Dave's little beasties comments about captive bred G. Pulchra

[0viWan]

Hey guys,

I just watched Dave's little beasties recent video where he did a rehousing of a G. Pulchra. In this video he was talking about this species being exceedingly difficult to breed and not knowing or even hearing of anyone successfully doing so. He suggested, that the slings people buy likely come from eggsacs that were collected in the wild.

Now in Europe at least G. Pulchra slings are usually readily available from all the large breeders so I find that hard to believe.

What is your guys opinion on this?

 

[Andrew Clayton]

Hey guys,

I just watched Dave's little beasties recent video where he did a rehousing of a G. Pulchra. In this video he was talking about this species being exceedingly difficult to breed and not knowing or even hearing of anyone successfully doing so. He suggested, that the slings people buy likely come from eggsacs that were collected in the wild.

Now in Europe at least G. Pulchra slings are usually readily available from all the large breeders so I find that hard to believe.

What is your guys opinion on this?

Isn't he from the UK? There are multiple sites here that sells captive bread, 2 of I know will be legit. I don't think it can be classed as captive bread if there pulling egg sacs from the wild, can it? I don't watch much YouTube videos but I'm sure I seen him set up a Chilobrachys as arboreal, I commented on it to let him know and he got back to me with a thumbs up.

 

[A guy]

Hey guys,

I just watched Dave's little beasties recent video where he did a rehousing of a G. Pulchra. In this video he was talking about this species being exceedingly difficult to breed and not knowing or even hearing of anyone successfully doing so. He suggested, that the slings people buy likely come from eggsacs that were collected in the wild.

Now in Europe at least G. Pulchra slings are usually readily available from all the large breeders so I find that hard to believe.

What is your guys opinion on this?

I've seen multiple big breeders in Europe(Germany,Poland,etc.) successfully breed hobby G. pulchra before.

 

[Mustafa67]

Hey guys,

I just watched Dave's little beasties recent video where he did a rehousing of a G. Pulchra. In this video he was talking about this species being exceedingly difficult to breed and not knowing or even hearing of anyone successfully doing so. He suggested, that the slings people buy likely come from eggsacs that were collected in the wild.

Now in Europe at least G. Pulchra slings are usually readily available from all the large breeders so I find that hard to believe.

What is your guys opinion on this?

In what video waa this?

 

[0viWan]

In what video waa this?

...at 17:00

 

[Arachnophobphile]

Hey guys,

I just watched Dave's little beasties recent video where he did a rehousing of a G. Pulchra. In this video he was talking about this species being exceedingly difficult to breed and not knowing or even hearing of anyone successfully doing so. He suggested, that the slings people buy likely come from eggsacs that were collected in the wild.

Now in Europe at least G. Pulchra slings are usually readily available from all the large breeders so I find that hard to believe.

What is your guys opinion on this?

Like how long ago? Brazil restricted all tarantulas being exported. Authorities are pro-active busting smugglers as well.

There are two tarantulas that appear identical, Grammostola pulchra and Grammostola quirogai. What was circulating through the hobby who knows.

One thing is for certain it is difficult to get a fertile sac in captivity, hence their prices especially from a few years ago.

Dave's opinion is just that an opinion and there's nothing I read anywhere that documents what he says is 100% true.

Has it happened years ago? Quite possibly

Read this link:

Grammostola pulchra vs. G. quirogai – Jamie's Tarantula Blog

 

[0viWan]

Yes I am aware of the Pulchra vs. Quirogai debate yet everyone (also breeders) just sticks with the Pulchra name. I guess just calling them the "hobby Pulchra" makes sense. I am also aware of the strict export regulations, that's why Daves reasoning strikes me as quite odd. As if he was out of touch with the current tarantula market.

In Europe the price for hobby Pulchra slings is high compared to the really cheap species but still not too bad. And yeah...they are readily available pretty much always.

 

[Arachnophobphile]

Yes I am aware of the Pulchra vs. Quirogai debate yet everyone (also breeders) just sticks with the Pulchra name. I guess just calling them the "hobby Pulchra" makes sense. I am also aware of the strict export regulations, that's why Daves reasoning strikes me as quite odd. As if he was out of touch with the current tarantula market.

In Europe the price for hobby Pulchra slings is high compared to the really cheap species but still not too bad. And yeah...they are readily available pretty much always.

A lot of his videos are years old now. I don't know if that video you watched is current or from just a few years ago. If it was at least 4 to 5 years ago then it's reasonable that probably happened with legal imports.

If it's current then some breeder/s have had success. That is indicated by them being readily available here in the U.S. but prices vary as well and some still expensive.

It wasn't that long ago when quirogai came on the scene and being offered for sale. It took many by surprise including me as it appeared identical to pulchra. I suspected it was the same T just found in multiple ranges. Not to later after reading publications that there is a difference.

So.......it goes back to which was it since quirogai wasn't described and appeared indentical?

My point is really can't make a statement that what Dave is saying was actually a pulchra. Then if it's a recent statement then we are talking about smuggled pulchra if it is indeed a pulchra.

 

[Mustafa67]

...at 17:00

A lot of his videos are years old now. I don't know if that video you watched is current or from just a few years ago. If it was at least 4 to 5 years ago then it's reasonable that probably happened with legal imports.

The link didn’t work for me but I went to his channel on Youtube and found the video, it says published 2 days ago on YouTube.

The price of the G pulchra is the reason I haven’t bought one. They come on online T shops from time to time, but they’re always expensive (here in the UK). I don’t think I’ve seen a female G pulchra being sold in any T online shop since I started keeping Ts 3 years ago, might need to attend an invert show to find one. There are occationally unsexed juvies or slings here online though.

 

[0viWan]

Yes it's his most recent video, filmed in his freshly built T-shack.

 

[Wolfram1]

well, i very much doubt we get any large numbers of 'WC' hobby G. pulchra. But who knows maybe Dave knows something we dont?

if we did import them then it wouldn't make sense why G. formosa is so rare, there would be much more money in importing "the real G. pulchra". The slogan alone would make them sell.

i know someone who has bred G. pulchra in the past so there definitly are people breeding them.

They are quite hardy and live a long time too, so there are probably a lot of them kicking around. Even if a lot of sacks dont make it there should be enough to satisfy the demand.

Feels more like the ~20€ per sling (Europe) are a result of supply and demand, low enough to sell most of them for maximum profit.

That, or they are much more common and prices are artificially high. It has been remarkably stable though.

 

[l4nsky]

IIRC, the only difference between quiroqi and pulchra is the emboli shape in mature males, but don't quote me on that. IMHO, that might be why cative breeding is soo difficult. There's no real way to guarantee what species the female is.

There is some precedence to this as T. blondi was historically even more notoriously difficult to breed than it is now. Turns out we were importing and labeling both the real deal and an undescribed species as T. blondi and people were trying to pair them up. That undescribed species is now known as T. stirmi lol and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a third unknown species marketed as T. blondi still in the mix in the hobby given the continued difficulty with breeding the species.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

IIRC, the only difference between quiroqi and pulchra is the emboli shape in mature males, but don't quote me on that. IMHO, that might be why cative breeding is soo difficult. There's no real way to guarantee what species the female is.

There is some precedence to this as T. blondi was historically even more notoriously difficult to breed than it is now. Turns out we were importing and labeling both the real deal and an undescribed species as T. blondi and people were trying to pair them up. That undescribed species is now known as T. stirmi lol and I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a third unknown species marketed as T. blondi still in the mix in the hobby given the continued difficulty with breeding the species.

The recent redescription of Grammostola pulchra lists several differences between it and G. quirogai. The only difference in the embolus is that G. pulchra has a developed apical keel while G. quirogai does not. Other differences include: presence of stiff erect setae at the top of the palpal tarsi (cymbium) in G. pulchra, missing in G. quirogai; and presence of macro setae at the top of the smaller branch of the tibial apophyses, not present in G. quirogai. There are other differences, but those would be the easiest to view with appropriate magnification.

Also, the redescription of G. pulchra has high quality photos of both an adult male and female that when compared to the hobby G. pulchra makes it obvious what we have in the hobby is not G. pulchra. Yet, no one has performed any kind of analysis of the hobby G. pulchra to determine if it is G. quirogai or something else entirely. G. quirogai appeared in the hobby only because sellers decided to change the name of their existing stock from G. pulchra to G. quirogai, but not everyone does this leading to the impression that there could be two big black species of Grammostola being traded.

As for the history of T. blondi, I remember it a little different. There was a point in time where T. blondi stopped appearing in the pet trade and was replaced with a totally different species being sold as T. blondi. A description of a new species called Theraphosa stirmi made it obvious that what was being traded as T. blondi was in fact the new species T. stirmi. What was interesting at the time was that T. blondi disappeared from the exotic pet trade for so long that it seemed everyone forgot what a T. blondi looked like. But to the point of a possible third species of Theraphosa being sold as T. blondi... When Theraphosa blondi reappeared in the pet trade I bought two which turned out to be males.The thought crossed my mind that there could be a third Theraphosa species being traded as T. blondi when my two males matured much smaller than what I was expecting.

Generally, the history of T. blondi/ T. stirmi, as I remember it anyway, would be similar to what we have now with these big black Grammostola species. If G. pulchra ever existed in the exotic pet trade, then we all forgot what it looks like. Since history repeats itself, it will take a full revision of the genus Grammostola for everyone to accept we don't have G. pulchra in the hobby right now (or it is very rare) and for the proper name to be assigned to it. Of course unlike the Theraphosa species, proper identification of the Grammostola species would be more difficult so there is always a chance they will continue to be misidentified even if a full genus revision is published for Grammostola.

 

[l4nsky]

Generally, the history of T. blondi/ T. stirmi, as I remember it anyway, would be similar to what we have now with these big black Grammostola species. If G. pulchra ever existed in the exotic pet trade, then we all forgot what it looks like. Since history repeats itself, it will take a full revision of the genus Grammostola for everyone to accept we don't have G. pulchra in the hobby right now (or it is very rare) and for the proper name to be assigned to it. Of course unlike the Theraphosa species, proper identification of the Grammostola species would be more difficult so there is always a chance they will continue to be misidentified even if a full genus revision is published for Grammostola.

That's basically what I was trying to convey. I imagine most people attempting to breed these species back in the earlier days had females from one import or breeder and acquired males from another source further down the line which may not have been compatible.

It's also a point worth mentioning this is all under the assumption that hybridization can't occur to some extent in captivity.

 

[A guy]

The recent redescription of Grammostola pulchra lists several differences between it and G. quirogai. The only difference in the embolus is that G. pulchra has a developed apical keel while G. quirogai does not. Other differences include: presence of stiff erect setae at the top of the palpal tarsi (cymbium) in G. pulchra, missing in G. quirogai; and presence of macro setae at the top of the smaller branch of the tibial apophyses, not present in G. quirogai. There are other differences, but those would be the easiest to view with appropriate magnification.

Also, the redescription of G. pulchra has high quality photos of both an adult male and female that when compared to the hobby G. pulchra makes it obvious what we have in the hobby is not G. pulchra. Yet, no one has performed any kind of analysis of the hobby G. pulchra to determine if it is G. quirogai or something else entirely. G. quirogai appeared in the hobby only because sellers decided to change the name of their existing stock from G. pulchra to G. quirogai, but not everyone does this leading to the impression that there could be two big black species of Grammostola being traded.

As for the history of T. blondi, I remember it a little different. There was a point in time where T. blondi stopped appearing in the pet trade and was replaced with a totally different species being sold as T. blondi. A description of a new species called Theraphosa stirmi made it obvious that what was being traded as T. blondi was in fact the new species T. stirmi. What was interesting at the time was that T. blondi disappeared from the exotic pet trade for so long that it seemed everyone forgot what a T. blondi looked like. But to the point of a possible third species of Theraphosa being sold as T. blondi... When Theraphosa blondi reappeared in the pet trade I bought two which turned out to be males.The thought crossed my mind that there could be a third Theraphosa species being traded as T. blondi when my two males matured much smaller than what I was expecting.

Generally, the history of T. blondi/ T. stirmi, as I remember it anyway, would be similar to what we have now with these big black Grammostola species. If G. pulchra ever existed in the exotic pet trade, then we all forgot what it looks like. Since history repeats itself, it will take a full revision of the genus Grammostola for everyone to accept we don't have G. pulchra in the hobby right now (or it is very rare) and for the proper name to be assigned to it. Of course unlike the Theraphosa species, proper identification of the Grammostola species would be more difficult so there is always a chance they will continue to be misidentified even if a full genus revision is published for Grammostola.

For the T. blondi , wasn't it the T. blondi Surinam locality at the time? Compared to the one that came before that which was the T. Blondi French Guiana, it is indeed smaller.

Andrew Smith's documentary on Theraphosa blondi has since then clarified that the T. blondi we thought was just a locality from Surinam is indeed a different species and we're just waiting for the publication. It's going to be called Theraphosa surinamensis. In the documentary, it was mentioned that the species to be T. surinamensis is definitely smaller in size and has much more setae on its legs.

 

[Gevo]

I haven’t searched extensively, but here’s at least one case of an AB member successfully breeding them: https://arachnoboards.com/gallery/grammostola-pulchra-with-sac.89208/

 

[Arachnophobphile]

I haven’t searched extensively, but here’s at least one case of an AB member successfully breeding them: https://arachnoboards.com/gallery/grammostola-pulchra-with-sac.89208/

Yes but he never replied whether it was a fertile sac or not. That's the issue with some tarantulas. One can have a successful pairing. The female can produce a sac but getting a fertile sac is the issue.

It's possible with these two tarantulas just a little difficult.

Aphonopelma moderatum is much more difficult to get a fertile sac in captivity. I have a female and I might take a nab at it in the future.

 

[MysteryInc]

Yes but he never replied whether it was a fertile sac or not.

It looks like he posted some sling pics recently ( https://arachnoboards.com/gallery/grammostola-pulchra-slings.91274/ )

 

[Arachnophobphile]

It looks like he posted some sling pics recently ( https://arachnoboards.com/gallery/grammostola-pulchra-slings.91274/ )

Well there it is good for him

 

[Charliemum]

Hey guys,

I just watched Dave's little beasties recent video where he did a rehousing of a G. Pulchra. In this video he was talking about this species being exceedingly difficult to breed and not knowing or even hearing of anyone successfully doing so. He suggested, that the slings people buy likely come from eggsacs that were collected in the wild.

Now in Europe at least G. Pulchra slings are usually readily available from all the large breeders so I find that hard to believe.

What is your guys opinion on this?

Uk here n cb slings are more then available, I am not quite sure why Dave said this, I think it's because he is an old school keeper and hasn't really updated all his info, like the rest of us can't know everything regardless of how long he has been in the hobby there is just too much to know for 1 person .

I have more then once urged Dave to join ab purely for the info, it's my no'1 place for any spoody info but unfortunately he is a lover of fb for info.....

Don't get me wrong I like to watch Dave, I watch most uploads, his passion is contagious, but let's face it, it's to see beautiful spoods in beautiful vivs not for info. That's what ab n Tom Moran are for .