B. emilia vs B. smithi growth rate

CyclingSam

Arachnoknight
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
220
June 2016, I purchased 4 slings from Paul Becker while I was visiting L.A. One was a 3/4" B. smithi and the other was a 1/2" B. emilia. They have been feed 2 times a week and kept at around 75-78 degrees. The B. emilia is a confirmed female at about 2.5" to 2.75" DLS. The B. smithi is about a 1.75" DLS to 2" DLS and is a suspect female. The smithi is going to molt in the next few weeks, she started refusing food about 3 weeks ago and looks terrible. Based on my observation, I will confidently say that B. emilias can have a faster growth rate that B. smiths.
 

EulersK

Arachnonomicon
Staff member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
3,290
Very interesting, I would have said the exact opposite. I've owned two slings of each, but each pair were sac mates. Definitely speaks to individual growth rates.
 

Rittdk01

Arachnoknight
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
264
I have open Emilia and two b smithis. My b emilia has grown a little faster than my smithis, but it's not a huge difference.
 

nicodimus22

Arachnomancer
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Sep 26, 2013
Messages
709
My 3/4 inch B. emilia sling is a freak. It molted over two weeks ago, and has ignored my last two food offerings. Instead, it climbs onto the side of the enclosure, sticks its front leg out of one of the ventilation holes, and waves it around all night. You can't make this stuff up. :rofl:

If I had a B. smithi, I'm guessing it would have eaten, and would be winning the growth war, but you never know.
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
11,672
June 2016, I purchased 4 slings from Paul Becker while I was visiting L.A. One was a 3/4" B. smithi and the other was a 1/2" B. emilia. They have been feed 2 times a week and kept at around 75-78 degrees. The B. emilia is a confirmed female at about 2.5" to 2.75" DLS. The B. smithi is about a 1.75" DLS to 2" DLS and is a suspect female. The smithi is going to molt in the next few weeks, she started refusing food about 3 weeks ago and looks terrible. Based on my observation, I will confidently say that B. emilias can have a faster growth rate that B. smiths.
You have done far too little "research" to make such a claim. Your population is far too small.

And, you don't even know what gender you have, "suspect" is not reliable.

That would never fly in science.
 

CyclingSam

Arachnoknight
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
220
You have done far too little "research" to make such a claim. Your population is far too small.
Read again. Details are in the small words. Only one occurrence has to happen for the word, "can" or "may" to apply. Now if I had said, "do" or "usually" or even "likely" in place of the word "can" then you would be completely right. I stand my ground.
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
11,672
Read again. Details are in the small words. Only one occurrence has to happen for the word, "can" or "may" to apply. Now if I had said, "do" or "usually" or even "likely" in place of the word "can" then you would be completely right. I stand my ground.
Hahaah. I read that "can" BEFORE I wrote what I did, that's an assumption on your part, and a wrong one too. You should have asked IF I had read it before assuming ;)

When you know the gender, let us all know. You don't know the gender your "data" is not meaningful. How can you possibly make a claim of any sort when you don't even know the gender of the another specimen???????

However, let's assume your mystery gender turns out female!

I was writing that from the point of relevance. For example, let's say your mystery gender T is a female, in point of fact you could use "can" and be technically correct. But if that only happens one in a million or more..how relevant is that? That was my perspective.

If relevance is not a concern, by all means, post whatever can happen ;)
 

CyclingSam

Arachnoknight
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
220
Hahaah. I read that "can" BEFORE I wrote what I did, that's an assumption on your part, and a wrong one too. You should have asked IF I had read it before assuming ;)

When you know the gender, let us all know. You don't know the gender your "data" is not meaningful. How can you possibly make a claim of any sort when you don't even know the gender of the another specimen???????

However, let's assume your mystery gender turns out female!

I was writing that from the point of relevance. For example, let's say your mystery gender T is a female, in point of fact you could use "can" and be technically correct. But if that only happens one in a million or more..how relevant is that? That was my perspective.

If relevance is not a concern, by all means, post whatever can happen ;)
You are right indeed. I did assume that you had missed, "can." I agree that my data (if you can even call it that) is not relevant to any big picture. However, I did find my observation interesting so I though I would share it over on this side of the forum in hopes that I will not be an "Arachnopeon" forever. How about this, next time I will not be so dramatic in my observation posting. Just last night, my smithi molted and she is a lady (what timing).
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
11,672
You are right indeed. I did assume that you had missed, "can." I agree that my data (if you can even call it that) is not relevant to any big picture. However, I did find my observation interesting so I though I would share it over on this side of the forum in hopes that I will not be an "Arachnopeon" forever. How about this, next time I will not be so dramatic in my observation posting. Just last night, my smithi molted and she is a lady (what timing).
That's a male :troll:

So now Sam, you have a good 20 years to collect data, as you have 2 females. You'll have to make sure they eat the same amount of prey, i.e. mass of prey.

Let us know what you find in 2037 ;)
 
Top