Are you as bothered about this as much as I am

Nitibus

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
728
Man i just dont get it.

That's right ! You don't " get it ". That's my point !

So I'll post something more to your understanding : Dude, that's not cool ! Sure your buddy might be " excited ' about his cross bred T's, but I am sure neither you or he understands the future problems you may have caused.

Read these posts again. There is a reason this has become a debate.

Think about it, then think some more...
 

TheDarkFinder

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
923
Most hybrids are sterile.

Oh please, oh please.

Prove this statement. Please do. Produce a peer reveiw document that says, most hybrids are sterile. Please do.

The vast majority of plants can produce non-sterile offspring. Most birds are. Most reptiles are. Most insects are. Look at cockroaches.

Be every careful. Do not post opinion or just scream louder, the common defense of personal opinion on this board.

I know you can not. I have spent years looking for a scientific articles on hybrids. you see I breed orchids, and know the power of the hybrid.

If there is a live offspring, hybrids, they may or may not be sterile.

So prove it.
I will get you started.
"Hybrid speciation". Nature (London) (0028-0836), 446, p. 279
 

Merfolk

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
1,323
Species with overlaping territories that refuse to crosssbreed... to answer this argument, I'd say that humans also do, even though they are all the very same specie. The slightest difference (religion, political opinions) is enough; we are so prone to reject the others....
 

BinarySpider

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
37
Hybrids

Yea, I think to many people consider the genus and species a set in stone argument and may rely on the mule idea.

In Lake Malawi Africa a fish called the cichlid which has many different genus and even more different species is a great example. Fertile hybrid species happen all of the time in the wild and in the home aquarium. I had also read that the fish of that lake can reproduce that are from two completely different genus. This is factual and has been proven by both intent and by accident in the average home fish aquarium.

The genus and species names seem to be merely a label based on a few individuals opinions of the animal's physical structure. Of course the individual who discovers a truly unique form of life gets the honor of choosing the species name. Someday I suspect that many animals could become re-catagorized by DNA structure.

Hybrids will occur in the hobby sooner or later. I would only ask that the animal be given the honest and true background if ever released into the public...

(species name / breeder name) X (species name / breeder name)

JMO

BinarySpider
 

TJPotter

Arachnopeon
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
13
In Lake Malawi Africa a fish called the cichlid which has many different genus and even more different species is a great example. Fertile hybrid species happen all of the time in the wild and in the home aquarium. I had also read that the fish of that lake can reproduce that are from two completely different genus. This is factual and has been proven by both intent and by accident in the average home fish aquarium.
I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to stick to dog analogies, as this is not accurate at all. The Mbuna of Lake Malawi consist of several species, and tons of regional variants. The regional variants and species do not procreate in the wild. However, if in your home aquarium you cross two regional variants/species, and mention it on a forum, you will be accosted my every truly serious hobbyist on the board. African cichlid taxonomy is in no better shape than tarantulas. And we do not want things mucked up worse than they already are.

As far as fish from different genera reproducing in the wild- I would really like to see a source on that. Two species, in the aquarium, definitely, but not in the wild (Barring human interference). Two genera in the aquarium or wild? The offspring would undoubtedly being incredibly deformed and die very soon after birth in the wild due to predation, and being biologically unable to sustain themselves.

Unfortunately, the "mixed african cichlid" tanks in P*tsm*rt, are great places to buy regional variant mutts (though once in awhile you can spot some pure Lab. caer.), and mislabeled fish. Not to mention recommending keeping peacocks and Mbuna together, which can and will lead to Malawi Bloat eventually due to dietary differences.

If you really want to see a flame war start, I dare you to go onto an african cichlid forum, and write a post about crossing individuals from Lake Victoria! You would never, ever be treated with respect on that forum again.

Same goes for the cichlids of Lake Tanganyika (which I collect). N. cylindricus and N. leleupi are very closely related, and could potentially produce offspring--So us hobbyists do NOT keep the two species together in the same tank. Its just part of being a conscientious hobbyist.

The same goes for South American cichlids (Namely Trimacs, Citronellums, Red Devils, Midas, etc.) Serious hobbyist pay huge money in order to get pure ones that have not been mucked up by amateurs that do not know better.

As far as "Parrotfish", the horribly disfigured S. American cichlid hybrid that is so deformed it cannot even close its mouth, many "newer" hobbyist collect them, only to be shunned by many more experienced hobbyists for buying hybrids. The majority (but not all) of "Parrotfish" are sterile, btw.***

***These fish do have a very devoted following in some groups though***

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I am concerned, with the taxonomy of our hobby in such a sad state, risking the possibility of hybrids being introduced into hobby is enough to make me sick. "maybe I sold her because I needed money" is a pathetic excuse, and irresponsible to say the least. So, what if she does produce an egg sac, and the new owner "Needs money"? I keep track of who posts things advocating hybrids and such-and people who deal with them, and have built up quite a large list of people that I will never buy from.

My two cents:eek:

T
 
Last edited:

BinarySpider

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
37
Hmmmmm

I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to stick to dog analogies, as this is not accurate at all. The Mbuna of Lake Malawi consist of several species, and tons of regional variants. The regional variants and species do not procreate in the wild. However, if in your home aquarium you cross two regional variants/species, and mention it on a forum, you will be accosted my every truly serious hobbyist on the board. African cichlid taxonomy is in no better shape than tarantulas. And we do not want things mucked up worse than they already are.
First off, I would like to stick with whatever analogy that I choose to use please. I think that is my choice, thanks.

Actually I believe that you are absolutely wrong about those statements. They do in "fact" hybridize in the wild and in the aquarium. Your statement is based on your opinions only which you have a right, no dought at all. I believe IMO that the hybrids occur both in the wild and in captivity.

As far as fish from different genera reproducing in the wild- I would really like to see a source on that. Two species, in the aquarium, definitely, but not in the wild (Barring human interference). Two genera in the aquarium or wild? The offspring would undoubtedly being incredibly deformed and die very soon after birth in the wild due to predation, and being biologically unable to sustain themselves.
Actually NO, they were NOT incredibly deformed at all when I did it in an aquarium with two completely different genus from Malawi. It was accidental in that case but it happend since they were the only two fish in the tank. It was over 6 months after I bought them when it happened. The offspring contained characterisitcs of both parents. This happens all of the time. I wish that I still had the cichlids to show them off. This was about 8 years ago when I had my small African Cichlid hobby.

As far as I am concerned, with the taxonomy of our hobby in such a sad state, risking the possibility of hybrids being introduced into hobby is enough to make me sick. "maybe I sold her because I needed money" is a pathetic excuse, and irresponsible to say the least. So, what if she does produce an egg sac, and the new owner "Needs money"? I keep track of who posts things advocating hybrids and such-and people who deal with them, and have built up quite a large list of people that I will never buy from.

My two cents:eek:

T
You definitely have the right to your beliefs, absolutely. But so does everybody else.

I personally find it very amusing how so many people can be so paranoid about a small number of hybrid animals entering the market place. It absolutely will happen all of the time if it is possible. The worn out claim that different_species_name_x_different_species_name is a hybrid and that same_species_name_x_same_species_name is not a hybrid is getting pretty darn old. Species are grouped into a genus by a few individuals who examine the physical structure of the animal. These people are no different than anybody else.

When they are grouped by the chemical structure of the DNA molecules that are responsible for the animal I might consider that grouping valid but until then I do not. Of course yes, the obvious, it would be rediculus to group lets say a bear with a termite. Oddly imagine if those two animals were nearly identical at a molecular genetic level, that would rip.

JMHO

Here is another example of producing viable NON Sterile offspring. The new offspring are also reproducing and they are not mules.

Varanus panoptes "Argus monitor" x Varanus flavirufus

That cross/hybrid/whatever label produced a smaller version of the Argus that looks like an extremely colorfull Argus. The breeders have claimed they are less agressive than the origional Argus. Those "hybrids" are still to large of a monitor for my personal taste but defintiely headed in the direction that many and myself prefer.

In the end, this seems to be an argument that will never end. About 50/50 which sounds just like politics. I personally am not worried about the small handfull of crosses/hybrids/whatevername floating about in the general public. I made a choice of a breeder for my T purchases whom I believe will allways tell me exactly what he has with total truth. If I wanted a hybrid then I would have not bought any of my "pure_lines". Yes in time there will be those who will look at the hybrid and say, well, it looks like a "name" therefore I will sell it as "name". It will happen with a high percentage of probibility.

I would prefer them to be honest but like so many will sale out for a few bucks and those could care less. Even those who sale T's in some pet shops. I have seen several T's at different shops labeled Avicularia PinkToe. When I asked what species the store manager said Pink Toe, the species name is not pink toe but I cornered him on it and he said that is what it was sold to us as. I have seen the same with giant white knee common name that does not look like any giant white knee that I have ever seen. Now that so called honest line, "that is what it was sold to us as", which they think that makes it OK, is also getting pretty darn old as well IMHO.

BinarySpider
 

Stylopidae

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,203
Prove this statement. Please do. Produce a peer reveiw document that says, most hybrids are sterile. Please do.
This is the best I am able to offer for now. This goes through a handfull of common sterile hybrids and the basic genetic process and why these animals are sterile. Animal hybrids are a bit different than plants. With some very closely related species (such as ring species), some hybrids may be firtle. However, species that are not so closely related will be infirtle or have insanely high mortality. I'll be able to research this subject more later in the week, however my sources are pretty much confined to the internet so I doubt I'll be able to find the paper you listed.

Most animal hybrids that I'm familiar with either have incredibly high mortality.
 
Last edited:

TheDarkFinder

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
923

TJPotter

Arachnopeon
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
13
First off, I would like to stick with whatever analogy that I choose to use please. I think that is my choice, thanks.

Actually I believe that you are absolutely wrong about those statements. They do in "fact" hybridize in the wild and in the aquarium. Your statement is based on your opinions only which you have a right, no dought at all. I believe IMO that the hybrids occur both in the wild and in captivity.



Actually NO, they were NOT incredibly deformed at all when I did it in an aquarium with two completely different genus from Malawi. It was accidental in that case but it happend since they were the only two fish in the tank. It was over 6 months after I bought them when it happened. The offspring contained characterisitcs of both parents. This happens all of the time. I wish that I still had the cichlids to show them off. This was about 8 years ago when I had my small African Cichlid hobby.



You definitely have the right to your beliefs, absolutely. But so does everybody else.

I personally find it very amusing how so many people can be so paranoid about a small number of hybrid animals entering the market place. It absolutely will happen all of the time if it is possible. The worn out claim that different_species_name_x_different_species_name is a hybrid and that same_species_name_x_same_species_name is not a hybrid is getting pretty darn old. Species are grouped into a genus by a few individuals who examine the physical structure of the animal. These people are no different than anybody else.

When they are grouped by the chemical structure of the DNA molecules that are responsible for the animal I might consider that grouping valid but until then I do not. Of course yes, the obvious, it would be rediculus to group lets say a bear with a termite. Oddly imagine if those two animals were nearly identical at a molecular genetic level, that would rip.

JMHO

Here is another example of producing viable NON Sterile offspring. The new offspring are also reproducing and they are not mules.

Varanus panoptes "Argus monitor" x Varanus flavirufus

That cross/hybrid/whatever label produced a smaller version of the Argus that looks like an extremely colorfull Argus. The breeders have claimed they are less agressive than the origional Argus. Those "hybrids" are still to large of a monitor for my personal taste but defintiely headed in the direction that many and myself prefer.

In the end, this seems to be an argument that will never end. About 50/50 which sounds just like politics. I personally am not worried about the small handfull of crosses/hybrids/whatevername floating about in the general public. I made a choice of a breeder for my T purchases whom I believe will allways tell me exactly what he has with total truth. If I wanted a hybrid then I would have not bought any of my "pure_lines". Yes in time there will be those who will look at the hybrid and say, well, it looks like a "name" therefore I will sell it as "name". It will happen with a high percentage of probibility.

I would prefer them to be honest but like so many will sale out for a few bucks and those could care less. Even those who sale T's in some pet shops. I have seen several T's at different shops labeled Avicularia PinkToe. When I asked what species the store manager said Pink Toe, the species name is not pink toe but I cornered him on it and he said that is what it was sold to us as. I have seen the same with giant white knee common name that does not look like any giant white knee that I have ever seen. Now that so called honest line, "that is what it was sold to us as", which they think that makes it OK, is also getting pretty darn old as well IMHO.

BinarySpider


Again... Proof? Documentation? Anything? When I see/read proof of it, I will believe this is an appropriate analogy. Were the Labs? Pseudos? Haps? Any kind of information at all?! Suppose dogs weren't a great analogy for you to have used either though, but it is better than promoting hybridizing more cichlids in the hobby so those of us that still pursue it have more hybrid crap to deal with.

Also, having a "few crosses/hybrids/whatevernames" in the hobby, will eventually lead to dirty bloodlines throughout the entire hobby. How is that ok with you? Or anyone else? Aren't we captive breeding to prevent mass collecting in the wild? So, if we screw up the bloodlines in the hobby, aren't we going to have to start all over again in order to get true species to maintain in the hobby?

I won't be reading this thread anymore; however, it's just depressing to see what a sorry direction this hobby could be going in.

Suppose threads like this are the basis of these pissing contest forums though.

T
 

Greyhalo

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
258
What would be the point, if any, in creating hybrid tarantulas? Besides feeding your own curiosity or making a buck off of selling them. The reason people breed the tarantlas we have in the hobby is so that we dont have to constantly collect wild specimens and to prevent killing what wild populations are left. Even if hybrids of tarantula species accur in the wild, they happen by chance or accident and not by us creating situations that wouldn't happen under normal circumstances. To try and create hybrids under such abnormal circumstances is irresponsible and defeats the purpose of us breeding the specimens in the hobby since the purpose is for us to continually have that specific species available in the hobby without being destructive. The reason that infertility occurs between hybrids is to prevent them from reproducing because they werent meant to be. Honestly, give one truely benificial reason to create hybrid T's. If you cant then obviouslly they shouldn't be created.
 

ShadowBlade

Planeswalker
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
2,591
What would be the point, if any, in creating hybrid tarantulas? Besides feeding your own curiosity or making a buck off of selling them. The reason people breed the tarantlas we have in the hobby is so that we dont have to constantly collect wild specimens and to prevent killing what wild populations are left.
In casual hobby conditions? There isn't much benefit for the hobby.
But under research conditions, there is much to learn from attempting tarantula hybridization.

-Sean
 

Greyhalo

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
258
Ill agree it can serve a purpose for research but purely research only. But yea, for the hobby it serves no benefit.

As for phil jones, do you ever post anything worth reading, seriously.
 

spider_fan

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
143
Hyrbrydization for reasearch could actually be quite valuable. That we we would have solid proof that T hybrids are either mostly sterile or mostly fertile. It could also help us better understand the genetics of tarantulas. My philosphy as I sated earlier is that I don't mind hybridization as long as the hybrids are kept from breeding or being sold.

talkenlate04 said:
What on earth are you talking about?
I've learned that its best to ignore those who replace proper grammar and punctuation with an excessive use of smilies.
 

BinarySpider

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
37
It Is Not That Bad

Again... Proof? Documentation? Anything? When I see/read proof of it, I will believe this is an appropriate analogy. Were the Labs? Pseudos? Haps? Any kind of information at all?! Suppose dogs weren't a great analogy for you to have used either though, but it is better than promoting hybridizing more cichlids in the hobby so those of us that still pursue it have more hybrid crap to deal with.
Owe, you want the so called genus/species names that have been given to the animals that were in the aquarium by the so called experts who merely look at the animal structure rather than performing a full DNA analysis.

OK, just a second here. They were both Mbuna. One was a female, very common animal, Labidochromis caeruleus, often called an Electric Yellow. These get very large. My female was around 4 inches long at the breeding. The male was a Melanochromis johannii who was around 5 inches long at the breeding. He had more of a longer type body. Yep, both were mouth brooders. And yes the eggs hatched and were allowed to grow into juveniles. They were included with the aquariums that I sold and yes the owner liked the way they looked and knew exactly what they were. Sorry but I am not in that hobby anymore but hey, my 5 year old has both black neons and blood fins in the same tank, just maybe?:clap:

Actually dogs were just fine for an example. Like I said the so called genus/species grouping is not solid proof IMO. That grouping is based on the animal's structure. I would consider accepting a grouping of the absolute molecular structures of the DNA molecules for each animal or plant as more solid proof. Nothing less.

Also, having a "few crosses/hybrids/whatevernames" in the hobby, will eventually lead to dirty bloodlines throughout the entire hobby. How is that ok with you? Or anyone else? Aren't we captive breeding to prevent mass collecting in the wild? So, if we screw up the bloodlines in the hobby, aren't we going to have to start all over again in order to get true species to maintain in the hobby?.
It seems that the pet trade is allready pretty well screwed up. So nope, it really doesnot bother me in the least. I know exactly what I want. I know that I can wait for a few months to find it as well which includes the research. In the past I have spent anywhere from 1 to 2 years looking for the right show dog. Like I said before, I found a T breeder that I trust totally. You can check this person by searching BinarySpider in this forum. I am not worried about the other guys who sale a "hybrid" because I am not buying hybrid tarantulas. There are a couple of other breeders that I am looking at also. So far they have exelent crudentials and I will consider them as well.

Owe, yes, I also believe that it is very good that so many are trying to preserve some of the so called lines since they very well could become extinct in the wild. That is connected to one of my origional statements. The genetic material is disappearing at an alarming rate do to the destruction of the wildlife and habitat. I think that another patch of S.A.rainforrest the size of a football field vannished for all times in the time that it took me to respond to your post.

I won't be reading this thread anymore; however, it's just depressing to see what a sorry direction this hobby could be going in.

Suppose threads like this are the basis of these pissing contest forums though.

T
Ahhhhhhhh, come on, you know that you will read it. Your addicted to your side of the coin toss. Yep, something to argue about when there is nothing else to argue about.

BinarySpider
 

BinarySpider

Arachnopeon
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
37
:) Well, back to Easter. Later all. My time is very short these days but I do get back to this forum once in while.

I really found the information that I have seen in this forum a benefit. Especially the husbandry. I switched from the ground dwelling species to the tree dwelling Avicularia pink toes.

Yep, I know, those are really messed up with the same species names used for different animals. What can you do, it will continue to happen. I think what I have so far is fine and what I get in the future will be fine.

BinarySpider
 

Stylopidae

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,203
So looking at your source you given. I counted 25 fertile hybrids and 27 sterile hybrids example given.

But that is mostly plants lets to animals, not insects, which have lower surivual of animals.

http://www.bird-hybrids.com/
http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect2a.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0727_050727_evolution.html
Sorry last one in insect
Actually, I looked through some of your older posts and came to the conclusion that you're better qualified to speak on the subject than I am. Genetics isn't my strong suit. I am more familiar with the evolutionary process than I am with the study of genetics.

So let me go back through my posts and update them. I've been known to be wrong from time to time.

First, I'll re-address the post that I replied to that you quoted from. The quote is actually a little out of context, as we are talking ethics and not biology. I don't think this was your intention, so I'll leave it at that. I think you'll see what I'm talking about after reading what I'm about to say.



I use to raise champion AKC ChowChows. I personally handled and showed my own champions at AKC sanctioned shows. There is NOT a single ChowChow in any show ring that does not have one or more serious health problems. This is directly do the massive inbreeding in which you have no choice of if you are raising pedigree dogs. In fact every single pure breed dog has some serious health issues directly from the inbreeding. I always hated mix breeds until I saw a BUG. That is pure Pug crossed to a pure Boston Terrier. It looked pretty darn neat to me.
Well...no, this does not apply. Dogs are one species. As this is common knowledge, I shouldn't need a source. However, as I'm sure my credibility is suspect at the moment then here it is:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bookres.fcgi/coffeebrk/cb27_dogs_d1.pdf

The same goes from the tropical fish industry. Just last weekend I went to get some lemon tetras for my son's frog/fish aquarium. I turned them down. Every single one was deformed to some extent. While looking at several other species in the store many of those had suttle deformities. The employee said it was most likely from the inbreeding done generation after generation after generation by tropical fish breeders in an attempt to maintain purity by the breeders.
Inbreeding is continually using animals that are related by immediate relatives as your breeding stock. A lot of breeders that are more worried about quantity than quality use animals that are produced by them to avoid buying new stock to save money. This is why a lot of animals are inbred in any hobby. No real source, save a few exotic pet breeders I know. This makes sense to me, so it's not suspect.

The inbreeding of these animals has more to do with specific strains within the species, not the species itself.

Personally I would believe that hybrids would produce a stronger genetic pool of much healthier animals.
While true for dogs, this does not apply to hybrids in the sense we are talking. Generally, there will be deformities for hybrids (including sterility), or the hybrids will be a third species that is not found in nature. This is a statement that assumes that dog breeds and biological species are similar. They are not.

I already posted my public apology for this post, so please forgive me...however this also applies to this portion of the post:

Dark Finder since you're more up on your genetics than I am, please tell me if I'm wrong on this. The methodology comes from a Richard Dawkins book, however I've found a couple other sources backing this up:

New bloodlines are created every so often. Any animal that is created through sexual reproduction recieves half it's genes from it's parents. It's half related to both of it's parents. Therefore, one fourth of it's DNA came from each grandparent. One eighth of it's DNA came from each of it's eight great grandparent, so on and so forth. New bloodlines are created at the point where the offspring are no more related to their ancestors genetically then they are to their parents.

According to Wade here on the boards, the original stock for the superworms you can buy at petsmart orriginally came from roughly 25 individuals. For arguement's sake, let's say the superworm's DNA had roughly the same number of genes as we do. I'll use the number 24,000. Bob and Cindy came from the same parent.

The first generation recieves 12,000 genes from the father (or Bob) and 12,000 from an unrelated mother...Samantha.
The second recieves 6,000 from that first father
The third, 3,000 from Bob
the fourth 1,500 from Bob
the fifth 750 from Bob
the sixth 375 from Bob
the seventh (we'll round up because you can't recieve half a gene) 188 genes from Bob
the eighth generation: 94
ninth: 47
tenth (again, rounding up) 24
eleventh: 12
generation number twelve: 6
generation number thirteen: 3
the fourteenth generation: 2
fifteenth generation: 1 gene
The sixteenth generation of Bob's progeny is no more related genetically to Cindy's progeny at the sixteenth generation as Bob and Samantha were when they had children. In other words as long as the numbers of whatever species we're talking about are increasing and specimens are bred with those individuals that are less closely related than the average of the population from which they come, it's relatively safe to say that inbreeding will not occurr.
The problem with the pet trade is that the genes aren't shuffled as effectively as they are in the wild, leading to inbreeding either purposefully such as that of dogs, or unintentionally as with our roach colonies (although, I don't think anyone really gets up in arms about the inbreeding of roaches).

I also believe that if sold into the general population the hybrid should at least be noted with maybe a...

(species name / breeder name) X (species name / breeder name)

...where the breeder would be the origional source of the animal or line of animals. Many breeders can have the same species name on their website but comparing the animals from each breeder they just may look very different from one another.
So I'll run with this for a second. If everybody in the world is responsible, then a lot of things would be OK. If marijuanna came from other sources than hyperviolent drug cartels, I would be OK with it's legalization. On the other hand, if people used heroin and methamphetamine responsibly, there would be little problem with either of these drugs.

Now...let's blast back to reality for one second. Here on this forum, we actually need an entire forum specifically for the identification of spiders that were sold to members under incorrect names or even no name at all.

Since most of the WC spiders are collected in their native habitat by locals who don't know what they're doing, they're given common names. Read through these forums for any amount of times, you know these common names mean nothing. Tarantulas are commonly misidentified...often grossly. I once saw a mature male A. seemani labeled as a Xenesthis immanis in a local pet store (proced for $50, too) so what makes you think for even one second that they will not be mixed up?

I'm not going to even get to first time owners who breed without realizing the consequences, and I'm not going to touch sexual dimorphism.

A very nice looking hybrid could be more valuable than the combined values of the parents.
Not going to argue there. It's true. However, the risks from hybridization outweigh any benefits. There is actually no benefit from hybridization. Sure, you might make a buck...but this is not an acceptable reason. Eventually, the hybrids will somehow get into the gene pool of other species and will spread to the point where we have no more of that species, only hybrid. Some species such as b. smithi are no longer imported from their natural environment and are only kept in the pet trade through the efforts of captive breeders.

As I said earlier, the problem with CITES is that it does not provide a gene bank for endangered species. The pet hobby, if done appropriately could.

Now, earlier I said that it was difficult to do things appropriately. However, appropriately breeding endangered animals specifically for the pet trade could actually be more beneficial for the economy than irresponsibly.

This is elaborated more in other posts of mine spread across the forum and is another subject alltogether.

In the end this planet is running short of genetic material simply because of the lost of wildlife and their habitat. We may have no choice but to consume that Gecho_x_Owl_x_Bass_x_Pig for dinner. It may be all that is left to us for food except for Soylent Green
Again, we are not running short on genetic material. We are running short on species.

Actually I believe that you are absolutely wrong about those statements. They do in "fact" hybridize in the wild and in the aquarium. Your statement is based on your opinions only which you have a right, no dought at all. I believe IMO that the hybrids occur both in the wild and in captivity.
Hybrids occurr in the wild and captivity, however we have no way to know which is which. Hybridizing for scientiffic purposes is OK, and as long as there is no contamination of any gene pools of proper species this is OK. The only way to ensure that contamination of gene pools does not happen is to not sell them.



Actually NO, they were NOT incredibly deformed at all when I did it in an aquarium with two completely different genus from Malawi. It was accidental in that case but it happend since they were the only two fish in the tank. It was over 6 months after I bought them when it happened. The offspring contained characterisitcs of both parents. This happens all of the time. I wish that I still had the cichlids to show them off. This was about 8 years ago when I had my small African Cichlid hobby.
A lot of african cichlids come from Lake Victoria, which has suffered an unimaginable catastrophe caused in part by an introduced fish.

Let's assume you sold those fish to another pet store owner who had about as much knowledge in fish as most pet store owners have about tarantulas, and he sold them as the same species as one of their parents because he didn't quite get the hybridizing part. They're bred into the population and it spreads throughout the population of those species.

Now, let's say they fix all the problems with Lake Victoria after those species go extinct. How will they re-introduce those species?

You definitely have the right to your beliefs, absolutely. But so does everybody else.
You are right to a point:

My beliefs are based on conservation and I am focusing on the benefit of the animals under our care by preserving the species by not allowing their gene pool to be contaminated. You are focusing on your pocketbook.

I personally find it very amusing how so many people can be so paranoid about a small number of hybrid animals entering the market place. It absolutely will happen all of the time if it is possible.
The worn out claim that different_species_name_x_different_species_name is a hybrid and that same_species_name_x_same_species_name is not a hybrid is getting pretty darn old.
Definition of hybrid...the offspring of two animals who are two different species. Enough said.

Species are grouped into a genus by a few individuals who examine the physical structure of the animal.
They examine the physical structure, the habitat and their habits. They try to determine if these creatures mate in the wild or can reproduce. They will attempt to hybridize them to see if they can, in fact reproduce and then determine if these are species.

These people are no different than anybody else.
Except for the fact that they study these animals for a living, have years of education behind them, they know the definition of species and actually have good reasons for classifying their animals as different species.

When they are grouped by the chemical structure of the DNA molecules that are responsible for the animal I might consider that grouping valid but until then I do not.
Well, good luck with that. Genetic studies are rarely done among invertebrates. The physical characteristics that scientists look at generally betray genetic characteristics that lead to the conclusion that the animals they are studying are different species.

Coloration means very little little, however a swelling on tibias three through four would be major.

Sometimes variations between younger species are smaller than variations between older species, however they don't interbreed in the wild through certian means such as mating calls or different drumming patterns.

Of course yes, the obvious, it would be rediculus to group lets say a bear with a termite. Oddly imagine if those two animals were nearly identical at a molecular genetic level, that would rip.
What are you trying to say here?

Again...the only reasons that the people who support hybridization have offered is their desire to own one, and have cited the problems with classifying spiders.

The economic arguement is crap, plain and simple. There is no way to effectively argue that creating species for your sole profit is ethical.

By allowing hybridization, they're allowing the eventual destruction of the species in the hobby. Pointing out the problems with classification is not a proper arguement for the popularization fo hybrids. It is an excuse that they use to justify doing something they want to do for the sole reason of lining their wallet.

1.) Creating new species for the sole reason of your own profit, and not the benefit of society is wrong.

2.) Hybridizing for the purpose of taxonomical research benefits society. Therefore this is acceptable, as long as the spiders are not released for general sale to the public.

3.) Allowing hybridized spiders into the hobby could weaken the gene pool and basically destroy the species in the hobby. This could be catastrophic if any of these spiders became endangered or extinct in the wild. Extinction is an hourly thing, so you can bet at least one tarantula species has gone extinct this month. It's bad enough that we have to have a sub-forum dedicated to misidentified spiders. Imagine the chaos if hybrids were common.

4.) Although the vast majority of tarantula species are not in trouble, the pet hobby is the driving interest to describe and import new species. Because of this, we do not need to be creating our own new species. This practice makes the pet hobby be taken less seriously to conservation groups, and this is a detriment to anyone and everyone involved.
 

Greyhalo

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
258
What are you trying to say here?

Again...the only reasons that the people who support hybridization have offered is their desire to own one, and have cited the problems with classifying spiders.

The economic arguement is crap, plain and simple. There is no way to effectively argue that creating species for your sole profit is ethical.

By allowing hybridization, they're allowing the eventual destruction of the species in the hobby. Pointing out the problems with classification is not a proper arguement for the popularization fo hybrids. It is an excuse that they use to justify doing something they want to do for the sole reason of lining their wallet.
I couldnt agree anymore, nicely said.
 

Stylopidae

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,203
Your words show immaturity so maybe you should grow up...... go be a lurker. The board is better off.
Hey, now. Everyone can add something to anything. What they add is what makes the difference. Binary spider is technically correct when he says there are problems with classifying on physical characteristics. In the centipede world, coloration and size means nothing. Adults within the same colormorph can be highly variable in size and color, but these mean nothing in nature as they interbreed.

Take a look at scolopendra polymorpha. I've seen close to a dozen colormorphs, and their physiology isn't much understood.

Although he is technically correct in pointing out the problems with taxonomy, this is not an excuse to cross breed.

I said some things I regret in a moment of bad judgement in the middle of a horrendously bad cigarette craving. My post earlier was out of character and out of line and it should not be an example of how to deal with someone you do not agree with.

Please do not follow my example as far as that post is concerned. I do not wish to push any member* into oblivion. As Sheri said, this is a community and we should not be doing anything that would discourage people from posting. This is why I posted a public apology, PMed the member it was intended for with a link to my apology and even posted a link to the apology in my signature.

Within five minutes of me posting the link in my signature, the views on this thread had gone up by nearly 200, so believe me when I say I made every effort to ensure this apology was as public as possible.

(*well, the one in question. I do have an ignore list of people who I believe will never add anything to any subject in which they speak because they usually interject into a conversation with something completely random, misspelled and with a complete lack of punctuation that has no bearing on the actual topic at hand. I place people like this on my ignore list, not people who I disagree with. If you would wish to add me or anyone else to your ignore list, look at their profile and right above the signature there is an option for a buddy list and an ignore list. The ignore list is on the right. Click on that link and follow the directions. Instead of attacking people, add them to your ignore list. That is why it is there.


Maybe try lightening up a bit Cheshire. This is one reason that many of us are tired of it including myself. I allready feel that I should no longer post here because you are constantly ripping apart my posts and placing little chunks of what you believe to be actual science fact in place to make yourself feel important.
Although I was wrong about what percentage of hybrids are sterile, the facts in my posts still stand alone. We are arguing ethics, a large majority of which is personal opinion backed up by science.

I tend to make my opinions by thinking them through. How I normally do this is by breaking posts into single statements and logically think them through point by point.

Of course you can accuse me of preaching pseudoscience to make a point to make me feel important, however I am not the one who is attempting to redefine the term species by ignoring the definition. There is a distinct difference between what happens in nature and what happens in the lab.

You are also attempting to impose your ideas of what is correct and what is not correct on those who will not bow down to your trivial statements.
I am arguing the ethics of the situation and have not yet heard a convincing arguement about why creating a new species not found in nature by mating two species that would never actually meet just because you want to make a few dollars is ethical.

Again...personal opinion. These are my opinions, and quite a few people share them. If I'm wrong, then someone will come along and set me straight by explaining the other side to my satisfaction. It has happened a few times before, and once in this very thread.

Quite frankly, I do not care whether or not you bow down to me. Hybridizing different species is unethical and has the potential to destroy entire species as found in the hobby, which would raise the price of the actual *natural* species, which would lead to more illegal wild collecting which in turn would lead to more habitat destruction.

To sway my mind you need to prove that selling hybrids will somehow improve the hobby and not degrade it through empirical evidence and practical logic, something you have utterly failed at. In taxonomy, there are two distinct groups of thought...lumpers and splitters.

You are a lumper. You lump everything into one group without paying attention to whether or not the animals actually mate in the wild. While this may be relevant if we were discussing fossils, this has no bearing on this discussion.

I'm in the middle. In addition to paying attention to mortality rates, as well as deformations, I believe if the spiders distinguish between their two populations voluntarily in the wild, the two populations are different species. If they don't mate in the wild due to seperation of some type, whether it be mating seasons or geography or a combination of the two, they are different species. Both of these must be backed up with physiological differences.

This includes the little tidbit of catagorical slots that you are claiming to be set in stone. You are making a fool out of yourself.
I've said several times that the term species is merely an artificial barrier that is set in a straight continuum in both this thread and others. What I am saying is that we should respect species as they are found in nature.

The pet hobby could be used for so much more than our enjoyment. We could have people in the countries from which our pets came get export liscenses and breed these spiders to re-seed destroyed and rebuilt habitat. This would both increase the variety of animals in our hobby, encourage discovery and create jobs for people in third world countries (again...the short version).

However, for this to happen our hobby needs to be taken seriously among conservation groups.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the consequences outweigh the benefits.

Look, Nothing Is absolute Or Set In Stone.
I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we should stick to nature the best we're able. Just because species aren't set in stone doesn't mean we should hybridize anything. Many people enjoy this hobby because it gives them the chance to research their pet and find out where it is found in the wild. If there's nothing but half breeds left in the hobby where none of the pets are actually exotic...just man made, we become the Wal*Mart of the pet world. Nobody wants this.

You will see this when you decide to grow up. The sandbox is down the road on the net.
I've already apologized to you and fully understand why you may not like me. Feel free to attack me, I can understand why you may feel this is warranted. I attempted to send you a private message to explain my views in private and offer a chance to bury the hatchet, however it seems you have found the ignore list function. I believe private messages are just that...private and not meant to be brought up in a public setting so I'm not going to say any more on this subject other than there is a certian irony involved.

I do bring up many salient points in my posts and have a wealth of knowledge on the subject. I was mistaken on the percentage of hybrids that were sterile, however the rest of my posts should stand up to empirical or logical scrutiny. Feel more than free to double check, as Dark Finder did.

Taxonomy is something that is difficult to understand unless you've read a handfull of species descriptions. I've read about half a dozen or so and physical characteristics aren't the only things taken into account. There is environment, where they're found, how they breed, where they breed and whether there is a true seperation of breeding populations in the wild. If one group favors it's own group far more than the other, it's generally considered a species as the animals make a distinction between each other.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VCCausesSpeciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1iSpeciationPlants.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1aModesSpeciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1bAllopatric.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1cPeripatric.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1dParapatric.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1eSympatric.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1gReproIsolation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1hCospeciation.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VADefiningSpecies.shtml

Taxonomy is a complicated subject.

Again...my position, which has yet to be touched by the pro-hybridization side. The fact that tarantula species are not well understood has very little to do with this arguement. The high mortality rates between a lot of hybrid species should be more than enough of an arguement for the genetic variable. The posts from Berkely I posted should be an arguement for the rest.

Species descriptions are written by those who have gone to school long enough to attain a PHD. You can not simply dismiss them by calling them idiots and assuming you're superior without any actual hard evidence.

My position on the subject which has yet to be touched by the pro-hybridization side:

1.) Creating new species for the sole reason of your own profit, and not the benefit of society is wrong.

2.) Hybridizing for the purpose of taxonomical research benefits society. Therefore this is acceptable, as long as the spiders are not released for general sale to the public.

3.) Allowing hybridized spiders into the hobby could weaken the gene pool and basically destroy the species in the hobby. This could be catastrophic if any of these spiders became endangered or extinct in the wild. Extinction is an hourly thing, so you can bet at least one tarantula species has gone extinct this month. It's bad enough that we have to have a sub-forum dedicated to misidentified spiders. Imagine the chaos if hybrids were common.

4.) Although the vast majority of tarantula species are not in trouble, the pet hobby is the driving interest to describe and import new species. Because of this, we do not need to be creating our own new species. This practice makes the pet hobby be taken less seriously to conservation groups, and this is a detriment to anyone and everyone involved.
 
Last edited:

TheDarkFinder

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
923
I'm going to quit now.
1.)
Cheshire I see nothing wrong with anything you said. Nothing. Most hybrids are sterile, if you consider the mating between two species hybrids*.
*The footnote to the statement is that we need make sure we have each species reproductively isolated from each other, not just named different species because we think they are or want to name them.

Think about dogs, if we did not know they come from the same species then they would been labled as different species, ie wolf, Canis lupus ssp, vs coyote, Canis latrans ssp. The latest in genetic research show both species (or ssp or both) gave raise to the domestic dog, hybridization and inbreeding. So, for example, B smithi and B. klaasi are the same species. I have seen the f3 generation form this cross breed personally, many years ago.

2.) I do not support any hybrids for fun, none. For just research ok but be careful and be ready to take care of the animals for all their lives or the freezer for them. Hybridization will be the biggest mistake that we will make in the hobby and will continue to pay for it for years and years.

3.)People, for what ever reason, want to remove the science out of the hobby, they want morals, ethics, and religion to play into this hobby. They do not want to talk about hybrids because it will ruin the hobby, which it will. So it is easier for them to just say it can not happen.

They want terms to be politically correct, best light, so that way tarantula may be seen in a positive light. They want defensive because it sounds better, ignoring about 60 years of animal research into behavior and the correct terms for such a subject. They think it just sounds better.

4.) Really do not care about the hobby anymore. I keep tarantulas because I love them. I do not keep them because there is a board where you can talk about them.

5.)It really does not matter. If people want morals, ethics, or religion in this hobby great.

6.)everyone has the right to chime in here. Some people get really upset about what they read. I do not care, ever have so the madness.

Hybrids in tarantula probably not really possible, personal opinion. Be careful if you think you want to try.

If you are doing research into this topic pm me.

If anyone notices I only come here and post when someone goes off with the ipsedixitisms and shoots themselves in the foot. Properly selected hybrids are not sterile, for the most part.

As for you under-note cheshire, I always considered you the Robert Lowth of the tarantula hobby- minus the chruch.

thedarkfinder
 
Top