G. Rosea forms

[DaveSB]

Stan, you raise many good points. However, I believe if we approached the subject of G. rosea colour forms as a herpetologist would approach variation, we can potentially find an answer.

My idea would be to take a leaf out of the Herp. community's book, and ignore the hobby completely. Ignore Mr Stanford-Beale and his RCF breeding chiles and instead conduct observations on the animals IN SITU.

If we did this, we could either prove or disprove the main hypothesis that colour forms are geographic separation variation.
Behavioral observations could be done to see if colour forms have any behavioral separation variation.
Much more evidence of In situ is needed.

However DNA evidence is also needed, we have the technology, why not use it? I'm more than sure that someone has done work on the DNA of colour forms of rosea, there must be some somewhere, if not, any undergraduates looking for a dissertation?

Personally? Variation *within* a lone species. But let's get some molecular, observational, and *primary* evidence.

 

[advan]

I really hate discussions like this because I invariably am the one who gets flamed or shot at.

But, here goes:

There is no cut and dried definition for a species. It's been tried several dozen times already, and all attempts have proven to have huge failings. All species descriptions and determinations are fundamentally based on arguably questionable characteristics with a huge admixture of personal opinion. I remember quite distinctly a well known taxonomist telling me that "in my opinion, their [several kinds being discussed] characteristics are not distinct enough for them to be considered separate species."

Hence why work should be peer reviewed. And yes, one taxonomist might not agree with another one which morphological keys separate or define a species but that's no reason for you to throw your hands up in the air and give up when it comes to taxonomy. Which you clearly have done and pretty much insult the people putting in all the work and their own money.

I have been roundly criticized for inferring that Taxonomy wasn't a true science

As you should be.

Every time someone looks at an electron or a galaxy, they get the same answer. Whenever someone looks at a Chilean rose tarantula we get a different name and a radically different opinion of its position in the grand scheme of things. Not once. Not twice. But, eleven different times, even ignoring minor changes in gender or spelling!

Citharoscelus kochii
Citharoscelus spatulatus
Eurypelma rosea Ausserer
Eurypelma spatulatum
G. argentinense Strand
G. cala
G. rosea
G. spathulata
Lasiodora rosea
Mygale rosea
Mygale rubiginosa

This lack of consistency and reproducibility, this not having a firm basis for establishing "species" presents us with a very serious conundrum: If we can't define a species, how can we determine what's a subspecies, a race, a variety or even a hybrid?

So you are one of the people that gets upset with a name change? Too lazy to change your tank labels? Upset when someone examines a pet trade tarantula with the original type specimen and finds it was incorrectly labelled?

If two putatively different organisms can interbreed to produce "fertile offspring resembling their parent," are they really different species? Or, in spite of their differences (based on someone else's opinion) are they simply different varieties? And, is their offspring a hybrid, or merely an intergrade?

I really hope you don't believe this. So you are saying because a lion and a tiger can produce offspring they are the same species?

And, a closing note to the half-dozen or dozen academics who understand the problem and what I'm saying: Please don't waste your time trying to pick a fight with me. You'd be much better off expending your energy trying to fix the problem.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. To avoid the fact you are not a taxonomist and are not qualified to determine if these Chilean Grammostola are in fact the same species you insult taxonomist and the study of taxonomy and then ask people not to respond.

Enjoy your RCF Poecilotheria blondi!

 

[DaveSB]

I really hope you don't believe this. So you are saying because a lion and a tiger can produce offspring they are the same species?

He didn't say this at all. He said produce fertile offspring, which tigers and lions do not.

ANYWAY...

Does anyone have any actual resources on this? Any published data on colourforms? The only mention of G. rosea colour forms I can find in ANY journal is Stan's article in the Forum Magazine of the American Tarantula Society and (no offence Stan) it's not exactly any help to the issue.

I'm told there may be little information in another paper,

Effects of moisture levels on juvenile Grammostola rosea spiders
Author(s): MacDonald, Payton
Source: Forum Magazine of the American Tarantula Society Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Pages: 32-34 Published: 2009

If anyone has access to this, could they please check? I unfortunately do not.

 

[advan]

He didn't say this at all. He said produce fertile offspring, which tigers and lions do not.

ANYWAY...

Does anyone have any actual resources on this? Any published data on colourforms? The only mention of G. rosea colour forms I can find in ANY journal is Stan's article in the Forum Magazine of the American Tarantula Society and (no offence Stan) it's not exactly any help to the issue.

I'm told there may be little information in another paper,

Effects of moisture levels on juvenile Grammostola rosea spiders
Author(s): MacDonald, Payton
Source: Forum Magazine of the American Tarantula Society Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Pages: 32-34 Published: 2009

If anyone has access to this, could they please check? I unfortunately do not.

Whoops missed the fertile part. Bad example then. How about all the hybrid snakes that do produce fertile babies?

To answer Sith Ifrica; Yes they(Dr. Stuart Longhorn and Dr. Brent Hendrixson come to mind) are using DNA to help determine species.

 

[Sith Ifrica]

To answer Sith Ifrica; Yes they(Dr. Stuart Longhorn and Dr. Brent Hendrixson come to mind) are using DNA to help determine species.

Ah ok Thanks!

To answer the snake question is again depends. Snakes of the same genus can reproduce together - e.g. a royal python, python regius, and a rock python, python sabea. I am unsure if fertile offspring are produced.

I have heard of king snakes (lampropeltis species) and corn snakes (panthrophis species) breeding together but again unsure of the offsprings fertility.

It appears only closely related species can interbreed. It is unlikely that a Grammostola species could breed with an aphonopelma species, and if they did the offspring may well be infertile. That said 2 Grammostola species could feasably mate (in theory) again whether fertile offspring would be produced I do not know.

 

[Stan Schultz]

Hyperthetically, Could DNA evidence not be used to prove how closely species and sub species are related? ...

But, that presupposes that you already know what the species are. And, it answers a different question. Not, "What are the species?" but rather, "How closely related are they?"

I've not heard the details of the problem, but there's something about DNA and tarantulas that seems to be foiling most efforts to use it to differentiate species. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this.

... It has been used in the past and present for re-classifying of various mammals, birds and reptiles - so why not arachnids? ...

That work is "in progress," but it's a huge project, little funding is available, and trained or training manpower is limited. We may have useable results in the next half century or so. Don't hold your breath.

DNA is not the magic bullet we'd hoped it would be where arachnids are concerned. It's greatest achievement so far seems to be that it can tell how closely or distantly related two arachnids are. But, that's a far different question than whether or not they're different species.

Lastly, such work seems to be most fruitful when considering the higher groups of organisms, not species or even genera or families. DNA has led to some remarkable discoveries about the broader aspects of the "bush" of life on Earth. (The term "bush" forms an important topic in Stephen J. Gould's book Wonderful Life.)

... There are various reptiles with subspecies purely because of external differences - such as difference in size, shape, colour markings and pattern. Perhaps it is possible that spiders with distinct colour differences are different sub-species??? Rather than just a 'locality'.

Again, if you cannot define a species, you also cannot define a subspecies. The taxonomist who officially describes a subspecies on color or color patterns alone is treading on VERY thin ice indeed. My knee jerk reaction to your comment is to declare that those so-called subspecies are merely named color forms, and the taxonomic designations are merely pseudo-designations by hobbyists with no formal training in taxonomy, i.e., they don't know what they're talking about.

But then, I don't know the particulars, so you probably shouldn't use that particular argument in public. :biggrin:


Enjoy your little 8-legged enigmas!

---------- Post added 02-28-2013 at 06:22 PM ----------

Stan, you raise many good points. However, I believe if we approached the subject of G. rosea colour forms as a herpetologist would approach variation, we can potentially find an answer.

My idea would be to take a leaf out of the Herp. community's book, and ignore the hobby completely. Ignore Mr Stanford-Beale and his RCF breeding chiles and instead conduct observations on the animals IN SITU.

If we did this, we could either prove or disprove the main hypothesis that colour forms are geographic separation variation.
Behavioral observations could be done to see if colour forms have any behavioral separation variation.
Much more evidence of In situ is needed.

However DNA evidence is also needed, we have the technology, why not use it? I'm more than sure that someone has done work on the DNA of colour forms of rosea, there must be some somewhere, if not, any undergraduates looking for a dissertation?

Personally? Variation *within* a lone species. But let's get some molecular, observational, and *primary* evidence.

First, be sure to read my comments in my posting above about tarantulas and DNA research.

All this and much more is possible with a liberal application of MONEY. You wouldn't know any "Sugar Daddy, Big Bucks" with an interest in the tarantula hobby, would you?


Enjoy your little 8-legged friend with Andrew Jackson emblazoned on its back!

 

[Sith Ifrica]

But, that presupposes that you already know what the species are.

Not at all - this is how new species are often discovered. People think they are doing DNA on one species, perhaps of 2 localities or colour phases and discovers a whole new species, or certainly enough DNA different to consider it a new species or sub species.

If we knew what the species were we wouldn't need to check the DNA. It is through checking the DNA that we learn exactly what the species are. If they are the same species or something different.

It was assumed crocodiles were closely related to lizards, but DNA suggests they are more closely related to birds than lizards. This result would probably never have been known with DNA data.

If we think we have one species, Grammostola rosea for example, and we do the DNA testing on 2 different colour forms and discover it is 2 species then that is excellent and a wonderful result that would probably never have been known without DNA analysis. If we find out it is the same species then we know it has different colour phases (like people can have different colour hair), but essentially it is the same animal.

---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 12:28 AM ----------

Biology online quotes -

Species: An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring

Sub-species: A group somewhat less distinct than species usually are, but based on characters more important than those which characterise ordinary varieties; often, a geographical variety or race.
(biology) a taxonomic group that is a division of a species; usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species. The most precise classification of organism. Our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens is a prime example of a subspecies, which over time had diversified from Homo sapiens and respective common ancestors.

........................

"often, a geographical variety or race"
"usually arises as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species."

So often localities or colour forms are found in a different population, often isolated to particular regions, from other animals of the same species showing a different colour phase. Perhaps indicating sub-species.

 

[Stan Schultz]

Ordinarily I don't respond to replies in this tone, but this time I couldn't resist a good fight!

Hence why work should be peer reviewed. And yes, one taxonomist might not agree with another one which morphological keys separate or define a species but that's no reason for you to throw your hands up in the air and give up when it comes to taxonomy. ...

[size=+1]NO! ... No, no, no![/size] I rant and rave and point out the error in their ways and try to cajole them into correcting the error!

In a former life I spent a few weeks as an electrical apprentice. Several decades later I had a professional electrician over to my house to wire in a yard light. After an hour or so I complained that he wasn't doing it correctly. His response was, "I've been doing it this way for 20 years, I know what I'm doing!"

Whereupon my response was, "That doesn't mean you're doing right! It just means that you've been doing it wrong for 20 years!"

At that point we parted company. That next week a different electrician pulled all the wiring and redid it correctly.

... Which you clearly have done and pretty much insult the people putting in all the work and their own money. ...

Which as easily could mean that they've been wasting all their efforts and money.

"That doesn't mean you're doing right! It just means that you've been doing it wrong for 20 years!"

... So you are one of the people that gets upset with a name change? Too lazy to change your tank labels? Upset when someone examines a pet trade tarantula with the original type specimen and finds it was incorrectly labelled? ..

Actually, this is pretty childish.

... I really hope you don't believe this. So you are saying because a lion and a tiger can produce offspring they are the same species? ...

You've missed the whole point of my essay! I don't care about whether someone thinks they're the same or different species! I care that the "science" of taxonomy deals with the issue rather than turning their backs on it or sweeping it under the rug.

... I'm sorry, I don't buy it. ...

The Berlin Wall has fallen. It's now officially a free world. You're allowed to believe just about anything you desire.

... To avoid the fact you are not a taxonomist and are not qualified to determine if these Chilean Grammostola are in fact the same species you insult taxonomist and the study of taxonomy and then ask people not to respond. ...

I'm not avoiding anything. In fact, I'm sparing for a fight by pointing out a major philosophical and real flaw in the "science" of taxonomy and EXPECTING one or more taxonomists to take up the gauntlet and either respond with some sort of explanation or rebuttal for this apparent error, or get to work to fix it.

May I be bold enough to suggest that to prevent the moderators from closing this discussion down (in which case no one wins), we steer away from personal or character references and confine our comments to the merits of the debate, i.e., taxonomy's treatment of variation, speciation, etc.?


Nothing like a good old, knock down, drag out taxonomy fight! Right folks?

 

[DaveSB]

First, be sure to read my comments in my posting above about tarantulas and DNA research.

All this and much more is possible with a liberal application of MONEY. You wouldn't know any "Sugar Daddy, Big Bucks" with an interest in the tarantula hobby, would you?


Enjoy your little 8-legged friend with Andrew Jackson emblazoned on its back!

Well I hate to burst your bubble, but it really doesn't cost that much. It would in fact be incredibly cheap *in theory*.

There are multiple ways of getting the geographic data:
. Manually collecting and recording, more reliable, but much more time consuming and therefore expensive.
. Asking local T enthusiasts to collect and record, cheapest if not free, but unreliable.
. Asking the exporters and collectors. Which could be as simple as a one word answer of, Yes I find them in the same places all the time.

There's also the fact that we as a planet are producing more and more University level scientists eager to prove themselves, with this topic being important, and able to get some pretty hefty recognition, I can almost guarantee that students of Zoology are interested in this and willing to do this as a Dissertation, or PhD.

I can't speak for any country but the UK, but our students are enthusiastic to go out into the world and do practical science. I'm currently looking at the finances to see if I could infact undertake a survey into Northern Chile, Argentina and Bolivia for myself.

 

[advan]

In a former life I spent a few weeks as an electrical apprentice. Several decades later I had a professional electrician over to my house to wire in a yard light. After an hour or so I complained that he wasn't doing it correctly. His response was, "I've been doing it this way for 20 years, I know what I'm doing!"

Whereupon my response was, "That doesn't mean you're doing right! It just means that you've been doing it wrong for 20 years!"

At that point we parted company. That next week a different electrician pulled all the wiring and redid it correctly.

Hmm this sounds familiar. You said this same thing in a thread were you wrong about the development stages. http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?233571-My-1st-instar-LP/page2

Which as easily could mean that they've been wasting all their efforts and money.

"That doesn't mean you're doing right! It just means that you've been doing it wrong for 20 years!"

Who are you or I as hobbyists to tell them they are doing it wrong?

Actually, this is pretty childish.

How?

I'm not avoiding anything. In fact, I'm sparing for a fight by pointing out a major philosophical and real flaw in the "science" of taxonomy and EXPECTING one or more taxonomists to take up the gauntlet and either respond with some sort of explanation or rebuttal for this apparent error, or get to work to fix it.

So by saying "don't respond" you really meant respond? How about this one?

I point the following out because none of you seems to have even a basic understanding of the foundation for the question, much less a reasonable solution to the very basic problems.

This question and variants of it have been rattling around this and other forums for more than a decade. And, it has been rampant in other milieux for several centuries. Not only is it complex, but in a way it's also superficial.

One striking example of this is its treatment by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species... wherein he is quite obviously frustrated by the vagueness of the definitions 150 years ago. Matters have not gotten significantly better since then either!

And, until taxonomists can develop an objective definition of "species" (i.e., one that does not involve someone's personal opinion), and how the concept of species objectively differs from the concepts of "subspecies," "variety," "color form" (a.k.a., "colormorph"), "intergrade," and even "cultivar" in some disciplines, and these from each other, we're never going to be able to truly define what a "hybrid" is. This results from the basic premise that your personal opinion does not necessarily have to match mine, and in fact almost surely won't. We're perpetually comparing and arguing about apples and oranges!

Other fatally confusing issues are the inherently subjective opinions about what importance hybrids (by any definition) have in the grand scheme of things, whether they're useful or not, desirable or undesirable, or even "good" or "bad."

Thus, because of the flaws in the very foundation of the "science" of taxonomy, and the vagueness of its concepts, and our only extremely vague impression of the meaning of the term "hybrid," any such discussion such as this must devolve into a discussion of personal "beliefs," "feelings," and "opinions" with very little fact to back them up.

Basically, we're all just whistling into the wind.

You all, of course, are free to waste your time any way you wish. I for one am far more interested in trying to tease out of their anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, behavior, natural history, etc. a little better understanding of them as complex living creatures rather than arguing over whether or not, or how we should sort and count our beans.


Enjoy your little 8-legged curmudgeons!

Sorry, but "to sort and count our beans" is of fundamental importance. When this is not done carefully after deep consideration of all available evidence, the conclusions of many 'anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, behavior, natural history, etc.' are very easily corrupted, and money, time and effort wasted. For example, which of several candidates do many varied published studies of Aphonopelma californicum relate to? Please tell me, because this 'species' is not recognised as valid, nor has been for a long time. I can give a long list of such studies that failed to give any taxonomical consideration of the actual species at hand (nor even the geographic collection location of their source specimens), before delving ever so deeply (and expensively) into the biochemistry etc of their 'unidentified' specimens, thinking it was the same species as used by another similar study (who also similarly just assumed their californian tarantula as A.californicum), when infact it probably wasnt the same species... so which work is flawed exactly, because to me it looks like its actually all these studies of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, behavior, and natural history, etc.

Stan, Please do not use the word "science" in quotation marks / apostrophes, as to me it implies you are not treating taxonomy as a science, and if find that offensive and very misleading. i.e.
Thus, because of the flaws in the very foundation of the "science" of taxonomy
If you want me to explain how various scientific tenets such as 'collating evidence', 'hypothesis testing', verification, falsification etc, then let me know, because all are fundamental towards proper taxonomic study, as is (i think unknown to some) the importance of peer review and the importance of revision with additional evidence. The lack of clear definition of "species" and "hybrid" are not for the want of clear definitions, because plenty of well considered definitions of both exist, it is the lack of being able to apply one easily memorable overly simplistic definition to very complicated scenarios of the multitude of lifeforms we encounter. Its not the definitions are vague, its that this aspect of life's biology is extremely complicated, and we can't (nor i believe shouldn't) try to make it oversimplified for the sake of trying to make one definition fit all of "life's multitudinous variety" (ps. that last part comes from Darwin). Oh, and definitions are complicated by many 'species' being actively in the process of some individuals splitting from the main breeding group (ie peripatric speciation), others being somehow isolated (allopatric) with varying levels of isolating mechanisms existing or coming into existence ... etc. Its often very complicated with many interacting factors involved, and indeed that's why the study of taxonomy is so very interesting to me, so far far far away from the suggested 'bean counting'.

Going back to the original question, i would strongly suggest it is unwise to breen different colour forms, as they are very likely of different geographic origins, and in many cases arguably of different species. You could breed them as an experiment to see whether they can interbreed (so evidence they are the same species), but withut knowing the actual geographic origins of the material, and without using natural conditions, it is a poorly justified experiment only telling us about what can happen under artificial conditions.

May I be bold enough to suggest that to prevent the moderators from closing this discussion down (in which case no one wins), we steer away from personal or character references and confine our comments to the merits of the debate, i.e., taxonomy's treatment of variation, speciation, etc.?

You do realize there is no win when it comes to opinion vs opinion right? Is it really that upsetting that I pointed out that you are not a taxonomist? That is not a personal attack it is a fact. Just like I am not a taxonomist either.

As long as everything stays within the rules we shouldn't have to close this thread.

 

[Sith Ifrica]

In a former life I spent a few weeks as an electrical apprentice. Several decades later I had a professional electrician over to my house to wire in a yard light. After an hour or so I complained that he wasn't doing it correctly. His response was, "I've been doing it this way for 20 years, I know what I'm doing!"

Whereupon my response was, "That doesn't mean you're doing right! It just means that you've been doing it wrong for 20 years!"

At that point we parted company. That next week a different electrician pulled all the wiring and redid it correctly.

Maybe you've been doing it wrong for 20 years?

You seem to completely dis-regard science and its use. It is the most useful and accurate tool we have presently for identifying, classifying and defining species and sub species etc. Instead of saying how wrong it is and how it has flaws, why don't you do some science and do your own taxonomy and DNA analysis on species and get it published in a journal?

 

[mcluskyisms]

Have I missed the part where Stan explained about all three colour forms coming from the same sac?

:?

 

[Sith Ifrica]

Have I missed the part where Stan explained about all three colour forms coming from the same sac?

:?

But was it not mentioned that this would be possible if the chileans rose are so messed up because possible various sub-species have been interbred so frequently?

 

[mcluskyisms]

But was it not mentioned that this would be possible if the chileans rose are so messed up because possible various sub-species have been interbred so frequently?

Yeah, I'm more going from this statement from Stan's site...

"For a while, enthusiasts thought each color form was a different species, even calling the copper colored form G. cala, the Chilean flame tarantula. However, over the last several years all of the several color forms have been reported to arise from the same eggsac, strong evidence that these are all merely variants of the same species."

I'd like to know who "reported" it, was it a one off occurrence or has this happened numerous times? Also some evidence of this happening as I personally don't believe it.

Its one thing to make a hypothesis about something that could happen but to go on to state that it has happened is a different matter.

 

[Sith Ifrica]

Yeah, I'm more going from this statement from Stan's site...

"For a while, enthusiasts thought each color form was a different species, even calling the copper colored form G. cala, the Chilean flame tarantula. However, over the last several years all of the several color forms have been reported to arise from the same eggsac, strong evidence that these are all merely variants of the same species."

I'd like to know who "reported" it, was it a one off occurrence or has this happened numerous times? Also some evidence of this happening as I personally don't believe it.

Its one thing to make a hypothesis about something that could happen but to go on to state that it has happened is a different matter.

Clearly more research needs to be done which I think is what is being suggested here.

We can assume all we like it won't get us anywhere.

 

[DaveSB]

Clearly more research needs to be done which I think is what is being suggested here.

We can assume all we like it won't get us anywhere.

This is exactly what I said AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGES ago. What we need is someone to check the journal I referenced, and any Chilean forum members to raise their hands.

 

[mcluskyisms]

We can assume all we like it won't get us anywhere.

Indeed.

 

[BrettG]

I will believe that all the color forms emerged from one sack when the person that conducts that experiment comes in here with proof.That is an experiment that would take YEARS,and I can only assume that the online community would have heard about this or seen "proof" a WHILE ago (assuming it even happened) Just way to many assumptions in this thread and Z E R O proof of them being same/different sp,or emerging from the same sack...That said,how about some PROOF instead of all the "what if's" and "IMHO's :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

 

[Stan Schultz]

Maybe you've been doing it wrong for 20 years? ...

Entirely possible. No one's perfect. Only time will tell.

... You seem to completely dis-regard science and its use. It is the most useful and accurate tool we have presently for identifying, classifying and defining species and sub species etc. ...

At the moment you are absolutely correct, it is the best we've got. But, you miss my point entirely. "The best we've got" is no longer good enough. There are too many holes in the ramparts. We need to address the real world face on, and develop a new, far more inclusive system that doesn't require all the band aids and crutches.

... Instead of saying how wrong it is and how it has flaws, why don't you do some science and do your own taxonomy and DNA analysis on species and get it published in a journal?

I don't have the time, expertise, or funding. And, at age 69 I seriously doubt that I would be able to develop those three in time to do any real good. Nursing homes generally frown on large collections of tarantulas even if they are for research!

:laugh:

In one of the previous postings in this thread someone mentioned graduate students and post docs. My fondest wish is that one or more of them will read this and decide to do something about it.

So, now the gauntlet has been thrown again. Which one of you 18 or 20 year olds is going to pick it up and stand the science of taxonomy on its head?


Cheers.

 

[MagicalLobster]

Stan, why won't my G. Rosea eat?

Just kidding (thought this thread needed some lightening up).

So, in short, we have no idea what the color forms mean if we don't even know that these are actually different species. At the best of our knowledge, each form looks and acts like what we know as "G. Rosea" but, even then, the Godfather of Tarantula keeping thinks that we don't even know what that means on it's own (in terms of a species).

I guess the only question we can ask ourselves is "Will people in this hobby be mad if we breed them together?" XD