Indian Ornamental (female) + Singapore Blue (male)

[Scorpendra]

enough about the brachys and grammos, your analogy doesn't apply. the two genera said in the original post are from different subfamilies, all the ones you keep saying are from genera in the same subfamily. it's humans/orangutans, not humans/gorillas.

 

[C_Strike]

Im not disagreeing in certain situations, Orchids being a great example.
Situation with the Pamphobeteus and vitalius is probably down to the fact they are incredibly similar anywho,though i dont understand the ytaxonomic difference between the two genus.
But in this instance, i do feel that if this cross genus breeding occurs it should be much more known than it is.the classification of spiders is new, accidents can and do happen, a report stating about the cross genus breeeding would need to be revised in order to see if the situation can be rectified
Revisions are made and names changed.

A pallidum, B pallidum... the spiders anatomy hasnt changed, only the name.. apprently changing genus..though the spider itself hasnt changed. If this crossbreeding is successful, then the classification of the two is wrong. As far as i understand, other than this crosbreeding shouldnt be able to occur over diff genus.
The Linneaus system is nothing more than a humans ATTEMPT to classify. Problem is nature is liquid, evolution is liquid and always changing, and developing. At what point does a species, through evolution, evolve into a diferent species? Will we be able to recognise this in the long future? or will the name stay the same, and EG Brachypelma grew an extra leg somehow. Would it be called
Well, your points are true, but by definition it shouldnt be possible.
Nature is more complexed than to have set labels, set rules and things.
But if they are truely what specifies a Brachy, and what specifies a Grammostola, then it isnt possible.
As said the system is flawed, there will never be a system that works for all life.
A big point that i hold is the concept of 'lock and key' the spermathecae, and emboli are both methods of description, they are vastly differnet between most spiders. Im sure one reason of this is the fact of natural hybridisation.
Avic emboli are needle shape, that isnt going to work for the vast majority of other species. Though i say that, such genus that are very similar to another, Pampho, Vitalius are one of these aspects of life that doesnt quite fit the labeling system.. Very similar, maybe the evolutionary difference has only developed recently in history, they havent truely devided into seperate genus.so to speak.
The classification system can only state, yes or no as to whether they fit into a genus.
I can only suppose, i dont know enough about any of the aspects of this conversation to hold it out, but i dont see cross genus being correct.
I know most snakes can interbreed too. I dont feel its truely cross genus, its just they dont quite warrent being in a different genus... but at that the system cant recognise anything other than the current format of levels. species, genus. Now i know this isnt corect, but something to understand that although these snakes have taken vastly different evolutionary tales, they still retain common genes. I dont truely class that as seperate genus, i place that upon a system that cant understand. But its the best availabe, and will be near enough impossible to better, any changes to the system will have drastic affects on the whole taxonomic world.

I hope that makes sense, iv jsut finished work...i gotta go out and havent had a chance to check it all. I hope i dont piss any1 off somehow. I m just trying to work out and understand your standing point Darkfinder, which i do hold some agreement to, but not related to the Linneaus system.
Cheers

 

[ShadowBlade]

breed a grammostola and a brachypelma, produce a fertile sac, and show me the offspring. then i will believe you. or better yet, a poecilotheria and a cyriopagopus, like this topic's actually about.

Okay, excluding mis-identifications and taxonomical errors, you should know that species and genus are only divisions in a never-ending continuum.

Through research, you can find species of different genus closer and closer related to each other, until you find a pair genetically related enough to produce viable offspring. See, the phylogenetic relations between say Aphonopelma and Brachypelma (possible to find bridging species) are much closer then like Cyriocosmus and Poecilotheria (not likely).

Labeling species in different genus is not a magical barrier. It may be mostly correct, but there will be imperfections and exceptions to it.

And of course, ALL this will be different if the Mayr/Henning theory is ever put into play.

-Sean

 

[spydrhunter1]

Amen brother amen....I have a large collection of widows representing several species, and the question I get asked most. What would happen if you cross breed them? Aren't there enough animals out there for us to enjoy, without CREATING something new.

 

[Scorpendra]

Okay, excluding mis-identifications and taxonomical errors, you should know that species and genus are only divisions in a never-ending continuum.

Through research, you can find species of different genus closer and closer related to each other, until you find a pair genetically related enough to produce viable offspring. See, the phylogenetic relations between say Aphonopelma and Brachypelma (possible to find bridging species) are much closer then like Cyriocosmus and Poecilotheria (not likely).

Labeling species in different genus is not a magical barrier. It may be mostly correct, but there will be imperfections and exceptions to it.

And of course, ALL this will be different if the Mayr/Henning theory is ever put into play.

-Sean

the boundaries creates by taxonomic terms may not be solid and unmoving, but that doesn't mean their foundations are weak enough where any Theraphosa spp. and any Thrixopelma spp. could readily breed and produce a fertile eggsac with non-sterile offspring.

people can make all the guesses they want based on related but different data, but a clear experiment is the only way to be certain to any extent. broaden the hypothetical experiment by using multiple species from Brachypelma and Grammostola. now that i think about it, such experiments could be very useful in re-defining said boundaries.

 

[ShadowBlade]

breed a grammostola and a brachypelma, produce a fertile sac, and show me the offspring. then i will believe you.

But this is poor logic, the burden of proof would also be on you to prove that they CAN'T cross-breed. Its not a one-way street.

There is not even evidence to prove that they can't, so why require proof they can to make it fact?

-Sean

 

[Scorpendra]

i will gladly admit that i'm wrong about that if i'm proven so, but i've yet to be. i've even admitted that i could be wrong in the first post in which i addressed it. the thing is, i neither have the experience in tarantula breeding in general nor the necessary tarantulas to carry out the deciding experiment. only someone with the proper resources of species from those genera can perform it. you're right about it being a double-edged sword, but i personally am exempt due to the present circumstances.

it is beyond the point, however, because Poecilotheria spp. and Cyriopagopus spp. are not Grammostola spp. and Brachypelma spp. you could very well be right about this, but it'd still be inconsequential towards whether hybridization between tarantulas from those specific genera can occur. if they're "too far apart" for it to be done, wouldn't that mean that there are boundaries in tarantula genetics and compatability?

 

[ShadowBlade]

i will gladly admit that i'm wrong about that if i'm proven so, but i've yet to be.

You've yet to be proven right however. Just wanted to point that out.

if they're "too far apart" for it to be done, wouldn't that mean that there are boundaries in tarantula genetics and compatability?

Of course there are boundaries, but these are not determined by species or genus. It is the genetic differences that are attempted to be labeled by these taxonomical divisions. Some accurately, some not.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, just debating like everyone else.

-Sean

 

[Scorpendra]

You've yet to be proven right however. Just wanted to point that out.

re-read the rest of the post.

Of course there are boundaries, but these are not determined by species or genus. It is the genetic differences that are attempted to be labeled by these taxonomical divisions. Some accurately, some not.

if the boundaries are innacurate, they are re-done to better fit the genetic differences. while what you're saying is right, the taxonomic divisions haven't been pulled out of thin air. while the two boundaries are not aligned perfectly, they are similar in appearance.

 

[Becky]

ok, i have a adult female indian ornamental, and was wondering, since the ratio of males to females is 1 female to every 5 males, (in Singapore Blue ) if i got a male, try and breed him with my indian ornamental. i have read meny storys about cross-breeding working. i was just wondering what would you get, a very big blue/purple indian ornamental or a Singapore Blue with awasome pattens?

just a thought that might be put in to action.

BAD idea! (as im sure you've noticed now. I havent read through lol)

But basically if the spiders mated and produced a sac, the offspring would all be infertile anyway. Two different species (Poecilotheria and Cyriopagopus)... VERY unlikely.. not to mention bad for the hobby.

 

[TheDarkFinder]

the offspring would all be infertile anyway.

Please tell me why? Why would they be infertile anyway? Please pick up any good biology book on this before making blank statements.

 

[C_Strike]

See, reading how adamant Dark is about this, i do agree with much said by him. Equally though my own judgements and understanding of the need of species and genus means i cant agree wholey.
If diff genus do produce fertile sacs/ or hybrids then the species involved need revisions.
these 'boundries;' are only in place to help humans understand, there is human error involved.
Taxonomy is a touchy subject because any1 can describe a species. Look at the troubles with some current 'taxonomist' messing it all up imo (Not mentioning names, im sure those who have read a bit about him would understand)
Other taxonomists then have to come along and ammend such problems. My point being if these people can do 'describe' a species, without having much scientifc knowledge and understanding of the whole taxonomy, mistakes will happen, and species can and will need changing to other genus. This fact, its not crossbreeding, but when seen on paper it is, they 'supposedly' crossbreed, yet they could well belong in the same genus.
Its only some persons 'label' , nothing more.

 

[Merfolk]

One question I got: Do you think the outcome would be different if it was a male pokie and a female Cyriopagopus?

I equines, the sex of parents is important when you do cross breed

 

[Stylopidae]

See, reading how adamant Dark is about this, i do agree with much said by him.

This is the singular worst reason to agree with anyone. Ever.

TDF does know what he's talking about quite a bit of the time, though.

I've ducked out of the conversation because I'm still a bit fuzzy on how genera are seperated so there isn't a whole lot I can add to the conversation.

 

[TheDarkFinder]

I've ducked out of the conversation because I'm still a bit fuzzy on how genera are seperated so there isn't a whole lot I can add to the conversation.

Since you asked I think I can help you on this.

It is 10:00 at night a my wife is sleeping so I can not get the books out but here is the run down. Oh I do not know if this all applies to taxamony of tarantulas, it really should considering this is the rules.

A genus must have a type animal, the animal that is most studied, that they have the most examples of, or first described. In this example we will look at Poecilotheria because everyone loves pokies.

In Poecilotheria, Poecilotheria fasciata is the type animal. Type animal is the animal that all other of the new genus are compared to.

They are compared on three basic levels.

reasonable compactness- All species in the genus must be discreet. Try not to just add and add animals because you want to. IE do not get lazy and place everything you see in one group.

monophyly - all theoretical descendants.

distinctness- Are they found in the same geographical location and in the same type of environment. Do they have the same ecology. Do they look very similar, ie do they have leg strips?

And that is about it. Genus descriptions can and do contain more then that. They describe in detail what they have in common and why they are similar, but no species can be placed into a genus with out the basic three.


Note: this is required to add a species to a genus. But is not required to make a new genus. If the type genus become in doubt then all of the species needs to be reclassified.

Note: DNA is not need to establish genetic relationship but is is helpful. It give s a guide line on theoretical descendants. At no point in time is DNA link needed to place a animal into the genus, nor proving a genetic link to another genus invalidates that genus.

Two species can be very closely related, IE humans and Chimps, if we still lived in a natural setting, we share more in common genetically and are chimps are our closest descendants, we share common ecology, geographic location, and would not create too large of a genus if brought to Homo, but they are not included in Homo. So a genetic link is not needed.

I'm tired and will get the books in the morning. IF anyone has more information on this please post, or if I'm missing something huge. I'm tired.

 

[Becky]

Please tell me why? Why would they be infertile anyway? Please pick up any good biology book on this before making blank statements.

woah someone's touchy! Two dif species don't produce viable offspring e.g. horses and donkeys - mules aren't fertile. Same sorta thing...

Taken from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may96/831665023.Ge.r.html

The nature of the hybrid can be used to determine the relationship of the two parents: if the hybrid is able to reproduce, then the parents were both members of the same species; if the hybrid is sterile (unable to reproduce), then the parents were members of different species. (Poecilotheria and Cyriopgaopus... different species!!!)

In both cases, the two organisms crossed must be very closely related to produce any offspring. Generally this means that they must at least be in the same genus, although often that is not even enough.


Poecilotheria and Cyriopagopus are different genus'... Therefore not closely related at all. Donkeys are Equus asinus and horses are Equus caballus so same genus thats why offspring is produced. These 2 spiders are totally different

 

[TheDarkFinder]

Poecilotheria and Cyriopagopus are different genus'... Therefore not closely related at all. Donkeys are Equus asinus and horses are Equus caballus so same genus thats why offspring is produced. These 2 spiders are totally different

and no.

A cow and a buffalo. Most birds, most insects, I almost said incest, and a ton of other animals. Just do some reading please.

 

[Talkenlate04]

Ok question, the whole horse donkey thing, the mule is that a hybrid? Or does a hybrid have to be able to reproduce to be considered a hybrid?

 

[Scorpendra]

in order to be considered a hybrid, it just has to exist. most of them are sterile due to the combining of unlike genes.

 

[Talkenlate04]

in order to be considered a hybrid, it just has to exist. most of them are sterile due to the combining of unlike genes.

Oh so it does not matter at all if they can reproduce or not..... interesting. I would thing they'd have to. I learned something today, thank you sir. :worship: