Grammostola rosea and Grammostola porteri.

[viper69]

Yes, that is correct.

This is kind of funny, because so far it seems there is only a single phenotypic diffierence causing a new name. In the herp world, there are a myriad of NATURALLY occurring Boa constrictor imperators, some with more than just a color difference (eg size) and yet they are all the same species and sub-species for now.

 

[thevez2]

Not at all, color just happens to be the easiest to see. The main taxonomic difference between the two species is in the palpal coxa stridulatory organ. What I read is that "G. porteri has more well defined lyra on the retrolateral palpal coxa and prolateral coxa of leg I than G. rosea.

 

[viper69]

Not at all, color just happens to be the easiest to see. The main taxonomic difference between the two species is in the palpal coxa stridulatory organ. What I read is that "G. porteri has more well defined lyra on the retrolateral palpal coxa and prolateral coxa of leg I than G. rosea.

THANKS! Now that makes more sense for a new species name...Thank You!

 

[Emotionlessness]

And may I ask what was renamed from G. cala? The G.rosea or the G.porteri? Or both?

 

[thevez2]

And may I ask what was renamed from G. cala? The G.rosea or the G.porteri? Or both?

G. cala was synonymized with G. rosea, a long time ago. But of course back then, what we called cala and rosea are now G. porteri. Confused yet?

 

[Hydrazine]

The import name inconsistency doesn'thelp at all, too. I've seen "Grammostola spatulata", "Grammostola cala" and others - and it's not distant past, it's last year
Guess we can be glad we do not see "Lasiodora rosea" or even "Eurypelma spatulatum" anymore.....or do we?

Kind of glad I avoided the confusion by getting the "RCF", or, according to the new theory, the "true G.rosea"

And apparently, the rest of the genus is kind of a mess as well, perhaps 0,73 on the genus mess scale, with Avicularia as reference standard with value of 1

 

[Emotionlessness]

Been thinking more and would still like to go deeper.

Is the RCF the "default" so to speak colour form? I mean you have G. porteri and G. porteri DCF or vice versa?

 

[CitizenNumber9]

Ugh why can't someone just breed the two and then breed their offspring? That seems to be the easiest way to get and answer, albeit not exactly the quickest.

 

[Hydrazine]

Let's not go into discussing hybrids. I am quite interested in this thread and I don't wanna see it closed because of a BLEEPstorm that usually follows someone noticing even just hypothetical hybrids.

 

[CitizenNumber9]

Let's not go into discussing hybrids. I am quite interested in this thread and I don't wanna see it closed because of a BLEEPstorm that usually follows someone noticing even just hypothetical hybrids.

Heheh sorry. I retract my question then.

 

[spanes]

Looks like i got a g. Porteri

 

[thevez2]

Been thinking more and would still like to go deeper.

Is the RCF the "default" so to speak colour form? I mean you have G. porteri and G. porteri DCF or vice versa?

I'm not sure what you mean. RCF is G. rosea.

 

[Emotionlessness]

I apologize, my mind completely drifted when I typed that message, I mean NCF, so:

Is the NCF the "default" so to speak colour form? I mean you have G. porteri and G. porteri DCF or vice versa?

 

[thevez2]

Yes, of course. The Normal Color Form is always going to be the default.

 

[Keith B]

BUMP. This thread should be in plain sight for a while, cause pet stores aren't ever going to get it right. It's just speculating on my part, but I'm kind of thinking that G. porteri is just the grey color form, G. rosea is red, and all the stuff we have that's colored in between (and reports about both coming out of the same sac) is likely from cross breeding the two? Seems logical enough to me. Would explain the difficulty in pairing and sale of WC specimens mentioned in TKG3. Might be easy to pair 2 porteri but much less so to mix them up. After all, these two T's have been identified as the same thing by an abundance of people for ages. Food for thought, and conversation

 

[viper69]

Actually this thread should be a sticky because people like that Stimp user are too lazy to search! It took the person more keystrokes to post his/her thread than to search. But hey some people thrive on efficiency!

 

[Lee Beck]

First thing that should be noted is that very often, what is sold in the pet trade as a specific species, often reflects nothing at all regarding the real described species, you just have to look at Euathlus truculentus for a good example, the ones in the pet trade are nothing to do with Euathlus spp. (The description for them translates to 'brown tarantula from Chile').
Importers often sell things with valid binomial names, but give no explanation as to how it was confirmed to be so, and they just end up being the hobby species.
Grammostola is in a bit of a state really, the name rosea goes back nearly 200 years and is one that Schmidt dug back up. Rosea having no type specimen doesn't help either, meaning that the specimens caught and imported cannot be compared to any material. I believe the work is in progress to sort a few things out, we will just have to wait, however, the hobby species will likely remain just that, with all the possible hybrids circulating, bad IDs of other similar looking Grammostola and doubts to their real placement.
There was an article recently 'showing the differences between rosea and porteri'
It was based on the number of lyra on the palpal coxa and such, however, the number can vary a lot specimen to specimen, and is not a sole characteristic to key them as 2 different species (also, I cannot think where the 'porteri' and 'rosea' specimens originated from, and were obviously not compared to any type material beforehand).
However, people calling one porteri and the other rosea isn't a bad thing in my opinion, whatever they are. It will likely put people off breeding them together with the statement 'only colour forms of rosea, doesn't matter', just in case it transpires that they are not.

 

[Tomoran]

Actually this thread should be a sticky because people like that Stimp user are too lazy to search! It took the person more keystrokes to post his/her thread than to search. But hey some people thrive on efficiency!

+1 Search-impaired individuals aside , I think that this thread would be a great candidate for a sticky. I, for one, would be interested in seeing it develop as it's a common question/discussion that is still cause for interesting debate. Just my two.

 

[LordWaffle]

Do you have a link to that article you mentioned, Lee?

 

[Lee Beck]

Do you have a link to that article you mentioned, Lee?

http://www.tarantulaforum.com/threads/comparison-of-g-rosea-g-porteri-stridulatory-organs.262/