G. pulchra commonly wild-caught with negative consequences?

[JoeRossi]

If hybridization of pulchra and quirogai never gave offspring in a laboratory situation, wouldn't this mean that the ones bred in the hobby are from the same species as they get offspring? And does that mean that we can infer that there's a big chance that they "hobby form" pulchra is actually the quirogai?

With the hybrid question aside....If all of the following spoken in this thread is valid then there are no "Pulchra" in the hobby or very few. From my knowledge importation of the species currently in the hobby and in question is from Uruguay only and "Pulchra" is found only in Brazil. The very few from Brazil that may have made there way in the hobby were just that..... very few. I look forward to future development and those I am bringing in will and should be labeled accordingly not to be mixed until all is confirmed they are in fact quirogai.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

If hybridization of pulchra and quirogai never gave offspring in a laboratory situation, wouldn't this mean that the ones bred in the hobby are from the same species as they get offspring? And does that mean that we can infer that there's a big chance that they "hobby form" pulchra is actually the quirogai?

Most of us know that Brazil has never opened for exportation therefore Grammostola pulchra most likely has never been in the hobby, unless they were smuggled out of the country. Ever since this thread was posted I’ve spoken with a few people about this issue, and the things that were stated verbally and in writing about the Grammostola pulchra vs Grammostola quirogai, Grammostola quirogai seems to be the species that’s in the hobby. I understand that Rick West has Grammostola pulchra and Grammostola quirogai listed on his website that they are both from Uruguay, the only thing I have to say to that is, that Rick West has been known to mislabel species identification to a few of his pictures in the past of what species they are etc. However, his website is informative but there are a few issues that needs attention to.
So, if this pulchra’s were always collected in Uruguay than I have no reason but to believe that more and likely this are Grammostola quirogai. As to what Fernando Perez Miles stated and he was very clear about his statement, that there’s no evidence that Grammostola pulchra is from Uruguay. Grammostola pulchra is found as far south of Uruguayana Brazil.
So if there is absolutely no pulchra’s in the hobby than there may not be any hybridization between pulchra an quirogai. That being said I’ve heard that same story before that certain tarantulas can’t hybrid, well that’s not always the case.......

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

From my knowledge importation of the species currently in the hobby and in question is from Uruguay only and "Pulchra" is found only in Brazil. The very few from Brazil that may have made there way in the hobby were just that..... very few. I look forward to future development and those I am bringing in will and should be labeled accordingly not to be mixed until all is confirmed they are in fact quirogai.

If importers/ exporters are open and honest about the source of their G. pulchra, or the descendants of imported adults, then all we need is to know they came from Uruguay to confirm that hobby G. pulchra is G. quirogai. The trick maybe getting that kind of honesty since Uruguay prohibits the collection and exportation of their wildlife. Knowing where any of these big, black tarantulas were collected from is key, not really the country they were exported from. Who is to say exports aren't being sent from another South American country without wildlife exportation restrictions?

As I was saying to Jose yesterday off the boards here, this feels similar to the hobby B. smithi situation that has recently been clearing up since Jorge Mendoza published his research. Before Mendoza's research on Brachypelma smith and B. hamorii was published, we all knew we had B. smithi up until Mendoza clarified that the two species has distinct ranges and the majority of "B. smithi" being exported for the pet trade was coming from the area B. hamorii occurs in. The conclusion then was that the majority of hobby B. smithi was in fact B. hamorii and anyone who buys a B. smithi will have a higher chance of actually buying a B. hamorii. Unlike G. pulchra and G. quirogai, the two red-kneed Brachypelma species can be easily be told apart from the shape of the basal plates of the spermatheca or palpal bulbs of males. The two Grammostola "twins" can't be so easily identified. Females are not able to be distinguished from each other at all except by location. However, the description of G. quirogai makes specific mention that they turn brown nearing a molt. Hardly a sure-fire way to tell the two apart, but I'm under the impression brown G. pulchra is really G. quiogai. Don't quote me on that though, it's just a hunch.

 

[Venom1080]

@KezyGLA didn't your pulchra turn brown near a molt?

 

[Dovey]

This statement was made by a member (Delfina Rynka) on AB Facebook group. I was giving permission by her to post her statement: Here in Argentina some people are selling WC tarantulas as "G. pulchra" but they are not. Over time they start to look brownish. And of course, in Argentina it doesn't exist pulchra in the wild. There are some other species that "look like" pulchra. Same in Uruguay. When a G. pulchra is old or is in pre-molt, it looks greyish, but not brownish. I agree with Jose that there's a mess with this species and that could be a reason to say it's a hard to breed.

Holy moley! I was just posting about the fact that my pulcra baby from PetcenterUSA seems to be growing into a big brown petulant adolescent (see My Big Fat Ugly Pulcra). I really, REALLY hope this is wrong. Somebody get me some oxygen. Seriously, I'm going downstairs right now to make myself a good stiff drink. I don't know if I'm cut out for tarantulas. This kind of trauma can bring on a heart attack.

 

[cold blood]

I have know a few people who's pulchra turned brown in pre-molt ( @Cassiusstein )....So far this seems like the logical (but not definitive) way to understand what we have, as it was stated that pulcra should turn grey in pre-molt, and not brown like the quirogai.

Holy I was just posting about the fact that my pulcra baby from PetcenterUSA seems to be growing into a big brown petulant adolescent (see My Big Fat Ugly Pulcra). I really, REALLY hope this is wrong. Somebody get me some oxygen. Seriously, I'm going downstairs right now to make myself a good stiff drink. I don't know if I'm cut out for tarantulas. This kind of trauma can bring on a heart attack.

They have the same basic personality, and aside from these differentiating pre-molt colors, are supposed to be indistinguishable...so don't go freaking out...lol.

 

[Tia B]

Mine definitely turns grey in premolt, not brown.

 

[Dovey]

They have the same basic personality, and aside from these differentiating pre-molt colors, are supposed to be indistinguishable...so don't go freaking out...lol.

I'll dial back the freak out at exactly the moment I open the bin and behold a vision of velvety black loveliness, rather than the frass brown patchwork of attitude I currently have.

Seriously, I scrimped big time to get this girl as a wee sling. I do hope she's a pulcra, or at least a pulcra look alike. There are days I look at her and look at my H gigas, and say to myself "Hmm...." They could be cousins! Maybe I should set up a pool in my pulcra's tank and see if she wants to go in for a swim.

 

[JoeRossi]

If importers/ exporters are open and honest about the source of their G. pulchra, or the descendants of imported adults, then all we need is to know they came from Uruguay to confirm that hobby G. pulchra is G. quirogai. The trick maybe getting that kind of honesty since Uruguay prohibits the collection and exportation of their wildlife. Knowing where any of these big, black tarantulas were collected from is key, not really the country they were exported from. Who is to say exports aren't being sent from another South American country without wildlife exportation restrictions?

As I was saying to Jose yesterday off the boards here, this feels similar to the hobby B. smithi situation that has recently been clearing up since Jorge Mendoza published his research. Before Mendoza's research on Brachypelma smith and B. hamorii was published, we all knew we had B. smithi up until Mendoza clarified that the two species has distinct ranges and the majority of "B. smithi" being exported for the pet trade was coming from the area B. hamorii occurs in. The conclusion then was that the majority of hobby B. smithi was in fact B. hamorii and anyone who buys a B. smithi will have a higher chance of actually buying a B. hamorii. Unlike G. pulchra and G. quirogai, the two red-kneed Brachypelma species can be easily be told apart from the shape of the basal plates of the spermatheca or palpal bulbs of males. The two Grammostola "twins" can't be so easily identified. Females are not able to be distinguished from each other at all except by location. However, the description of G. quirogai makes specific mention that they turn brown nearing a molt. Hardly a sure-fire way to tell the two apart, but I'm under the impression brown G. pulchra is really G. quiogai. Don't quote me on that though, it's just a hunch.

Since you quoted me I will return the favor and 1st say I appreciate the fact you brought the topic up. I was confused while I followed the thread to see why you felt that you should have never brought it up in the first place. This is how we get to a common understanding between taxonomist, hobbyists, and those with a foot on both sides. I can go back to my research on Hapalopus (small/large) and we still do not have a defined species listed. Jose, who has done a great job here, simoensi,Rose Hairs, Genic vs Brock, and several Brachys goes above and beyond to research and speak to all to find out pertinent information. I assure you I have been on the journey with him through out most if not all. My point is it is beneficial for all to do what they can to sort out the mess of many species in the hobby not just post what others have stated and run. I am not stating this has been done in all circumstances, but am encouraging all to help in the communication process. As far as defining them 100% as quirogai I will wait until more communication has been done (which I have been a part of) to determine for sure that is what it is. We have 2 abstracts defining the tibial spur differences of pulchra and quirogai so I look foward to seeing pictures of mature males to compare. In the mean time again labeling them apart is important. I will not make the mistake again of labeling Hapalopus sp. Large Hapalopus formosa based on a picture from West and a single abstract. I will wait as I did with hamorii and smithi until more definitive facts are presented.

As far as the smuggling spiders or bringing them into other countries with out legal importation I think you would have a very long list of species now in our hobby that are currently avaliable if you wanted to count them up. I am glad I can say that they are legal to me in the U.S and all paper work is filled out. As far as digging up spiders and doing it legal vs illegal in others countries.... if the difference is paying uncle Government (our Sam) to do it or not paying and the result is still the same then that is up to their judgement and risk. Now a discussion of a species that can not be bred, reintroduced, sustained, and is going extinct that is an entire other discussion with many opinions. I will stick to trying to figure out facts and making sure my part is legal and ethical to the best of my ability.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

If importers/ exporters are open and honest about the source of their G. pulchra, or the descendants of imported adults, then all we need is to know they came from Uruguay to confirm that hobby G. pulchra is G. quirogai. The trick maybe getting that kind of honesty since Uruguay prohibits the collection and exportation of their wildlife. Knowing where any of these big, black tarantulas were collected from is key, not really the country they were exported from. Who is to say exports aren't being sent from another South American country without wildlife exportation restrictions?

As I was saying to Jose yesterday off the boards here, this feels similar to the hobby B. smithi situation that has recently been clearing up since Jorge Mendoza published his research. Before Mendoza's research on Brachypelma smith and B. hamorii was published, we all knew we had B. smithi up until Mendoza clarified that the two species has distinct ranges and the majority of "B. smithi" being exported for the pet trade was coming from the area B. hamorii occurs in. The conclusion then was that the majority of hobby B. smithi was in fact B. hamorii and anyone who buys a B. smithi will have a higher chance of actually buying a B. hamorii. Unlike G. pulchra and G. quirogai, the two red-kneed Brachypelma species can be easily be told apart from the shape of the basal plates of the spermatheca or palpal bulbs of males. The two Grammostola "twins" can't be so easily identified. Females are not able to be distinguished from each other at all except by location. However, the description of G. quirogai makes specific mention that they turn brown nearing a molt. Hardly a sure-fire way to tell the two apart, but I'm under the impression brown G. pulchra is really G. quiogai. Don't quote me on that though, it's just a hunch.

On post #23 Joe addresses that the importation of the pulchra’s are from Uruguay.

 

[Ungoliant]

I have know a few people who's pulchra turned brown in pre-molt ( @Cassiusstein )....So far this seems like the logical (but not definitive) way to understand what we have, as it was stated that pulcra should turn grey in pre-molt, and not brown like the quirogai.

Both of my females tend to turn brown as a molt approaches.

 

[BACKWOODS]

Since you quoted me I will return the favor and 1st say I appreciate the fact you brought the topic up. I was confused while I followed the thread to see why you felt that you should have never brought it up in the first place. This is how we get to a common understanding between taxonomist, hobbyists, and those with a foot on both sides. I can go back to my research on Hapalopus (small/large) and we still do not have a defined species listed. Jose, who has done a great job here, simoensi,Rose Hairs, Genic vs Brock, and several Brachys goes above and beyond to research and speak to all to find out pertinent information. I assure you I have been on the journey with him through out most if not all. My point is it is beneficial for all to do what they can to sort out the mess of many species in the hobby not just post what others have stated and run. I am not stating this has been done in all circumstances, but am encouraging all to help in the communication process. As far as defining them 100% as quirogai I will wait until more communication has been done (which I have been a part of) to determine for sure that is what it is. We have 2 abstracts defining the tibial spur differences of pulchra and quirogai so I look foward to seeing pictures of mature males to compare. In the mean time again labeling them apart is important. I will not make the mistake again of labeling Hapalopus sp. Large Hapalopus formosa based on a picture from West and a single abstract. I will wait as I did with hamorii and smithi until more definitive facts are presented.

As far as the smuggling spiders or bringing them into other countries with out legal importation I think you would have a very long list of species now in our hobby that are currently avaliable if you wanted to count them up. I am glad I can say that they are legal to me in the U.S and all paper work is filled out. As far as digging up spiders and doing it legal vs illegal in others countries.... if the difference is paying uncle Government (our Sam) to do it or not paying and the result is still the same then that is up to their judgement and risk. Now a discussion of a species that can not be bred, reintroduced, sustained, and is going extinct that is an entire other discussion with many opinions. I will stick to trying to figure out facts and making sure my part is legal and ethical to the best of my ability.

yes i totaly agree i get angry when i go to a pet store and see a pinktoe three inch for forty bucks what spiecies origin thats why i only buy from trusted dealers that i know and who knows how many novice keepers have bought petstore pinktoes and crossbred unknowingly thinking they done something special

yes i totaly agree i get angry when i go to a pet store and see a pinktoe three inch for forty bucks what spiecies origin thats why i only buy from trusted dealers that i know and who knows how many novice keepers have bought petstore pinktoes and crossbred unknowingly thinking they done something special

it is our responsibility as keepers to keep the bloodlines of these magnificent arachnids liniage pure

 

[KezyGLA]

@KezyGLA didn't your pulchra turn brown near a molt?

 

[Tia B]

View attachment 265309

This is what premolt looked like for my guy. He just started looking a little more dull gray and losing some hairs, but it was not a drastic change.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

The latest statement made by Fernando Perez Miles:

"The genus Grammostola is the tomb of the crack, all the taxonomists who have studied it have faced great difficulties because of the homogeneity of the species and because after they are dead and fixed in alcohol for collection they lose very important characteristics to recognize them that can only be appreciated when they are alive.

G. pulchra and G. quirogai are extremely similar and it is almost impossible to distinguish them morphologically and without appealing to the use of DNA. For worse, G. quirogai is in the north of Uruguay and G. pulchra can be found at least until Uruguayana, in the south of Brazil.

If what they sell in Argentina, US and Europe is from Uruguay, it is very likely G. quirogai, which is the most captured species for the pet market, because where it is present it has very dense populations. On the other hand, we have no evidence that G. pulchra is present in Uruguay and is only indicated for Brazil in the scientific literature.

Both species are quite black, unlike our southern species G. anthracina, which is more brown and even though it has recently been dumped, it seems blacker, with the sides of the legs with reddish-brown hairs.

Finally I have no idea if they can hybridize in nature, in the laboratory sometimes cross-copulations occur, but they never gave offspring."

I’m quoting my own post of the statement made by Fernando Perez Miles. He clearly says, for worse, G. quirogai is in the north of Uruguay and G. pulchra can be found at least until Uruguayana, in the south of Brazil. Well I’m a bit confused with that statement bacause a snake was being preyed upon under a rock by an adult female G. quirogai in a region of grasslands with hills and rocky outcrops called Serra do Caverá (-30.3594°S, -55.2500°W, WGS 84, 301 m elev.), in the municipality of Rosário do Sul, state of Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. So if that’s the case than Grammostola quirogai is also found in Brazil. See link: https://biotaxa.org/hn/article/download/23156/25075

I think people jus need to examine their dead mature males that were sold as pulchra. Use the abstract documents of the Grammostola quirogai etc. for a possible ID of your specimens.

View attachment 265309

Haha! Maybe it’s a hybrid.

 

[ThisMeansWAR]

I have know a few people who's pulchra turned brown in pre-molt ( @Cassiusstein )....So far this seems like the logical (but not definitive) way to understand what we have, as it was stated that pulcra should turn grey in pre-molt, and not brown like the quirogai.

My 3 inch female turned “ashy” and dull a couple of months before molting, never any brown. I’m confused.

I wish they made a home dna testing kit for species identification. One day...

 

[Olan]

Mine also is grey during premolt