G. pulchra commonly wild-caught with negative consequences?

[Rinfish]

Hey all! At an exotics convention I was told by a lovely seller that the G. pulchra I was excited to obtain is tough to come by, mainly due to the fact that they are mostly wild-caught, with negative repercussions on the environment. The seller did not offer them for this reason (and none of the other tarantula booths had them for sale).

I was really thankful that the seller notified me of this issue, but I had no idea this was the case! Do you guys also find that the Brazilian black is often wild caught?

 

[johnny quango]

Hey all! At an exotics convention I was told by a lovely seller that the G. pulchra I was excited to obtain is tough to come by, mainly due to the fact that they are mostly wild-caught, with negative repercussions on the environment. The seller did not offer them for this reason (and none of the other tarantula booths had them for sale).

I was really thankful that the seller notified me of this issue, but I had no idea this was the case! Do you guys also find that the Brazilian black is often wild caught?

On a side note: While asking different vendors, some passerby convention goer criticized the fact that I used the common name instead of the latin name when asking vendors if they sold that particular spider. Spent a few minutes mansplaining how easy it is to memorize and put in more effort when referring to all the tarantula species. Lmao!

Actually the seller wasn't 100% correct, I'm not saying it doesn't happen because I'm not stupid enough to believe they don't get smuggled. I believe it is illegal to sell wild caught G pulchra because they are covered under cites. (I may be wrong). Anyway the truth is G pulchra is sometimes hard to find because they take an age to mature and apparently they aren't as easy to breed as other species in this genus so they just simply aren't available that often

 

[cold blood]

CITES pertains to Brachypelma as far as I know.

I don't know how much importation there is of pulchra, but I would guess not a lot because I believe their export is indeed restrictive.

They're rare and expensive because most are CB and they take a long time to grow to breeding size or the adult size most people seem to want to obtain. I have heard they aren't the easiest to get sacs from as well, which would also cause higher costs along with the slow growth factor.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Whether Grammostola pulchra in the pet trade is wild caught or not is an interesting question. Back in March 2016 Dr. Fernando Perez-Miles sent an open letter to arachnid societies concerning the smuggling of a Uruguayan Grammostola species called Grammostola quirogai. The letter details the collection and attempt at smuggling this species from Uruguay for the pet trade. Grammostola quirogai is large and black and resembles Grammostola pulchra. Ever since I read this open letter from Dr. Perez-Miles I have wondered if the pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. guirogai.

What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul". Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Argentina. I don't know if Mello-Leitao is saying Grammostola pulchra is located in Uruguay near Rio Grande do Sul or if it is in Rio Grande do Sul near Uruguay. I have no clue what this author was saying as I don't know what the "E." in "E. do R. Grande do Sul" would mean in Portuguese. Either way, without locality information on pet trade G. pulchra, it isn't useful for identification anyway.

So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it might share a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra?

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

Whether Grammostola pulchra in the pet trade is wild caught or not is an interesting question. Back in March 2016 Dr. Fernando Perez-Miles sent an open letter to arachnid societies concerning the smuggling of a Uruguayan Grammostola species called Grammostola quirogai. The letter details the collection and attempt at smuggling this species from Uruguay for the pet trade. Grammostola quirogai is large and black and resembles Grammostola pulchra. Ever since I read this open letter from Dr. Perez-Miles I have always wondered if the pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. guirogai.

What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul". Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Paraguay. The distribution of G. quirogai is the same as G. pulchra being in Uruguay east of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it apparently shares a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra?

Okay, so is another fracta/ simoensi issue.

 

[cold blood]

given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it apparently shares a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra?

Interesting as that's not a species you even hear about in the pet trade...I've personally never heard of it. So once smuggled in, they are clearly not being sold as such, leading much credibility to what you are saying. The fact that they share the same home range is also interesting...

It could be possible that the two are actually similar, yet easily confused species...or as you speculate, that we don't actually have pulchra in the pet trade at all, just mis-labeled quirogai....as they were all originally brought in from somewhere.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Okay, so is another fracta/ simoensi issue.

That is what I am wondering. I only raise the doubt on the identification of pet trade Grammostola pulchra based on another species known to be smuggled from Uruguay that looks just like it. I am definitely not saying that is truly the case. Unfortunately, to investigate the matter people will need to check the tibial spur of their G. pulchra and key it with Montes de Oca (2015) to either prove or disprove G. pulchra is properly identified. As far as I know, there is no way to reliably distinguish female G. pulchra from G. quirogai.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

So what you are stating AphonopelmaTX is that what we have in the hobby is not Brazilian black, but most likely Uruguay Black. It is not Grammastola Pulchra, but Grammostola quirogai (That is fun to say lol) and we have another “Mess” as usual. From my understanding most everything, if not everything, in the hobby is from Uruguay not Brazil. Individuals just assumed they were found in both Brazil and Uruguay I guess. Well there is a mm listed here in the invertsonals perhaps the male eboli, tibia spurs can be examined to start with that.

Here we go round the merry go round.......

If it’s true that we may have both species in the hobby, than possibly hybrid has occurred between the two.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

So what you are stating AphonopelmaTX is that what we have in the hobby is not Brazilian black, but most likely Uruguay Black. It is not Grammastola Pulchra, but Grammostola quirogai (That is fun to say lol) and we have another “Mess” as usual. From my understanding most everything, if not everything, in the hobby is from Uruguay not Brazil. Individuals just assumed they were found in both Brazil and Uruguay I guess. Well there is a mm listed here in the invertsonals perhaps the male eboli, tibia spurs can be examined to start with that.

Here we go round the merry go round.......

That is not what I am saying at all. As I said in my last post "I only raise the doubt on the identification of pet trade Grammostola pulchra based on another species known to be smuggled from Uruguay that looks just like it. I am definitely not saying that is truly the case."

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

That is not what I am saying at all. As I said in my last post "I only raise the doubt on the identification of pet trade Grammostola pulchra based on another species known to be smuggled from Uruguay that looks just like it. I am definitely not saying that is truly the case."

Sorry I know that’s what you meant. What m I meant was, it might be possible that we may have the Grammostola quirogai from Uruguay, and if it’s true than we simply need to do a correction of the ID of the spider.@AphonopelmaTX did you get a chance to take a look at this http://arachnoboards.com/threads/g-pulchra-male-ready-to-breed.303387/??? And if so do you have access how to compare the tibial hooks?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Sorry I know that’s what you meant. What m I meant was, it might be possible that we may have the Grammostola quirogai from Uruguay, and if it’s true than we simply need to do a correction of the ID of the spider.@AphonopelmaTX did you get a chance to take a look at this http://arachnoboards.com/threads/g-pulchra-male-ready-to-breed.303387/??? And if so do you have access how to compare the tibial hooks?

I'm going to stop posting about this since it looks like I opened a can of worms here without meaning to. The question of this thread was "is G. pulchra often wild caught?" and my response is basically "Maybe, maybe not. There is another big black Grammostola species has been known to be collected from the wild and exported from Uruguay so maybe we don't actually have G. pulchra." That is where I am going to leave it. Whether pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. quirogai is just a question that popped in my head two years ago after reading Dr. Perez-Miles open letter. If someone wants to investigate this question, by all means, but I won't discuss my own question on hobby G. pulchra anymore publicly.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

I'm going to stop posting about this since it looks like I opened a can of worms here without meaning to. The question of this thread was "is G. pulchra often wild caught?" and my response is basically "Maybe, maybe not. There is another big black Grammostola species has been known to be collected from the wild and exported from Uruguay so maybe we don't actually have G. pulchra." That is where I am going to leave it. Whether pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. quirogai is just a question that popped in my head two years ago after reading Dr. Perez-Miles open letter. If someone wants to investigate this question, by all means, but I won't discuss my own question on hobby G. pulchra anymore publicly.

I don’t think you open a can of worms, I’m in agreement that the possibility of the hobby pulchra maybe in fact G. quirogai. It’s pretty much same information I’m receiving from my other resources.

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.

 

[thevez2]

If it’s true that we may have both species in the hobby, than possibly hybrid has occurred between the two.

Or maybe we have both species in the hobby, and that's why we have a hard time breeding them?

 

[Olan]

I definitely am interested for someone with a MM to carefully look at the hooks and compare to that paper. Unfortunately my two G. pulchras are female, so someone else will have to do it. Or send me a male.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

Or maybe we have both species in the hobby, and that's why we have a hard time breeding them?

That can also be considered as well.

 

[viper69]

I'm going to stop posting about this since it looks like I opened a can of worms here without meaning to. The question of this thread was "is G. pulchra often wild caught?" and my response is basically "Maybe, maybe not. There is another big black Grammostola species has been known to be collected from the wild and exported from Uruguay so maybe we don't actually have G. pulchra." That is where I am going to leave it. Whether pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. quirogai is just a question that popped in my head two years ago after reading Dr. Perez-Miles open letter. If someone wants to investigate this question, by all means, but I won't discuss my own question on hobby G. pulchra anymore publicly.

@AphonopelmaTX I don't think you opened a can of worms at all. Not sure why you think that? It makes MORE sense to have information out there, not less. I'm glad you brought up that species.

 

[sjl197]

Just want to go back to this text above (with no fancy links sorry, just copy-paste!) -
"What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul". Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Argentina."

Mello-Leitão actually writes "Uruguayana" both in original 1921, and later in 1923, firstly written exactly as "Uruguayana (Rio Grande do Sul). Importantly, there's both a city and a municipality called Uruguaiana (note: slightly different spelling) within the Brasilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and its just across the Rio Quaraí (aka Cuareim River) from Uruguay. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaraí_River

and
"I don't know if Mello-Leitao is saying Grammostola pulchra is located in Uruguay near Rio Grande do Sul or if it is in Rio Grande do Sul near Uruguay. I have no clue what this author was saying as I don't know what the "E." in "E. do R. Grande do Sul" would mean in Portuguese. Either way, without locality information on pet trade G. pulchra, it isn't useful for identification anyway."

Mello-Leitão was often vague and regularly inaccurate, often made worse as he didn't collect these or many others himself, so relying on information about origins from others. You're right that he later adds a mysterious letter E giving "Uruguayna (E do Rio Grande do Sul)" ... i'd guess the E might mean => east ('leste'), but Uruguayana is in the West (oeste) of the state - that's a question for the Brazilians!

Anyway, just to also point out that in the recent paper by Montes de Oca et al 2016, they also include comparison specimens/samples which they called G.pulchra, but they only say "from Brazil" which i thought was far too vague for clarity. So i went and looked in the files of their accessioned genetic data for that, and those are all labeled as "source=Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul". Therefore, that paper treats their "G.pulchra from Rio Grande do Sul" as separate and distinct from any Uruguay samples.


Then
"So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it might share a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra? "

So, on the last part, let's speculate that original REAL G. pulchra described in Mello-Leitão 1921 was from Uruguaiana, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
If so, I think the data at present doesn't show that G.quirogai and G.pulchra share a range, because it seems the type locality of the latter is separated a big river and country border from Northern Uruguay (and by an even larger river and border with Argentina), plus recently these two have been argued to be both genetically and morphologically distinct (from both each other and other Uruguay Grammostola spp).... Now, if that's the case, let's go back to the funner question about whether hobby collectors (i.e. particularly those with networks in Uruguay) really got stock of "G. pulchra" from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Just want to go back to this text above (with no fancy links sorry, just copy-paste!) -
"What is interesting is that the World Spider Catalog lists the distribution of G. pulchra as Brazil but the original description by Mello-Leitão in 1921 states the location as Uruguay (Rio Grande do Sul) and again in 1923 as Uruguay "E. do R. Grande do Sul". Rio Grande do Sul is the southern most state in Brazil and shares a border with Uruguay and Argentina."

Mello-Leitão actually writes "Uruguayana" both in original 1921, and later in 1923, firstly written exactly as "Uruguayana (Rio Grande do Sul). Importantly, there's both a city and a municipality called Uruguaiana (note: slightly different spelling) within the Brasilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, and its just across the Rio Quaraí (aka Cuareim River) from Uruguay. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaraí_River

and
"I don't know if Mello-Leitao is saying Grammostola pulchra is located in Uruguay near Rio Grande do Sul or if it is in Rio Grande do Sul near Uruguay. I have no clue what this author was saying as I don't know what the "E." in "E. do R. Grande do Sul" would mean in Portuguese. Either way, without locality information on pet trade G. pulchra, it isn't useful for identification anyway."

Mello-Leitão was often vague and regularly inaccurate, often made worse as he didn't collect these or many others himself, so relying on information about origins from others. You're right that he later adds a mysterious letter E giving "Uruguayna (E do Rio Grande do Sul)" ... i'd guess the E might mean => east ('leste'), but Uruguayana is in the West (oeste) of the state - that's a question for the Brazilians!

Anyway, just to also point out that in the recent paper by Montes de Oca et al 2016, they also include comparison specimens/samples which they called G.pulchra, but they only say "from Brazil" which i thought was far too vague for clarity. So i went and looked in the files of their accessioned genetic data for that, and those are all labeled as "source=Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul". Therefore, that paper treats their "G.pulchra from Rio Grande do Sul" as separate and distinct from any Uruguay samples.


Then
"So to answer the question of "is Grammostola pulchra often wild caught" I will say "maybe" given that G. quirogai is definitely smuggled from Uruguay for the pet trade and it might share a geographic range with and looks identical to G. pulchra. Also, are we sure pet trade G. pulchra is actually G. pulchra? "

So, on the last part, let's speculate that original REAL G. pulchra described in Mello-Leitão 1921 was from Uruguaiana, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
If so, I think the data at present doesn't show that G.quirogai and G.pulchra share a range, because it seems the type locality of the latter is separated a big river and country border from Northern Uruguay (and by an even larger river and border with Argentina), plus recently these two have been argued to be both genetically and morphologically distinct (from both each other and other Uruguay Grammostola spp).... Now, if that's the case, let's go back to the funner question about whether hobby collectors (i.e. particularly those with networks in Uruguay) really got stock of "G. pulchra" from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil?

That makes so much more sense. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on the location!

 

[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."

 

[ThisMeansWAR]

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

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?