My 1st instar LP

[advan]

Hi Stan, you have two pictures of post-embryo's(EWL's) and the second is labelled first instar, which messes with the rest of your order. I would like to add that there are species that are fast at first instar, even faster then other's at second instar. Psalmopoeus would be an example and I'm sure there are many others.

 

[AmysAnimals]

If it has not already molted I can try and get a quick shot of it again. Hopefully it won't be such a large file. I can try and minimize it a little though if I can't upload it.

From ALL the things I have seen/read/been told my LP is first instar.

Either way this has become an interesting thread for me. =P

I would like to note that my LP has not eaten at all in my care...I've never offered it anything since I was advised not to. Just kept it humid and warm.

 

[Stan Schultz]

It's confusion over the names again (I think we've been through this in an email exchange and some thread someewhere). ...

Oh, yeah! I dimly remember something about it, now that you mention it. (I just bought myself a pack of generic label, Post-It notes the other day so I won't forget important things. Now I'm forgetting to look at them!

... I meant was that it's what you have labelled as second instar. That is why I added "or the instar before they become fully fledged, predaceous hunters" after that.
And, like I said, there were numerous much larger, much clearer pics from the other thread posted of the exact same spider that is the subject of this thread. ...

I wish posters would continue adding to the original thread rather than starting new threads every time they feel like it. What they posted last time is still very fresh in their minds because they spent a lot of time and effort in composition and the photos. But, the rest of us are monitoring a hundred or more other postings a day and have trouble merely keeping up with responses we made yesterday, much less tracking obscure histories over weeks or months. I missed it. I'm sorry.

... As you can plainly see, The tarantula in question is clearly a first instar (your second instar) or simply, the instar before they are fully functional tarantulas. We are all talking about the same stage of development. ...

No, it's Downes' definition. And, it's accepted and used by a lot of big name arachnologists, not just me. I'm not its inventor. I'm just the messenger.

The definition does not count backwards from when they begin to look like some sort of adult. That's far too subjective a characteristic, especially when you consider that the definition is used not only across 930+ theraphosids scattered among almost a dozen subfamilies, but across almost 43,000 spiders, total. You could not believe the spectrum of variation in such a collection of putatively "closely related" animals!

The definition clearly states that the instar number is the same as the number of TRUE MOLTS that the tarantula has experienced. I emphasize that because many people still get confused about the difference between casting off the chorion (eclosion or hatching) which was made by Mama, and casting off an old exoskeleton that was made by baby (ecdysis or molting).

While there is potentially a lot of confusion about when the baby tarantula begins to look like an adult, there is no confusion about the number of molts if you're raising them from the egg in an incubator. You're there twice daily checking on your little darlings and making notes in a journal. That's what Tabbie did with her G. rosea eggs and babies. That's why we are absolutely certain of the stage of each photo. There was no guessing or estimating. It was a matter of simple counting: one, two, three...

Once we have that series of accurately labeled photographs, and we compare them carefully, we can generate a verbal description for identifying the same stages in cases where we don't have or couldn't keep accurate track of the molts, as in this case. This part is an estimation, but even then the differences between the stages are so obvious if you just look and compare (at least through 3rd Instar) that I wonder why people still get it wrong.

... Here is the link to the thread, just in case you want to see these posts in their natural habitat: http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?231167-My-LP-is-here!-Take-a-look! ...

In this posting, RyanW (not to be confused with Ryan "Talkenlate04" Nefcy, a photo-contributor to TKG3 and well known for his tarantula photos on this forum) is off by one stage. Those are 2nd Instar babies with one 3rd Instar baby for comparison. The 3rd Instar has a patch of urticating bristles, the 2nd Instars do not.

... Nothing further, your Honor.

My Honor, my ***! I already have a big enough ego. Don't do anything that might encourage it! :laugh:


Enjoy your little, 8-legged, molt counting buddies.

---------- Post added 06-30-2012 at 09:49 PM ----------

Hi Stan, you have two pictures of post-embryo's(EWL's) and the second is labelled first instar, ...

Sorry, but no. They are exactly correct as they are labelled. After I read this I went back and double checked, and the written descriptions are also accurate. Tabbie was extremely careful to take notes as they developed. And, if you compare their finer characteristics (you may need to click the image several times as instructed in that response) you can see that there are indeed distinct developmental changes between them, thus verifying the labeling.

... I would like to add that there are species that are fast at first instar, even faster then other's at second instar. Psalmopoeus would be an example and I'm sure there are many others.

I assume you mean that they develop faster than other tarantulas rather than how fast they can run. :biggrin: I just have to be careful I don't misunderstand.

As hinted in my previous response, Psalmopoeus belongs to a different subfamily (SELENOCOSMIINAE), and therefore marches to a somewhat different drummer. The photos and description that I have posted are only trustworthy with theraphosine tarantulas (THERAPHOSINAE).

In 2008, Ryan "Talkenlate04" Nefcy published a series of truly remarkable photos on this forum, many of them of developing embryos and babies of other species, at least one being a Poecilotheria as I remember. You might perform a search for "Talkenlate04" to see if they're still available. They're real "jaw droppers!" And, if someone wants to resurrect the thread we might be able to develop a series of photos illustrating the development of another distantly related species.

Enjoy your little, 8-legged bundle of joy!

---------- Post added 06-30-2012 at 09:52 PM ----------

So my little LP is finally in premolt. Let's hope it has a healthy molt! ...

Well I'm sorry, "AmysAnimals." I have succeeded in completely hijacking your thread on you. Forgive me.

Keep us posted on how your little beggar progresses.


Enjoy your little, 8-legged "tarantzilla!"

 

[jayefbe]

Hi Stan, you have two pictures of post-embryo's(EWL's) and the second is labelled first instar, which messes with the rest of your order.

Those a great pictures Stan, and it is helpful information. Especially why EWL is not considered a first instar. But I gotta say that what advan said agrees with most everything I've seen. Once you account for the two EWL stages, we're all really talking about the same developmental stage here.

 

[Philth]

Sorry, but no. They are exactly correct as they are labelled. After I read this I went back and double checked, and the written descriptions are also accurate. Tabbie was extremely careful to take notes as they developed. And, if you compare their finer characteristics (you may need to click the image several times as instructed in that response) you can see that there are indeed distinct developmental changes between them, thus verifying the labeling.

I don't buy it. Sorry Stan but I politely disagree here as well. What you have labeled as postembryo and first instar are the same. There are some exceptions, Like some Poecilotheria have a weird extra stage/molt before they begin to feed, but for the most part 2nd instar is when they become active hunters.

Later, Tom

 

[advan]

Sorry, but no. They are exactly correct as they are labelled. After I read this I went back and double checked, and the written descriptions are also accurate. Tabbie was extremely careful to take notes as they developed. And, if you compare their finer characteristics (you may need to click the image several times as instructed in that response) you can see that there are indeed distinct developmental changes between them, thus verifying the labeling.

The only difference I see from those two photos is in the second photo the EWL's are darkening up to molt. I wouldn't consider that a new stage. I know the terms can be confusing between the US and Europe but I've never seen or heard of an EWL molting into another EWL. That's just silly.

I assume you mean that they develop faster than other tarantulas rather than how fast they can run. :biggrin: I just have to be careful I don't misunderstand.

Nope, I'm talking about them running! Fast little buggers, it takes them about a week to harden up from the post-embryo molt and they can zoom.

As hinted in my previous response, Psalmopoeus belongs to a different subfamily (SELENOCOSMIINAE), and therefore marches to a somewhat different drummer. The photos and description that I have posted are only trustworthy with theraphosine tarantulas (THERAPHOSINAE).

The development should be the same throughout all Theraphosidae with the exception of Poecilotheria formosa, Poecilothera miranda, Poecilotheria metallica and Poecilotheria tigrinawesseli that are commonly bred in captivity.

In 2008, Ryan "Talkenlate04" Nefcy published a series of truly remarkable photos on this forum, many of them of developing embryos and babies of other species, at least one being a Poecilotheria as I remember. You might perform a search for "Talkenlate04" to see if they're still available. They're real "jaw droppers!" And, if someone wants to resurrect the thread we might be able to develop a series of photos illustrating the development of another distantly related species.

Yes, I've seen these and they are awesome but I don't think I'm the one who needs to go back and check them out again.

 

[Stan Schultz]

Those a great pictures Stan, and it is helpful information. Especially why EWL is not considered a first instar. But I gotta say that what advan said agrees with most everything I've seen. ...

I once had an electrician doing some wiring in my home. He screwed it up. When I complained, one of his statements was, "But, that's the way I've been doing it for twenty years!" My response was, "That doesn't make it right. That just means you've been doing it wrong for twenty years!" :sarcasm:

He was not happy with me. Nor I with him!

The message is that just because lots of people have been using an erroneous system for lots of years doesn't make it right. It just means that lots of people have been getting it wrong for lots of years.

... Once you account for the two EWL stages, we're all really talking about the same developmental stage here.

That's a pretty broad statement. I will tentatively agree with you, not wanting to take the time to examine and critique what each poster on the subject has declared over the last 5 or 10 years. But, the important point is that now YOU (plural, as in everybody who reads this thread) all know the right way and will not only get it right in all future postings, but can call out anyone who screws it up, no?

WAY TO GO, SPORTS FANS! :clap:

 

[Philth]

:?:?:?

Later, Tom