.

Here is the part that is going to be hard. You have no idea when the sac was laid. In addition to not knowing when the sac was laid this also means you have no idea when it's going to hatch. So, your going to have to keep an eye on her and the sac. So long as the mother is tending to it you are ok. 


Dry setup, water dish, temps in the mid to upper 70's. And from there all you have to do is wait it out. Try not to bother her to much ether, set the tank somewhere quiet.


----------



## imjim (Nov 21, 2007)

Thank You for your help. I hope all goes well for her. . .

No matter what happens she won my heart. As the guy was putting her in the box she began grabbing and rolling the egg sac beneath her.

Once I setup the terrarium at home I put the egg sac in first then her. She immediatley went to it and stays over it with one leg, foot on it at all times.  She's not aggressive at all rather she just stays with the egg sac waiting. Its really an amazing sight and experience for me as a first time tarantula keeper.



talkenlate04 said:


> Well then your chances just went down a little bit, not much though, most of this is luck.
> 
> Here is the part that is going to be hard. You have no idea when the sac was laid. In addition to not knowing when the sac was laid this also means you have no idea when it's going to hatch. So, your going to have to keep an eye on her and the sac. So long as the mother is tending to it you are ok.
> 
> ...


----------



## pinkzebra (Nov 21, 2007)

Awww, that is such a great way to enter the hobby!   Best of luck to you, her, and the eggsac!

Jen


----------



## Aarantula (Nov 21, 2007)

*Pics!!!*

Lets see some pictures so we can all share the love!!!


----------



## tin man (Nov 21, 2007)

good luck with the egg sack, keep us updated


----------



## imjim (Nov 22, 2007)

Aarantula said:


> Lets see some pictures so we can all share the love!!!


As requested. . .

http://moijim.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!218C8D8A0844E497!2070/


----------



## jbrd (Nov 22, 2007)

Can you still see her turning the egg sac? If so the sac may still be good.


----------



## imjim (Nov 22, 2007)

jbrd said:


> Can you still see her turning the egg sac? If so the sac may still be good.


Yeah - She turns the egg sac frequently. She keeps one leg on the egg sac at all times. She is eating crickets as they pass by.

I know nothing about tarantulas but from what I read "here" and there all is good so far?


----------



## jbrd (Nov 22, 2007)

Well good luck with your new T or should I say T'ssss lol
Oh yeah and welcome to the boards and your new addiction.


----------



## Pink-Poodle88 (Nov 22, 2007)

Well most of the grammostola rosea/chilean rose tarantulas you find at petstores are often wild caught individuals, so it's always a possibility that you get a "pregnant" one I suppose. However, if the tarantula molted after its latest mating session, assuming that it even mated at all(some tarantulas have been known to just lay "dud" eggsacks without ever meeting a male) then the eggsack may be a "dud" because the male's sperm has been "wasted" and all.

Either way, you should also try and monitor her as much as possible, sometimes they may even eat their eggsacks for no apparent reason. Many would suggest taking the eggsack from the spider to incubate it yourself, but the spider would be very defensive and I'd assume upset and stressed upon losing the eggsack, and on top of that you probably need some experience to incubate it yourself. I don't know, I've never tried incubating myself personally, but I've read that doing it yourself increases chance of survival and lowers the mortality rate of the newborns.


----------



## Stylopidae (Nov 22, 2007)

Most sterile eggsacs are usually eaten shortly (a few days to two weeks, it seems) after they're laid.

Gravid WC tarantulas are actually somewhat common around here...there's usually a thread or a mention once a week or so.

If she hasn't eaten the sac after being picked up from the tank and transported, I'd say you have a pretty good shot at it hatching. She seems to be a better mother than quite a few tarantulas.


----------



## Corranthe (Nov 22, 2007)

This is always so amazing to hear about.  Congrats on the girlie and her sac.  But be prepared to have lots of tiny mouths to feed!


----------



## julesaussies (Nov 22, 2007)

imjim said:


> Its really an amazing sight and experience for me as a first time tarantula keeper.



That is really exciting. 

As others have said, it is pretty common for WC G. rosea's to drop fertile sacs. i wouldn't even consider trying to incubate it yourself. Just let Mother Nature or Mother Rosea take care of it. 

Ryan (talkenlate) is an excellent person to listen to when it comes to advice regarding this subject. He is has had a lot of success with sacs and slings. i highly recommend following any advice he gives you.

Good luck. That is so awesome. Loved the pics of mom tending her sac.


----------



## Rochelle (Nov 22, 2007)

What a great way to enter a hobby! Head First! lolol    
Awesome pics..love the ones of momma's feet on the sac...
It sounds like a viable sac, since she's being so attentive to it. 
Welcome to the AB and let us know if you need any advice...we've got TONS of that!   hehehehe  
Good luck and keep us all posted!


----------



## AubZ (Nov 22, 2007)

Yeah and well done.

I personally don't feel that incubating is that difficult if you follow Ryan's way.  It is simple and very cost effective.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 22, 2007)

imjim said:


> ... But today I went out for supplies and found a Chilean Rose Hair with egg sack. The egg sack is about the size of a quarter (US 25 cent piece)
> 
> What are the chances of it hatching (if thats the correct terminology)


Actually, hatching happens inside the eggsac several weeks before the babies emerge. The technical term for the emergence is "eclosion."

At this stage in the game success is not too likely. The biggest problem with unexpected eggsacs is that the enthusiast hasn't done anything to prevent the eggs from drying out and dying after they're laid. That takes only a few hours of exposure to dry, room air.

ASAP, you should dampen most of the substrate in the tarantula's cage and cover the top with a layer of Saran Wrap to hold in the humidity. Move the cage to a warm part of the house if possible, but don't do anything to heat the cage.

It's okay to feed the mother one or two crickets a week while she's brooding the eggsac.

The babies, if there are any alive, will emerge from the eggsac in 55 to 70 days, depending on the average temperature of the cage.

If the eggs have died the mother will still tend the eggsac for a few days, then discard it. If she throws it away or tries to eat it, you know what happened.

Just in case, you should find 2 or 3 one gallon pickle jars from a fast food restaurant. Make up a batch of sifted peat or coconut husk and tamp it into the bottom of the jars to make a layer about 2 inches thick. Cover the jars with handkerchiefs that are held on with rubber bands. Use at least 2 rubber bands per jar. You don't want dozens of babies getting out and dying if a rubber band breaks, and there's safety in a little redundancy.

Over the next few weeks the substrate will dry out. That's okay. When the babies finally emerge from the eggsac all you need do is dampen the substrate in the jars a little and distribute the babies as evenly as possible between the jars.

The babies will probably not start eating each other for 1 or 2 weeks, then gradually you'll notice cannibalism. That's okay too. You need to let them weed out (or "cull") the slow, weak, small ones. Besides, exactly what do you think you're going to do with all those hundreds of babies, anyway?

Once you notice cannibalism it's okay to feed baby crickets (pinheads) to the baby tarantulas. Estimate the number of tarantulas per jar and try to throw in an estimated 2 baby crickets per baby tarantula. Obviously, this is not an exact science. Don't worry about getting it "just right." If you underfeed them a little, they'll make up the difference by eating their litter mates. If you overfeed them, the extra, baby crickets will just survive until the baby tarantulas get hungry again. Feed the babies like this about once a week.

When your baby tarantulas have finally reduced themselves to manageable numbers (you be the judge, but I'd recommend something like 75 to 100), you can start moving them to pill bottles, small condiment cups or small baby food jars half filled with well tamped substrate. From there on you care for them like any other babies. Be aware that by that time many of them will have burrowed into the substrate and you're going to underestimate their numbers by 50%. (You think you've only got 100 when you really have 200.)

Getting the babies out of the substrate will not be an easy job. I've heard of one fellow who took the jar into the bath room and carefully broke it in the bath tub. *PLUG THE DRAIN FIRST!* Use a small hammer or light iron rod; and wear light leather gloves to protect your hands! Safety goggles might also be a good idea during the breaking process. He was then able to carefully sift through the substrate, a couple tablespoons at a time, to find the babies. *BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN TO CLEAN ALL THE BROKEN GLASS OUT OF THE TUB WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED!* This whole process works best if you can arrange a bright light over the tub to illuminate everything well. The babies look remarkable like little bits of dirt until they move, and good lighting helps a lot to recognize them.

After the mother is no longer brooding an eggsac (for whatever reason) you should switch your care over to the one described in www.ucalgary.ca/~schultz/roses.html.

To misquote... "Four score and twenty tarantulas ago..."


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Nov 22, 2007)

> ASAP, you should dampen most of the substrate in the tarantula's cage and cover the top with a layer of Saran Wrap to hold in the humidity. Move the cage to a warm part of the house if possible, but don't do anything to heat the cage.
> 
> It's okay to feed the mother one or two crickets a week while she's brooding the eggsac.


I am curious as to why you think moisture is a must with this species:? ..... I have hatched several desert scrubland species and never added moisture to the substrate, and never fed them and had high output from all sacs. 

The Saran Wrap part sounds like over kill to, cutting down on air flow, and adding moisture could cause mold easily which would destroy the sac in short order. I don't even do that with Pokies which are much more moisture dependant then Rosea. 
This is not a moisture dependant species, so I am a little lost as to why you’re so concerned with adding so much. If the female is still tending to the sac that's a really good sign don't you think? So why change a thing?
Additionally I think your method of keeping the slings till they need to be separated sounds like a horrible nightmare. 
 Any insight to your reasoning’s would be awesome.


----------



## imjim (Nov 22, 2007)

talkenlate04 said:


> I am curious as to why you think moisture is a must with this species:? ..... I have hatched several desert scrubland species and never added moisture to the substrate, and never fed them and had high output from all sacs.
> 
> The Saran Wrap part sounds like over kill to, cutting down on air flow, and adding moisture could cause mold easily which would destroy the sac in short order. I don't even do that with Pokies which are much more moisture dependant then Rosea.
> This is not a moisture dependant species, so I am a little lost as to why you’re so concerned with adding so much. If the female is still tending to the sac that's a really good sign don't you think? So why change a thing? Any insight to your reasoning’s would be awesome.


I plan to let nature take its course unless I see a change in her behavior. Then I will ask before acting. She is extremely attentive to the egg sac at this time.

I am curious to know what to expect if the spiderlings hatch. Will they, can they climb out of the terrarium and be all over the house some day or do they dig in and hide?

I really appreciate all advice, information and support.

Thank You,

Jim


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Nov 22, 2007)

imjim said:


> I plan to let nature take its course unless I see a change in her behavior. Then I will ask before acting. She is extremely attentive to the egg sac at this time.
> 
> I am curious to know what to expect if the spiderlings hatch. Will they, can they climb out of the terrarium and be all over the house some day or do they dig in and hide?
> 
> ...


   If you leave the sac with the mother all the way, the slings will more then likely bust out of the sac not long after reaching 1st instar. They tend to clump together and they will do this till they are a few days maybe a week past 2nd instar. If you wait to long after that they will just start going everywhere. 

   Lol I had that happen recently actually. I though I had one or two more days before I had to seperate some slings I had but I was wrong. They were everywhere! Even now a few months later I am still finding them every now and then. So just keep in mind if you get that far not to wait to long before seperating them. 

Boy did I learn from that mess.


----------



## imjim (Nov 22, 2007)

talkenlate04 said:


> If you leave the sac with the mother all the way, the slings will more then likely bust out of the sac not long after reaching 1st instar. They tend to clump together and they will do this till they are a few days maybe a week past 2nd instar. If you wait to long after that they will just start going everywhere.
> 
> Lol I had that happen recently actually. I though I had one or two more days before I had to seperate some slings I had but I was wrong. They were everywhere! Even now a few months later I am still finding them every now and then. So just keep in mind if you get that far not to wait to long before seperating them.
> 
> Boy did I learn from that mess.


Its comforting to know that I have days rather than hours or minutes ; )

I just hope if and when it happens all the board members here aren't on the annual vacation/conference in South America without their laptops ; )

Thank You again !

Jim


----------



## CFNSmok.PL (Nov 22, 2007)

Greate discussion. Thank You.
As for the statement:

"The babies will probably not start eating each other for 1 or 2 weeks, then gradually you'll notice cannibalism. That's okay too. You need to let them weed out (or "cull") the slow, weak, small ones. Besides, exactly what do you think you're going to do with all those hundreds of babies, anyway?"

I do see the point. It is good idea to keep most fit and healthy new hatched slings. 

Smok.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Nov 22, 2007)

> I do see the point. It is good idea to keep most fit and healthy new hatched slings.
> 
> Smok.


They only start eating each other because there is no other food source, and the ones that get eaten like that it's not because they are weaker, it's because their brothers and sisters are hungry! You create a war zone with that many hungry slings in a small space and no other food.


----------



## TarantulaLV (Nov 22, 2007)

talkenlate04 said:


> They only start eating each other because there is no other food source, and the ones that get eaten like that it's not because they are weaker, it's because their brothers and sisters are hungry! You create a war zone with that many hungry slings in a small space and no other food.


Damn!! What a way to go! I'd rather be in prison!! Poor things!


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 28, 2007)

TarantulaLV said:


> Damn!! What a way to go! I'd rather be in prison!! Poor things!


First, they *ARE* in prison, or so the bunny huggers would have us believe.

Second, doing it as I recommend is far better than what happens to them in nature because more survive in our care. We're actually being overly kind!

You can consider it to be a little "tough love." Without some sort of culling we'll be up to our armpits in tarantulas with all sorts of deformities in 100 years.


----------



## julesaussies (Nov 28, 2007)

Pikaia said:


> Without some sort of culling we'll be up to our armpits in tarantulas with all sorts of deformities in 100 years.


Seriously?!?!  

That would be horrible!!

What is the exact cause for such an explosion of deformities and how will culling prevent it?

What types of deformities?

Thank you for your input!


----------



## Truff135 (Nov 28, 2007)

Pikaia said:


> First, they *ARE* in prison, or so the bunny huggers would have us believe.
> 
> Second, doing it as I recommend is far better than what happens to them in nature because more survive in our care. We're actually being overly kind!
> 
> You can consider it to be a little "tough love." Without some sort of culling we'll be up to our armpits in tarantulas with all sorts of deformities in 100 years.


I think that's a bit extreme LOL.  Besides, I see nothing wrong with having that many tarantulas!  
And I have a hard time believing that they eat each other to weed out the weaklings, I have to agree with Ryan.  Seems to me they'd eat each other just because of good ol' hunger.
Ryan, in your experience of breeding: when you separate the slings at whatever instar it is (bad memory plaguing me at the moment), do a certain number die off because of "weakness" (instead of being eaten had they been left together) or do the vast majority seem to thrive?  I'm not trying to be sarcastic at Pikaia, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 28, 2007)

Truff135 said:


> I think that's a bit extreme LOL.  Besides, I see nothing wrong with having that many tarantulas!


As long as they all have 8 legs, 8 eyes, 4 spinnerets, and don't wear a tutu, I'm right there with you!



> ... And I have a hard time believing that they eat each other to weed out the weaklings, I have to agree with Ryan.  Seems to me they'd eat each other just because of good ol' hunger. ...


You and Ryan are both correct. They eat their litter mates out of pure hunger. There's no sophisticated culling among tarantulas. And I'm sure a lot of otherwise "good" tarantulas simply get eaten because they're unlucky. It just happens, however, that most of the ones that don't get away are malformed, small, weak, or slow. And, we're just taking advantage of the fact.

To imperfectly quote what I said in another post "What do you intend to do with all those tarantulas anyway?"



> ... Ryan, in your experience of breeding: when you separate the slings at whatever instar it is (bad memory plaguing me at the moment), do a certain number die off because of "weakness" (instead of being eaten had they been left together) or do the vast majority seem to thrive?  I'm not trying to be sarcastic at Pikaia, I'm genuinely curious.


No offense taken. I'm not concerned about any that die off from some sort of weakness, and many do die off from unknown causes as they grow. I'm concerned about the ones that *DON'T* die off from some sort of weakness, but live to pass it on to their offspring.

There was a lengthy (some would say too lengthy!) thread on this several months ago. Pour yourself another cup of coffee and visit http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=100533.


----------



## Truff135 (Nov 28, 2007)

Pikaia said:


> As long as they all have 8 legs, 8 eyes, 4 spinnerets, and don't wear a tutu, I'm right there with you!


But a tutu-wearing T would be cute!!!  




Pikaia said:


> You and Ryan are both correct. They eat their litter mates out of pure hunger. There's no sophisticated culling among tarantulas. And I'm sure a lot of otherwise "good" tarantulas simply get eaten because they're unlucky. It just happens, however, that most of the ones that don't get away are malformed, small, weak, or slow. And, we're just taking advantage of the fact.


That does, actually, make sense.  I suppose if I were starving enough to eat a sibling, I would choose the one that wouldn't bite back.  (kidding!)  Thanks for your insight and I'm glad I didn't offend.  I guess it's just one of those subjects where there's two sides to the fence.  When you get right down to it, out of every eggsac, I'm sure there's bound to be a few that die of either unknown causes or from being consumed.  It's just Nature's way.  It happens to other animals too, so why not tarantulas?


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Nov 28, 2007)

I chose to keep 100 of my smithi slings that I hatched out this year. So far all 100 are alive 7 months later.

Now if I had kept them together someone was going to die. I personally would not let them shack up like that and start eating each other. 

I do get why it was brought up and the concept, I just don't practice it at all or condone it.

Plus I have this weird thing I do. I tend to pick out the sling from the clutch that has the worst stuff going on. Missing legs, skinny, weak looking, not eating, acting odd ect…. Not only would I not want to sell that to someone as a troubled T, but I like seeing if I can get them back to normal. So far its worked. I had one Emilia sling that was missing 5 legs and 1 palp at 2nd instar. She later became a confirmed female and is 100% fine. 

I know I am not going to keep every single sling alive, but I like trying to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Truff135 (Nov 28, 2007)

talkenlate04 said:


> I chose to keep 100 of my smithi slings that I hatched out this year. So far all 100 are alive 7 months later.
> 
> Now if I had kept them together someone was going to die. I personally would not let them shack up like that and start eating each other.
> 
> ...


Wow, that's awesome!!!  It's always nice to hear of stories like that.  The odds being against a little one and it pulls through anyway.  Like I said, there's two sides to that fence and since I am not a breeder, I choose not to choose.  I do think, however, that the hobby could definitely use 100 healthy brachy's!!!  It would be a shame to lose those if it can be avoided.


----------



## Talkenlate04 (Nov 28, 2007)

The bottom line is that Tarantulas have this many babies for a reason. It's a big game of survival of the fittest. That is not the fault of a breeder, it's just natures course. 

I'll do what I can to prevent it, but it's going to happen.


----------



## Corranthe (Nov 29, 2007)

*A thought.*

One would assume that the bigger slings would also eat the smaller slings right?  Then how do you know that what is getting culled isn't your females the majority of the time?

Just a thought to ponder.


----------



## AubZ (Nov 29, 2007)

Pikaia said:


> I'm concerned about the ones that *DON'T* die off from some sort of weakness, but live to pass it on to their offspring.


Is there any FACT to suggest a T can pass a weakness onto offspring.  And if a T can reach maturity and mate, what weaknesses could it have had???:? 

I tried to get a topic similar to this started on another thread cuz I am very interested in this part of the hobby.


----------



## funnylori (Nov 29, 2007)

Great pictures! You have a very nice camera. 

So far you are doing a great job! She's a great mother. When my rose dropped a sac a few months ago I pulled it early, around day 15. I then manually incubated it, which isn't bad if you have to do it. I would have liked to left it with mom, but she was going through a lot of (perceived on my end) stress. 

You just have to be patient, which I'm not as good at. They are very slow growers and can take a bit longer than expected to emerge from the sac.


----------



## imjim (Nov 29, 2007)

funnylori said:


> Great pictures! You have a very nice camera.
> 
> So far you are doing a great job! She's a great mother. When my rose dropped a sac a few months ago I pulled it early, around day 15. I then manually incubated it, which isn't bad if you have to do it. I would have liked to left it with mom, but she was going through a lot of (perceived on my end) stress.
> 
> You just have to be patient, which I'm not as good at. They are very slow growers and can take a bit longer than expected to emerge from the sac.


Thank You. . .

She is still sitting on the eggsac without rest. I have no idea when the eggsac was created so I must be patient and await the surprise day.

I am occupying my interest with shelving, enclosures and new tarantula purchases.

I am going to a show in Hamburg PA Dec 1 2007 to find and buy some tarantulas that I am interested in keeping.  Hopefully I can find some shelving I like "before" I buy too many tarantulas  ; )

I am very open to suggestions for shelving?


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 29, 2007)

talkenlate04 said:


> I am curious as to why you think moisture is a must with this species:? ..... I have hatched several desert scrubland species and never added moisture to the substrate, and never fed them and had high output from all sacs. ...


No, I didn't say it was a "must," although one could argue that it was implied. When dealing with people who haven't had tarantulas before, I tend to take a conservative route that'll get them through the thicket regardless of what comes at them.

As long ago as the mid 1980s Al McKee figured out that virtually all fertile tarantula eggs would hatch if the relative humidity was kept at 60% or above. Note carefully that this isn't saying that there weren't some that could withstand a lower humidity, just that for any "generic" tarantula egg you could be sure that if it didn't hatch it was probably due to some other problem. And, this has been pretty much confirmed by my own experiences.

When I'm trying to tell someone how to hatch tarantula eggs I am far more interested in recommending a method that 's almost guaranteed to work rather than trying to teach them any of the exceptions. It's mostly a matter of focus and goals.



> ... The Saran Wrap part sounds like over kill to, cutting down on air flow, and adding moisture could cause mold easily which would destroy the sac in short order. ...


It could, but it almost never does. As long as you're careful to keep the eggsac dry, if the eggs are fertile they'll hatch.



> ... This is not a moisture dependant species, so I am a little lost as to why you’re so concerned with adding so much. ...


If you go back through the various forums' archives my guess is you'll find a lot of cases over the years where people have had newly caught roses producing eggsacs. And, in the vast majority of cases the eggsacs didn't produce any babies. The eggs were either non-fertile or they died before they could emerge. There are a lot of things that could have gone wrong in any particular case, but the almost universal common denominator is that the keepers either didn't realize the rose had made an eggsac, or even if they knew it, didn't make any attempt to raise the humidity.

Since eggsacs, in a generic sense, can tolerate high humidity far better than low humidity, I urge the keeper to dampen the substrate and apply plastic food wrap. It doesn't hurt and it may help.



> ... If the female is still tending to the sac that's a really good sign don't you think? So why change a thing? ...


Yes, it's a good sign. But what is it a good sign of? That the eggs are still alive and healthy? That they're near death or dying? That they're dead and she simply hasn't realized it yet? That her motherly instincts are so strong that it doesn't matter and she *CAN'T* let it go?

So, just in case (because there's always some hope until the eggsac stinks), we raise the humidity, even for a desert species.



> ... Additionally I think your method of keeping the slings till they need to be separated sounds like a horrible nightmare. ...


Not "till they need to be separated." Till they've reduced their numbers to the point where they've culled out the deformed, weak, small, slow, etc. ones. Then, till they've reduced their numbers to the point where we can effectively care for the survivors.

I've covered this subject in several other posts, so I won't dwell on it here beyond recanting a little parallel story.

I have a friend who has a female chihuahua. Now, chihuahuas tend to be rather high strung dogs under the best of circumstances, but this one is exceptional. When I visit these people the dog is bouncing and yapping incessantly for the entire period. They have to lock it in the basement or garage so we can even hear and understand each other. The dog is so high strung that it's been known to suffer a seizure and pass out at the sound of a slamming door! And, this person wants to breed it so they can enjoy its puppies!

Clearly, this dog's ancestors should have been neutered or spayed generations ago. Certainly, this dog should *NOT* be allowed to procreate and carry on that defective lineage. 

Unfortunately there is no law regulating which dogs should be bred and which shouldn't. Neither is there a law governing the breeding of tarantulas. But, if we don't use some common sense and accept some responsibility now, our grandchildren or great grandchildren may not know what a non-defective tarantula looks and acts like.

Enjoy it while you've got it!


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 29, 2007)

Corranthe said:


> One would assume that the bigger slings would also eat the smaller slings right?  Then how do you know that what is getting culled isn't your females the majority of the time?
> 
> Just a thought to ponder.


1. I am not convinced that the females are always the smaller ones. Tarantulas, as a group, are not all that consistent or predictable.

2. In nature, why would this be an issue? A female tarantula may live for many years and may produce an eggsac a year the majority of her adult life. A male, on the other hand, is sexually mature only one season. Ergo, in nature we need a lot more males than females to guarantee a continuation of the species.

3. In captivity, why would this be an issue? If you're trying to breed tarantulas, you need only one female. But, you need a new male every year that you breed the female. More males are a good thing for the breeder.

More females are a good thing only for the dealers who merely want to sell people a weird pet to keep on the coffee table. And, sadly, many of them really don't care if they're selling males or females.

More thoughts to ponder.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 29, 2007)

AubZ said:


> Is there any FACT to suggest a T can pass a weakness onto offspring. ...


I covered this subject at least tangentially in http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=100533.

First, tarantulas belong to a vast group of creatures on planet Earth that all seem to have been derived from a common ancestor. (Don't get your hopes up. You'd never recognize it as part of the family!) As such they all possess a few common, basic traits and follow a few, common rules of genetics. There is no evidence to suggest that tarantulas in some way violate those basic rules and laws, and every known rule seems to apply to them as well as almost everything else you've seen in your life.

Since the laws of genetics do not distinguish the difference between good and bad genes, the bad ones are inherited right along with the good ones. (We're obviously taking an over simplified example here.) So, the overabundant evidence is that they can, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they somehow violate the rules by not doing so.



> ... And if a T can reach maturity and mate, what weaknesses could it have had???:? ...


Next time you're in a group of people, maybe in school, at work or in church, look about you critically. How many of those people are near sighted, retarded, diabetic, or borderline schizoid? They're breeding just fine in spite of their various, often multiple defects. Same with tarantulas.

The occurs because humans tend to value the psyche or soul more than the physical body, and we go out of our way to conserve every precious one of our little mutations in spite of all logic to the contrary. The culling process is virtually suspended in human society. And, we're trying to do the same thing to our pet tarantulas.

"Now we're going to employ a little tough love..." (Judge Joe Mathis)


----------



## AubZ (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks for the great Info Stan.

I feel that the biggest problem is that there is NO FACTUAL PROOF regarding Tarantula's and inbreeding.   Although, I fully understand where you are coming from.  The info you are supplying is way above my head, but to an extent I understand.

At the end of the day no one can say it is wrong or right because NO ONE has tested the theory long enough to possitively say what will happen or what the defects are.   You have provided us with some very good & interesting examples, but they are not T's or inverts.   

Perhaps T's are just very simple creatures and won't get affected.   Perhaps all the sudden deaths are just plain ol weak offspring.   Who knows?

Unfortunately, if you are correct Stan, then by the time ppl start seeing the side effects of inbreeding, it will be too late.

I will def be setting up an experiment regarding this.  However, it will be mother & son as brother-sister will not happen due to males maturing out quicker.  After the second hatching out it will be mother & aunties.  Y'all get the idea.


----------



## imjim (Nov 30, 2007)

Shultzes:

Interesting discussion. I can't wait to get your book "Tarantula Keeper's Guide" in the mail. It seems Amazon is running a little slow on this delivery, maybe because (being frugal) I choose free shipping  ; )

We all know how difficult it is to get new ideas accepted and published within the scientific community. It will require years of proven research by accepted scientists. 

The lastest about her and the eggsac is that she is over top of the eggsac in the corner and webbing the sides in the corner and half the floor of the 2.5 gal. terrarium. Temperature in the room is between 68-75 degrees F.

The substrate is dry as she seems to prefer it that way and I am misting the far end of the glass every other day. There also is a small water dish near the center for her if necessary.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Nov 30, 2007)

AubZ said:


> ... I feel that the biggest problem is that there is NO FACTUAL PROOF regarding Tarantula's and inbreeding. ...


Aw, but there is. Visit http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=954108&postcount=23

And another little story to illustrate an important principle. For many decades COPD (aka chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema) was recognized as a legitimate disease, but few or none had any idea what caused it. During the Second World War tobacco companies began to hand out free smokes to the GIs oversees, and thus the majority of them became addicted to tobacco.

Along about the late 1970s someone noticed that a disproportionate number of American ex-GIs were dying of COPD. Statistical studies were done and the results cross-correlated with things like smoking and _voilà!_ It looked like the preponderance of smokers developed COPD. At that point there was "NO FACTUAL PROOF," just a strong correlation. And for years the tobacco companies fought the medical community tooth and nail, largely based on the lack of factual proof. However, as time progressed that proof was eventually produced and we now know that smoking causes deadly lung disease.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's a duck. Even without factual proof.



> ... Although, I fully understand where you are coming from.  The info you are supplying is way above my head, but to an extent I understand. ...


I appreciate your situation. As the man said, "Most of my faults ain't my fault." You should have been taught the basics of biology when you took the course in junior or senior high school. The fact that you are now having difficulty understanding some rather elementary biological concepts strongly suggests that the teaching profession might spend a lot less time teaching themselves *HOW* to teach and a lot more time teaching themselves *WHAT* to teach!

I am similarly distressed by the fact that 90% of the kids who graduate from high school in North America can't balance a checkbook! Do any of the rest of you see a problem here?



> ... At the end of the day no one can say it is wrong or right because NO ONE has tested the theory long enough to possitively say what will happen or what the defects are.   ...


Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The underlying hypotheses and theories have been tested and retested ever since the inception of the scientific method, perhaps as long ago as the Renaissance. The overwhelming bulk of evidence is that they are still valid.

We don't need to dose a bunch of convicts with cyanide to prove that cyanide is fatal to humans. We've already proven it by dosing a bunch of lab rats and drawn the inference.

We don't have to perform lengthy genetic crosses between tarantulas to see what the effects will be because we've already done it millions of times with fruit flies, lab mice, _Neurospora_ (a type of mold), sweet peas and a thousand other organisms. And there is no reason to believe that tarantulas wouldn't produce the same results, and every reason to believe they would.



> ...  You have provided us with some very good & interesting examples, but they are not T's or inverts. ...


Again, I disagree. A huge portion of the research in genetics was done with invertebrates like fruit flies, vinegar eels (a type of nematode worm), and a bunch of others.

It *IS* true that no studies have been done of tarantula's genetics, but if my memory serves me, there have been some studies done of other spiders although I can't quote references off the top of my head. Perhaps someone else can help here.



> ... Perhaps T's are just very simple creatures and won't get affected.  ...


Spiders in general, and tarantulas in particular, are most definitely *NOT* simple creatures, and that's one of our biggest stumbling blocks. Once we begin to understand that as a very fundamental precept, we will begin to make real progress.

Understanding tarantulas can be compared to understanding the Mayan civilization. It existed a thousand years ago but it was far from primitive, and we never really realized how advanced they were until it dawned on us that they weren't primitive, just different.



> ... Perhaps all the sudden deaths are just plain ol weak offspring. ...


I have a strong personal opinion that no one truly dies of old age. One may die of a heart attack, lung disease, cancer, stroke, kidney failure, etc. But, "old age" is *NOT* a disease. Similarly, there are no truly "weak" tarantulas. "Weak" is not a disease or definable condition. There are defective tarantulas whose defect weakens them, but they're defective, not truly weak. 



> ... Unfortunately, if you are correct Stan, then by the time ppl start seeing the side effects of inbreeding, it will be too late. ...


*BINGO!* Now you understand why I rant on like this.



> ... I will def be setting up an experiment regarding this.  However, it will be mother & son as brother-sister will not happen due to males maturing out quicker.  After the second hatching out it will be mother & aunties.  Y'all get the idea.


The secret to a good experiment is to keep lots of records. Count unhatched eggs in the eggsacs. Count dead babies in the eggsac. Record every baby's molt details, and label and save the exuvia. Preserve the offspring as they die. Clearly label and save the eggsacs. Take lots and lots of photos. Keep a daily diary. Note any irregularities in molting, limb autotomy, deformities, weird behaviors, etc.

After you've inbred them several generations, someone on these lists will surely be willing to help you process the data. (Not me, however. By then I will either be living out my last days in a nursing home, pushing up daisies, or still ranting on about how "I told you so!" 

As a suggestion, pick one of the African species with a short generation time, or maybe a species of _Avicularia_. Who knows? You may even see the project's end!

Best of luck.


----------



## AubZ (Nov 30, 2007)

Pikaia said:


> Aw, but there is. Visit http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=954108&postcount=23


I will be sure to look at all of these over the weekend if possible.  Thanks.



> And another little story to illustrate an important principle. For many decades COPD (aka chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema) was recognized as a legitimate disease, but few or none had any idea what caused it. During the Second World War tobacco companies began to hand out free smokes to the GIs oversees, and thus the majority of them became addicted to tobacco.
> 
> Along about the late 1970s someone noticed that a disproportionate number of American ex-GIs were dying of COPD. Statistical studies were done and the results cross-correlated with things like smoking and _voilà!_ It looked like the preponderance of smokers developed COPD. At that point there was "NO FACTUAL PROOF," just a strong correlation. And for years the tobacco companies fought the medical community tooth and nail, largely based on the lack of factual proof. However, as time progressed that proof was eventually produced and we now know that smoking causes deadly lung disease.
> 
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's a duck. Even without factual proof.


I see what you getting at.



> I appreciate your situation. As the man said, "Most of my faults ain't my fault." You should have been taught the basics of biology when you took the course in junior or senior high school. The fact that you are now having difficulty understanding some rather elementary biological concepts strongly suggests that the teaching profession might spend a lot less time teaching themselves *HOW* to teach and a lot more time teaching themselves *WHAT* to teach!
> 
> I am similarly distressed by the fact that 90% of the kids who graduate from high school in North America can't balance a checkbook! Do any of the rest of you see a problem here?


I live in a different country where the schooling system is quite different to yours. I had the choice of Bio or Physical Science.   I chose the latter.  



> Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. The underlying hypotheses and theories have been tested and retested ever since the inception of the scientific method, perhaps as long ago as the Renaissance. The overwhelming bulk of evidence is that they are still valid.
> 
> We don't need to dose a bunch of convicts with cyanide to prove that cyanide is fatal to humans. We've already proven it by dosing a bunch of lab rats and drawn the inference.
> 
> We don't have to perform lengthy genetic crosses between tarantulas to see what the effects will be because we've already done it millions of times with fruit flies, lab mice, _Neurospora_ (a type of mold), sweet peas and a thousand other organisms. And there is no reason to believe that tarantulas wouldn't produce the same results, and every reason to believe they would.


Again I see what you are saying.  However there are just too many unknowns out there that CAN only be discovered by ppl doing it.   I recall something along these lines from a post in one of the inbreeding threads, There are NO PAID sceintists that are working ONLY on T's and researching them intensively.   Let's just say that they may posses a unique Gene or something like that, that will lesson the effects of inbreeding.  You CANNOT rule it out if it has not been tried & tested.   
Let's look at M balfouri.  This T comes from an Island.  I am not familiar where it sits geographically, but would assume that it is not a large island.   These T's don't have many eggs when compared to most.  Coincedence???  Imagine they had 1000+ offspring.   What would happen to the island?  Let alone their whole eco system(I'm thinking of food chain, but did bio 13yrs + ago).  Point is, they are 'designed' that way in order to survive and maintain a balance in Nature.   Perhaps they are also 'designed' to be highly tolerant of inbreeding.   If there are weaker ones after they have hatched out, they will be eaten.  Maybe with inbreeding you get some T's that just don't survive  Let's say 20 or so make it past 3rd instar.  Those 20 will have to wait nearly two years or so to Mature.   Let's say 10 were lucky enough to make it right through.   There is now the ques of how many males vs females.   Maybe half that number even get a chance to mate.   I think that majority of the time it is mainly Son-Mother that will go on in a repeated cycle.




> Again, I disagree. A huge portion of the research in genetics was done with invertebrates like fruit flies, vinegar eels (a type of nematode worm), and a bunch of others.
> 
> It *IS* true that no studies have been done of tarantula's genetics, but if my memory serves me, there have been some studies done of other spiders although I can't quote references off the top of my head. Perhaps someone else can help here.


I would really love to read those if someone can post them.




> Spiders in general, and tarantulas in particular, are most definitely *NOT* simple creatures, and that's one of our biggest stumbling blocks. Once we begin to understand that as a very fundamental precept, we will begin to make real progress.
> 
> Understanding tarantulas can be compared to understanding the Mayan civilization. It existed a thousand years ago but it was far from primitive, and we never really realized how advanced they were until it dawned on us that they weren't primitive, just different.


Yes, I misused the word simple.  Couldn't think of another word.




> I have a strong personal opinion that no one truly dies of old age. One may die of a heart attack, lung disease, cancer, stroke, kidney failure, etc. But, "old age" is *NOT* a disease. Similarly, there are no truly "weak" tarantulas. "Weak" is not a disease or definable condition. There are defective tarantulas whose defect weakens them, but they're defective, not truly weak.


Ok, then perhaps their defects caused them to die at young age?




> *BINGO!* Now you understand why I rant on like this.


I Fully Understand.  But then can you shed some light on this:
Ray from BTS mentioned that he had a 3rd generation inbred P regalis male that was 8in and produced over 1100 slings?   Is this just a case of being to early a generation?  Would the effects only come much later down the line?




> The secret to a good experiment is to keep lots of records. Count unhatched eggs in the eggsacs. Count dead babies in the eggsac. Record every baby's molt details, and label and save the exuvia. Preserve the offspring as they die. Clearly label and save the eggsacs. Take lots and lots of photos. Keep a daily diary. Note any irregularities in molting, limb autotomy, deformities, weird behaviors, etc.


Yes Sir.   I thought of doing most of that, so thanks for filling in the rest of the checklist.  




> After you've inbred them several generations, someone on these lists will surely be willing to help you process the data. (Not me, however. By then I will either be living out my last days in a nursing home, pushing up daisies, or still ranting on about how "I told you so!"


Let me be the first to wish you well on your Journey. lol




> As a suggestion, pick one of the African species with a short generation time, or maybe a species of _Avicularia_. Who knows? You may even see the project's end!
> 
> Best of luck.



Thanks for the tip.  It will require one heck of alot of work, but I look forward to the challenge.   However I seriously doubt I will see the end of it.


----------



## AubZ (Nov 30, 2007)

I really don't feel like fighting over religion, so please don't flame this thread.  It has some very useful info, that doesn't need to be spoilt.

Let's take the Story of Noah and his Ark.   Now all Christians believe what is written in the Bible.  The whole beginning/creation of the Universe.   Then a while later God decided to destroy the world and start a fresh.  How many of ea animal went in.  Two, Male & Female so they can repopulate the Earth.   So is it then not True that every animal was original inbred.   And as the generations grew and grew, less and less 'direct' inbreeding was happening, thus getting rid of the 'bad' traits?

Just another thought to ponder on.


----------



## AubZ (Dec 2, 2007)

Mr Stan, I eargely await your response.


----------



## problemchildx (Dec 2, 2007)

To add something here.. The other day this Christian friend of mine was trying so hard to convince me the Earth was only 15000 years old. He claimed he went to bible college and knew more than me because he talks to God.
I think he is an idiot now. Not because of his beliefs, that's cool.. But because he tried to force me to believe them for hours. Yeah, that makes me believe you more! :wall: :wall:


----------



## imjim (Dec 2, 2007)

Well I started this thread and I am Christian.

Lets not argue religion and or politics here as it will only result in a war.

Rather we can share our common interest and knowledge and help each other get the most from this hobby.

As and update to the Chilean rose and eggsac. She has enclosed herself and the eggsac in maze of webbing and dug a deep hole and is laying over eggsac, some times rolling it. I hope the eggsac hatches.


----------



## problemchildx (Dec 2, 2007)

Sounds like she is doing a good job so far, never know when they feel the need to eat or destroy it though..
Hope it hatches for you too!


----------



## imjim (Dec 2, 2007)

problemchildx said:


> Sounds like she is doing a good job so far, never know when they feel the need to eat or destroy it though..
> Hope it hatches for you too!


Yeah - We should all have a mother like her (if she doesn't eat us)  ; )

Being new in this hobby this spider is amazing me with her attention to this eggsac and she is not aggressive when I add water or toss her a cricket every few days rather she just guards the eggsac with her life by laying over it.


----------



## AubZ (Dec 2, 2007)

problemchildx said:


> To add something here.. The other day this Christian friend of mine was trying so hard to convince me the Earth was only 15000 years old. He claimed he went to bible college and knew more than me because he talks to God.
> I think he is an idiot now. Not because of his beliefs, that's cool.. But because he tried to force me to believe them for hours. Yeah, that makes me believe you more! :wall: :wall:


He may not have approached you in the correct way, so I understand your point.  However, when coming to this subject, can we rather stick to the ques as this topic can cause alot of flaming.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Dec 3, 2007)

AubZ said:


> ... I recall something along these lines from a post in one of the inbreeding threads, There are NO PAID sceintists that are working ONLY on T's and researching them intensively. ...


Correct. But there really doesn't have to be. Scientists that are interested in some other facet of physiology, biochemistry, toxicology, etc. that choose tarantulas as their research model will work just as well. And they stand a much better chance of getting funded!




> ... Let's look at M balfouri.  This T comes from an Island.  I am not familiar where it sits geographically, but would assume that it is not a large island. ...


Socotra. It lies off the spit of land called the "Horn of Africa," about as far east as Africa extends. It's actually south of Arabia. It's an island about 80 miles long by about 35 miles wide, and mostly desert. Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socotra for more details.



> ... These T's don't have many eggs when compared to most.  Coincedence???  Imagine they had 1000+ offspring.   What would happen to the island?  Let alone their whole eco system(I'm thinking of food chain, but did bio 13yrs + ago). ...


Now you're getting into population dynamics and I'm not very good at it. But, I'll give it a try. Whenever you have a sudden overpopulation of one species things get pretty bad for a while. But eventually a predatory species, starvation, a disease or some other malicious agent evolves or invades to control the rampant reproduction. They, in turn, over-reproduce and a third agent appears. This cycle tends to continue through several waves until all concerned species eventually settle down to an "equilibrium condition" that is more or less stable until something else upsets the apple cart.

There are several important points to be gained from all this:

1. Populations are almost never static. The only constant is change.

2. Stability is extremely rare in nature, and any perception that we have of stability is almost completely the result of our ignorance.

The human race is currently in a state of over-population and I wait with great trepidation to see what eventually controls us. There is a long, long queue of possibilities waiting in the wings.



> ... Point is, they are 'designed' that way in order to survive and maintain a balance in Nature. ...


"Designed" if you're a Creationist. "Evolved" if you're a Darwinist. I have some problems with both concepts and think that maybe we've missed something along the way and the real answer lies either somewhere in between or somewhere out in left field.



> ... Perhaps they are also 'designed' to be highly tolerant of inbreeding. If there are weaker ones after they have hatched out, they will be eaten. Maybe with inbreeding you get some T's that just don't survive ...


Or "evolved." And, their tolerance comes at a high price: unrelenting natural selection by the environment, predators, disease, etc. The result is a population in which there is relatively little genetic variation, but the vast, overwhelming majority of genetic traits are not detrimental. Thus, they can inbreed to a very large extent without seriously jeopardizing the population as a whole. This is probably true of any limited population whether it's on a small island in the Indian Ocean or a small oasis in the middle of the Sahara Desert.



> ... I think that majority of the time it is mainly Son-Mother that will go on in a repeated cycle. ...


The only way to test this is to go to Socotra and spend years or decades sitting out in the heat and dryness watching them, or spend megabucks on DNA tests.

My guess is that son-mother crosses may be common, but brother-sister and halfbrother-halfsister crosses would be more common. Statistically, there would be a lot greater potential for halfbrother-halfsister crosses because there would probably be a lot more halfbrothers and halfsisters around for mating, while any given son would only have one mother.



> ... I would really love to read those if someone can post them. ...


 (In reference to papers written about spider genetics.)

Doubtful that anyone will. The papers were published in modern scientific journals and are covered by copyrights. Publishing them here would by a violation of copyright law unless someone could talk the journal into allowing it. Dubious.

What you'd need to do is go to a major university with a strong entomology department. Either the departmental library or the central library may have copies of journals published by the American Arachnological Society, the British Arachnological Society and some others. Then look through their annual indexes.



> ... Yes, I misused the word simple.  Couldn't think of another word. ...


I think I know what you're trying to say, but an appropriate word escapes me at the moment, too.



> ... Ok, then perhaps their defects caused them to die at young age? ...


True.



> ... Ray from BTS mentioned that he had a 3rd generation inbred P regalis male that was 8in and produced over 1100 slings?   Is this just a case of being to early a generation?  Would the effects only come much later down the line? ...


Which genes an individual inherits is strictly a matter of chance. In any clutch of eggs some will come out absolute winners...big, strong, virulent. Others won't even begin to develop as embryos. The more genes you're looking at, the wider the resulting spectrum.

Ray's male was a winner who got almost all the right genes, and Ray was absolutely justified in breeding him. I would have, too. But, there were any number of males from the same eggsac that I probably wouldn't have wasted my time with. In fact, many of them probably never survived, and if Ray didn't tear apart the eggsac and look for bad eggs and corpses he wouldn't even have known of their existence.

This is all part of animal husbandry: inbreeding with ruthless selective culling to preserve desired traits, weed out undesirable traits, and thereby eventually produce a superior (according to some preset list of guidelines or goals) genetic line.

A parallel situation exists in nature, except that the "preset list of guidelines or goals" is merely that they survive to breed and the selection isn't done intentionally by some arachnoculturist or technician in a white coat. It's done by a whole gamut of naturally occurring forces.


----------



## Stan Schultz (Dec 3, 2007)

Sorry. I glossed right over julesaussies' posting and only now realized I had.



julesaussies said:


> ... What is the exact cause for such an explosion of deformities and how will culling prevent it? ...


Instead of "deformities" I'd rather use a more global term: "Undesirable characteristics."

Generation after generation, as any type of living organism reproduces it accumulates more and more mutations to its genetic material. Like death, war, taxes and glacial movement, there's no way to escape it.

The majority of these mutations are probably benign because so much of an animal's genome is simply not used, very seldom used, or used for non-critical purposes. Another, probably smaller portion of mutations are outright harmful. Only a very small percentage are beneficial. But the fact remains that all these mutations tend to accumulate with time.

And, with inbreeding each and every mutation tends to gradually permeate through the population, generation by generation. The laws of genetics make no distinction between "good" genes and "bad" genes. They're all dealt with the same. (The question of survivability is left to the laws of evolution. From genetic's point of view "It's not my area."

Your "explosion of deformities" is just the visible expression of this accumulation.



> ... What types of deformities? ...


Some that I've heard of so far are the lack of spinnerets, and deformed eyes or eye fields. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that the apparent increase in babies' and spiderlings' molting problems are also linked to some sort of mutation, perhaps the recent spate of damaged fangs while molting as well.


----------



## problemchildx (Dec 3, 2007)

It is obvious you put great detail in your posts.. It seems I always learn something new from you, thanks!


----------



## AubZ (Dec 3, 2007)

problemchildx said:


> It is obvious you put great detail in your posts.. It seems I always learn something new from you, thanks!


Try answering his posts.  Gonna take me an hour plus and heavy concentration getting a reply ready.


----------



## Corranthe (Dec 3, 2007)

imjim:  All that other great discussion aside, please do keep us updated on this particular sac.


----------



## AubZ (Dec 3, 2007)

Pikaia said:


> Correct. But there really doesn't have to be. Scientists that are interested in some other facet of physiology, biochemistry, toxicology, etc. that choose tarantulas as their research model will work just as well. And they stand a much better chance of getting funded!


Yes, but Imagine how much more we could learn if they already had funding.




> Socotra. It lies off the spit of land called the "Horn of Africa," about as far east as Africa extends. It's actually south of Arabia. It's an island about 80 miles long by about 35 miles wide, and mostly desert. Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socotra for more details.


Now the ques is, do they (M balfouri) occupie the whole Island or just parts of it.




> Now you're getting into population dynamics and I'm not very good at it. But, I'll give it a try. Whenever you have a sudden overpopulation of one species things get pretty bad for a while. But eventually a predatory species, starvation, a disease or some other malicious agent evolves or invades to control the rampant reproduction. They, in turn, over-reproduce and a third agent appears. This cycle tends to continue through several waves until all concerned species eventually settle down to an "equilibrium condition" that is more or less stable until something else upsets the apple cart.
> 
> There are several important points to be gained from all this:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed answer.  However, I feel you misunderstood my original point.  I was not expecting you to go into detail with the population topic as My Point was this :

They are, for lack of better word, 'designed' for their habbitat.   Not a big area or plenty of natural predators, so lower yield in offspring.  If they had a much bigger area and alot more natural predators, then they would need to have more eggs in order to survive.   I kinda went off topic with this one, but it came into my mind and thought I'd go with it.   It was meant to tie into the original topic regarding inbreeding.   With such a low yield sac and possibly bad sacs in the wild, these T's are kept in low numbers.   Now with such low numbers, and most assumably dying before mating, Inbreeding would ideally fit into this picture.



> "Designed" if you're a Creationist. "Evolved" if you're a Darwinist. I have some problems with both concepts and think that maybe we've missed something along the way and the real answer lies either somewhere in between or somewhere out in left field.


Created was the Word I was looking for.  I was looking at bringing in God and creating everything, but decided to rather post the Noah's Ark Theory as that ties in directly with Inbreeding.




> Or "evolved." And, their tolerance comes at a high price: unrelenting natural selection by the environment, predators, disease, etc. The result is a population in which there is relatively little genetic variation, but the vast, overwhelming majority of genetic traits are not detrimental. Thus, they can interbreed to a very large extent without seriously jeopardizing the population as a whole. This is probably true of any limited population whether it's on a small island in the Indian Ocean or a small oasis in the middle of the Sahara Desert.


Possible.




> The only way to test this is to go to Socotra and spend years or decades sitting out in the heat and dryness watching them, or spend megabucks on DNA tests.
> 
> My guess is that son-mother crosses may be common, but brother-sister and halfbrother-halfsister crosses would be more common. Statistically, there would be a lot greater potential for halfbrother-halfsister crosses because there would probably be a lot more halfbrothers and halfsisters around for mating, while any given son would only have one mother.


Yes, half brother sister, where sharing only one parent.   Then with the association of eggs and slings DNA, some will be strong others week.   Week die off before mating, strong survive.   I get your whole point to this regard.  

I can't find the words and think that a Chalkboard would work best for what I would like to get accross.




> (In reference to papers written about spider genetics.)
> 
> Doubtful that anyone will. The papers were published in modern scientific journals and are covered by copyrights. Publishing them here would by a violation of copyright law unless someone could talk the journal into allowing it. Dubious.


Extemely Dubious.  




> What you'd need to do is go to a major university with a strong entomology department. Either the departmental library or the central library may have copies of journals published by the American Arachnological Society, the British Arachnological Society and some others. Then look through their annual indexes.


I seriously doubt they would have it here by me.  I will just search the net over the holidays when I have the time to kill.   Thanks Anyway.




> I think I know what you're trying to say, but an appropriate word escapes me at the moment, too.


Glad to see we on the same wave length.




> Which genes an individual inherits is strictly a matter of chance.


As I thought.




> Ray's male was a winner who got almost all the right genes, and Ray was absolutely justified in breeding him. I would have, too. But, there were any number of males from the same eggsac that I probably wouldn't have wasted my time with. In fact, many of them probably never survived, and if Ray didn't tear apart the eggsac and look for bad eggs and corpses he wouldn't even have known of their existence.


If he bred his 3rd gen male with his 1st gen Fem (not mother, but first set of daughters) that would then create another branch off the fam tree(where the original fem sits on top).  If enough of these branches extended and you interbreed between those branches, would you not decrease quality inbredness(dunno if you follow me, but don't know how else to put it).  Thus resulting in stronger young?




> This is all part of animal husbandry: inbreeding with ruthless selective culling to preserve desired traits, weed out undesirable traits, and thereby eventually produce a superior (according to some preset list of guidelines or goals) genetic line.


Unfortunately money plays the biggest role here as no one wants to indirectly kill profits.   It would be ideal to breed large fem & male to increase chances of their offspring also being large, but it would mean keeping alot of slings and waiting until they mature to see which meet the criteria.  It would be a very lengthy project as avg waiting time is around 2 yrs per cycle.  I think it would be worth while doing to see the results, but it would have to be a side project.



> A parallel situation exists in nature, except that the "preset list of guidelines or goals" is merely that they survive to breed and the selection isn't done intentionally by some arachnoculturist or technician in a white coat. It's done by a whole gamut of naturally occurring forces.


Yes, that is why you will never be able to totally 100% mimic their enviroment.   Too many factors in play.

I can't say that I am 100% convinced about inbreeding, as 'defects' could be as small as not being able to survive too low temps.   While others from sac can.  With them being in our care at optimal living conditions, they don't die.  If they go on to mate and pass that trait down, again, they would prob all survive.   Then when mated with unrelated bloodlines, trait could become less and less or have the introduction of a differnet trait alltogether.  

All in all this has been very interesting and has worn me down,  Need some sleep now.


----------



## imjim (Dec 4, 2007)

She is digging a hole and "encasing" the whole area in web. She is making it difficult to see or get to the egg sac. I haven't disturbed her so she is taking these actions for some other reason.

Is this an indication that the egg sac is about to hatch?


----------



## Stan Schultz (Dec 4, 2007)

imjim said:


> ... Is this an indication that the egg sac is about to hatch?


Possibly. Or simply that she wants more privacy.

Rose eggsacs normally take 55 to 70 days for the babies to emerge, depending on the temperature. Even if you don't know the exact date that she made the eggsac you can estimate a probable range for the magic day.

Enjoy your brooding tarantula!


----------



## ZergRush (Dec 4, 2007)

I'm so excited for you!  I hope everything turns out well, definitely keep us posted.


----------



## AubZ (Dec 6, 2007)

I am waiting for mine to lay her sac.   I really hope yours is succesful.


----------



## imjim (Dec 6, 2007)

I'll keep you informed of the progress.

Right now she is building a web structure that encases her and the egg sac. This is more webbing since the last time I asked why she is doing this.

I looked in last evening and I didn't see any spiderlings, only her over top of the egg sac which she is also moving around within her web tent.

I am trying to do as litle as possible to disturb her but I did lightly mist the opposite end of the terrarium. She also has a water dish but that to is wbbed over.

May I assume that she is encasing the egg sac and herself within a web fortress so that they are protected from the outside world and so they are contained and kept nearby her?

It seems that she is antiisipating something happening.


----------



## AubZ (Dec 6, 2007)

I have found that to be true when most of my T's molt.   My M robustum webs the top area around his/her burrow.  Burrowers seal their burrows, H lividium & minax seal entrance with thin layer of silk.

I think that anything posing a threat will be put off by the webbing.


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 20, 2007)

Any update, imjim?


----------



## imjim (Dec 20, 2007)

xhexdx said:


> Any update, imjim?


She has turned 25% of the terrarium upside down digging and webbing everything so its difficult to see her and the egg sac clearly underneath the dirt/web structure. She's always holding onto the egg sac. I've put cheese cloth on the top and under the screen lid of the terrarium but I see no spider-lings.

I got her with the egg sac on 11-20-2007 so today is one month with the egg sac that I am aware of.

When do you think I should pull the egg sac for inspection or should I just let it take its course as I have thus far?

Within three to four weeks should there be eggs with leggs?

I also give her a cricket every week and fill the webbed over water dish as necessary. I've observerd her coming out to eat and drink. I "lightly", fine mist the terrarium at the far oppostie end once a week. All of the terrariums dry out quickly as I have gas heat in my home.

Thank You all,

Jim


----------



## smof (Dec 20, 2007)

Just want to add another 'good luck'. Got any pics of the web tent?


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 20, 2007)

You might try pulling the eggsac from her and peeking inside.  I would.  There's always a risk she'll not accept it back though.

Wait and get other opinions before doing it though.  There are plenty of people more experienced than I on here.


----------



## imjim (Dec 20, 2007)

smof said:


> Just want to add another 'good luck'. Got any pics of the web tent?


I'll take some photos tomorrow and post them  ; )

Not much to look at unless you are a mother tarantula  ; )


----------



## smof (Dec 20, 2007)

Well what makes you think I'm not? 

I just like webs, lol.


----------



## vvx (Dec 20, 2007)

With 30 days + however many days before you bought her I'd probably pull the sac and manually incubate it. Just because the thought of a bunch of 2nd instar hatchlings escaping through ventilation in my adult cages.


----------



## imjim (Dec 21, 2007)

smof said:


> Just want to add another 'good luck'. Got any pics of the web tent?


Some photos of the nest as requested   ; )

http://moijim.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!218C8D8A0844E497!2104/


----------



## xhexdx (Dec 21, 2007)

Wow, she's really holed herself up in there!

My vote stands for pulling the sac.


----------



## imjim (Dec 21, 2007)

xhexdx said:


> Wow, she's really holed herself up in there!
> 
> My vote stands for pulling the sac.


Her and the usambara orange baboon below her are in competition and she is winning, that's saying something!


----------



## xjak3yx (Dec 21, 2007)

ive been watching this thread for a while now and its interesting when  it keeps popping up. i hope every thing goes well !  good luck


----------



## imjim (Dec 29, 2007)

I opened the egg sac today and it was half hard, half mush, milky white eggs, no bugs  : (

Just another of life's disappointments. . .


----------



## Sylvi (Dec 29, 2007)

Thats a shame. You will have to have another attempt at some point. It isn't as easy as it sounds to get these sacs to hatch, my suprise sac was also bad.


----------

