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

[Andrew Clayton]

It's greed with the excuse used as supply and demand here in the U.S.

As long as people keep buying seller's will keep charging high amounts.

It's not the love of arachnoculture it's the green.

If I ever decide to do a breeding project I'm giving slings away free for the betterment of arachnoculture and to share with others.

Yeah I would do the same, any time I have a MM I just give him away or if I find out early enough it's male I sell it cheap.

 

[Glorfindel]

be calm, be gentile, and love your spider

 

[Spifdar]

Admittedly slightly off-topic but out of interest, is there anyone here who's definitively kept both quirogai & pulchra and can compare their temperaments? I'm aware spiders (like any animal) are individual and there'll be variation, but I'm curious nonetheless!

 

[OldFlash]

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.

After reading the whole thread, I couldn’t resist jumping in: from what I’ve heard, talking to some Brazilian friends in the know, the genus is up for a revision, and it’s apparently in for some big changes. One of those changes has to do with Grammostola 'pulchra.' Chances are, the species we know as pulchra in the hobby was never the 'original' pulchra, so to speak. The real G. pulchra is supposedly only found in a small area of southern Brazil. Word is, that species barely ever got exported out of the country. Most of what spread through the hobby is believed to have come from Uruguay and is now described as G. quirogai (which also occurs in Brazil). On top of those two, there’s another black tarantula in Argentina that’s expected to pop up in the revision—though I’m not sure what they’ll call it.

Since there’s almost no tarantula trade in Brazil, the little we know is that this 'original' pulchra is a bit smaller than the others, has metallic bristles scattered all over and takes forever to grow. As far as I know, there aren’t any reports of successful breeding over there.

It’ll be interesting to see how the hobby sorts itself out after a molecular revision of the genus.

 

[TheraMygale]

We have a dealer in canada who sells both, the pulchra and quirogai. I am very curious to know how they have “identified” them.

its to far for me to buy from anyways, and i only trust my local dealer. Im any case, i would still by a pulchra from my dealer.

@OldFlash even if little was exported, much was blackmarket. And there still could be some. i am only saying that because, its possible there mght be some in the husbandry. But we would need to get down to anatomy and dna to confirm what we have.

 

[OldFlash]

And there still could be some. i am only saying that because, its possible there mght be some in the husbandry.

Some for sure, no doubt about it.

@OldFlash even if little was exported, much was blackmarket.

To be honest, when I said " that species barely ever got exported out of the country", I didn't mean "exported legally" at all,

 

[angelarachnid]

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.

For years T. blondi was exported out of French Guiana into the UK to arrive in time for the BTS Exhibition in mid May by Andre Braunshusen. Many of the females would produce eggsacs with spiderlings hatching from Aug to October and dealers would be slashing prices to try and get rid of all the babys. I dont know if it was just coincedence but when Andre stopped exporting is roughly the same time when blondis became rarer. Then after a while stirmi came in being sold as blondi, and someone noticed the colour of the spiderlings legs showing they were not blondi.

The Guys from ERATO (a Dutch) company captive bred pulchra by keeping them in deep burrows in dustbins with little or no extra heating if I remember correctly.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

After reading the whole thread, I couldn’t resist jumping in: from what I’ve heard, talking to some Brazilian friends in the know, the genus is up for a revision, and it’s apparently in for some big changes. One of those changes has to do with Grammostola 'pulchra.' Chances are, the species we know as pulchra in the hobby was never the 'original' pulchra, so to speak. The real G. pulchra is supposedly only found in a small area of southern Brazil. Word is, that species barely ever got exported out of the country. Most of what spread through the hobby is believed to have come from Uruguay and is now described as G. quirogai (which also occurs in Brazil). On top of those two, there’s another black tarantula in Argentina that’s expected to pop up in the revision—though I’m not sure what they’ll call it.

Since there’s almost no tarantula trade in Brazil, the little we know is that this 'original' pulchra is a bit smaller than the others, has metallic bristles scattered all over and takes forever to grow. As far as I know, there aren’t any reports of successful breeding over there.

It’ll be interesting to see how the hobby sorts itself out after a molecular revision of the genus.

None of the information from your "Brazilian friends in the know" is new and can be gathered through the literature. I will explain.

In March 2016 Dr. Fernando Pérez-Miles of University of the Republic Montevideo, Uruguay sent an open letter to the arachnological societies informing of an attempted smuggling attempt of Grammostola quirogai which occurred in January and March of the same year. The letter further notes that back in 2007 a Swiss citizen attempted to send 750 specimens of G. quirogai from Uruguay to Europe. This information confirms that attempts to smuggle G. quirogai from their native Uruguay for the pet trade occurred as early as 2007, but does not confirm what we have in the hobby today. It is conceivable that prior to the description of G. quirogai, which was published in 2015, G. quirogai was labeled as G. pulchra for the pet trade, but again there is no confirmation that any of the big black Grammostola species we see in the pet trade today come from Uruguay. There is only speculation at this point.

The rediscription of G. pulchra, published in 2023, was not only informative in that it shows us what G. pulchra looks like and how to distinguish it from other known Grammostola species (for the most part), but it also points out that the species used for DNA barcoding for a phylogenetic analysis in the same paper G. quirogai was described was a third undescribed black Grammostola species. Is that mystery third Grammostola species what we have in the hobby today?

Regarding the existence of G. quirogai occurring in Brazil, a quick look at the World Spider Catalog shows Brazil as being a part of its distribution. However, the paper that puts it there is not listed. The paper that puts G. quirogai in Brazil was published in 2016 when describing the predation of the snake Erythrolamprus almadensis by G. quirogai in Brazil near the border with Uruguay. The fault of the paper is that it does not describe how the identification was reached, but it does note that the tarantula along with the snake was collected in case anyone needs to verify the species.

Historically, the hobby never really sorts itself out after any kind of taxonomic revision. Most keepers and sellers alike- no matter how reputable- usually just take the word of someone else who may or may not know what is going on. This is especially true when the species in question are extremely difficult to identify visually. There just are not enough individuals with the skillset to properly identify tarantulas and it would be near impossible to do so when the morphology is too similar. When there is a lack of knowledge, or skill, people just tend to make something up or use what sounds correct to have something for their labels or to sell something.

So unless your Brazilian friends have something more definitive about what and where these large black Grammostola species circulating in the international pet trade come from, and can give resources to verify it, it's all just speculation. For as long as I have been involved in online tarantula keeping communities, there has always been someone who knows something, but no one ever proves their claims.

References (in no particular order)

Borges, L. M., da Rosa, C. M., Dri, G. F., & Bertani, R. (2016). Predation of the snake Erythrolamprus almadensis (Wagler, 1824) by the tarantula Grammostola quirogai Montes de Oca, D’Elía & Pérez-Miles, 2016. Herpetology Notes, 9, 321-322.
<Download>

Pittella, R. S., Bassa, P. G., Zefa, E., & Bianchi, F. M. (2023). Using the integrative approach to update a gap of one century: redescription and new distribution records of the South American tarantulas Grammostola pulchra (Araneae: Mygalomorphae: Theraphosidae). Zoological Studies, 62, e5.
<Link to Free Article>

Montes de Oca, L., D'Elía, G., & Pérez‐Miles, F. (2016). An integrative approach for species delimitation in the spider genus Grammostola (Theraphosidae, Mygalomorphae). Zoologica Scripta, 45(3), 322-333.
<Download>

Aisenberg, A., Pérez-Miles, F. (2016). Uruguayan tarantulas in danger: pet traders strike again. Open Letter.
(No download available; Send PM for a copy)

 

[OldFlash]

None of the information from your "Brazilian friends in the know" is new and can be gathered through the literature.

I didn’t mention anything about new information in my post. I’m friends with these people, who are professionals in the field, some with projects underway, and it’d be really disrespectful to go talking about what’s said in our private conversations. By the way, one of their names even shows up in your post

It’s nice to know there are people working on the genus, that it’s not all stalled or forgotten. That’s the interesting piece I shared in my post. Maybe someone who didn’t know found out. For information to be new, it just takes one person who wasn’t aware.

So unless your Brazilian friends have something more definitive about what and where these large black Grammostola species circulating in the international pet trade come from, and can give resources to verify it, it's all just speculation. For as long as I have been involved in online tarantula keeping communities, there has always been someone who knows something, but no one ever proves their claims.

Let’s wait and see. I'm sure if they come up with something more concrete, everyone will hear about it. Through them, the ones responsible, not me 🫠

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I didn’t mention anything about new information in my post. I’m friends with these people, who are professionals in the field, some with projects underway, and it’d be really disrespectful to go talking about what’s said in our private conversations. By the way, one of their names even shows up in your post

It’s nice to know there are people working on the genre, that it’s not all stalled or forgotten. That’s the interesting piece I shared in my post. Maybe someone who didn’t know found out. For information to be new, it just takes one person who wasn’t aware.



Let’s wait and see. I'm sure if they come up with something more concrete, everyone will hear about it. Through them, the ones responsible, not me 🫠

I totally thought you were talking about regular tarantula pet keepers when referring to your Brazilian friends. I could have saved myself like 30 minutes of typing if I knew your friends were actual taxonomists working on the genus!

But now I understand you were being discrete out of respect for ongoing work. Knowing that the genus is getting revised professionally is a relief though and thanks for sharing what you know!

 

[OldFlash]

I totally thought you were talking about regular tarantula pet keepers when referring to your Brazilian friends. I could have saved myself like 30 minutes of typing if I knew your friends were actual taxonomists working on the genus!

But now I understand you were being discrete out of respect for ongoing work. Knowing that the genus is getting revised professionally is a relief though and thanks for sharing what you know!

I mean, and how could you, right? 'Brazilian friends' is pretty vague, and that was the point . If I were making some big claim in the post or challenging something said in the thread, spelling out my sources in more detail might’ve helped show some 'credibility,' but even then, I don’t think—and never thought—it’s necessary to drop this name or that one just to prove a point.
I did get the vibe that your reply had that tone—like someone who’s run into the thousandth person saying their friend’s friend’s coworker heard something somewhere with zero backing and then goes off lecturing people online. We've all seen this phenomena happening way more than we'd like to 🥲🥲🥲