Males don't look any different.....until they mature, then, like any MM, they get very leggy with a small abdomen.....but there are no other distinguishing colors for this species.
I also STRONGLY disagree with the recent assessment that porteri is the same as rosea....IMO this is one of the most obvious mis-steps scientists have ever made with regard to tarantula classification....utterly irresponsible IMO. All this is going to do is lead to the two being bred to one another, wrecking the lines of both species in captivity.....this is clearly not some sort of recessive gene like we see in incei as you will never see either of these being bred (porteri to porteri or rosea to rosea) that ever result in the other being produced.
Mark my words, there will come a day when the mistake is realized and changed....but by then it will likely be too late for the hobby.
I also STRONGLY disagree with the recent assessment that porteri is the same as rosea....IMO this is one of the most obvious mis-steps scientists have ever made with regard to tarantula classification....utterly irresponsible IMO. All this is going to do is lead to the two being bred to one another, wrecking the lines of both species in captivity.....this is clearly not some sort of recessive gene like we see in incei as you will never see either of these being bred (porteri to porteri or rosea to rosea) that ever result in the other being produced.
Mark my words, there will come a day when the mistake is realized and changed....but by then it will likely be too late for the hobby.
There is a lot to unpack here so I will try to be as brief as possible. It is not the responsibility of a taxonomist to make sure those who breed tarantulas for the pet trade are correctly identified. It is far more irresponsible for a breeder to attempt a mating of two tarantulas together without fully understanding the complexities of identification or understanding why a tarantula species can't be identified. If a breeder chooses to play "follow the leader" and end up breeding two different species, then that would be on the breeder not the taxonomist who made an update to nomenclature.
Also, who decided that the "rose hairs" that are lighter in color were actually Grammostola porteri in the first place and based on what criteria? The only picture of the name bearing type of G. porteri was published in 2022 in the paper where it was made a synonym of G. rosea. Since it is an old alcohol preserved male from the 1930s, there is no color. For all we know, G. porteri has the same coloration as G. rosea and what is known as G. porteri in the pet trade is not the same tarantula that was made a synonym of G. rosea. It is very irresponsible of pet keepers and breeders to assign a name to a tarantula in which no documentation- even something as basic as its color/ pattern- exists.
Males don't look any different.....until they mature, then, like any MM, they get very leggy with a small abdomen.....but there are no other distinguishing colors for this species.
I also STRONGLY disagree with the recent assessment that porteri is the same as rosea....IMO this is one of the most obvious mis-steps scientists have ever made with regard to tarantula classification....utterly irresponsible IMO. All this is going to do is lead to the two being bred to one another, wrecking the lines of both species in captivity.....this is clearly not some sort of recessive gene like we see in incei as you will never see either of these being bred (porteri to porteri or rosea to rosea) that ever result in the other being produced.
Mark my words, there will come a day when the mistake is realized and changed....but by then it will likely be too late for the hobby.
'Rune', large AF g. rosea 'ncf' (ex porteri) with a particularly pink-looking carapace today. Such an unbelievably docile & curious spider that has become one of the jewels of my collection (as well as a favorite for friends/family because of her...
Well most breeders, especially ones that aren't seasoned breeders, WILL base what they do on taxonomists, period....they aren't doing there research, they are basing what they do ENTIRELY on the research of taxonomists. People use what taxonomists say to directly understand the complexities of identification.....they're the "experts". So when they label two clearly different species as the same, it does become their fault as breeders are breeding based on their clarifications.
And the fact that one may not be right isn't relevant at all, it only matters that they're different, call them whatever name you want, just don't call them the same... it's pretty obvious rosea and porteri are different and not the same, as the current nomenclature would lead us to believe. Maybe porteri is the real rosea, it doesn't matter as that would only mean the current rosea is NOT....either way, they're different and shouldn't share the same name, that's all I'm saying.
'Rune', large AF g. rosea 'ncf' (ex porteri) with a particularly pink-looking carapace today. Such an unbelievably docile & curious spider that has become one of the jewels of my collection (as well as a favorite for friends/family because of her...
All of the formerly porteri have a pink hue to their carapace (which is always more pronounced after molting)....I already told you what I think you have....porteri....the ones formerly known in the hobby as rosea are red....aka rcf (red color form)
Hello there, why not take a few seconds to register on our forums and become part of the community? Just click here.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
