Dont change your Theraphosa labels...Yet.

[Fran]

(I wonder if Im one of those "big shots" )


Well, theres so much one can do, specially as an enthusiast with a full time job.
I do try to get as much information as possible about the WC specimens Im getting, and where the parents of the CB individuals were from (if WC).
Thats why I ask a million questions when purchasing Theraphosa.

More than 50% of the times this info is extremely hard to pursue, and you will only get a somewhat reliable info about if their parents were or not WC individuals.

As of the "stirmi/spinipes" label "hearsay"...I evaluate the source. If the sources are reliable enough for me to take a side on the story,then I reinforce my already formed opinion.

 

[metallica]

(I wonder if Im one of those "big shots" )

no, don't worry. Stuart used "big-shot Theraphosa breeders", not just "big shots".

 

[Fran]

no, don't worry. Stuart used "big-shot Theraphosa breeders", not just "big shots".

Oh, I see. Who are you?
Do you have anything interesting to add to this matter? Or you just showed up to make a childish insult?

 

[Philth]

can someone post a picture of real T. blondi and "fake" t. blondi aka. t.spinipes/stamini, side by side so i can se the differences betwen two species.
please....

See this , but keep in mind the link was made before T.stirmi was described.

Later, Tom

 

[metallica]

Oh, I see. Who are you?
Do you have anything interesting to add to this matter? Or you just showed up to make a childish insult?

I never introduced myself? Hi I'm Eddy.
You wrote you were wondering, so i helped you get that illuion out of your head.

Anyone is free to click the link in my signature and you will not have to read a single post from me ever again........ But be warned, you still see that i made a post in the thread and you will want to know what i wrote. So there really is no point in using the ignore button.

Cheers

Eddy

 

[Fran]

I never introduced myself? Hi I'm Eddy.
You wrote you were wondering, so i helped you get that illuion out of your head.

Anyone is free to click the link in my signature and you will not have to read a single post from me ever again........ But be warned, you still see that i made a post in the thread and you will want to know what i wrote. So there really is no point in using the ignore button.

Cheers

Eddy

Ok Eddy. And what do you want to prove to the people reading here, with those 2 completely unuseful posts? Did you contribute a single bit to the Theraphosa thread? No.
Was that then to sound funny or elocuent?
Then, Eddy?

If you have a personal thing with me, why dont you pm me and keep your problems and personal tantrums off the public thread?

Do you know how long have I been keeping Theraphosa? Do you know if I have bred this genus? Do you actually know if my college degree has something to do or not with Entomology?

So then Eddy, since You have no info about me or my background whatsoever regarding the matter....What do you want to prove with those posts?

 

[metallica]

Ok Eddy. And what do you want to prove to the people reading here, with those 2 rather unuseful posts? Did you contribute a single bit to the Theraphosa thread? No.
Was that then to sound funny or elocuent?
Then, Eddy?
If you have a personal thing with me, why dont you pmm me and keep your problems off the public thread?

Do you know how long have I been keeping Theraphosa? Do you know if I have bred this genus? Do you actually know if my college degree hs something to do or not with Entomology?

So then Eddy, since You have no info about me or my background regarding the matter....what do you want to prove with those posts?

Hi Fran,
i don't have to prove anything.
i do know that in 07 you could not even sex a 7.5" blondi. That allready tells me a lot.

and here is something to keep on-topic

cheers

Eddy

 

[sharpfang]

What should I put w/ my Label Maker ? T. Blondi Sp.

I got mine from KTBG, parents *paired* on T.V. {cute off-color feet}

When Darwin went to Galapagos he discovered....

Today he'd Discover "Hybridizing" between the Iguana Sp.

Well,
I for one appreciate the tidbits of information in this thread. I guess I would have to change the sticker label on my T. spinipes again...

LOL

Hi I'm Eddy.

Anyone is free to click the link in my signature and you will not have to read a single post from me ever again........ But be warned, you still see that i made a post in the thread and you will want to know what i wrote. So there really is no point in using the ignore button.

High Eddy pretty clever you are *in 900+ yr. old YODA voice*

 

[Fran]

Ok, Eddy. Now that you have posted a pretty picture actually regarding the thread you can move on.

Any problems, Im a PM away. Read the rules if you need to refresh your memory.

 

[metallica]

Do you know if I have bred this genus?

I'm pretty sure you haven't. Your brother might have, decades ago.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1819040&postcount=74

Do you actually know if my college degree has something to do or not with Entomology?

you look more like a Geographer type of guy, specialized on climatology (dynamic and climatic).

 

[Fran]

I'm pretty sure you haven't. Your brother might have, decades ago.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1819040&postcount=74



you look more like a Geographer type of guy, specialized on climatology (dynamic and climatic).

See? now you are a bit more informed. Yet it gives you no excuse for personal attacks.

Since i moved to the US, in 07, I started being interested in the genus and also taking matter into my own terms, rather than looking at my brothers breedings and collection.

At that time,my brothers -in laws were begining to do some field work on the Estado Amazonas, in Venezuela. Work that my brother got inviolved in, so I did since I help with part of their papers regarding their work.

They have colegues on the field that are more involved with the local fauna, so most of thet info on Theraphosa started coming that way.

Now, im currently breeding CB and WC Theraphosa sp. "burgundy",and CB Theraphosa apophysis. On burgundy, with over 30 adult females I have 6 that have been bred on late October early november and they are very close to laying.
On apophysis, I only have one succesfully paired female(August 2010) and 4 subadult females. On the bred female, Im expecting a sack anytime now.

Wether all that will be succesful or not, only time will tell.

Regarding Theraphosa blondi, I currently have 18 slings/juveniles from 3 different blood lines that im raising for the same. Breeding.

But besides all this, my question is, do you think you are funny or rather amussing with your impertinent comments? Seriously. You came in to the thread to insult me? And what do you want me to do about it? I dont quite get it, but hey...What can we do.
Just so you know, I dont think no one cares. So yes, keep it on topic.

 

[Suidakkra]

Are there any threads on this forum, that do not turn into a flame fest, go off-topic, or are derailed by someones personal disdain for another person? I really was hoping this forum was above the typical Internet drivel that's out there when I first came upon it, but the more I read, the further away I am getting from my former enthusiasm.

Back on Topic:

I have read that new studies and reclassification of the Theraphosa are supposedly in order. Does anyone know if those studies were completed, are being completed, or still in the process of publishing? I could not find any information pertaining to the reclassification other than what I have read in the threads on this board. I am really curious about the reclassification, I want to venture into Theraphosa, but I wait for clarification of the genus since it seems to be a good deal of confusion on identification.

Thanks in advance.

 

[xhexdx]

Now, im currently breeding CB and WC Theraphosa sp. "burgundy",and CB Theraphosa apophysis. On burgundy, with over 30 adult females I have 6 that have been bred on late October early november and they are very close to laying.
On apophysis, I only have one succesfully paired female(August 2010) and 4 subadult females. On the bred female, Im expecting a sack anytime now.

So you're trying to breed them, since you haven't actually been successful...

Just so you know, I dont think no one cares. So yes, keep it on topic.

I care, even though you don't care that I care. Who are you to tell others to stay on-topic, anyway?

I mean...if you look at your last post, just because you were talking about your spiders doesn't mean you were even on-topic with relation to this actual thread...

Are there any threads on this forum, that do not turn into a flame fest, go off-topic, or are derailed by someones personal disdain for another person? I really was hoping this forum was above the typical Internet drivel that's out there when I first came upon it, but the more I read, the further away I am getting from my former enthusiasm.

Back on Topic:

I have read that new studies and reclassification of the Theraphosa are supposedly in order. Does anyone know if those studies were completed, are being completed, or still in the process of publishing? I could not find any information pertaining to the reclassification other than what I have read in the threads on this board. I am really curious about the reclassification, I want to venture into Theraphosa, but I wait for clarification of the genus since it seems to be a good deal of confusion on identification.

Thanks in advance.

You know what I'd like to see? Published work by the people doing it, rather than someone trying to be the first to tell others that something may or may not happen.

I know if I was the one doing the work, I'd be pissed at all the gossip going on. Give the credit to the people who deserve it.

 

[Fran]

Are there any threads on this forum, that do not turn into a flame fest, go off-topic, or are derailed by someones personal disdain for another person? I really was hoping this forum was above the typical Internet drivel that's out there when I first came upon it, but the more I read, the further away I am getting from my former enthusiasm.

Back on Topic:

I have read that new studies and reclassification of the Theraphosa are supposedly in order. Does anyone know if those studies were completed, are being completed, or still in the process of publishing? I could not find any information pertaining to the reclassification other than what I have read in the threads on this board. I am really curious about the reclassification, I want to venture into Theraphosa, but I wait for clarification of the genus since it seems to be a good deal of confusion on identification.

Thanks in advance.

Its supossed to come this year...But who knows

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I really don't understand how it came to be that what is currently Lasiodora spinipes is the same spider as Theraphosa stirmi thus warrenting any conversation about changing labels for T. stirmi. I don't recall anyone stating without a doubt that it was. We might have four species of Theraphosa after Bertani's revision of Lasiodora. Speaking of which, what's all this talk about work on the genus Theraphosa; is there something in the works other than the Lasiodora revision?

On another note, I'm still waiting on some insight to the questions I posed here : http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showpost.php?p=1793281&postcount=20

 

[sjl197]

@blay
"can someone post a picture of real T. blondi and "fake" t. blondi aka. t.spinipes/stamini, side by side so i can se the differences betwen two species."

I can send you a copy of the Rudloff & Weinmann paper that describe and diagnose T.stirmi of you send my your email by PM for example. There are several photos in that paper, with diagnostic features.

@treeweta
I totally appologise for my use of 'complete crap'. I now see from your reply that you have a relatively good understanding of the challenges to define species. Yes, i mainly objected to the use of 'arbitary' as that can mean 'by chance, whim, or impulse', and that's not how species are defined. Yes there are several ways to define species, but each have reasoned criteria that are empirically assessed. Really too, i would prefer to avoid talking about persistence through time, as only few species concepts try to incorporate the past or future, most concentrate on the observations we can make now using the living forms and their ecology, behavior and distribution. Of course, i prefer species concepts that consider both past and present, but most definitions dont. Yes i agree when we are looking at ancient divergences boundaries are usually clear, and indeed its the population/ species interface where the challenges are ususally at. But you can have very recently divergent forms that are easily diagnosed as species, island endemics versus mainland widespread species are common examples. Anyway, i dont want to go more into defining species, except that here the T.blondi/T.stirmi debate seems to be exactly a problem of whether the two forms in different geographic locations are different enough to be called species or not. More work needs to be done, especially on characterizing intermediates, and on studying the reliability and stability of the characters proposed to separate the two 'forms' that are currently scientifically recognised as two distinct species.

@xhexdx.
The gossip is a natural part of things unfortunately, especially when scientists are encouraged put 'teasers' and 'tasters' out there in the form of abstracts, posters and spoken presentations. Things like that stimulate debate, which hopefully eventually leads to consensus, or stimulates further study.

@eddy.
I always wondered what the 'ignore me' thing did..., but im not yet ready to press the button, im always curious what amazing gem will appear from you next! And just to stay on topic, ahem..:}, which are your pics supposed to be? They have furry knees... just like the ones Pato_Chacoana shows wild in French-Guiana on the wildpics part of the forum (and as Philth mentions that Martin/Tarcan did before that from French Guiana).., so eddy, im guessing those furry ones are from before the new wealth of Guyana exports, ie pre about 2006/7.

@ Fran.
Good luck with all the breeding plans, and im glad you ask a million questions about your stock. Hopefully you apply the same rule to your sources of information... some sources are reliable, some gossip, but there's plenty of B/s out there from people who think they know more than they do. The first-hand knowledge or direct observations are normally the most reliable. We all generally just know a tiny part of the real -and possibly unknowable' true story for much of nature or species, but useful to try the best we can to reveal something of the true story...

@Suidakkra.
No flames from me here now. No need to loose enthusiasm, plenty of work to be done, and the Rudloff/Weinmann paper describing T.stirmi is the most recent published work that i know of...

regards all

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 AM ----------

@AphonopelmaTX.

It was a good post in your link. Yes there has been a consistent failure to examine the types, which is critical. you mention 'Gerchman et al 1966' but do you infact mean Schiapelli and Gerchman 1967 or did i miss something. In the 1967 paper they drew a male without tibial spurs from AMNH material collected in Venezuala. ... does this mean there are male Theraphosa without spurs in venezuala or was there a label mishap somewhere?. They also say they examined the T.blondi types from Paris, sent by Dr. Vachon, so why they didnt draw and characterize those types instead of the AMNH non-type material i will never know (were these paris specimens the actual specimens used by Latreille, or is this another fiction ??!, do they still exist?).

So yes, i agree, that right now if L.spinipes is actually a Theraphosa, then i have seen no more public release info to suggest whether it is going to be considered a new species, or instead a synonymy of any of the three named ones. If we are just going by the 2007 abstract by Bertani, its possibly even be considered a senior synonym of T.apophysis.

 

[treeweta]

@sjl197.

i think we are in general agreement lol. I generally have to talk about populations changing through time when im faced with 'but we never see one species just become another do we??' that type of thing....but i wont go there

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

@AphonopelmaTX.
It was a good post in your link. Yes there has been a consistent failure to examine the types, which is critical. you mention 'Gerchman et al 1966' but do you infact mean Schiapelli and Gerchman 1967 or did i miss something. In the 1967 paper they drew a male without tibial spurs from AMNH material collected in Venezuala. ... does this mean there are male Theraphosa without spurs in venezuala or was there a label mishap somewhere?. They also say they examined the T.blondi types from Paris, sent by Dr. Vachon, so why they didnt draw and characterize those types instead of the AMNH non-type material i will never know (were these paris specimens the actual specimens used by Latreille, or is this another fiction ??!, do they still exist?).

To be perfectly clear on the article of question, I was referring to "Contribucion al conocimiento de Theraphosa leblondi (Latreille), 1804 (Aranea: Theraphosidae). Gerschman de P., B. S. &R. D. Schiapelli, MEMORIAS- INSTITUTO BUTANTAN SAO PAULO. 1966, VOL 33 pp. 667-674"

In the post I linked to, I grouped them together with the other authors who didn't examine the types because they used the AMNH specimens instead of the types for the drawings and written description. I guess in retrospect I should have mentioned that Gerschman and Schiapelli at least examined the types where the others didn't.

So yes, i agree, that right now if L.spinipes is actually a Theraphosa, then i have seen no more public release info to suggest whether it is going to be considered a new species, or instead a synonymy of any of the three named ones. If we are just going by the 2007 abstract by Bertani, its possibly even be considered a senior synonym of T.apophysis.

Oh the anticipation of finding out what the heck Lasiodora spinipes is (or "was" when the paper is published)!

- Lonnie

 

[smashtoad]

Firstly, can we please all just put any discussion of 'spinipes' aside for now. All that is being reported is hearsay, save for the abstract by Dr Bertani at the ISA congress in 2007 in Brazil. The abstract was a poster presentation. A great conference, which i also attended and enjoyed very much by the way. But, the key point is - there is no formal publication to formally transfer L.spinipes to Theraphosa, nor to synonymise it with any existing species.

The holotype specimen of L.spinipes a very old and damaged female, and i personally have little hope it is possible to match well enough against any of the current 'species' of Theraphosa. Further, to go back to an earlier comment, the original Ausserer description only unhelpfully mentions collected in 'Brazil', rather than any more specific locale (like Sao Paulo and Santa Catalina) that was suggested later by Mello-Letao, without any reference to the actual type specimen, and so cant be trusted. There is no way that real Theraphosa will range into Santa Catalina in far south Brasil.

Now, until anything is published on L.spinipes, which it isnt yet - we are dealing with diagnosing differences between T.blondi and T.stirmi. The presence tibial spurs alone seems reliable to diagnose T.apophysis. But, what is the point of resistively clinging onto the temporary hobby name 'Theraphosa sp burgandy' if your spiders have been exported from southern guyana and they perfectly fit the description on T.stirmi ? No reason at all, they're T.stirmi. This is formally described and named, no matter what you think of the paper or their failure to look at the T.blondi type(s) for example.

Now, onto defining the species. There are so many cases in biology when defining a species is not open to debate, nor arbitary, so the previous comment that suggests that is complete crap. Yes there are many species concepts (i can name you about 27 if you want), but in many cases ALL these ways of defining species all fit... two species can be geographically isolated, reproductively isolated (prezygotically, and postzygotically), have different morphology, genetically divergent above a certain %, or form reciprocally monophyetic genetic groups, etc etc. There are other cases where only some of these criteria fit to diagnose two forms as two species, but those together still a good argument that you infact are looking at two species., i think the crux is they just have to be diagnosably different by some concept or preferably several. When two 'species' are diagnosable by several species concepts, surely we can have more confidence there are indeed two species, and those species will maintain their differences on interbreeding, introgression or hybridisation, whatever. Ie they are on different phylogenetic trajectories if you want me to be explicit. There is never going to be one species concept that fits everything, and there doesnt need to be. If you want only one thing alone, its called a pluralistic species concept, or pluralism.

Now ok back to Theraphosa. As i said, the presence of tibial spurs alone seems reliable to diagnose T.apophysis from the 'blondi-stirmi' group. Well, there have now been morphological differences proposed to differentiate T.stirmi from southern guyana, and T.blondi from elsewhere (ie from french guiana and north suriname as indicated by Rudloff and Weinmann), so cant we now move forward from here to properly evaluate these proposed differences? You know, in essence, science advanced by testing hypotheses?. So how? It would perhaps be most useful to ask questions about specimens from geographically intermediate localities, ie are Theraphosa also present in southern Suriname and what do they look like?, ie do they have intermediate features / a mixture of the features that allegedly separate T.strimi from T.blondi. It needs to be further evaluated whether the two currently accepted species are geographically isolated (ie no geographic intermediates), and whether the presented characteristics to diagnose them are stable (and different) within the two species. For now though, until someone does such additional characterization of WC material, there are two closely related species named and much of what can be figured out from hobby material which could be artificially hybridised is rather limited.

So, indeed the challenge comes if you are only looking at spiders that seem to have some characteristics of T.stirmi and others of T.blondi. And its an even greater challenge if you are only looking at your captive bred spiders with no knowledge of the features in the parents, nor knowledge of the geographic origin of those specimen (or their parents). But, the potential for intermediates is key to determining if there are two morphological species or not. BUT, You really have to be careful when you are not looking at WC exports or direct descendants, as of course, captive breeding between parents with differing characteristics (like amount of hair on the patella) is very likely going to lead to variability in the offspring isnt it? (here i don't know if it does or not, but testing such hypotheses can help figure out what are the reliable differences between such closely related forms - so why dont some of you big-shot Theraphosa breeders do something like compare how stable these proposed diagnostic features are across all the offspring from an eggsac for example?, but please do use parents from the same WC collection - and hence you are restricted to only using specimens one natural locality, not mixing different geographic forms which can be expected to naturally have accumuated differences and variability by distance).

Anyway, regardless of all this, it seems some of you dont want any taxpayer money to support funding biologists (professional or not) to figure out what species are there 'on the two sides of the 'goobigundo' river'... so maybe we will never know about Theraphosa in places like south Suriname, nor the other species that live in places like that. We could of course wait for all the undescribed biodiversity in south Suriname to go extinct, then we wont have any wild Theraphosa with intermediate characteristics to worry about.. and we will have two isolated species, until of course humans make those others extinct in the wild too...

Until then, if you have a species of Theraphosa in your collection which was sold as 'Theraphosa sp burgandy', exported from Souuth Guyana, and have the diagnostic characteristics of the described species T.stirmi, then DO change your tank labels to say T.stirmi please... otherwise you are simply ignoring the current science, and we havent progressed anywhere. If you are resistant to that current science, then you might also be happy with thinking all species were divinely created in their current form, and they are immutable while you are at it.

Case in point...notice the smiley faces in the above diatribe? Please allow me to translate. Translation: I am so very proud of myself, aren't you? End of Translation.

Yes, some species are pretty solid...but many aren't, and they are changing all the time, right? Therefore, your species definitions are crap. But hey...enjoy temporarily defining things at taxpayer expense.

No one said, anywhere in this thread, that all species were "divinely created in their current form", but nice try at manipulating the data (have you worked with Al Gore?)...notice my statement on domestic dogs. How about attacking what I said there...that your hero Darwin discovered NOTHING MORE than a natural version of what we had been doing with the dog for 4K years? It is exactly the same...and Darwin didn't see it. And his book was about a lot more than animals...Hitler loved his work.

You can blather on and on and on about intermediary characteristics, et al. But my opinion remains the same. Scientists try to beat you over the head with terms and language so complicated that you believe they MUST SURELY understand the simplest of things in nature...when that is exactly what they don't understand.

Guess whose post was a LOT more fun to read? And mine didn't take two intermissions.

 

[billopelma]

.notice my statement on domestic dogs. How about attacking what I said there...that your hero Darwin discovered NOTHING MORE than a natural version of what we had been doing with the dog for 4K years? It is exactly the same...and Darwin didn't see it. And his book was about a lot more than animals...Hitler loved his work.

Who wants to argue against Dogma...?


Bill