Hybrid?

[syndicate]

Just wanted to add some info to your question, without really answering it

The P. cambridgei I have sold, and am still selling are pure. The mother/father of the parents came direct from Trinidad along with the T. plumipes I have from there.

There were WC P. irminia that came in sometime in 2006. I think adults were sold as "CB" along with some adult C. cyaneopubescens, but that was a lie (they went to Europe first then shipped to the U.S. as "CB").

Eric

ah nice one Eric.well i hope for the hobbys sake that not to much of the Psalm bloodlines are tainted hehe

 

[pato_chacoana]

I didn't miss anything. What's up with those capital letters? I am very aware of the hybrid topic, I have no need to discuss it with anyone.

Pato.

No. Do you know there are any purely bred ones in the wild either?



Yup. So's global warming.

And Rob Schinder.

Hybrids can tell us important information. While I partially agree with the logic of keeping them under wraps, I have to also conclude that many of the arguments against them are made by people who are poorly informed.

Also, you've missed the two calls above to NOT TURN THIS THREAD INTO A DEBATE ABOUT HYBRIDS!

 

[tarcan]

There are people that know Psalmopoeus that believe cambridgei is just a color variant of irminia.Chris

I have a stupid question here... and I am not doubting or even discussing of this is true or not or possible or not.

If this would prove to be true... when both species are synonimised, they would get the name P. cambridgei right? Since it is the first one described of the two.

Then, on paper, it would appear that irminia would prove to be a color variant of cambridgei just because it was described later. But since Trinidad detached from South America, logic in that perspective is that cambridgei "color form" "evolved" from the "mainland" form because of it's insularity, right...

So in this case, the "regulation" of naming it the first name it was given, would it not in theory be "misleading" because it would imply that irminia is the colour variant of cambridgei, but evolution wise, logic dictates that it should be the contrary?

I know, it is completly obsolete to the actual thread, I apologize, but I was wondering about that.

Any thought? Or I am not making any sense at all. Does this situation ever occur in taxonomy where two "species" proves to be the same and when synonimised, the "older" name reffers to what appers to be the more recent "colour form" of the two.

Martin

 

[DrAce]

...
If this would prove to be true... when both species are synonimised, they would get the name P. cambridgei right? Since it is the first one described of the two.

Then, on paper, it would appear that irminia would prove to be a color variant of cambridgei just because it was described later. But since Trinidad detached from South America, logic in that perspective is that cambridgei "color form" "evolved" from the "mainland" form because of it's insularity, right...

So in this case, the "regulation" of naming it the first name it was given, would it not in theory be "misleading" because it would imply that irminia is the colour variant of cambridgei, but evolution wise, logic dictates that it should be the contrary?

I know, it is completly obsolete to the actual thread, I apologize, but I was wondering about that.

Any thought? Or I am not making any sense at all. Does this situation ever occur in taxonomy where two "species" proves to be the same and when synonimised, the "older" name reffers to what appers to be the more recent "colour form" of the two.

Martin

You are techinically right, although you can't easily tell which 'evolved' the colour from the other. Evolution tends to work faster on islands... but not always.

 

[hamfoto]

fertile hybrids offsprings? ohh...that's bad, very bad...

No it's not. People seem to have this idea that hybrids are rare...they are not! There are natural hybrids all over the world. A sterile hybrid, like a mule, is actually a rare case.

Chris

 

[hamfoto]

It's not stupid.

But here's the problem...species is a concept we created. Organisms don't always follow our ideas of how they should be. Just because they can "hybridise" doesn't mean they're the same species. I would call them different species because they have now become isolated and have started to evolve down different paths.

And generally when names are synonymized, they refer back to the first (original) name. I'm sure there is probably some example out there of using other names...but can't think of any of the top of my head. I personally don't think that just because one species was named first, that the name should take precedence. I think it should be determined by evolutionary history...who came from who.

And back to the "experiment"...I don't think it's dumb, worthless experiment. It tells you something...information is valuable. And being able to quantify information makes it even more valuable...instead of just having theories.

Chris

I have a stupid question here... and I am not doubting or even discussing of this is true or not or possible or not.

If this would prove to be true... when both species are synonimised, they would get the name P. cambridgei right? Since it is the first one described of the two.

Then, on paper, it would appear that irminia would prove to be a color variant of cambridgei just because it was described later. But since Trinidad detached from South America, logic in that perspective is that cambridgei "color form" "evolved" from the "mainland" form because of it's insularity, right...

So in this case, the "regulation" of naming it the first name it was given, would it not in theory be "misleading" because it would imply that irminia is the colour variant of cambridgei, but evolution wise, logic dictates that it should be the contrary?

I know, it is completly obsolete to the actual thread, I apologize, but I was wondering about that.

Any thought? Or I am not making any sense at all. Does this situation ever occur in taxonomy where two "species" proves to be the same and when synonimised, the "older" name reffers to what appers to be the more recent "colour form" of the two.

Martin

 

[DrAce]

...
And back to the "experiment"...I don't think it's dumb, worthless experiment. It tells you something...information is valuable. And being able to quantify information makes it even more valuable...instead of just having theories.

Chris

What would you conclude from it... given each of the possible outcomes.

WHAT information would you gather?

Do you have a good positive/negative control for it?

 

[pato_chacoana]

No it's not. People seem to have this idea that hybrids are rare...they are not! There are natural hybrids all over the world. A sterile hybrid, like a mule, is actually a rare case.

Chris

Hybrids occur in nature, I know. But that's another story, totally different. However, I prefer different species.

To name species by evolutionary history?? Theraphosidae taxonomy is a mess already, imagine if you will do that?
I hate common names, but I have to admit that sometimes are useful, because the way taxonomy is determined can change all the time....you end up with one spider that has like 5 names, istead of 5 different species...
never ending story...

 

[DrAce]

Hybrids occur in nature, I know. But that's another story, totally different. However, I prefer different species.

I don't even understand the kind of confusion of ideas which would lead to a statement like that.

How, exactly, is a naturally occuring hybrid different from a captive one?

Is there some sort of label that occurs naturally which enables naturally occuring hybrids to be identified?

To name species by evolutionary history?? Theraphosidae taxonomy is a mess already, imagine if you will do that?
I hate common names, but I have to admit that sometimes are useful, because the way taxonomy is determined can change all the time....you end up with one spider that has like 5 names, istead of 5 different species...
never ending story...

Again, I really don't even know why you might think that common names are somehow more accurate than scientific ones. By and large, scientific taxonomy doesn't change much. If it does, it's by way of very good information.
Common names change because the pet shop was on the north side of the street, not the south side.

 

[DrAce]

I didn't miss anything. What's up with those capital letters? I am very aware of the hybrid topic, I have no need to discuss it with anyone.

Pato.

You are, yet again, quite right. I had confused your original comment for a statement of you opinion about hybrids. And I was also confused that you may have been discussing it on a discussion board.

fertile hybrids offsprings? ohh...that's bad, very bad...

Wait... no, it was! You think they are bad.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the comment that two people, including the original poster, requested NOT happen.

The capital letters are called 'expressive accenting'. They're used because it was less obtrusive than increasing the font size. If I was talking to you, it would have been because I was raising my voice, slightly... although not at a yell. Yells are reserved for size '24' font.

 

[pato_chacoana]

Ok. Who are you to tell me what to post in this thread? I'm not getting into this...besides I would explain much better what I want to say in spanish hehe- I didn't say common names are better. And you are reading and interpreting what you want, it's useless that I try to explain anything, and I don't feel like wasting time with you either ;-) it's not that I'm saying that you know nothing about spiders, don't take it the wrong way.
Well, I've worked with a taxonimist, I know a little about it. IT CHANGES, do you know for example how many times a species is transfered to another genus???
Anyway, that's it for me in this thread, it was interesting to see such spider though.

PAto.

 

[DrAce]

Ok. Who are you to tell me what to post in this thread?

Sir, I am just pointing out what you say. I appreciate that your native language isn't English, but what you are saying demonstrates that you don't know what you talk about.

I have twice pointed out where the person who started this thread asked people very specifically that he didn't want to read people's opinions of what they thought about hybrids.

You then gave your opinion.

You say things like this:

Hybrids occur in nature, I know. But that's another story, totally different...

Which makes no sense... even if it was translated from Spanish.


You've then said:

...I hate common names, but I have to admit that sometimes are useful, because the way taxonomy is determined can change all the time....you end up with one spider that has like 5 names, istead of 5 different species...
never ending story...

Which isn't true. I then pointed that out. Common names are not useful because they refer to different things in different places, AND there are multiple names for single species. That's a big step backwards from binomial nomenclature.

...I didn't say common names are better. And you are reading and interpreting what you want, it's useless that I try to explain anything, and I don't feel like wasting time with you either ;-) it's not that I'm saying that you know nothing about spiders, don't take it the wrong way...

Sir, what you said (above) is that it was useful, and by then commenting about the disadvantages of the scientific system you implied that it was somehow inferior.

That's not interpretation, that's reading. I've presented it above for you to read again.

 

[pato_chacoana]

I'll be short.

The person who started the thread can speak for himself.

I didn't post my opinion about hybrids, I just replyed that I think it's bad about the offsprings. That it's not a debate! it's just the way I see about hybrid offsprings! You can find my opinion about hybrids in some old thread. Here I DO NOT intent to make one.

I DON'T think that common names are better! or superior! far from it. I said that sometimes are useful, because cientific names DO change too, and sometimes common (official) english names don't. I don't think that cientific names are bad or useless!!!!!!!!!!! just that sometimes when it changes, the common name remains.

Maybe I wasn't explaining right, what none of the things you said are what I meant (read the above please)

Pato.

 

[Merfolk]

It's not stupid.

But here's the problem...species is a concept we created.

Chris

What a wise saying!!! And I would extend it to the concept of order, like if mammals, birds, reptiles and all were tightly separated, while you have animals like the platypus that seem to cross the border!

 

[pato_chacoana]

Yes! We humans seem to have this need to label everything! haha

 

[_bob_]

alrighty here's some good stuff =P

Bob

 

[Stylopidae]

What a wise saying!!! And I would extend it to the concept of order, like if mammals, birds, reptiles and all were tightly separated, while you have animals like the platypus that seem to cross the border!

It's not just a saying, it's the reality of the phenomena biologists try to describe. Groups grade into one another. It's an empirical reality.

Again, I really don't even know why you might think that common names are somehow more accurate than scientific ones. By and large, scientific taxonomy doesn't change much. If it does, it's by way of very good information.
Common names change because the pet shop was on the north side of the street, not the south side.

I've talked to importers who flat out tell me that they make up their own common names. Pet store owners around here have told me the same thing.

I DON'T think that common names are better! or superior! far from it. I said that sometimes are useful, because cientific names DO change too, and sometimes common (official) english names don't. I don't think that cientific names are bad or useless!

just that sometimes when it changes, the common name remains.

I deleted your superfluous punctuation marks.

Common names are beyond meaningless.

Scientific names do change as these organisms are studied. Reclassification is simply a function of discovery. They are classified with the spiders they are most closely related to as far as we can tell and because of this, the old name becomes essentially useless because it no longer describes the animal. This is why trying your best to keep up on taxonomy is important.

Problem is that most studies on tarantulas (that I know of) are done through morphology, not at the molecular level. So expect more reclassification in the future.

However, there is almost no basis for common names. None. Importers and shop owners invent their own common names based upon a supposed country of origin and some superficial feature on the spider. They are arbitrary and have no meaning.

A picture of this spider's spermecethae should clear this up or at least shed a bit more light on the details...as I understand it, these two species have differently shaped spermecethae.

 

[_bob_]

Ah good thinking... She just molted but her molt didn't survive. So I will have to get a picture of it when she molts again.

Bob

 

[pato_chacoana]

Once again, I don't even use common names, I don't like them either. But I remember in an old ATS magazine that there was an ''official'' common names list, so that if the cientific name changes (or miss label, bad ID's, etc), you have the other name ONLY as a reference. Only this I could think as an advantage.
I know how taxonomy studies are done. But it depends who is doing the work, taking different characteristics into consideration to classify species. For example, one scientist could put the Grammostola genus within 6 species only, an another could say there are 30 different species. Grammostola's genitalia are identical in many species and very similar in somatics as well.
Do you get my point?

Pato.

It's not just a saying, it's the reality of the phenomena biologists try to describe. Groups grade into one another. It's an empirical reality.



I've talked to importers who flat out tell me that they make up their own common names. Pet store owners around here have told me the same thing.



I deleted your superfluous punctuation marks.

Common names are beyond meaningless.

Scientific names do change as these organisms are studied. Reclassification is simply a function of discovery. They are classified with the spiders they are most closely related to as far as we can tell and because of this, the old name becomes essentially useless because it no longer describes the animal. This is why trying your best to keep up on taxonomy is important.

Problem is that most studies on tarantulas (that I know of) are done through morphology, not at the molecular level. So expect more reclassification in the future.

However, there is almost no basis for common names. None. Importers and shop owners invent their own common names based upon a supposed country of origin and some superficial feature on the spider. They are arbitrary and have no meaning.

A picture of this spider's spermecethae should clear this up or at least shed a bit more light on the details...as I understand it, these two species have differently shaped spermecethae.

 

[Larkin]

Hi,

a picture of it's Stridulation organ may be usefull as well.
They are quite different in both species.

Cheers,
Tom