Hybrid Tarantulas

[Alonso99]

I believe hybrids would be a good waste of time. Why obtain sterile Tarantulas when you can try to breed all the ones we have at our disposal, make other Tarantulas more available, such as X.immanis and X.Monstrosa, Breeding these tarantulas would give off FERTILE slings that can reproduce later on meaning more tarantulas in the hobby. There are so many Tarantulas out there that we have no or little knowledge of, making hybrids is pointless unless you are doing scientific research.

 

[VI6SIX]

There are so many Tarantulas out there that we have no or little knowledge of, making hybrids is pointless unless you are doing scientific research. [/B]

I didn't actualy breed the albogans male I obtained him from a very reliable source who shall remain nameless I currently have around 60 different sp. of breedable females and try to breed as many different sp. as possible and for the record this will be my first attempt at this sort of thing and the only reason I'm doing it is like I stated earlier 1 I already have the hybrid male and 2 I can't think of a better way of finding out how closely related the 2 sp. are 3 if by chace I do get offspring I will have proven something others have only speculated at .finaly I'm not realy trying to create a new sp of tarantula just trying to see if 2 already known sp. are actualy sub sp. of each other in the only way I know how

 

[VI6SIX]

There are so many Tarantulas out there that we have no or little knowledge of, making hybrids is pointless unless you are doing scientific research. [/B]

I didn't actualy breed the albogans male I obtained him from a very reliable source who shall remain nameless I currently have around 60 different sp. of breedable females and try to breed as many different sp. as possible and for the record this will be my first attempt at this sort of thing and the only reason I'm doing it is like I stated earlier 1 I already have the hybrid male and 2 I can't think of a better way of finding out how closely related the 2 sp. are 3 if by chace I do get offspring I will have proven something others have only speculated at .finaly I'm not realy trying to create a new sp of tarantula just trying to see if 2 already known sp. are actualy sub sp. of each other in the only way I know how

 

[Blackprizm]

Like the rest have said, hybridizing on purpose tends to get a cold reception in the invert community(although it is widely accepted in the herp community). There is talk of the "species' Brachypelma
baumgartneri and annitha to actually be man-made as no exact founder specimen has ever been found. BTW Code, I chuckle with your "having sex with dead goats" analogy as there just may be some folks here that may not think that that is not too bad. Hell, I remember "Juicy Lucy and her trained Gila monster" very well! LOL!

http://mantid.nl/tarantula/baumgarteni.html
http://mantid.nl/tarantula/annitha.html

 

[Stan Schultz]

First, you need to put on your asbestos long johns! Wait! You already know that. Sorry.

:biggrin:

hi just wondering if any of ya out there had some info on the topic, ...

Then, you need to do your homework.

WARNING: INCOMING, UNABASHED, SELF-SERVING SALESPITCH
If this sort of thing offends you, please move to the next post in this thread, or to the next thread.​

Read "Hybridization" beginning on page 296 of The Tarantula Keeper's Guide, Third Edition.

END WARNING​

Then read G. Rosea forms.

Then read Hybridizing Tarantulas - Further comments.

Do not fail to follow up the subsidiary links in those webpages.

Out of curiosity you can also perform searches on this and about any other arachnid forum you know of using the following search strings:

hybrid
hybridization
hybridisation
gene
genetics
inheritance
natural selection
artificial selection
cull

(They get farther afield as you go down my list.)

There! That ought to keep you out of the bars for a few days!

Then make sure your bomb shelter is fully stocked and no one on these forums knows even what country you live in!

Oh! You already did that. Smart person.


Enjoy your little 8-legged doomsday prepper!

:roflmao:

 

[cerialkiller]

While reading through this thread I became curious , is this how we get new species to collect or do they just spring up out of no where?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[Meezerkoko]

No, hybridization is not how we get new species. They also don't really pop up out of nowhere, they're just waiting to be discovered by some intrepid scientist, arachnologist, or hobbyist. Once they get discovered it typically takes years before they really show up in the hobby if they ever do.

 

[SuzukiSwift]

Seen as this thread has been raised from the dead I want to chuck a question out there, what about breeding two Ts of the same species but different colour phase? (like for example, an orange colour form and usambara OBT, or an RCF and rose coloured rosea) Would the slings be fertile and what would they look like?

 

[Shrike]

While reading through this thread I became curious , is this how we get new species to collect or do they just spring up out of no where?

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2

Nope, that isn't how new species arise. If you're interested in how speciation occurs you'll find this slide show interesting:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml

Read and enjoy. The power of science compels you!

 

[Tarac]

Seen as this thread has been raised from the dead I want to chuck a question out there, what about breeding two Ts of the same species but different colour phase? (like for example, an orange colour form and usambara OBT, or an RCF and rose coloured rosea) Would the slings be fertile and what would they look like?

Many people get upset by that, some don't. It's because the "color phase" difference may or may not be an actual morph vs. a different species. Holothele incei, for example, comes in gold and green. Some breeders only want to keep gold with gold and green with green. For a portion of those pro-segregation folks it is done to ensure they produce more gold babies by not mixing with green. Others think it might be a totally different species and so don't breed to avoid accidental hybridizing. Who knows who is right so we tend to ere on the side of caution and not mix just in case it turns out they aren't the same species. RCF and NCF rosies are a good example- some people believe they are two distinct species.

Also note that just because an animal is a hybrid does not necessarily mean it will be sterile. The likelihood of sterility will be very specific to what kind of cross you have. Some organisms regularly hybridize themselves in the wild and produce an assortment of perfectly fertile offspring while others may hybridize regularly but never once have fertile progeny. It's hard to say which route a tarantula hybrid would follow and it may very well be that some crosses always produce fertile offspring and others do not.

The best example I can think of are orchids where interspecific hybrids occur all the time in the wild and the progeny are almost always fertile. It is one of the things that is responsible for the incredible diversity of orchids on earth (over 25,000 species known, estimated to be between 30-40K species so largest family on earth next to Coleoptera). But wait! It gets even more complicated. Orchids can also, and do, produce intergeneric hybrids with some regularity, both in the wild and in cultivation. That would be comparable to crossing a Grammastola with a Euathlus or something.

It's not taboo in orchid culture so people cross things over and over such that new generic names have to be invented to cover them all. You have Cattleya, Laelia and you have Brassavola. If you cross the first two, you get Laeliocattleya. If you cross the second two you have Brassolaelia. If you cross the two crosses you have Brassolaeliocattleya. Take that and cross it with Sophronitis and suddenly the name is so darn long that we just call it Potinara, a completely aritificial, man-made but perfectly fertile "genus," sometimes referred to as a "nothogenus" meaning bastard genus. And to make it more complicated, selfing of even species orchids results in a variety of forms because the levels of ploidy in orchids are often very high and variable. So when you cross that same artificially generated Potinara with itself there is a good chance that you would see equal or even less diversity in the offspring than you might if you crossed on of the original parent species with itself. Confusing and crazy, huh?

Of course this happens with Orchidaceae because they are very rapidly and recently evolving so the barriers between genera are much more fluid. Good chance that this can't happen with something as primitive as a tarantula, but certainly the interspecific hybrids have happened. Really couldn't be sure what would happen besides ending up with muddied and artificial genera, if they are fertile at all. It is always a risk though and fertile hybrids could mean more and more hybrid genome leaking into the hobby populations hence it is discouraged.

I have never been able to sort out why it's any different than hybridizing the heck out of orchids which are also highly endangered, usually very endemic and also at extreme risk of complete extirpation due to habitat destruction. Sounds a lot like a T to me other than orchids do hybridize on their own in the wild and tarantulas are not documented to do such a thing as far as I am aware. Still seems like making a mess out of an already messy family personally, but hey- the desire to have a giant, gaudy, eye-popping flower (inferior to the species forms and fragrances IMO) has driven that market and it is quite profitable.

 

[poisoned]

I have never been able to sort out why it's any different than hybridizing the heck out of orchids which are also highly endangered, usually very endemic and also at extreme risk of complete extirpation due to habitat destruction. Sounds a lot like a T to me other than orchids do hybridize on their own in the wild and tarantulas are not documented to do such a thing as far as I am aware. Still seems like making a mess out of an already messy family personally, but hey- the desire to have a giant, gaudy, eye-popping flower (inferior to the species forms and fragrances IMO) has driven that market and it is quite profitable.

I don't think it's possible to do very distinct hybrids with Ts. Maybe over a few generations, but that requires lots of time and hobby is still young. Maybe all those sp. "Cool Color Name" are hybrids, but we don't know it.

 

[Stan Schultz]

Seen as this thread has been raised from the dead I want to chuck a question out there, what about breeding two Ts of the same species but different colour phase? (like for example, an orange colour form and usambara OBT, or an RCF and rose coloured rosea) Would the slings be fertile and what would they look like?

(Note: I hesitate to use the term "species" for reasons covered in a thread linked to in a previous posting.)

If the arachnologists/taxonomists are correct in their opinion that the parents really are the same "kinds" of tarantula, the offspring would almost surely be fertile and their appearances would be controlled by the basic rules of genetics much like Mendel's peas, pet hamsters, and humans. Yes, that is an evasion. I didn't answer your question directly because exactly how the offspring will appear (their "phenotype") is a rather complicated issue.

In general, when crossing two disparate parents the first generation offspring (called F1 - "first filial" - in the science of genetics*) usually look like an average of the two parents "melded" together. The joke in the field of genetics is that they all inherit the worst characteristics of both parents! (See Africanized Bees for an example.) Hybrid tarantulas tend to be rather grubby intermediates of their parents, for instance. And, all members of the F1 generation commonly look very much alike.

Significant differences between the individuals appear only after these F1 offspring are inter-crossed again to produce a so-called F2 generation. This allows the chromosomes to reshuffle into the full spectrum of combinations allowed by probability and genetics.

This presents us with a bit of a problem because the F1 individuals that arachnoculture enthusiasts are currently presented with are not truly representative of the full spectrum of possible variations, and any opinions made about them are of necessity vastly uninformed. We won't know the true story about hybridizing until these F1 individuals mature and some enterprising enthusiast inter-crosses them to produce an F2 generation. And, even then, a lengthy period of time will be required before the F2 individuals have a chance to grow and develop their adult characteristics. At that point, the F2 individuals will be segregated into pools of like individuals and selective breeding will produce stable varietal lines of tarantulas with collections of characters not found in nature, but in high demand in the hobby.

My prediction, based on what happened with pigeons, orchids, tropical fish, and reptiles is that the results are going to blow your socks off! And, while you may demean what happened in those hobbies, there are still a lot of people out there who fairly drool over the hybrids, color, and pattern variations at every show. In fact, they probably outnumber the purists by a wide margin!

What happens if the parents AREN'T truly the same "species?" There is a very wide spectrum of possibilities ranging from one possible parent merely eating the either, through mating (or not), through various levels of embryonic development (or not), through various levels of survivability (or not), through various levels of fertility (or not). The game of effective reproduction requires that everything in a long and complex chain of circumstances and events must go almost exactly right. (Are you familiar with the child's game, "Simon Says?") Otherwise it doesn't work.

These inherent natural restraints in reproduction are probably a big reason why we do perceive something akin to "species," to segregate organisms into different kinds rather than presenting us with one huge, seething mass of mating bunnies. And, which allowed Darwin and Wallace to write The Book. Something "out there" really does exist, but our current understanding of "it" suffers some serious shortcomings.

[Too many links? Sorry. I was afraid a lot of people wouldn't understand some of the finer or more technical points, so I linked to outside references and definitions to make it easier for them.]


Enjoy your little 8-legged "poodle," named Foo-Foo!


* Note that geneticists do not normally concern themselves with concepts such as species. To a geneticist, a hybrid is the result of a cross between any two differing individuals, and the term is most often used to describe a combination of two different visible characters ("phenotype," e.g., hybrid for petal color), or two demonstrably different genetic characters or traits ("genotype," e.g., hybrid for NLGN1) in an organism. And, since the results of researches in Genetics are always consistent and reproducible, Genetics can be considered a true science.

 

[jecraque]

I was going to point out some examples in which our working definitions of species seem to fall short, but Tarac's orchid points are well taken. If you are interested in hybridization in animals, there are a number of bird and salamander examples which may be applicable here, including intergeneric hybrids in birds, and salamander lineages so convoluted in the wild that they exist primarily in the literature as species complexes rather than species/subspecies/varieties. Biology is a terribly messy science and too often our definitions are much too simplistic. Look into the species problem, ring species, etc. if you are interested in hybridization.

Hybridization is not how new species are formed as a rule, but on occasion hybrids drive speciation. Some evidence supports the red wolf, for example, as a hybrid species of gray wolves and coyotes. The jury's still out on that as far as I know. There are lots of insect examples of hybrid speciation as well. But Shrike's link is an excellent starting point for how speciation occurs, and I'd encourage anyone to peruse any and all of the Berkeley evolution resources. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of hybrid speciation in tarantulas, in any case.

I'm not entirely too sure where the idea that hybrid tarantulas would be infertile comes from. Are there documented cases from anyone who has experience with hybrids? Are we extrapolating from mammals/other animals? I'd be interested to know more on this.

For the record, I'm not advocating the pursuit of hybrids in the tarantula-keeping hobby, but I think we ought to keep an open mind toward wild hybrids, if they exist naturally, and certainly study accidental hybrids where they occur in the hobby.

 

[Stan Schultz]

... I'm not entirely too sure where the idea that hybrid tarantulas would be infertile comes from. Are there documented cases from anyone who has experience with hybrids? Are we extrapolating from mammals/other animals? I'd be interested to know more on this. ...

A decade or more ago, one or more German enthusiasts were hybridizing tarantulas (Hence, we know it's possible), and I vaguely remember a reference that claimed that at least one such putative hybrid was indeed fertile. However, that was a long time ago and I've lost the reference to it. Perhaps another reader can find a specific reference.


Enjoy your little 8-legged "Heinz 57!"

 

[SuzukiSwift]

Thanks everybody, that's very interesting information! I'm not gona pretend like I understand all of it lol (science has never really been my thing) but I can see that hybridization is certainly best left to researchers and should not be done by us hobbyists

 

[Alltheworld601]

Thanks everybody, that's very interesting information! I'm not gona pretend like I understand all of it lol (science has never really been my thing) but I can see that hybridization is certainly best left to researchers and should not be done by us hobbyists

you absolutely hit the nail on the head there. As far as the hobby goes for collectors who want to know exactly what they have, and breeders who cater to that market, mixing up bloodlines is a horrible idea. Things like this done in a lab, however, for educational purposes, can I'm sure reveal a lot of new knowledge about theraphosids in general, as there's a whole lot that we still don't know! I'd always be interested in any official scientific experiments involving hybrids...but when joe schmo does it in his basement just for kicks, I get mad. As does, you know, 99% of hobbyists.

 

[poisoned]

you absolutely hit the nail on the head there. As far as the hobby goes for collectors who want to know exactly what they have, and breeders who cater to that market, mixing up bloodlines is a horrible idea. Things like this done in a lab, however, for educational purposes, can I'm sure reveal a lot of new knowledge about theraphosids in general, as there's a whole lot that we still don't know! I'd always be interested in any official scientific experiments involving hybrids...but when joe schmo does it in his basement just for kicks, I get mad. As does, you know, 99% of hobbyists.

Define official scientific experiment. Define lab.

The problem here is, that much research on theraposids is done by hobbyists themselves. Not many "official" scientists care for them. But why can't hobbyist become a scientist and call his basement lab? If this hobbyist doesn't spread the hybrids around and has everything well labeled I don't see a reason why shouldn't s/he do some research.

 

[Alltheworld601]

I suppose, those things would have to be "judged" on a case by case basis though...such a sticky topic. I don't really have any specific definitions for you. I would hope most people would put pride away and only do such an experiment if they could be professional about it, and as you said, not spread them around. But *shrug*....I felt I got my point across, however, vague. The entire topic is vague, so that was the best I could do

 

[Stan Schultz]

Define official scientific experiment. Define lab. ...

Very good points!

I can answer these questions in a rather specific sort of way, but they're only my definitions, nothing you'd find in a dictionary.

An "official scientific experiment" is one performed under the auspices and oversight of an accredited research institution. This usually infers a strict, organized set of standards, an "Animal Care Committee" (ACC) set up to ensure that animal experiments are both worth the sacrifice of the animal and that due caution is taken to make the procedures as humane as possible. And, if humans are used as experimental subjects, an "Institutional Review Board" (IRB) of some sort that authorizes the experiments and monitors the rights and safety of the subjects.

What's a "lab?" My kitchen table back when I was hybridizing orchids and breeding tarantulas. My garage now that I'm getting filthy, stinking rich making crystal meth. Or, the place where an "official scientific experiment" may be performed.

:laugh:

... The problem here is, that much research on theraposids is done by hobbyists themselves. Not many "official" scientists care for them. But why can't hobbyist become a scientist and call his basement lab? If this hobbyist doesn't spread the hybrids around and has everything well labeled I don't see a reason why shouldn't s/he do some research.

Also good points. And in fact, since "official scientific experiments," while currently being performed, are nowhere near numerous enough to meet our insatiable demand for more information about these amazing creatures, experimenting by amateurs is about the only way a lot of it's going to get done.

And, the reason that more "official scientific experiments" aren't being done is NOT that there aren't enough interested or qualified people. There are lots of scientists who would love to experiment on arachnids because arachnids are so different. We gain an immense understanding of basic biology by comparing and contrasting them to better known organisms.

WARNING: INCOMING, UNABASHED, POLITICAL OPINION!
If this sort of thing offends you, please move to the next post in this thread, or to the next thread.​

The major problem is that our governments are much more interested in funding stopgap social programs with no future, no apparent progress, and no foreseeable endpoint rather than space exploration or basic research. But that devolves from the fact that there are more welfare recipients than research scientists.

NOTE WELL that this is definitely not to become a part of the open discussion on this thread! If you wish to comment or carry this discussion further, copy and paste relevant parts to a thread in the Watering Hole.

END WARNING​

Research scientists are only human too. They need to put food on the table, clothes for the kids, the rent or mortgage payment paid. Throwing a few sheckels at the spouse every now and again doesn't hurt either.

:biggrin:

The major problems with amateurs experimenting are the lack of standards, a strict set of moral and ethical guidelines; and the lack of a strict, impartial, logical straightjacket that "official scientists" have placed on themselves to ensure that their results are real, not just figments of overactive imaginations or personal opinions. And, that brings us full circle to my tirade in several of my earlier essays.


Enjoy your little 8-legged research associate!

 

[Tarac]

The other thing is that "official" researchers are trained to execute controlled studies. It is such a difficult thing to do- to ensure that the results you are getting are really what you think they are, that we not only do it as many independent ways as we can BUT we also have countless examples of MAJOR oversights that our training did not teach us to think about, we were too excited to notice, etc. So if someone who is genuinely trying to understand something and has long term training and practice has difficulty executing a meaningful study then it is almost absurd to expect a lay person to be able to just throw together some project in their basement. It does happen but it is so infrequent that we hear about it when it does. Kind of like when a credentialed scientist intentionally fudges data. It does happen, but so infrequently that it is news-worthy. The more common case is simply drawing conclusions that aren't exactly represented by the data you gather. We do this very assignment with "real" papers all the time with students, at least once a week- read this "legitimate" publication from X highly reputed journal, tell me what it says and tell me why it shouldn't have said that. That's generally why we work in teams from an assortment of specialties, right? To avoid oversights that people from other backgrounds would/will catch.

You can set up some project in your basement and call your self an "official scientist" and a "lab" if you want, but no one will believe you until someone else in a more controlled setting with verifiable training can reproduce your results. In all likelihood, unless you are one of those very rare cases, they won't be able to or will be able to find a myriad of other obvious explanations for what you are seeing counter to what you concluded.

---------- Post added 03-06-2013 at 02:42 PM ----------

I don't think it's possible to do very distinct hybrids with Ts. Maybe over a few generations, but that requires lots of time and hobby is still young. Maybe all those sp. "Cool Color Name" are hybrids, but we don't know it.

You missing my point a bit here- not talking about whether it's possible because as you said that has yet to really be tested (no one would give it a chance, so not gonna happen in the current climate), more wondering why it is ethically acceptable to do with orchids (or any other plant for that matter- very little regard for "species purity" due to this are of study and production we call horticulture) or parrots or cats but not in the "herp" related hobbies specifically. Snake people get angry (though there was a rash of hybrids for a while), dart frog people will eat your soul if you present a hybrid specimen, tarantula people can't resist flaming you. Somehow seem to be highly defensive of this particular realm. Anything you can buy in a "reptile" store or expo is more or less of limits to would-be hybridizers yet there is really no outrage or distress or even much conversation at all about hybrids with most other hobby animals.

I don't think it is about a very distinct hybrid. Look at hybrid macaws. There is very little distinguishable difference between parent and hybrid offspring in very many cases yet they are ubiquitous and fetch the same dollar as the species adults. Cats are likewise- in fact the whole purpose with most cats is to get an animal that looks like the wild parent but doesn't require a wild cat permit. So in this case we are purposely trying to make them confusingly similar. Do we not also run the risk of losing track of who is what with cats? Isn't that the concern with hybrid spiders?

Just always thought that was kind of funny, like either people should be more angry about all the other hybrid animals being produced or be less angry about hybrid Ts and snakes and frogs and stuff. That's all.

Just want to mention that this is a very good conversation about hybrids and such as well, it didn't get ugly and flushed out some very good points. Glad it is going so well, makes it interesting instead of just another boring hybrid trashing thread.

---------- Post added 03-06-2013 at 03:00 PM ----------

* Note that geneticists do not normally concern themselves with concepts such as species. To a geneticist, a hybrid is the result of a cross between any two differing individuals, and the term is most often used to describe a combination of two different visible characters ("phenotype," e.g., hybrid for petal color), or two demonstrably different genetic characters or traits ("genotype," e.g., hybrid for NLGN1) in an organism. And, since the results of researches in Genetics are always consistent and reproducible, Genetics can be considered a true science.

I'm not sure I agree with this though- a great many times it is the geneticists who ultimately decide where to split the species, or at least confirm that the taxonomist was correct. Some make their living this way. "Differing" of course is very relative, but as you have hinted at and discussed in other threads species are a somewhat fluid set of animals that fall on a curve. At some point they are decidedly "the same" relatively as the others on the curve and the "differing" individuals are found to fall on another curve. The level of tolerance is always questioned but even geneticists do eventually decide that there is an overwhelming amount of similarity between a set of X individuals that they can barely be considered "differing" in any meaningful way such as we find in humans, for example. I know you do not concern yourself with species, but being able to categorize and track the changes within a population that is considered a species by virtue of it's relative lack of differences from individual to individual has plenty of useful applications in an assortment of fields of studies and so this approach persists and will likely persist forever.