# Isn't it impossible to tame a Tarantula?



## MexicanRedKnee (Feb 3, 2010)

So I read that thread a few days ago about handling T's and the flame war that ensued. Before anyone bashes me, I'm not here asking if I can hold my T's, I would just like to see what some of the experienced T keepers on here think of what I told a guy at work about tarantulas. 
Basically, he's had a g. rosea for years. I've had tarantulas for a month (15 and counting  ). Once he learned I was into T's, he came over and talked about his, I told him which species I had and realized this guy probably didn't know much about T's seeing how he didn't recognize some species I had, all of which aren't rare. The issue on handling came up, I said I don't handle any of my T's unless I'm showing off my collection to someone who doesn't know or is afraid of tarantulas just to show them they're not aggressive and out to get you while trying to educate them about Tarantulas. He said he handles his all the time and that it's very tame because of that. I said I don't think you can tame a tarantula because they're just way too primitive and their brain is too small, they're just little bundles of very basic emotions and instinct, no room for training or doing tricks. Then I went on a rant about how handling causes stress and the only reason why the g. rosea is not biting is because it is not as easily stressed as other species, like OBTs, and because its first instinct isn't to bite in self defense, like many OW species will, but it COULD bite at some point regardless of all the handling it has gone through. Our conversation ended with him saying that's my opinion and that I've only had T's for a month. I told him he was right about that. Sometimes at work you have to talk to people you don't really like, just to prevent awkward silence .

Anyhow, isn't it true that spiders can't really be tamed like you could a more intelligent animal, and by tamed I mean teaching an animal that you're not a threat, simply because tarantulas can't learn or am I underestimating their brain power? I believe you could try to handle  a CB mexican red knee that was born and raised in captivity and stand as much of a chance of getting bit as you would if you went to Mexico and tried to handle a wild one.


----------



## Arachnoholic420 (Feb 3, 2010)

Imo maybe even the most agrressive one's some can be held not handled... and one's that you could possibly handle, as long as the person knows what he's doing..... i dont think they can ever be tamed and trained......


----------



## Steve Calceatum (Feb 3, 2010)

Tarantulas run on a hardwired set of preprogrammed responses to either good or bad stimuli, almost like a BIOS chip in their head. They can develop a certain familiarity with consistant stimuli, but there is absolutely no "taming" them.

My versi was freehandled since the day I got her as a 1/2" sling.....and she still bit me once. I get threat displays out of my frequently freehandled _G. rosea._ Even my _B. smithi_ has been known to be tempermental on occasion.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## MexicanRedKnee (Feb 3, 2010)

xsyorra said:


> Tarantulas run on a hardwired set of preprogrammed responses to either good or bad stimuli, almost like a BIOS chip in their head. They can develop a certain familiarity with consistant stimuli, but there is absolutely no "taming" them.
> 
> My versi was freehandled since the day I got her as a 1/2" sling.....and she still bit me once. I get threat displays out of my frequently freehandled _G. rosea._ Even my _B. smithi_ has been known to be tempermental on occasion.


"They can develop a certain familiarity with consistant stimuli, but there is absolutely no "taming" them."

Isn't that like saying they can learn, they can be taught, or tamed to an extent?


----------



## Steve Calceatum (Feb 3, 2010)

MexicanRedKnee said:


> "They can develop a certain familiarity with consistant stimuli, but there is absolutely no "taming" them."
> 
> Isn't that like saying they can learn, they can be taught, or tamed to an extent?


No....they make the rules and decide on what is "familiar" to them. For most intents and puroses, the attachment in this case would be their enclosure. Anything that disturbs the familiar sanctity of that enclosure causes them stress, and they will be on high-alert regardless of whether or not they make it known to you.

The trick to freehandling a tarantula is in removing them from that familiar space. When inside their home, they will defend it. Remove them from their territory to defend, and the tarantula takes on a whole new set of behaviors. Thus the rules change, and allow us humans the availability to work with the animal under these new guidelines. Given the proponderance of freehandling videos on YouTube, one would think that just about any tarantula would appear "tame" in the hands of someone who knows their T....even if only by ignorance.

To put it simply; It is not the tarantula's responsibility to adapt to their keepers, but us keepers who must adapt to the tarantula.


----------



## Fasciatum (Feb 3, 2010)

I really don't think they can be tamed, and i agree with what xsoyorra says.


----------



## DamoK21 (Feb 3, 2010)

agreed with xsyorra but i must say to some of the hobbyist's out there "WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU IN THIS HOBBY ??"

yea ok they aint exactly "eine stein" nor are they govner of any country but they are "NOT STUPID" so as for the whole they dont no much or this n that or every "SP" is exactly the same is just saying to me "That Hobbyist Dont No Anything" 

they aint stupid they aint in any way the same as every other allthough they have familiar behavours but dont humans ?? we bath we eat we fight we do alot in common with each other but were all diffrent .... so although i agree with "xsyorra" i simply belive that no 1 in the hobby has the right to "judge" any animal in there care...

If (i use this word strongly) IF tarantulas are all the same and all become so stressed when handled (which im not denying) then what i would like to no is "How many of you has had a "T" groom them selfs on you ??" coz i have so as for the whole "Is it a bad idea" or "Are they stupid" or "can they be tamed" my answer to that is ...

Dont judge the animal if the hobby noes nothing about it !!

and alot of you will disagree i no it but ya no what for those who do ask your selfs this "If we new enough about these animals then WHY on earth cant any 1 recognise there all diffrent there all single living not double and on top of that THEY ARE NOT STUPID !!" 

so id have to say all in all no 1 can give that answer because no one has even attempted to try it although science and so on will say diffrent... 

i saw a post on how T's may actually be able to be tamed all in all it a bit of a proccess but if any one is willing to say a tarantula cant do nothing then ill say this "YOULL BE SUPRISED"


----------



## forrestpengra (Feb 3, 2010)

No they cannot be tamed.  

They do not have the capacity to do so, cognitively speaking.

I can see this thread is going to end up the exact same as, "Should I hold my T".  Expect outrageous claims, falsely drawn conclusions and lots of opinions...  Oh geesh.... :wall:


----------



## BlackCat (Feb 3, 2010)

xsyorra said:


> It is not the tarantula's responsibility to adapt to their keepers, but us keepers who must adapt to the tarantula.


This sums it up, very well said. Going to sig that when I'm not being so lazy! xD


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 3, 2010)

Even higher animals kind of "forget" their taming and get violent sometimes. Lower animals can be tamed theoricaly, but will forget way faster! 

When it comes to Ts, the impossibility is easy to explain.

-Our usual communications channels (sight and hearing) are oblivious to them.
-Even if they had good sight and hearing, they lack the brain mass to correctly interpret communications from a distance. Their learning abilities rarely go beyond "You can or can't touch/eat it"!

-Animals that aren't used to parental affection surely don't expect or enjoy it coming from another creature. Taming a cat or else involve playing the surrogate mother and your hand substitutes to mother's grooming tongue. Anything bigger that touches a young T in the wild usually does so to kill it, sometimes even its mother! And their survival instinct is wired accordingly.
There is nothing in human contact that could remind a T of happy family moments, if they can remind anything. If it's a species that comes from a place where Ts are frequently preyed upon by primates, the quickest to bite any approaching hand is usually the one that transmit its genes! They don't acquire this reflex because the first bite is already to much. They are born with it!

Imagine being deaf and blind but perfectly able to consume foods or use materials that are in close contact to you...then an invisible giant seizes you and lifts you in the air. You will wanna bite!


----------



## aluras (Feb 3, 2010)

*Nope*

Nope they cannot be tamed, they can get used to a feeding cycle. but thats about it. I do believe that they all have different personalities though. I have had many of the same species act very very different. This is just my experience and opinion


----------



## Anansis (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> agreed with xsyorra but i must say to some of the hobbyist's out there "WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU IN THIS HOBBY ??"
> 
> yea ok they aint exactly "eine stein" nor are they govner of any country but they are "NOT STUPID" so as for the whole they dont no much or this n that or every "SP" is exactly the same is just saying to me "That Hobbyist Dont No Anything"
> 
> ...



Can someone translate this for me?


----------



## Julia (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> <snipping totally incoherent gibberish>


**pats DamoK21 on the head and smiles**  I'm sure you meant to say something here.  Want to have another go at it?


----------



## Singapore_Blue1 (Feb 3, 2010)

Handling a T is beneficial for both the owner and the T. Some use the excuse of stress, well its funny I had a successful sac within three days of handling the mother. The T's do become accustomed to being handled and having the owner more hands on actually prevents bites in my opinion. I've handled all of my T's and had no bites in 15 years so I feel my experience backs up my opinion. I've handled T's such as H. lividum, P. regalis, P. metallica, Xenesthis sp. white, P. ultramarinus, P. nigricolor, H. maculata, M. balfouri just to name a few so its not like I'm messing with a Grammostola here. Anyone who says that you shouldn't handle your T's and has never handled one more than a few times really has no ground to make such comments on this subject. They are basing there opinions on science rather than personal experience. Sometimes science has its flaws and at times it overlooks things. A great example would be the discovery of an octopus using tools. Why is this a big deal, well its an invert folks thats why. Look it up online for those who didn't see that on the nightly news. Last I checked that takes a degree of intelligence to aquire such a skill. Prior to the video scientists said that an octopus had no mental ability to do such actions. There is more to these creatures than meets the eye like the octopus and the longer I keep T's the more I learn about them day after day. So to answer the question I don't believe they can be tamed but I do believe they have far more capabilities than we give them credit for having.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## DamoK21 (Feb 3, 2010)

Singapore_Blue1 said:


> Handling a T is beneficial for both the owner and the T. Some use the excuse of stress, well its funny I had a successful sac within three days of handling the mother. The T's do become accustomed to being handled and having the owner more hands on actually prevents bites in my opinion. I've handled all of my T's and had no bites in 15 years so I feel my experience backs up my opinion. I've handled T's such as H. lividum, P. regalis, P. metallica, Xenesthis sp. white, P. ultramarinus, P. nigricolor, H. maculata, M. balfouri just to name a few so its not like I'm messing with a Grammostola here. Anyone who says that you shouldn't handle your T's and has never handled one more than a few times really has no ground to make such comments on this subject. They are basing there opinions on science rather than personal experience. Sometimes science has its flaws and at times it overlooks things. A great example would be the discovery of an octopus using tools. Why is this a big deal, well its an invert folks thats why. Look it up online for those who didn't see that on the nightly news. Last I checked that takes a degree of intelligence to aquire such a skill. Prior to the video scientists said that an octopus had no mental ability to do such actions. There is more to these creatures than meets the eye like the octopus and the longer I keep T's the more I learn about them day after day. So to answer the question I don't believe they can be tamed but I do believe they have far more capabilities than we give them credit for having.




here ya go point proven well said no one other than this guy here actually see's a point there not dumb animals like alot of you claim there not pathertic either which i seem to see alot of people in the hobby say theres your proof right here youve got a succesful egg sack and a grooming T ... In the proccess of being held !!

and yet im getting insults but weres your proof ?? weres the proof to state tarantulas cant learn which iv seen they can learn rather quickly if given the chance ....

alot of you gives these a bad name still and your in this hobby ?? what the hell is the point of it you either care or ya dont and after joining this site iv seen more negative on these beautiful animals than positive ?? 


come on guys were all in the same boat so why on earth are you (includeing me) going against others ?? i only go against some one if they go against me other wise ill leave it with a "good stuff" ... the simple fact is others think there better than others i cant stress this enough NO 1 IS BETTER THAN ANY 1 ELSE ...


----------



## Mister Internet (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> come on guys were all in the same boat so why on earth are you (includeing me) going against others ?? i only go against some one if they go against me other wise ill leave it with a "good stuff" ... the simple fact is others think there better than others i cant stress this enough NO 1 IS BETTER THAN ANY 1 ELSE ...


Would you mind at least pretending that English isn't your fourth language? 

And your statements are just silly... I am better than lots of people.  YOU, also, are probably better than lots of other people.  Maybe I'm better than you... who knows.  Better WITH REGARDS TO WHAT is the question, and here is where "fluffy bunny hobbyists" fall down into a puddle of logical incoherency.  Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't make it valid or immune to critique... likewise, just because you do have a valid, thoughtful opinion on something doesn't necessarily make you "better" than someone else in another area.

I guess what I'm saying is that you need to focus and use words that actually have meaning in the context to which you're trying to apply them.  Ranting about how your opinion is immune to critique simply because it happened to pop into your head and yelling at anyone who disagrees with you that "they're not better than you" is a horrible way to go about having a discussion.

If this turns into another flame war, I'm just locking it.  Many of you are completely incapable of having a decent discussion.


----------



## forrestpengra (Feb 3, 2010)

Mister Internet said:


> Would you mind at least pretending that English isn't your fourth language?


Along those lines you might consider this article, it's quite concerning.  School kids are using Text Message type spelling in their essays now... Oh geesh... R U Kidding?  Oh QQ...

http://www.ypct.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6636&Itemid=66


----------



## Steve Calceatum (Feb 3, 2010)

Singapore_Blue1 said:


> Handling a T is beneficial for both the owner and the T. Some use the excuse of stress, well its funny I had a successful sac within three days of handling the mother. The T's do become accustomed to being handled and having the owner more hands on actually prevents bites in my opinion. I've handled all of my T's and had no bites in 15 years so I feel my experience backs up my opinion. I've handled T's such as H. lividum, P. regalis, P. metallica, Xenesthis sp. white, P. ultramarinus, P. nigricolor, H. maculata, M. balfouri just to name a few so its not like I'm messing with a Grammostola here. Anyone who says that you shouldn't handle your T's and has never handled one more than a few times really has no ground to make such comments on this subject. They are basing there opinions on science rather than personal experience. Sometimes science has its flaws and at times it overlooks things. A great example would be the discovery of an octopus using tools. Why is this a big deal, well its an invert folks thats why. Look it up online for those who didn't see that on the nightly news. Last I checked that takes a degree of intelligence to aquire such a skill. Prior to the video scientists said that an octopus had no mental ability to do such actions. There is more to these creatures than meets the eye like the octopus and the longer I keep T's the more I learn about them day after day. So to answer the question I don't believe they can be tamed but I do believe they have far more capabilities than we give them credit for having.


While octopi and tarantulas are both inverts, the similarities stop there. I have been witness to the intellectual prowess of a tarantula, particularly arboreals. Especially after chasing a 6" MM _P. striata_ around a naturalistic setup for a half hour. This experience became the reason I no longer glue in decorations unless necessary.

However, tarantulas do not become accustomed to much more than their homes. I've had my S. cal for a while now.....you'd think if she were accustomed to me as her keeper, she would quit trying to kill me when I change her water. My _G. pulchripes_ goes ape whenever I do maintenance in her cage, and my frequently-freehandled Rosie will turn on me whenever she pleases.

I wholeheartedly appreciate that you are flying the flag to promote awareness towards new way of thinking on the ever so controversial subject of freehandling. However, it is best to do so wthin the current stream of thought. Promoting the practice as being somehow beneficial for the tarantula is neither within mainstream thought of this hobby, nor even provable due to the lack of knowledge of these creatures.

Freehandling is a personal choice, and is best left up to the individual keeper to make for themselves and their tarantulas. It does not lessen the risk of bites, the tarantula cannot become accustomed to the practice, and is a risk to the safety of the animal. I have made my choice, and understand these concepts. I do freehandle, and enjoy the practice as it makes me feel closer to my animals.....regardless that the sentiment is not reciprocated.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 3, 2010)

You can pick this whole 'do they tame' and 'should I handle them' discussion apart all you want...it boils down to a set of variables that, when all addressed together, will give you your answer.

These are the variables I have personally identified as being directly related to handling a spider:


Species
Size
Handler's experience
Individual spider's 'mood'

*Species:*
Some species are _generally_ more likely to bite than others, regardless of the situation.  For example, H. maculata is more likely to bite than B. smithi.

*Size:*
Most (in my experience) slings and even small juvies (say, ~1.5") are more likely to be handled without biting.

*Handler's experience:*
A large portion of bites are also due to the experience (or lack thereof) of the handler.  It's good to be able to recognize signs of an irritated spider, and know how to adjust their strategy or methods of handling, moving, rehousing, etc., to compensate.

*Individual spider's 'mood':*
For everyone who can say, "My B. smithi is like a teddy bear!", there's probably one who can say, "My B. smithi is the spawn of Satan!"  All the time, people post how they have multiple spiders of the same species, and one is calm, the other is spastic.  I've seen threads where people say their spider was docile as could be until it molted, and now it's a demon child.  

My point is this...it's more in-depth than a 'yes' or 'no' answer when asking if a spiders are handleable.

Then, on top of that, the issue of whether the spiders are stressed or not comes in to play.  That's a discussion for another thread.

I hope this post makes sense.

--Joe

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Julia (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> and yet im getting insults but weres your proof ?? weres the proof to state tarantulas cant learn which iv seen they can learn rather quickly if given the chance ....


The proof is in their physical makeup and their genetics.  They do not possess  brains capable of "learning," as you're trying to imply.

However, if you feel so strongly, please feel free to teach your tarantulas tricks, record the experience, and post it here for all of us to see.  I, for one, would love to see a tarantula "shake" on command.


----------



## DamoK21 (Feb 3, 2010)

Mister Internet said:


> Would you mind at least pretending that English isn't your fourth language?
> 
> And your statements are just silly... I am better than lots of people.  YOU, also, are probably better than lots of other people.  Maybe I'm better than you... who knows.  Better WITH REGARDS TO WHAT is the question, and here is where "fluffy bunny hobbyists" fall down into a puddle of logical incoherency.  Just because you have an opinion on something doesn't make it valid or immune to critique... likewise, just because you do have a valid, thoughtful opinion on something doesn't necessarily make you "better" than someone else in another area.
> 
> ...




no english is my first language but because i am a computer scientist alot of words are completly diffrent to the english dictionary sorry .......

yea ya right on the whole diffrent and better thing but ya no 

sorry for the bad spelling if you saw what i wrote in computer language on a day to day basis it becomes some what your vocabulary but ya no ;P


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> no english is my first language but because i am a computer scientist alot of words are completly diffrent to the english dictionary sorry .......
> 
> yea ya right on the whole diffrent and better thing but ya no
> 
> sorry for the bad spelling if you saw what i wrote in computer language on a day to day basis it becomes some what your vocabulary but ya no ;P


Really?  I'm a computer programmer...

What language(s) do you use?


----------



## Xian (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> no english is my first language but because i am a computer scientist alot of words are completly diffrent to the english dictionary sorry .......
> 
> yea ya right on the whole diffrent and better thing but ya no
> 
> sorry for the bad spelling if you saw what i wrote in computer language on a day to day basis it becomes some what your vocabulary but ya no ;P


I thought spelling and syntax were crucial to computer programming?


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 3, 2010)

Xian said:


> I thought spelling and syntax were crucial to computer programming?


You thought correctly.

I figure I'd take the liberty to bold some of his original post, in hopes he can explain how these words are used in 'computer language':



DamoK21 said:


> agreed with xsyorra but i must say to some of the hobbyist's out there "WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU IN THIS HOBBY ??"
> 
> yea ok they aint exactly *"eine stein"* nor are they *govner *of any country but they are "NOT STUPID" so as for the whole they dont no much or this n that or every "SP" is exactly the same is just saying to me "That Hobbyist Dont No Anything"
> 
> ...


Anyway...I won't pick apart any further will we see what he says.

I wait with bated breath.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 3, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> You can pick this whole 'do they tame' and 'should I handle them' discussion apart all you want...it boils down to a set of variables that, when all addressed together, will give you your answer.
> 
> These are the variables I have personally identified as being directly related to handling a spider:
> 
> ...


I would add some variable factors that have yet to be understood. Some people simply have it, others not. It's a bit like Jimi Hendrix... anybody else trying to play his guitar generated nothing but feedback but when he took it back, the noise stopped and his trademark sound resumed. Perhaps it was his bone density or else I don't know... but there is an unexplainable factor that made him able to do it.

Same goes for us hobbyists. You'll have a guy walking through a collection and juggling cheerfully  with S calceatum and Pokies  and the next guy walking in the same collection 5 minutes later will get bit while cleaning a Rosie's waterdish. Why???   You can't explain everything. Do people taste differently, can they feel our stress or other energy we radiate?... nobody knows yet!!!


----------



## Mister Internet (Feb 3, 2010)

DamoK21 said:


> no english is my first language but because i am a computer scientist alot of words are completly diffrent to the english dictionary sorry .......
> 
> yea ya right on the whole diffrent and better thing but ya no
> 
> sorry for the bad spelling if you saw what i wrote in computer language on a day to day basis it becomes some what your vocabulary but ya no ;P


Are you kidding me?  I've been computer-related professional for over ten years now... I used to program and configure systems that cost 10X more than my house.  At one point I was in charge of a $1M business unit comprised of top-flight programmers.

I never gave the resumes of people that talked that a second look, no matter how good they were.  You didn't use ONE SINGLE WORD that was computer-industry specific, so your excuse falls apart.

Sorry, I get a little heated when people try to present themselves as a "computer person" as the reason they can't spell or write better than a grade-schooler.

All I was asking was for you to try to help people out by typing in readable English, that's all.  It's nothing personal.

Can't we all just agree that Tarantulas can become ACCUSTOMED to certain stimuli, but cannot be TRAINED towards predictable responses to those stimuli?


----------



## ReMoVeR (Feb 3, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> You thought correctly.
> 
> I figure I'd take the liberty to bold some of his original post, in hopes he can explain how these words are used in 'computer language':
> 
> ...


God! LOLOL I'm learning C++ language and i havent seen that. Ofc I do write that way because a lot of english that i learned was from the internet =) 

xhexdx i kinda love almost all your posts xD LOL

As to the topic, I have no opinion about since i acept both of the "theories" x))   hehe 
I just handled my smithi 2" juvie recently and she was not flickin or nothin but... she ran up my arm, stoped at helbow... took some nice pics and then.. bolted to my back hihi good god my brother was there xD It ended on the other side of my back then to my shoulder and then i got to "pull" her down  again was very funny  And I handle my Ts rarely so it always amuses me to have them on me. And yes, sometimes, it seems that they just dont want be handled.. If you look for stress signs it will be ok to have a little handle =)


//Tiago


----------



## kripp_keeper (Feb 3, 2010)

Well I skimmed through(mostly skipped) some of what was said here, so I might be repeating what other have said.


Tarantulas can learn...most people here can testify to that from personal experience. My G. rosea will walk over to the edge of her enclosure and watch me while I feed or perform maintenance on other things. She used to run and hide when I came near her, but now she watches....don't know if she enjoys watching me, or just wants to make sure I'm not messing her stuff up again. Now whether or not they can become "tame" probably depends on your definition of the word. While a tarantula can get used to you; you must ask yourself(with a much more complex brain) would enjoy a giant messing up your bed and letting you crawl around on its hand while other giants stared in aw.


----------



## jebbewocky (Feb 3, 2010)

*because I'm snarky*



xhexdx said:


> You thought correctly.
> 
> I figure I'd take the liberty to bold some of his original post, in hopes he can explain how these words are used in 'computer language':
> 
> ...


Fixed that for you.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 3, 2010)

jebbewocky said:


> Fixed that for you.


Holy crap I'm a mess today!

Thanks.


----------



## Xian (Feb 3, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Holy crap I'm a mess today!
> 
> Thanks.


Don't beat yourself up just yet.........



> The correct spelling is actually bated breath but it’s so common these days to see it written as baited breath that there’s every chance that it will soon become the usual form, to the disgust of conservative speakers and the confusion of dictionary writers. Examples in newspapers and magazines are legion; this one appeared in the Daily Mirror on 12 April 2003: “She hasn’t responded yet but Michael is waiting with baited breath”.
> 
> 
> For those who know the older spelling or who stop to consider the matter, baited breath evokes an incongruous image; Geoffrey Taylor humorously (and consciously) captured it in verse in his poem Cruel Clever Cat:
> ...


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 3, 2010)

kripp_keeper said:


> Tarantulas can learn...most people here can testify to that from personal experience. My G. rosea will walk over to the edge of her enclosure and watch me while I feed or perform maintenance on other things.


Sorry, but I really don't think your G. rosea has vision sufficient enough to do what you describe.


----------



## kripp_keeper (Feb 3, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Sorry, but I really don't think your G. rosea has vision sufficient enough to do what you describe.


Vision or not she still walks over and stands there while I'm there.


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 3, 2010)

kripp_keeper said:


> Vision or not she still walks over and stands there while I'm there.


I never said she didn't...what I was implying was that it is (probably) not for the reason you think, that's all.


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

Singapore_Blue1 said:


> well its funny I had a successful sac within three days of handling the mother.


Correlation does not imply causation....  That's like saying vaccines cause autism just because autism tends to show symptoms around the same time kids are getting vaccines....

From a Biological standpoint, we can clearly see that the answer to whether or not they can be tamed is yes AND no.  Individual tarantulas CANNOT be tamed.  If you think you are taming them, you're not.  You've just anthropomorphized them.  Species as a whole can theoretically be tamed through selective breeding, but it would probably take several generations minimum.

First of all... tarantulas are not DUMB just because their brains are small and they don't respond to stimuli the same way you do.  By the same token... humans aren't the brightest crayons in the box, we just think we are.

Intelligence is based on a lot of different things.  Two of the biggest factors for determining an animal's intelligence is being able to predict and plan, and being able to manipulate the environment to meet certain needs.

Before a molt, tarantulas tend to take certain precautions.  For example, they may close off the opening to their burrow, lay down a nice webbing, stop eating, drink more water, etc.  The implication here is that they are conscious of the fact that they are about to molt, they're predicting what will be necessary to molt successfully, and they're planning for it.  You may argue that it's just "instinct," and yes, part of it is instinct, but regardless, there is planning and predicting that goes into it.

They also, obviously, are able to alter their environment by building their burrows and even reinforcing the sides of their burrowing with webbing.  This takes a great deal of intelligence to identify the best place for the burrow, identify the weak spots, determine how much webbing to put, push the dirt up in such a way that they have a nice exit, etc, etc etc.  Again, you may argue that it's instinct, but it really does suggest a great deal more intelligence than say a clam that just reacts to immediate stimuli and doesn't change the environment or make accommodations.

The T has developed intelligence in these aspects because as the genetics that we see today were developing, these are the things that helped the T survive.  Interacting with humans, however, was not a factor in whether or not they would survive.  Genetically, they never developed the skills to interact with humans, because they've never needed to.  It would be a waste of brain mass.  So, when you hold your tarantula, it doesn't have the ability to adapt to you and decide that you are a friend.  That's not part of what's important to them in the grand scheme of things (does this make sense???)

NOW, if we wanted to tame a type of tarantula, I bet we could.  Say you start with 1,000 lividums.  There's a chance that 2 of them might be a little more chill (just slightly) than all the rest of them.  So you kill all 998 of the other ones, and mate the remaining two.  Then select the babies that are the calmest and keep going.  Eventually, you would get to a point where all (or most) of the offspring are calm and can be handled.  This would be a new breed.  That's what they did with dogs.  At that point, being "tame" WOULD be an important component for survival of those Ts and so it would end up being built into their genetics.

I rest my case.


----------



## Draychen (Feb 3, 2010)

Interesting topic, I agree with Xysorra, BUT: Someone tell me how a Tarantula learns. I'll give you a hint, it's the same way a common spider learns and similar to quite a few other insects. It also shows the diference between why wild bred Ts and captive bred Ts differ greatly. If you can't answer this basic question, you don't belong in the thread answering the OP's questions 

In closing, I will say Xysorra is very close correct. Anything can be 'trained' through stimuli.. It all depends on how much information they can store in their wonderful litt brains. But Ts are diferent in the understandings of science..  Until someone answers the question as to how they learn, I wont delve further into the discussion.


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

Draychen said:


> Interesting topic, I agree with Xysorra, BUT: Someone tell me how a Tarantula learns. I'll give you a hint, it's the same way a common spider learns and similar to quite a few other insects. It also shows the diference between why wild bred Ts and captive bred Ts differ greatly. If you can't answer this basic question, you don't belong in the thread answering the OP's questions
> 
> In closing, I will say Xysorra is very close correct. Anything can be 'trained' through stimuli.. It all depends on how much information they can store in their wonderful litt brains. But Ts are diferent in the understandings of science..  Until someone answers the question as to how they learn, I wont delve further into the discussion.


What do you mean?  Like neurologically what processes are going on?  Or what types of stimuli would cause a spider to learn?


----------



## Draychen (Feb 3, 2010)

Interesting topic, I agree with Xysorra, BUT: Someone tell me how a Tarantula learns. I'll give you a hint, it's the same way a common spider learns and similar to quite a few other insects. It also shows the diference between why wild bred Ts and captive bred Ts differ greatly. If you can't answer this basic question, you don't belong in the thread answering the OP's questions 

In closing, I will say Xysorra is very close correct. Anything can be 'trained' through stimuli.. It all depends on how much information they can store in their wonderful litt brains. But Ts are diferent in the understandings of science..  Until someone answers the question as to how they learn, I wont delve further into the discussion.

(I'm sorry to do this.. but some of these threads get EXTREMELY annoying when people chime in without scientific fact/conjecture to back them up. Spitting just opnion alone to end up creating a MASSIVE flame on two sides!)


----------



## jebbewocky (Feb 3, 2010)

Draychen said:


> Interesting topic, I agree with Xysorra, BUT: Someone tell me how a Tarantula learns. I'll give you a hint, it's the same way a common spider learns and similar to quite a few other insects. It also shows the diference between why wild bred Ts and captive bred Ts differ greatly. If you can't answer this basic question, you don't belong in the thread answering the OP's questions
> 
> In closing, I will say Xysorra is very close correct. Anything can be 'trained' through stimuli.. It all depends on how much information they can store in their wonderful litt brains. But Ts are diferent in the understandings of science..  Until someone answers the question as to how they learn, I wont delve further into the discussion.
> 
> (I'm sorry to do this.. but some of these threads get EXTREMELY annoying when people chime in without scientific fact/conjecture to back them up. Spitting just opnion alone to end up creating a MASSIVE flame on two sides!)



So how DOES a spider learn?  Personally, I would think if they have any learning capacity at all, it would be Pavlovian style classical conditioning.  I would think operant conditioning (ie, training) would be completely beyond them.  That's completely conjecture on my part.  Really, if you know--why not tell us?


----------



## Draychen (Feb 3, 2010)

My apologies for the double post: I was editing and something went wrong. Anyhow, Tarantulas learn by genetic inheritance. At birth, they come pre-programed with the basics of survival and have limited a limited capicity to learn. HOWEVER, a they do learn, the mothers pass on this aquired information to their young! In the end, the more information learned, the more 'outdated' information is kicked out of their brains.. to then be passed on down again and again. Scientific conjecture would then state: If you kept a mother T in a controlled enviornment and subjected her to differing stimuli, she would in turn pass what she can collect, to her young. Split those Ts up (let's say 2 for example): Keep one female in the same enviornment, and the other in an uncontrolled enviornment. Gradually, over time the Ts continually placed  inside the controlled enviornment would lose much of their ability to survive in the wild, but will adapt to her new enviornment. Meanwhile, the Ts inside the uncontrolled encloseure would retain and regain the information to survive in theirs... though it may take each a few birthing cycles to obtain this effect. 

  The stimuli for example would be things like electro-shock in certain areas. Climbing in certain places to recieve food etc etc. There are many types of stimuli that can be used to effect this. These are just a few examples. The basic portions of their brains function like many creatures.. except so far as science has been able to prove, that is pretty much the extent of it. So, you could train a T (based on conjecture).. but it wouldn't be the T you started with.. it would probably be around the 2nd or 3rd generation babies.


Edit: Basically, mentally through their children, they will adapt extremely quickly to their new sorroundings. Faster than many other creatures. 

I wish I had taped the episode. (I'm a Discovery/Animal Planet/History freak ESPECIALLY when it deals with Ts!)


----------



## Xian (Feb 3, 2010)

http://www.archive.org/stream/arachnidaembolob00warb/arachnidaembolob00warb_djvu.txt

scroll down to section 27 "iv] MENTAL POWERS OF SPIDERS 27"

The entire article is good.........but section 27 deals with this thread.


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

Wait.  You said that tarantulas learn by genetic inheritance, and that stimuli the mother is exposed to can be passed to the young.  Are you saying, then, that responses to stimuli alter the genetics of the mother?  I am confused.

And isn't that sort of kind of what I said above?  That "training" would happen over several generations through human interference?  Or am I totally missing the point?


----------



## jebbewocky (Feb 3, 2010)

Draychen said:


> My apologies for the double post: I was editing and something went wrong. Anyhow, Tarantulas learn by genetic inheritance. At birth, they come pre-programed with the basics of survival and have limited a limited capicity to learn. HOWEVER, a they do learn, the mothers pass on this aquired information to their young! In the end, the more information learned, the more 'outdated' information is kicked out of their brains.. to then be passed on down again and again. Scientific conjecture would then state: If you kept a mother T in a controlled enviornment and subjected her to differing stimuli, she would in turn pass what she can collect, to her young. Split those Ts up (let's say 2 for example): Keep one female in the same enviornment, and the other in an uncontrolled enviornment. Gradually, over time the Ts continually placed  inside the controlled enviornment would lose much of their ability to survive in the wild, but will adapt to her new enviornment. Meanwhile, the Ts inside the uncontrolled encloseure would retain and regain the information to survive in theirs... though it may take each a few birthing cycles to obtain this effect.
> 
> The stimuli for example would be things like electro-shock in certain areas. Climbing in certain places to recieve food etc etc. There are many types of stimuli that can be used to effect this. These are just a few examples. The basic portions of their brains function like many creatures.. except so far as science has been able to prove, that is pretty much the extent of it. So, you could train a T (based on conjecture).. but it wouldn't be the T you started with.. it would probably be around the 2nd or 3rd generation babies.
> 
> I wish I had taped the episode. (I'm a Discovery/Animal Planet/History freak ESPECIALLY when it deals with Ts!)


Um. I'm gonna have to call baloney on that one.  Lamarck and all.


----------



## Draychen (Feb 3, 2010)

Yes, Splangy, you got it right. The 'training' would happen over generations. I think perhaps by genetic inheritance, they mean that the information gathered is then passed on through their genes. Basically, an alteration of the information passed down to their young.


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

Xian said:


> http://www.archive.org/stream/arachnidaembolob00warb/arachnidaembolob00warb_djvu.txt
> 
> scroll down to section 27 "iv] MENTAL POWERS OF SPIDERS 27"


Perhaps I'm reading the wrong location.  The only thing I saw was discussing how the spider became accustomed to a tuning fork, but then promptly forgot the lesson they had learned by the next day?  Going to paste it here in case anyone else would like to read.



			
				Full text of "Arachnida embolobrachiata (scorpions said:
			
		

> So much, then, as to the senses of spiders; but what about their " educability ' -their power of learning from experience ? Here is evidently a wide subject, and a difficult one full of pit-falls for the unwary, but we may nevertheless draw some inferences from the quite elementary experiments on the senses which have been outlined above. A spider drops on account of the sounding of the tuning-fork in its neighbourhood; can it be educated to take no notice of the sound after repeatedly finding that no evil consequences follow? It will perhaps be most instructive to give in a condensed form the results of an actual experiment selected from many performed by two American arachnologists, George and Elizabeth Peckham, whose researches have thrown more light than any others upon the mental equipment of spiders. They had an individual of the small Epeirid species Cyclosa conica under observation for a month, and tested it almost daily with the tuning-fork. At the sound of the fork the spider would drop ; when it had recovered itself and returned to the snare the fork would be sounded again, and so on. Now on July 20 the spider fell nine times successively the last three times only an inch or two and then took no further notice of the vibrating fork. On subsequent days, until August 5, she fell either five, six or seven times, except on two occasions when a day's test had been omitted, and then eleven successive falls occurred before the spider ceased to respond. On August 5 she seemed startled at the sound but did not fall, though the fork was sounded nine times. During the remainder of the experiment she generally remained perfectly indifferent to the fork, though on one or two occasions she partially forgot her lesson and dropped a very short distance, immediately recovering herself.
> 
> Observe that the basis of educability is memory. For a fortnight, in the case of this particular spider, the lesson learnt on one day seemed to be entirely
> forgotten the next morning, but thereafter a definite change of habit seemed to result. This does not appear a very great intellectual achievement, but it
> ...


<<EDIT my apologies... I didn't read who had posted what and thought Dray had posted the link about the educatability of spiders.  That's why I was confused.  Anyway, it's there in case anyone is interested about reading.  >>


----------



## Draychen (Feb 3, 2010)

Yes, the spider did forget it's lesson, but later on after showed no signs of reacting to the tuning fork (Basically it learned to ignore it). However, in science, a single test is not solidified evidence. Numerous tests must be conducted before coming to a proper conclusion. For that test to be taken as fact, it must be run hundreds or times with the same species.. and then it must be run hundreds of times with diferent species. The results must be thoroughly doccumented every step of the way. Only then will the end results (when compared) will be accepted as fact. And ONLY for those species tested.


----------



## Xian (Feb 3, 2010)

Draychen said:


> Yes, the spider did forget it's lesson, but later on after showed no signs of reacting to the tuning fork (Basically it learned to ignore it). However, in science, a single test is not solidified evidence. Numerous tests must be conducted before coming to a proper conclusion. For that test to be taken as fact, it must be run hundreds or times with the same species.. and then it must be run hundreds of times with diferent species. The results must be thoroughly doccumented every step of the way. Only then will the end results (when compared) will be accepted as fact. And ONLY for those species tested.


Totally Agreed!
Which would have to be done before testing your theory of genetic alteration thru learning.


----------



## Steve Calceatum (Feb 3, 2010)

Xian said:


> http://www.archive.org/stream/arachnidaembolob00warb/arachnidaembolob00warb_djvu.txt
> 
> scroll down to section 27 "iv] MENTAL POWERS OF SPIDERS 27"
> 
> The entire article is good.........but section 27 deals with this thread.


Thanks Xian....it was a pretty informative article, but I especially liked the part where it said:

"This single experiment has been here described in some detail largely for the purpose of impressing the reader with the importance of reducing the problem 
to its simplest terms before any inferences are drawn, and it may well act as a model for any which he may be inclined to undertake on his own account. *The more complicated the action, the more likely is the experimenter to read into it motives and mental operations which exist only in his own imagination,* and with this warning we must take leave of a subject which might tempt us to encroach too much on an allotted space."


Again, it is not the tarantula's responsibility to adapt to us, but ours to adapt to them. If they do reciprocate that adaptation (to whatever speculative level), then it is a privledge and not a consistant set of behaviors to expect from your tarantula. Nor is this privledge to be taken for granted either, lest they suddenly decide to not be so "co-operative," as it were.

As far as captive-breeding genetics goes........this is not a subject with much study behind it, and attributions to behaviors through generations via captive-breeding would only be speculative at best. Even if this phenomena were to be substantiated by hard empirical evidence, you would still only be training by proxy, and thus not (in fact) "Training" an individual tarantula.


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

No you're right.  "training" would be the wrong word for the effects of selective breeding.  "taming" would be a better word, and i don't think it really would even count for the sake of this thread.  I was throwing that in there to re-emphasize the capacity a tarantula has for "getting used to us."  

although, I must say.... if i had the money and the resources (and the ability to kill all of the ferocious Ts), selective breeding to see if you could actually alter the demeanor of a particular breed would be uber interesting! 


ability to kill meaning.... i would feel guilty and cry myself to sleep every night.


----------



## Xian (Feb 3, 2010)

xsyorra said:


> Thanks Xian....it was a pretty informative article, but I especially liked the part where it said:
> 
> "This single experiment has been here described in some detail largely for the purpose of impressing the reader with the importance of reducing the problem
> to its simplest terms before any inferences are drawn, and it may well act as a model for any which he may be inclined to undertake on his own account. *The more complicated the action, the more likely is the experimenter to read into it motives and mental operations which exist only in his own imagination,* and with this warning we must take leave of a subject which might tempt us to encroach too much on an allotted space."
> .....


Thanks, I posted it merely to show an experiment that had been done in the past. I'm in no way taking sides either way on this debate.


----------



## Steve Calceatum (Feb 3, 2010)

splangy said:


> although, I must say.... if i had the money and the resources (and the ability to kill all of the ferocious Ts), selective breeding to see if you could actually alter the demeanor of a particular breed would be uber interesting!


Not really.......Some of us happen to like our meanies. I'd have to say, my "ferocious" ones (Desirae, the psycho _P. cambridgei_ and my S. cal Lilith) are my favorite girls!!!! I love my Avics, Grammys and _B. smithi_ to no end.......but their tanks are nowhere near as fun to stick your hand in!!!!


----------



## Xian (Feb 3, 2010)

xsyorra said:


> Not really.......Some of us happen to like our meanies. I'd have to say, my "ferocious" ones (Desirae, the psycho _P. cambridgei_ and my S. cal Lilith) are my favorite girls!!!! I love my Avics, Grammys and _B. smithi_ to no end.......but their tanks are nowhere near as fun to stick your hand in!!!!


You could also breed out the docile ones and work on the more 'mean' ones. lol


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah, but wouldn't it be fun to see if it actually worked??? Think of what we could learn about them!  Obviously, the aggressive ones could still exist.  I'm simply suggesting developing a different breed.  (just like dogs are all the same species but different breeds have different temperaments... it would be the same with the Ts)


----------



## Nerri1029 (Feb 3, 2010)

Fred Punzo (Spiders: Biology, Ecology, Natural History and Behavior)

Talked about spiders "learning" which direction ( e.g. left or right ) yielded food more often.
If a food item was always placed to the left of the burrow, they would go left far more often. Hence learning.

This stimuli would need to be repeated constantly however. 

My memory recalls a time frame of 9 days with out said stimuli and the spider would pick left and right without bias.


So what his research suggests is that spiders have a limited capacity to "learn"

*************************************************

As for ANYTHING that was learned getting passed down through genetics.. 
show me ONE just ONE paper that suggests this. PLEASE....


----------



## Steve Calceatum (Feb 3, 2010)

Xian said:


> You could also breed out the docile ones and work on the more 'mean' ones. lol


When Desirae is ready, I'll be looking for the meanest male possible for her!!!


----------



## Falk (Feb 3, 2010)

Tarantulas dont have the social mechanics that can make them tame.
Those words comes from a arachnid biologist.


----------



## Falk (Feb 3, 2010)

kripp_keeper said:


> Well I skimmed through(mostly skipped) some of what was said here, so I might be repeating what other have said.
> 
> 
> Tarantulas can learn...most people here can testify to that from personal experience. My G. rosea will walk over to the edge of her enclosure and watch me while I feed or perform maintenance on other things. She used to run and hide when I came near her, but now she watches....don't know if she enjoys watching me, or just wants to make sure I'm not messing her stuff up again. Now whether or not they can become "tame" probably depends on your definition of the word. While a tarantula can get used to you; you must ask yourself(with a much more complex brain) would enjoy a giant messing up your bed and letting you crawl around on its hand while other giants stared in aw.


So you mean if you are handeling a tarantula and it never bites its tame or used to you:clap:


----------



## kripp_keeper (Feb 3, 2010)

Falk said:


> So you mean if you are handeling a tarantula and it never bites its tame or used to you:clap:


Once again that depends on how you are defining the word tame.

2. without the savageness or fear of humans normal in wild animals; gentle, fearless, or without shyness, as if domesticated: That lion acts as tame as a house cat. 

It may not bite you, but could still be scared or "shy"/nervous. Give it a squeeze, and see what it does.


4. lacking in excitement; dull; insipid: a very tame party. 


By this definition my girl is tame. She sits in her hole all day....but.....then she sits in the other side of her hole(hole not burrow). She doesn't really do anything else unless someone walks over by her.


----------



## splangy (Feb 3, 2010)

That's assuming that a T in the wild would behave differently.  I've seen people handle Ts in the wild.  They tend to act the same as "domesticated" Ts.  Not that I can say this is the case conclusively, I haven't done studies.  But I doubt the T behaves THAT differently in the wild than it does in our cages....  idk.


----------



## Ms.X (Feb 3, 2010)

Draychen said:


> Yes, the spider did forget it's lesson, but later on after showed no signs of reacting to the tuning fork (Basically it learned to ignore it). However, in science, a single test is not solidified evidence. Numerous tests must be conducted before coming to a proper conclusion. For that test to be taken as fact, it must be run hundreds or times with the same species.. and then it must be run hundreds of times with diferent species. The results must be thoroughly doccumented every step of the way. Only then will the end results (when compared) will be accepted as fact. And ONLY for those species tested.


So where is your study showing genetically based learning occurs "tested hundreds of times with different species"?  I would definitely enjoy reading such a detailed experiment, and would like to personally congratulate the authors on their findings, as this would be a major breakthrough in the study of _Theraphosidae_.  I am not an entomologist, but my occupation involves manipulating human behavior.  All behavior related reading I've come across applying to entomology has been based on observations of fixed action patterns in response to various stimuli.  Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.  I personally do not believe that a tarantula is capable of being tamed, but they may indeed become habituated to specific stimuli within controlled environments.


----------



## MexicanRedKnee (Feb 4, 2010)

splangy said:


> No you're right.  "training" would be the wrong word for the effects of selective breeding.  "taming" would be a better word, and i don't think it really would even count for the sake of this thread.  I was throwing that in there to re-emphasize the capacity a tarantula has for "getting used to us."
> 
> although, I must say.... if i had the money and the resources (and the ability to kill all of the ferocious Ts), selective breeding to see if you could actually alter the demeanor of a particular breed would be uber interesting!
> 
> ...


Why would you need to kill the ferocious T's? Why not just give them away or sell them and breed your tamer ones? I would never want such T's though, I want my spiders to be as wild as possible and if someone were to produce an essentially domesticated T, I wouldn't want any. I'm sure many others would agree. 

Thanks for all the facts and opinions. Despite the efforts of some to turn this thread into another handling thread. Now for my opinions on what was said:

1. Basically I learned that T's have a very limited capacity to learn, and don't remember for long, makes sense. 

2. Some people argued that a population of T's can be tamed, or essentially domesticated. That may or may not be true, I read of an experiment in Russia years ago where they took some wild foxes and in only a matter of 30 years or so basically domesticated them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox . I think that if you were to attempt the same experiment with T's, it would take much much longer if it was even possible. Not only because T's take longer to mature, but also because behavior in T's seems to be all hardwired in them. It's all instinct, unlike dogs where much of their behavior is learned. It would be like trying to breed the foxes so that the newborn pups wouldn't immediately suckle when they were born, which is instinct. That would take much longer or probably be impossible. 

3. I don't believe that preparing and maintaining a burrow or altering their environment before molting is good proof of intelligence either, it seems like it's all predictable hardwired instinct to me. The spider is just acting upon its instinct.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 4, 2010)

Nerri1029 said:


> As for ANYTHING that was learned getting passed down through genetics..
> show me ONE just ONE paper that suggests this. PLEASE....


They are many proposal of that sort, sadly the one I remember best comes from fiction.

There is a scene in the novel "Congo" by Crichton where a tame gorilla draws image of the jungle (including archaeological ruins) seen by its mom and other ascendant prior to its birth (that gorilla itself never saw the forest, being born while her mother was in captivity waiting to be butchered for meat).
I know that Crichton got that from "scientific" sources and rarely goes far from actual science into fiction, but I just don't remember what his source was. If this happens to be plausible in real life, this would be extraordinary.

Another thing loosely related but that was totally proven by hard science : Some animals got to learn a maze, then they were sacrificed and their brains fed to other untrained individuals, which found their way out almost instantly. I know for sure it worked with flatworm, I think that it went up to mammals like rats.

So it would be possible to transmit information outside the regular channels that we call our  senses. But in this case, we are pretty much in the same position than early scientists who proved that fire needs oxygen, but couldn't tell why!


----------



## Xian (Feb 4, 2010)

Merfolk said:


> Another thing loosely related but that was totally proven by hard science : Some animals got to learn a maze, then they were sacrificed and their brains fed to other untrained individuals, which found their way out almost instantly. I know for sure it worked with flatworm, I think that it went up to mammals like rats.


I'd like you to specify your sources for this, if you could.


----------



## splangy (Feb 4, 2010)

MexicanRedKnee said:


> Why would you need to kill the ferocious T's? Why not just give them away or sell them and breed your tamer ones? I would never want such T's though, I want my spiders to be as wild as possible and if someone were to produce an essentially domesticated T, I wouldn't want any. I'm sure many others would agree.


idk.  getting rid of 998 Ts would be tedious.  This is all hypotehtical.  don't take me too literally here! 



MexicanRedKnee said:


> 2. Some people argued that a population of T's can be tamed, or essentially domesticated. That may or may not be true, I read of an experiment in Russia years ago where they took some wild foxes and in only a matter of 30 years or so basically domesticated them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox . I think that if you were to attempt the same experiment with T's, it would take much much longer if it was even possible. Not only because T's take longer to mature, but also because behavior in T's seems to be all hardwired in them. It's all instinct, unlike dogs where much of their behavior is learned. It would be like trying to breed the foxes so that the newborn pups wouldn't immediately suckle when they were born, which is instinct. That would take much longer or probably be impossible.


I agree, especially since foxes are pack animals, and so already possess some social mechanics to build from.



MexicanRedKnee said:


> 3. I don't believe that preparing and maintaining a burrow or altering their environment before molting is good proof of intelligence either, it seems like it's all predictable hardwired instinct to me. The spider is just acting upon its instinct.


That's going off of some current sociobiological perspectives on intelligence.  I'm just spitting back what I've learned from that.  Part of it is hardwired, but every situation will be different, and the spider does something different depending on the situation.  A rosea is a great example, they make decisions about where to burrow, whether to burrow, how deep to burrow, etc.  It's not an automatic... "burrow here," sort of a thing.  There's an actual thought process going on.  The fact that we can't predict much of their behavior is a red flag for the existence of thought.

If you're interested, check out the SETI podcast.  They had a great episode on animal intelligence.  http://radio.seti.org/episodes/You_Animal_  It's a FANTASTIC show, I highly recommend giving it a listen.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 4, 2010)

Xian said:


> I'd like you to specify your sources for this, if you could.



I actually read it in a text lent to me by a fellow teacher. I will make some search. I came across this several times to be honest.

If any of this had scientific basis, it would explain the widespread believe among cannibal tribes that they could acquire the qualities of their last meal...

Genetic memory? I'm hitting encyclopaedias...


----------



## Falk (Feb 4, 2010)

A tarantula dont have any social mechanics and are totaly solitary animals and therefore cannot be tame.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 4, 2010)

Falk said:


> A tarantula dont have any social mechanics and are totaly solitary animals and therefore cannot be tame.


Well, they do, they even play the drums to seduce their partner 

Speaking of genetic memory..tadam!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_(psychology)

As for the flatworms (from new world encyclopedia):
_
"In 1955, Thompson and McConnell conditioned planarian flatworms by pairing a bright light with an electric shock. After repeating this several times, they took away the electric shock, and only exposed them to the bright light. The flatworms would react to the bright light as if they had been shocked. Thompson and McConnell found that if they cut the worm in two, and allowed both worms to regenerate each half would develop the light-shock reaction.

In 1962, McConnell repeated the experiment, but instead of cutting the trained flatworms in two he ground them into small pieces and fed them to other flatworms. Incredibility, these flatworms learned to associate the bright light with a shock much faster than flatworms who has not been fed trained worms."_

The taxt says further that it failed with other animals and that the phenomenon wasn't constant. Very cool to know thoug!!!!


----------



## Xian (Feb 4, 2010)

Merfolk said:


> Well, they do, they even play the drums to seduce their partner
> 
> Speaking of genetic memory..tadam!!!
> 
> ...


Thanks for looking that up! That is quite the deal!


----------



## splangy (Feb 4, 2010)

Interesting...  

I don't think eating the body parts of another animal can necessarily change the DNA (unless they're... radioactive or something...)  But there is this possible explanation:



> Stein interpreted this as showing that 'transfer' was not memory specific, rather, apparent changes in behaviour or learning-rate could be attributed to *stress hormones* transferred between donors and recipients.


http://www.dur.ac.uk/robert.kentridge/bpp2mem1.html

But then this on Wikipedia...



> This experiment intended to show that memory could perhaps be transferred chemically. The experiment was repeated with mice, fish, and rats, but it always failed to produce the same results. The perceived explanation was that rather than memory being transferred to the other animals, it was the hormones in the ingested ground animals that changed its behaviour.  McConnell believed that this was evidence of a chemical basis for memory, which he identified as memory RNA. *McConnell's results are now attributed to observer bias.No double-blind experiment has ever reproduced his results.*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

This is becoming super interesting!  Thanks to everybody that's presenting this stuff!


----------



## xhexdx (Feb 4, 2010)

1962?  At what point do the experiments become void until repeated?

That's really strange, and makes no sense to me...

EDIT:  Just saw the last two posts.  Yes, very interesting.


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 5, 2010)

Since it's been witnessed (this isn't the only account, elsewhere it was a maze),there might be a plausibility, but also perhaps such transmission needs a combination with another factor (yet unknown) to work. Some phenomenons need a specific set of circumstances to occur, hence they are rarely witnessed.


----------



## DooM_ShrooM (Feb 5, 2010)

some of us think that they can be thought .....but for them to learn they should have more larger brain maybe larger than them itself but for that to happen you need more bigger body for them to sustain the brains weight ....so in other words you should catch a really really big T just so you could train it ..but im not saying that you can train a goliath bird eating tarantula i meant a T bigger than a dog or bigger than you....


----------



## Merfolk (Feb 5, 2010)

The tiny Portia jumping spiders are able to learn the "body language" of struggling preys to attract specific spiders onto which they feed. They could even learn movement from species that don't occur in their environment. Other animals with far larger brains are unable to achieve half of it. So the brain's mass isn't the sole factor...

I think that they simply are parameters that we don't understand yet. Like, some people believe that not all of a creature's  "intelligence" resides in its brain but also in some sort of magnetic field surrounding it. (A bit like those who believe in the aura or kirlian experiments.) This perhaps explain why you feel differently facing different people, or why a T will calm down with one handler and rear up with another... that famous sixth sense!!!!


Right now it's more parapsychology than anything else, yet the concept of stocking data within a pure magnetic field is plausible. I keep my mind open without going too esoteric... Much of what looks normal today would have been dubbed witchcraft 200 years ago. Then, I surely wouldn't even believe in electricity!!! So many things that I though fantastic in the 70's occur now. Time will tell what's true and what's phoney.


----------



## Zoltan (Feb 5, 2010)

Draychen, sorry, dude, but what you posted is completely fiction. First of all, *nothing* learns by genetic inheritence. They are two completely different things. If the animal inherits something, it doesn't learn that something, it inherits it (e.g. patellar reflex in humans). If it learns something, it doesn't inherit that something, it learns it. It's only basic logic. I mean, think for a second about what you posted, not only that isn't true for tarantulas, it's not even true for humans! Otherwise why would children need to learn to write/read (plus a million of other examples), why don't they just inherit the ability? :?



Merfolk said:


> The tiny Portia jumping spiders are able to learn the "body language" of struggling preys to attract specific spiders onto which they feed. *They could even learn movement from species that don't occur in their environment.*


And how is that possible? Jumping spiders are psychics?


----------



## curiousme (Feb 5, 2010)

Zoltan said:


> Draychen, sorry, dude, but what you posted is completely fiction. First of all, *nothing* learns by genetic inheritence. They are two completely different things. If the animal inherits something, it doesn't learn that something, it inherits it (e.g. patellar reflex in humans). If it learns something, it doesn't inherit that something, it learns it. It's only basic logic. I mean, think for a second about what you posted, not only that isn't true for tarantulas, it's not even true for humans! Otherwise why would children need to learn to write/read (plus a million of other examples), why don't they just inherit the ability? :?


Our thoughts are one on this.  It just doesn't make sense.:?



> And how is that possible? Jumping spiders are psychics?


Didn't you get that memo?


----------



## Kirk (Feb 5, 2010)

Draychen said:


> My apologies for the double post: I was editing and something went wrong. Anyhow, Tarantulas learn by genetic inheritance. At birth, they come pre-programed with the basics of survival and have limited a limited capicity to learn. HOWEVER, a they do learn, the mothers pass on this aquired information to their young! In the end, the more information learned, the more 'outdated' information is kicked out of their brains.. to then be passed on down again and again. Scientific conjecture would then state: If you kept a mother T in a controlled enviornment and subjected her to differing stimuli, she would in turn pass what she can collect, to her young. Split those Ts up (let's say 2 for example): Keep one female in the same enviornment, and the other in an uncontrolled enviornment. Gradually, over time the Ts continually placed  inside the controlled enviornment would lose much of their ability to survive in the wild, but will adapt to her new enviornment. Meanwhile, the Ts inside the uncontrolled encloseure would retain and regain the information to survive in theirs... though it may take each a few birthing cycles to obtain this effect.
> 
> The stimuli for example would be things like electro-shock in certain areas. Climbing in certain places to recieve food etc etc. There are many types of stimuli that can be used to effect this. These are just a few examples. The basic portions of their brains function like many creatures.. except so far as science has been able to prove, that is pretty much the extent of it. So, you could train a T (based on conjecture).. but it wouldn't be the T you started with.. it would probably be around the 2nd or 3rd generation babies.
> 
> ...


I hope you can get a refund from the school you attended, because they failed to teach you basic biology. You might wish to read up on current evolutionary biology and the basics of inheritance. Larmarkism died in the 19th century.


----------

