Can't get this question out of my head!

[metallica]

3 pages of whining and biggering on "i believe" when there is a clear and interesting question asked....

here is my view on the subject...

i think also it all has to do with the predators that hunt the spiders. urticating hairs work best against the skin and breathing of mammals. (is there an article on the effect of urticating hairs on lizards and snakes?) So could it be that tarantulas that kick hair a lot come from areas with a large number of mammal predators? also size is an issue... T. blondi will stand it's ground, hissing, displaying. (noticed blondi does not strike with a bite attack on the first strike, but just like Poecilotheria, tap (feel?) with a leg.) other species like Grammostola *could* rely on camouflage... if i don't move they will not notice me.....

is there a way to tell if a tarantula is a hairkicker or not by looking how it sits in its burrow? for example: abdomen facing entrance for serious hairkickers?

Eddy

 

[Andy]

no no no, i believe in survival of the fittest, but there is much more to evolution that that. survival of the fittest is common sense. i don't believe that monkey's turned into humans, and that dinosaurs turned into birds and stuff like that.


-Mattyb

That doesnt make sense. You cant have survival of the fittest if all organisms of the same species are the same.
If one gene mutates an organism could end up with more speed more stamina, more leg length. Giving that organism advantage over the rest of his species, hence survival of the fittest.
Multiply that by 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 times and you could have turned a frog into a duckbil platypus or a space mongoose.

 

[ilovebugs]

Well... I don't believe in the stars at night, yet there they are just the same.

thats not a very good point to prove evolution, it's still only an idea. stars however are not ideas, we can all see them. you can argue evolution all you want, as back as you want, it still has no factual foundation.

 

[David_F]

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2: The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3: A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4: Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5: A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Personally, I don't think definition #6 is even the same thing but, hey, that's just me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

While it's not natural selection, we can see how evolution of organisms takes place. Through selective breeding of cattle, as an example, we've basically caused evolution to speed up on them. The "original" cow (the species as it was when first domesticated) doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Brando]

Wow this thread like went for a loop and around a turn that didn't even relate to the topic. Anyways i will try to get this back on topic.

The only problem i see with the predators determining the defenciveness of a tarantula is that when you raise a sling in a controlled environment, with no predators except maybe yourself, a T. Blondi will still be more likely to strike at you than a G. Rosea.

 

[Mister Internet]

The topic is located >>> HERE <<< ... I suggest you all start to address it directly. For examples of discussing the ACTUAL TOPIC of the thread at hand, see posts by metallica and Crotalus.

I will lock this thread if it keeps going off... please resurrect (no pun intended) an old thread about Evolution/Creationism if you want to start it up again. Yes, this means you.

 

[danread]

The only problem i see with the predators determining the defenciveness of a tarantula is that when you raise a sling in a controlled environment, with no predators except maybe yourself, a T. Blondi will still be more likely to strike at you than a G. Rosea.

You've got the wrong end of the stick here. The idea that people are putting forward isn't that the experience of an individual tarantula throughout it's life to predators will infuence its aggressiveness. Instead they are saying it is due to the evolution of different species in response to levels/type of predation, over a much larger time scale.

 

[Sheri]

Though already mentioned I think.... In The Beginning...
the locale and environment that the spider is likely to face in terms if predators, and the possibility of becomng prey are probable factors.

I have also wondered about energy conservation as a contributing cause. For instance, are drier species more docile because of the energy and hydration it would expend on threat posturing and defensive reactions instead of the "I am a rock, not a tarantula - not so yummy" response?

No idea, just something I have thought about. If this is an entirely intellectually bankrupt idea, please let me know so I can kill it now.

 

[Brando]

Yeah i understand that, and taking it into a smaller scale, saying that they are still aggressive in that small scale habbitat without predators. The species of spider "knows" to be aggressive due to the evolution, but what is deciding the temperment inside the spider no matter the surrounding?

 

[Sheri]

Yeah i understand that, and taking it into a smaller scale, saying that they are still aggressive in that small scale habbitat without predators. The species of spider "knows" to be aggressive due to the evolution, but what is deciding the temperment inside the spider no matter the surrounding?

Well, I suppose it would be a combination of evolution and coincidence. Adaptation to needs for survival which are then passed over and over to next generations. What other reason could there be other than in response to what is needed for survival? I mean - an animal develops the traits it needs to survive - predators, food sourcing, local climate and proliferation of the species.

Sorry, I edited your last post at first instead of quoting it. All fixed now though.

 

[metallica]

Yeah i understand that, and taking it into a smaller scale, saying that they are still aggressive in that small scale habbitat without predators. The species of spider "knows" to be aggressive due to the evolution, but what is deciding the temperment inside the spider no matter the surrounding?

a tarantula is 90% instinct. "i feel this thus i do that" for this it does not matter if it is in a tank, or out in the wild.

 

[becca81]

a tarantula is 90% instinct. "i feel this thus i do that" for this it does not matter if it is in a tank, or out in the wild.

What do you think the other 10% is?

 

[danread]

What do you think the other 10% is?

Learning in a limited sense. If amoeba can learn by association, then tarantulas definitely can. Although i don't think what they have learn't is the driving force in their behaviour, it defintiely could affect how they act.

 

[Apocalypstick]

It's seems to be simple adaptation to environment over thousands of years for each species environment. If you believe in 'evolution' or not...it's adapting necessary behaviors to survive.

 

[ilovebugs]

a tarantula is 90% instinct. "i feel this thus i do that" for this it does not matter if it is in a tank, or out in the wild.

I've never actually heard that, but I believe that. I've always thought of them as being almost robotic in how they react based on what kind of input they get.

 

[GabooN]

the thing i dont understand is that everyone was offering up theories to answer the questions. Just so happened someone used evolution as their explanation, others used more personal theories, so I dont see how the fact that it is theory disregards it?

I like the idea of the predators, what works best against the common predators, which leads to the natural selection idea in the sense that what works best to fend off the predators is able to stick around longer

 

[Dephiax]

Its just like asking why humans live in houses and why monkeys live in trees

You're kinda right but it would be more like asking why some humans are agressive to others and some just "let themself be bulied" and do nothing.

 

[danread]

You're kinda right but it would be more like asking why some humans are agressive to others and some just "let themself be bulied" and do nothing.

No it's not. Since we are talking about behavoural differences between different species of tarantula, not different individuals within a species, there must be a genetic cause for the differences in behaviour. With humans you are talking about a natural varation in agression within one species. Whilst there might be a genetic element to the reasons for human aggressive behaviour, it also has a lot to do with the environment you are brought up in.

 

[Greg Wolfe]

Question...

Going back to the original question on why some species are "nasty" and some are "docile" is a good inquiry. Over the years I have pondered on this very subject many times.
I would like to surmise their stance and personality is encoded in their DNA.
Tarantulas react to their enviroment automatically, with not much pondering or brainpower. Nature has provided them with responses that obviously furthur their species.
There must be some memory capacity in tarantulas, I have had Rosies and Curly hairs that have been abused in pet stores and upon arriving into my collection they displayed "temper tantrums". Wicked fits of rage. Only to mellow out with some peace and quiet.
Their responses are likely to be encoded in their genes. IMHO.