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.
Therein lies the root issue. There is no indication that the G. porteri that was made a synonym of G. rosea in 2022 is the same one people think of in the pet trade. For some reason, someone at some point decided that the "rose hair" that wasn't red or reddish brown was G. porteri without anyway of confirming it with the original description. No one could have made that verification because the original description was poor. The only clue to what G. porteri looks like from the original description are many vague references to long pink hairs on various body parts. Therefore it is irresponsible for anyone involved in breeding for the pet trade to follow the synonym of these pet trade G. porteri with G. rosea. The responsibility is on the keeper/ breeder, not the taxonomist who probably has no idea what anyone concerned with the pet trade is talking about.
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.
I agree that in the pet trade what is considered G. porteri is different from what G. rosea actually is and two tarantulas that look very different should not be bred. If for any other reason than to be cautious in the face of uncertainty. Sometimes though, I wonder what kind of spectrum the color of G. rosea actually has. I can acknowledge there is a "rose hair" from Chile in the pet trade that is strikingly different from G. rosea, but I don't know at what point the coloration can be used to separate G. rosea from the other "rose hair". I don't have a gripe with people using G. porteri for their pets- whether used for breeding or not- because what happens in the pet trade is completely separate from nature and it doesn't matter what you call them. My gripe is when people blindly follow the work of taxonomists/ systematists without considering that sometimes tarantulas in the pet trade are misidentified and the nomenclature changes don't apply.
i agree that they are different, it's just that currently the binomial "Grammostola porteri" has become a nomen dubium, basically it does not exist anymore so i see no reason to keep it
if they ever split them up again, which might happen, i'd be happy to adopt the new name, whatever it may be, hopefully they will then compile a good description of how to tell them apart as well, even if it just turns out to be what you guys have been doing forever
in the meantime i will just keep a simple
(ex. porteri) attached to the name to signify this distinction for myself
@Karollll12 definitly search the forum about this topic, there is a lot to read and unpack here
both @coldblood and @AphonopelmaTX have contributed much to those discussions and are much more knowlegable than me on the topic
i also recommend the video by Mark Hüssler from BirdspidersCH on this topic
Therein lies the root issue. There is no indication that the G. porteri that was made a synonym of G. rosea in 2022 is the same one people think of in the pet trade. For some reason, someone at some point decided that the "rose hair" that wasn't red or reddish brown was G. porteri without anyway of confirming it with the original description. No one could have made that verification because the original description was poor. The only clue to what G. porteri looks like from the original description are many vague references to long pink hairs on various body parts. Therefore it is irresponsible for anyone involved in breeding for the pet trade to follow the synonym of these pet trade G. porteri with G. rosea. The responsibility is on the keeper/ breeder, not the taxonomist who probably has no idea what anyone concerned with the pet trade is talking about.
I agree that in the pet trade what is considered G. porteri is different from what G. rosea actually is and two tarantulas that look very different should not be bred. If for any other reason than to be cautious in the face of uncertainty. Sometimes though, I wonder what kind of spectrum the color of G. rosea actually has. I can acknowledge there is a "rose hair" from Chile in the pet trade that is strikingly different from G. rosea, but I don't know at what point the coloration can be used to separate G. rosea from the other "rose hair". I don't have a gripe with people using G. porteri for their pets- whether used for breeding or not- because what happens in the pet trade is completely separate from nature and it doesn't matter what you call them. My gripe is when people blindly follow the work of taxonomists/ systematists without considering that sometimes tarantulas in the pet trade are misidentified and the nomenclature changes don't apply.
I agree, people shouldn't blindly follow the work of taxonomists....that in a nutshell is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make....clearly they're two different species, the only way they could be the same is if it was a recessive gene thing like incei, which it clearly is not......like I said, it doesn't matter if the names or species are misidentified, because they're different, and for the hobby, they need to be kept separately, never bred together and referred to as something different to discourage hobbyists from confusing them as one....but those taxonomists are held in high regard by most hobbyists, and many do hang on their every word....which is why I think calling them both the same species, when it's obvious they're not, is irresponsible.
i agree that they are different, it's just that currently the binomial "Grammostola porteri" has become a nomen dubium, basically it does not exist anymore so i see no reason to keep it
if they ever split them up again, which might happen, i'd be happy to adopt the new name, whatever it may be, hopefully they will then compile a good description of how to tell them apart as well, even if it just turns out to be what you guys have been doing forever
in the meantime i will just keep a simple
(ex. porteri) attached to the name to signify this distinction for myself
@Karollll12 definitly search the forum about this topic, there is a lot to read and unpack here
both @coldblood and @AphonopelmaTX have contributed much to those discussions and are much more knowlegable than me on the topic
i also recommend the video by Mark Hüssler from BirdspidersCH on this topic
But that's the rub, it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you aren't calling both the same thing, which is exactly what they chose to do and exactly what the hobby quickly adopted as you showed yourself....and this is a perfect example of not hanging on every word the taxonomists write....just because they call it nomen dubium, does NOT mean the hobby should just ditch the name....As even though the name might not be right, it does allow hobbyists to be able to correctly separate the two species....the hobby absolutely needs something to call them other than a color form, which we know they are not and it's a guarantee that calling them both rosea will lead to them being bred together, which is an utter disaster for the hobby in the long run.
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.
