My understanding of the word 'Chitin' is that it's not a single substance. It's a word used to name a hard protein-based matrix containing calcium as a binding agent. 'Chitin' is also in the cell walls of fungi and in insect exoskeletons, and I doubt it's all the same chemically.If they use chitin in their exo then it is possible for that to effect the color of a T to make it seem albino. It would not be true albinoism and would be incredibly rare.
Tarantulas and Hermit Crabs are not so distantly related, expecially when it comes to basic biochemistry. Certainly, I recall that the book-lung is a modified gill (from my now-distant biology course... I'm happy to be corrected on that). I think it's reasonable to base assumptions from one to the other.While I know that tarantulas and hermit crabs are barely related I do know that color morphs based on chitin is possible with crabs so my conjecture is that it may be possible with T's too..... although most likely rare..... like one in a billion rare.
This is just a pervasive rumor. Read here: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=82385alot of a tarantula's color actually is just refraction of light off of the hairs, look it up, there are countless threads on this subject on here...
lol lol lol lol I might just follow up this with....did anyone just stop and read or a least try and translate the article before comments like the one I just quoted were made.:wall: ;PHas anyone stopped to think that maybe...just *maybe* the lighter spider in the picture is freshly moulted?
Cyriapagopus tend to have a blueish/grey tinge to them when freshly molted, not a striking white.Originally Posted by Cheshire
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe...just *maybe* the lighter spider in the picture is freshly moulted?
I've looked at some under a microscope. Diffraction from hairs (and the bottom of the arboreal feet) gives many that metallic-looking iridescent appearance in the few samples I've seen. This is NOT (and I am repeating the NOT) the same thing as saying that they lack any natural pigmentation. Of course they do, and some of them are 'secondary' metabolites - manufactured for the sake of pigments, not as a result of keeping the Tarantula's inner workings ticking over (like guanine).This is just a pervasive rumor. Read here: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=82385
for a discussion of this rumor and the real evidence that thwarts it.
Awesome information, thanks for helping contribute to the general body of information on that topic. I agree, the shining and color-shifting parts are definitley diffraction based, but cover much less surface area than the normal pigmentation does. Oh, and sweet analogy.The thread you mention is a great one, and I really enjoyed reading it. I'm new to the Arachnoboards, and so hadn't seen it buried under half-a-years discussion, but I did notice that there was no mention of inborn errors in metabolite transport.
You can lack pigment from one of two possible mechanisms - queue analogy. If you want to paint a house, you need to buy the paint (make the pigment) but then you gotta get it on the surface (transport it to the skin/incorporate it). There are plenty of known errors in metabolite transport in mammals; I can't see any good reason why there can't be some in invertebrates.