Dont change your Theraphosa labels...Yet.

[Merfolk]

I think that the situation of Theraphosa genus might be a bit like all those lookalike Avics (Avicularia, metallica and else) or other species where difference are seen only with a maganifier pointed at hard to see body parts.

But there are more troubling cases to my mind. Like, Psalmos being classified in Avicularinae yet you put a black and white pic of P cambridgei along balck and with pics of L violaceopes and ask the non expert to sort which one is OW and NW! Or H mac being put in the Avicularinae also... :? but I have been told that I cannot use visual cues to disprove what has been officially classified (by mere mortals).

 

[Zoltan]

Smashtoad, the most recent Theraphosa article wasn't funded by taxpayers' dollars (I think), so your argument is invalid.

Lonnie, I wanted to respond to your post here when I read it first, but I don't really have much to add or say. You summed up the problems with T. blondi nicely. If I remember correctly, Pérez-Miles et al. (1996) state they have examined the types of T. blondi, but their article doesn't deal with the species in depth and doesn't say if there are stridulatory setae on legs II.

Pérez-Miles, F., S. M. Lucas, P. I. da Silva Jr., & R. Bertani. 1996. Systematic revision and cladistic analysis of Theraphosinae (Araneae: Theraphosidae). Mygalomorph 1: 33-68.

But there are more troubling cases to my mind. Like, Psalmos being classified in Avicularinae yet you put a black and white pic of P cambridgei along balck and with pics of L violaceopes and ask the non expert to sort which one is OW and NW! Or H mac being put in the Avicularinae also... :? but I have been told that I cannot use visual cues to disprove what has been officially classified (by mere mortals).

Have you read the article which regards Psalmopoeus and Heteroscodra as aviculariines? If not, go and read it, and let us know your opinion why they should be in different subfamilies. I don't know what black and white pictures have to do with their subfamilial placements though. :?

 

[sjl197]

@Smashtoad.
Right, i will keep this brief, avoiding to much diatribe = 'learned discourse'
(sorry to the others if you think this off-topic digression !)

First, its difficult to explain that i am not attacking, i'm trying to persuade you about some things to help you understand my perspective, I believe it might be called rhetoric. I am not trying to 'beat you over the head with terms and language so complicated', but i am trying to introduce you to new terms and new ways of thinking, which might be called education from open discussion. I too am being educated to your way of thinking Smashtoad.

Please though, at least try to get facts right about Darwin and domestication. Actually, though i never talked to him personally, Darwin was well aware of the influence artificial selection can have on domestic animals, and if you dare open a copy of his 1859 'on the origin of the species', you will amazingly find that chapter 1 is called 'variation under domestication', about 47 pages on the topic. He seemed more obsessed with pigeons than dogs, but there you go. If you care to read on, he used domestic variation as an understandable theme throughout the book to help people relate to the possibility of natural variability and descent with modification. That was his legacy. I don't remember him saying much on Theraphosa species though.

If that's not enough on domestication, as with many in 1860's, then try:
Darwin, C. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. Thats a whole book, wait, its two volumes infact.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_VariationunderDomestication.html
Please consider Darwin wrote more than one book, and that he discussed so many areas in his most well known book. Try reading these sometime.

Now Re, "No one said, anywhere in this thread, that all species were 'divinely created in their current form'". No, they didnt, but God entered discussion a while back before we rightly dropped this. My statement was a historical illusion to the old debates that Darwin himself had, to convince people that there was variation in species, and that variation could be subject to selection, both natural and artificial. Sorry you didnt get that.

and if its still possible to convey something to you Smashtoad, then lookup the fossil Sinornithosaurus, which might be the 'venomous bird' referred to in the earlier post you so easily contradicted. That's venomous by the way, not poisonous, but i thought there was no need to point out that before, we don't all read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0912360107.abstract

Right, where was I... ah, Theraphosa, intermediates, looking at how reliable and stable characters might be to define them.. even over time.

Hopefully this post was more fun to read. Sorry, didn't know that was why we were writing on here, i thought we were discussing Theraphosa.

 

[Merfolk]

I don't know what black and white pictures have to do with their subfamilial placements though. :?[/QUOTE]

Only strikingly similar features between those two, and few with Avics. But anyway, its my opinion.

 

[hooale]

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.

Bit off topic, sorry for that...

Awesome collection of "burgundy". I guess now it is the time to get your breeding group as it is always a risk that Guyana will stop exporting. For me personally i cannot stand the itching of the hairs, that is what is keeping me from getting a nice group of "burgundy".

Can you share some pics of your facility?

 

[Fran]

Bit off topic, sorry for that...

Awesome collection of "burgundy". I guess now it is the time to get your breeding group as it is always a risk that Guyana will stop exporting. For me personally i cannot stand the itching of the hairs, that is what is keeping me from getting a nice group of "burgundy".

Can you share some pics of your facility?

Sure I can take pics, but no facility here

Just in my appartment. We have a somewhat big loundry room, and thats where temps get to be perfect.

Also, the bigger CB girls are in display in 40G tanks.

 

[Lorum]

Well, this thread has been by far the best one I have read in a lot of time.

So, Bertani never said anything about Lasiodora spinipes (pos. new. comb. Theraphosa spinipes) being a senior/junior synonym of another Theraphosa species (or a new one)? Why did I think that it could possibly be the same spider as Theraphosa sp. Burgundy? Gossip, I have to ignore arachno-gossip...:wall:

 

[smashtoad]

@Smashtoad.
Right, i will keep this brief, avoiding to much diatribe = 'learned discourse'
(sorry to the others if you think this off-topic digression !)

First, its difficult to explain that i am not attacking, i'm trying to persuade you about some things to help you understand my perspective, I believe it might be called rhetoric. I am not trying to 'beat you over the head with terms and language so complicated', but i am trying to introduce you to new terms and new ways of thinking, which might be called education from open discussion. I too am being educated to your way of thinking Smashtoad.

Please though, at least try to get facts right about Darwin and domestication. Actually, though i never talked to him personally, Darwin was well aware of the influence artificial selection can have on domestic animals, and if you dare open a copy of his 1859 'on the origin of the species', you will amazingly find that chapter 1 is called 'variation under domestication', about 47 pages on the topic. He seemed more obsessed with pigeons than dogs, but there you go. If you care to read on, he used domestic variation as an understandable theme throughout the book to help people relate to the possibility of natural variability and descent with modification. That was his legacy. I don't remember him saying much on Theraphosa species though.

If that's not enough on domestication, as with many in 1860's, then try:
Darwin, C. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray. Thats a whole book, wait, its two volumes infact.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_VariationunderDomestication.html
Please consider Darwin wrote more than one book, and that he discussed so many areas in his most well known book. Try reading these sometime.

Now Re, "No one said, anywhere in this thread, that all species were 'divinely created in their current form'". No, they didnt, but God entered discussion a while back before we rightly dropped this. My statement was a historical illusion to the old debates that Darwin himself had, to convince people that there was variation in species, and that variation could be subject to selection, both natural and artificial. Sorry you didnt get that.

and if its still possible to convey something to you Smashtoad, then lookup the fossil Sinornithosaurus, which might be the 'venomous bird' referred to in the earlier post you so easily contradicted. That's venomous by the way, not poisonous, but i thought there was no need to point out that before, we don't all read the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0912360107.abstract

Right, where was I... ah, Theraphosa, intermediates, looking at how reliable and stable characters might be to define them.. even over time.

Hopefully this post was more fun to read. Sorry, didn't know that was why we were writing on here, i thought we were discussing Theraphosa.

Yeah, I'm done. You are one very arrogant person, and this discussion could go on for days. In those days, you would undoubtedly introduce me to many "new ways of thinking", enlightening me to ends my fragile mind didn't even know existed. Wow...I wish we could go on and on with this. I was referring to the poison found in the feathers of LIVING birds, Doctor...not conjectured fossil theory...for the love of God...you people make me insane. Notice the word "discovered" in my article...not "did they" or "maybe they". Again...taxpayer funded conjecture to keep the thrill alive!

http://www.suite101.com/content/poisonous-birds-a11293

Darwin discovered nothing...and to the guy who asked "who wants to argue with dogma?" The truth hurts sometimes, don't it?

Here's the bottom line: Animals change (NEWSFLASH). But if you believe every living thing on this earth, both plant and animal, came from a single source of life...your lack of vision for nature may be unfixable, and I will not be hammered by people who are content to just puke out the current scientific lines or theories...as it is sad. I want to argue with thinkers.

If you guys, especially the good doctor...would like to move this somewhere where we can continue this...I'd love it.

 

[sjl197]

Im agreed too much sidelines here. Im done.

@smashtoad.
Please go ahead if you want to open new threads on any sideline topics here, i will hopefully see them, and reply if i have time and reason to comment.

@Fran.
Apologies for off-topic. Best of luck with the breedings! It would indeed be great to see some pics how you have them setup, and get update on successes.

 

[Fran]

So it seems like theres work being done about a possible 4th Theraphosa, from Brazil.