Difference Between G Rosea and G Porteri

[Keith B]

Who did this studying? Any links or reference to the work ? I keep hearing this rumor, but don't know what its based on.

Later, Tom

I'm not sure of any publications, but in one of the earlier threads somebody referenced differences in the stridulatory organs. Went diggin and found one of the places it was posted. As far as I know, this little tid bit is all we have so far.

http://www.tarantulaforum.com/threads/comparison-of-g-rosea-g-porteri-stridulatory-organs.262/

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

Hi guys.
I was looking at the website Keith B linked above, just to make a clarification on a subject on my instagram lol, and ended up finding this thread.

So, this thread was made in 2014, and appears to me there were a lot of misunderstanding at the time.
Lets start from the beginning, there are no scientifical studies yet (we are in 2019 now and still, nothing). So I'm really curious about this study that was mentioned in 2014 validating the individuals we have in pet trade as G. porteri or G. rosea.
The taxon, G. porteri is valid, but scientifically speaking, no one really know how it looks like. That is because no one knows the conditions of its types. So, if not even researchers knows a lot about the species (which description is old as hell), how hobbysts were able to confirm that the grey individuals is, in fact, G. porteri? I'll answer that too.

As you know, its easy to check which species are scientifically valid or not, there's a catalog pointing all that out. The legend that they are different species started with their different colors (and size too, if I remember correctly), since both species are found in Chile, someone, someday, "decided to" name the grey one as G. porteri, without any scientifical evidence. Somehow, this worked, and it was spread till these days. Thats why whenever you asked for the description article that differentiate these 2 species, no one has it. Or, they send the link Keith posted above, sometimes even as scientifical prove, which is also wrong.

In that link, the author only take some shots of their stridulatory organs and compares them, but he edited the thread and said:
"It seems that people have been using this thread in a lot of Facebook groups every time the difference between G. rosea and G. porteri comes up as some sort of definitive proof. So just for some clarification, it is not part of some taxonomic work by either myself, Steve Dye, Colin Wilson or any other name that is being banded about. It is not even saying that this is a stable character to use. It merely shows the difference between stridulating organs of one red female and one grey/brown female which was a character that was getting thrown around the hobby at the time."

Here's the thing, coloration and size are not valid taxonomical characters anymore and stridulatory organs isolated, based only in one individual of each species is not enough to prove anything.

So, to finally wrap it up, in pet trade this names simply doesnt matter too much, in order to not produce hybrids, you can call them anything you want, lol, either porteri, or NCF, or grey guys. The name porteri is so strong in the hobby right now, that's almost improbable it will change, til second orders.
In the science field, on the other hand, both of them will be treated as G. rosea, and G. porteri will continue be an unknown Grammostola, til someone decided to view its types and discover if they are still in condition to be checked, or not (Nomen dubium).

 

[dangerforceidle]

In the science field, on the other hand, both of them will be treated as G. rosea, and G. porteri will continue be an unknown Grammostola, til someone decided to view its types and discover if they are still in condition to be checked, or not (Nomen dubium).

Are you trying to say that G. porteri is not a valid taxon, or is not a name recognized by taxonomists? What publications do you have to support that G. porteri is nomen dubium.

Or perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

Are you trying to say that G. porteri is not a valid taxon, or is not a name recognized by taxonomists? What publications do you have to support that G. porteri is nomen dubium.

Or perhaps I misunderstood.

Hey man, how are you?
I believe you misunderstood. What I meant is, G. porteri is a valid taxon. However, its description is really old, 1936, by Mello Leitao, if I remember correctly. Since no one is revising the genus right now, as far as I know, its hard for hobbysts to say, with 100% sure, that the grey individuals are G. porteri, indeed.
Its not that it CANT be, but its not right to affirm it.
Same goes to G. alticeps x G. anthracina. Lol.
Grammostola genus is a mess.

 

[cold blood]

. porteri is a valid taxon. However, its description is really old, 1936, b

just because the description is old, doesnt mean its not a valid description.

No one has re described it because...well...its already been described.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

just because the description is old, doesnt mean its not a valid description.

No one has re described it because...well...its already been described.

Hey man. How are you?
I totally agree with you on this old article matter.
I wasnt implying that because it is old, its not valid anymore. Grammostola genus (and others genera too, of course) has lots of old descriptions, without drawings, pics or any images, does this means they arent valid? Of course, not. Thats what we have for now, at least til someone revised them.
So, if you talk to people that works on the field, I really doubt that they will say that, within the articles that we have now, plus the lack of knowledge on its types, they can affirm that the grey individuals are G. porteri. If researchers do not know how they look like, how we, as hobbysts, can confirm it?
Just to be clear:
I really enjoy Grammostola debates, since sometimes written messages can be misunderstood, I just want yall to know that I have no intention to offend anyone here.

 

[cold blood]

within the articles that we have now, plus the lack of knowledge on its types, they can affirm that the grey individuals are G. porteri. If researchers do not know how they look like, how we, as hobbysts, can confirm it?

I feel in the past few years, these rosie misunderstandings have been cleared up....we now know they aren't color forms, but all individual species...and we know the 3 species most attributed to "rose hair" and all 3 species, IMO, are easily identifiable.

These 3 species are porteri, rosea and sp. north. Rosea is obvious, as its the red one, formerly (and wrongly) believed to be RCF...porteri and sp. north are similar, but distinguishable by the faded colors on the front legs of sp. north. Jose can probably explain these differences better as he has a really good grasp on sp. north (I just don't see them in person often enough).

@Exoskeleton Invertebrates

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

I feel in the past few years, these rosie misunderstandings have been cleared up....we now know they aren't color forms, but all individual species...and we know the 3 species most attributed to "rose hair" and all 3 species, IMO, are easily identifiable.

These 3 species are porteri, rosea and sp. north. Rosea is obvious, as its the red one, formerly (and wrongly) believed to be RCF...porteri and sp. north are similar, but distinguishable by the faded colors on the front legs. Jose can probably explain these differences better as he has a really good grasp on sp. north (I just don't see them in person often enough).

@exoskeleton Invertebrates

All these years in the hobby and having a talk with some researchers AND keepers, taught me to separate science from the hobby sometimes.

I understood perfectly what you meant, in the hobby, they are distinguishable and known as different species.
Science wise, they don't.

My intention here was just to try and say that, that are differences inbetween them.

About Jose, he's a good friend of mine, I wouldnt be surprised if his answer here would be "they are all rosea". Lol.

 

[cold blood]

My intention here was just to try and say that, that are differences inbetween them.

gotcha

About Jose, he's a good friend of mine, I wont be surprised if his answer here would be "they are all rosea". Lol.

that would surprise me.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

gotcha
that would surprise me.

"They are all rosea" is a joke he used sometimes. But we've already talk a lot about Grammostola, not only porteri x rosea, but others too, like the pulchra mess. LOL.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

They’re all “rosea”.

 

[cold blood]

They’re all “rosea”.

LMAO, how did I know you'd write that.....seriously, and "real" input?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Here's the thing, coloration and size are not valid taxonomical characters anymore and stridulatory organs isolated, based only in one individual of each species is not enough to prove anything.

The stridulatory organ of Grammostola porteri (as Lasiodora porteri) was described in Mello-Leitao 1936 and matches what is seen in pet trade G. porteri. Although the color and number of the stridulatory lyra can vary between the two species, the shape seems to be stable. In G. rosea, not only are there generally fewer stridulatory lyra but the distal end is wider than in the stridulatory bristles of G. porteri. You can clearly see that in the photos where they are compared and it is much clearer when you study it in person under a stereo microscope.

The two species are, in my opinion, very distinct and easy to tell apart using the stridulatory organ as an identifying character. Until a revisionary work comes along and sorts this all out, the shape- not color or number- is the best we have. So it is not just specimen of each species observed by one individual that started using the stridulatory bristles as a way to distinguish G. rosea from G. porteri. It was first observed in 1936 and has been observed in many specimens since.

A bigger question I have had on my mind for years is what does the stridulating bristles of other Chilean "rose hairs" look like? For example, in Grammostola sp. "North" or "Norte", is the stridulating bristles orange like G. rosea and G. porteri or black as in every other Grammostola species? Also, does every tarantula identified on the internet by a picture have the same type of stridulatory organ?

Even though I am convinced that G. rosea and G. porteri are distinct species, I'm not too sure if every G. porteri is the same species.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

The stridulatory organ of Grammostola porteri (as Lasiodora porteri) was described in Mello-Leitao 1936 and matches what is seen in pet trade G. porteri. Although the color and number of the stridulatory lyra can vary between the two species, the shape seems to be stable. In G. rosea, not only are there generally fewer stridulatory lyra but the distal end is wider than in the stridulatory bristles of G. porteri. You can clearly see that in the photos where they are compared and it is much clearer when you study it in person under a stereo microscope.

The two species are, in my opinion, very distinct and easy to tell apart using the stridulatory organ as an identifying character. Until a revisionary work comes along and sorts this all out, the shape- not color or number- is the best we have. So it is not just specimen of each species observed by one individual that started using the stridulatory bristles as a way to distinguish G. rosea from G. porteri. It was first observed in 1936 and has been observed in many specimens since.

Visually, they are different, and than there's this stridulatory difference too. But, talking to taxonomists and specialists on Grammostola, they say that one character isolated is not enough to determine a species with 100% sure, and the only way to prove (or disprove) if the grey individuals are porteri or other species or a new species is by making a revision on the genus, or if someone decide to look only into chilean species.

Now, here's the thing, a couple of years ago there was this rumours that chilean Grammostola were being revised, at that time, there were few people saying that G. porteri types were lost, and that in this article the species will become Nomen dubium.

Since I left Facebook and lost contact to these folks, I dont what happened to this supposed work. Thats why I didn mentioned it at first.

Now, IF this rumour is true and G. porteri really become Nomen dubium, then G. porteri hobby is another thing. And of course, if this rumour is false, then we will have to wait for someone to give us the good news.

Either way, with the least informations we have about this species, I prefer not to called it (personal opinion, obviously) G. porteri. Sometimes I say its still G. rosea, others I say Grammostola sp. Lol.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

All these years in the hobby and having a talk with some researchers AND keepers, taught me to separate science from the hobby sometimes.

Only sometimes? When I was new to the world of tarantulas, I thought the hobby had all the answers, but learned over the years the tarantula keeping community has contributed absolutely nothing to the science. These days I keep the "hobby" part and "science" part completely separate 100% of the time.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

Only sometimes? When I was new to the world of tarantulas, I thought the hobby had all the answers, but learned over the years the tarantula keeping community has contributed absolutely nothing to the science. These days I keep the "hobby" part and "science" part completely separate 100% of the time.

Hahahahahahaha. Erase the "sometimes" from my phrase. Lol. I think like you. Btw, take a look at my thread about G. sp. "Formosa".

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

There is a member on Facebook Arachnoboards group that started the whole thing about hobby material Grammostola porteri being the same species as rosea. What I hate the most you get followers that will start changing labels just because one person says that’s what the species is without any proof. Todd Gearheart was doing the same thing on his for sale ad of the Grammostola sp. “Concepcion”, I believe he started to label it as Grammostola spatulata at some point in time. If I hear or read an old article that there is a possibility of a species that is not ID correctly in the hobby I simply list the spider as Grammostola grossa “possibly the real iheringi”.
There is no need to be changing labels until a revision has been updated/change of some of these species. Even though let’s say that if hobby material porter I is in fact rosea, why in the world would anyone would consider mate/breed them together? I know it has happened in the past and I know that what’s gonna happen in the future. Just because two variants are of the same species doesn’t mean you should cross breed.

From my understanding the real porteri has never been in the hobby and is a totally different spider than the hobby material porteri.
But like I said is hear say at this point until proven otherwise.

Don’t be surprised that Grammostola sp. “Northern Type” is a entirely different species. At this point it should be treated as a different species of the Grammostola family. Grammostola sp. “Northern Type” has different variants as well as the hobby material porteri or rosea.