Revision on Pamphobeteus and Megaphobema and description of new species.

[klawfran3]

I think what a lot of people here are having issue with is that they're thinking that there is too much individual variation within one species to figure out what is what. And yes, different color morphs and such might complicate things. But I don't think a lot of people realize that examining the genitals (and reproductive organs) is basically the definitive way to describe a species and figure out what you're looking at. The reproductive organs do NOT vary significantly between individuals of the same species.

Females and males of tarantulas (and most terrestrial inverts actually) have a sort of "lock and key" approach to their reproductive organs. Males bulbs really only fit into the epigynous furrow and spermatheca of a female of the same species. It's a form of prezygotic reproductive isolation that helps prevent hybridizing. Yes, hybrids CAN occur, but they're not common (especially in the wild) because of a whole suite of pre and postzygotic reproductive isolation measures that I won't get in to. But just know that hybridization is super rare in the wild for a reason, even with closely related species all living in the same region.

Their reproductive organs don't vary much at all within a species, because if they did it would prevent proper fertilization of a female of their own species by not even letting the male get inside her. Square block into round hole kinda problem, you get me? The spermatheca of a female always is the same between conspecific individuals too, it goes both ways. This way all the males of the species can maye with all the females, since their sexual organs fit together properly.

In fact, reproductive organs within a species are so consistent between individuals that it is literally often THE defining feature for identifying a species. By examining and taking measurements of a male and females genitals, we can then definitively say what is- and is not- a member of that species by just comparing that structure. The bulbs and spermatheca are complex organs with a very complicated structure. It's literally the lock and key as I said before. If you have a key that doesn't fit the lock, they're not the same species.

It doesn't matter if one spider is light tan and the other is a dark brown. Variation in phenotype does not always matter for defining a species, since some might be found in a darker soil or a lighter sand. What matters is if they can fit together. If they look slightly different they can be considered different ecotypes (commonly called races, subspecies, morphs, variants, etc. depending) but if their genitals are the same, they're the same species.

 

[xenesthis]

I'm going to make a prediction, and before the taxonomy guys blow a blue vein across their foreheads, calm down....It's just a simple "prediction" that the following pet trade Ts below will end up being the four species recently described:

Pamphobeteus sp. "esmeraldas" = Pamphobeteus matildeae
Pamphobeteus sp. "manabi" = Pamphobeteus jamacoaque
Pamphobeteus sp. "cascada" = Pamphobeteus skis
Pamphobeteus sp. "machala" = Pamphobeteus zaruma

Caveat: There is no taxonomic analysis here. None. Just a prediction. Sometimes we forget this is a hobby on this forum.

 

[c.h.esteban]

Pamphobeteus sp. "esmeraldas" = Pamphobeteus matildeae

P. sp. ESMERALDAS differs from P. matildeae by the shape of the receptacles, which do not have these thin necks.
The necks have almost the same width as the apical lobes.
See picture.

"Diagnosis: Pamphobeteus matildeae sp. nov. can be distinguished from all known congeners by the combined presence of elongate and thin necks of the receptacles, and well developed
apical lobes, approximately twice the width of the necks (spermathecae not so in all known congeners)."

Pamphobeteus sp. "manabi" = Pamphobeteus jamacoaque

Comparing the Fig. 27-32 (Sherwood et al., 2023f) and description of the male bulb, P. sp. MANABI differs from P. jamacoaque by a more slender A and PS are not so distinct. Good visible in prolateral and dorsal view.
See picture.
By the way, there was another Pamphobeteus sp. near the type locality of P. jamacoaque, which fits better (only around 50 km).

Pamphobeteus sp. "cascada" = Pamphobeteus skis

For P. sp. CASCADA a location near "Pichincha" was given by the collectors in public offers. This fits also to the juvenile coloration of P. sp. CASCADA, that was only known from western side of the cordillera.
Instead P skis are described for the eastern side (Provincia de Pastaza)

Pamphobeteus sp. "machala" = Pamphobeteus zaruma

The receptacle of P zaruma was described as "...receptacle with a single lobe at its apex, lobes asymmetrical, non-enlarged, non-elongate and non-straightened...".
In P. sp MACHALA the lobes could be enlarged and they are especially not asymmetrical.
See picture.

"Diagnosis: Pamphobeteus zaruma sp. nov. can be distinguished from females of P. crassifemur, P. fortis, P. grandis, P. lapola sp. nov., and P. ultramarinus by the asymmetrical and non-enlarged apical lobes of the spermathecal receptacles"




Feierabend!

01.jpg

• c.h.esteban
• Nov 19, 2023

02.jpg

• c.h.esteban
• Nov 19, 2023

 

[slocoj91]

Again I'm truly not trying to discount anyone or offend the work that people put ...

Thank you on the reading, thank you again on the answeres and thank you to the people who are researching tarantulas.

Best regards,

Don

This post highlights what I wanted to mention.

I think what a lot of people here are having issue with is that they're thinking that there is too much individual variation within one species to figure out what is what. And yes, different color morphs and such might complicate things. But I don't think a lot of people realize that examining the genitals (and reproductive organs) is basically the definitive way to describe a species and figure out what you're looking at. The reproductive organs do NOT vary significantly between individuals of the same species.

Females and males of tarantulas (and most terrestrial inverts actually) have a sort of "lock and key" approach to their reproductive organs. Males bulbs really only fit into the epigynous furrow and spermatheca of a female of the same species. It's a form of prezygotic reproductive isolation that helps prevent hybridizing. Yes, hybrids CAN occur, but they're not common (especially in the wild) because of a whole suite of pre and postzygotic reproductive isolation measures that I won't get in to. But just know that hybridization is super rare in the wild for a reason, even with closely related species all living in the same region.

Their reproductive organs don't vary much at all within a species, because if they did it would prevent proper fertilization of a female of their own species by not even letting the male get inside her. Square block into round hole kinda problem, you get me? The spermatheca of a female always is the same between conspecific individuals too, it goes both ways. This way all the males of the species can maye with all the females, since their sexual organs fit together properly.

In fact, reproductive organs within a species are so consistent between individuals that it is literally often THE defining feature for identifying a species. By examining and taking measurements of a male and females genitals, we can then definitively say what is- and is not- a member of that species by just comparing that structure. The bulbs and spermatheca are complex organs with a very complicated structure. It's literally the lock and key as I said before. If you have a key that doesn't fit the lock, they're not the same species.

It doesn't matter if one spider is light tan and the other is a dark brown. Variation in phenotype does not always matter for defining a species, since some might be found in a darker soil or a lighter sand. What matters is if they can fit together. If they look slightly different they can be considered different ecotypes (commonly called races, subspecies, morphs, variants, etc. depending) but if their genitals are the same, they're the same species.

*This* is why those bulb pics come up. If the key doesn't fit the lock, no reproduction happens. So this is a primary feature for identification. Any slight variants that impact how things fit would have to have a paired change in the female.

Grey areas then can be difficult, such as when museum specimens are limited to only females, or only males, because I'm not certain quite where we stand with being able to predict the female organs based only on the bulbs or vice versa.

It has occurred before that museum specimens were so considerably different - due to sexual dimorphism - that male and female specimens of one species weren't recognised to be from the same one initially.

Spinnerets can be incredibly informative as well.

Re Solaris, then, consider what the above means. How does someone examine palpal bulbs to the degree shown in the earlier images? Spermathecae can be 'seen' from moults. But detailed examination, examination of certain organs, benefits from a recently passed specimen. How many people are clamouring to donate bodies to research? Noting that reliable sourcing matters here, records etc. For individuals with vivid colouration they may be more likely to be taxidermied, or provided to someone who makes those.

And again, maybe you examine a specimen or two, and find there's nothing in a museum - that you have access to - that matches. When does that get called quits? I imagine some want to be cautious given the existing taxonomic chaos occurring with tarantulas.

 

[xenesthis]

P. sp. ESMERALDAS differs from P. matildeae by the shape of the receptacles, which do not have these thin necks.
The necks have almost the same width as the apical lobes.
See picture.

"Diagnosis: Pamphobeteus matildeae sp. nov. can be distinguished from all known congeners by the combined presence of elongate and thin necks of the receptacles, and well developed
apical lobes, approximately twice the width of the necks (spermathecae not so in all known congeners)."



Comparing the Fig. 27-32 (Sherwood et al., 2023f) and description of the male bulb, P. sp. MANABI differs from P. jamacoaque by a more slender A and PS are not so distinct. Good visible in prolateral and dorsal view.
See picture.
By the way, there was another Pamphobeteus sp. near the type locality of P. jamacoaque, which fits better (only around 50 km).



For P. sp. CASCADA a location near "Pichincha" was given by the collectors in public offers. This fits also to the juvenile coloration of P. sp. CASCADA, that was only known from western side of the cordillera.
Instead P skis are described for the eastern side (Provincia de Pastaza)




The receptacle of P zaruma was described as "...receptacle with a single lobe at its apex, lobes asymmetrical, non-enlarged, non-elongate and non-straightened...".
In P. sp MACHALA the lobes could be enlarged and they are especially not asymmetrical.
See picture.

"Diagnosis: Pamphobeteus zaruma sp. nov. can be distinguished from females of P. crassifemur, P. fortis, P. grandis, P. lapola sp. nov., and P. ultramarinus by the asymmetrical and non-enlarged apical lobes of the spermathecal receptacles"




Feierabend!

01.jpg

• c.h.esteban
• Nov 19, 2023

02.jpg

• c.h.esteban
• Nov 19, 2023

Thank you for this information. One issue is there is much dispute about the identification of the "pet trade" Pamphobeteus spp. I'm told that the European breeders and exporters don't share info well and there are several disputes of what was exported to the U.S. Example of current pet trade Pamphobeteus imported to the U.S.:
Pamphobeteus sp. "emeraldas" = appears to be two different species in the U.S. hobby.
Pamphobeteus sp. "mascara" = is a total mess with a "light form", "dark form" and "rose-colored form" and then, we have Pamphobeteus sp. "small" and "light" just to confuse matters worse with some Europeans claiming the Pamphobeteus sp. "light" = P. "mascara" (light) AND P. "mascara" (rose-colored form).

Just to add some confusion into this mess, since 1999, the U.S. hobby has received from Peru exports of "Pamphobeteus petersi" called "backfire" often. Now that P. petersi is no more, we still have this large-growing Pamphobeteus from NE Peru in the Amazon that grows to 9"+ in leg span without a name. I guess we will just call it Pamphobeteus sp. "Peruvian Backfire" for now. It appears similar to P. antinous P. grandis except with a fully-clothed abdomen of red hairs. For the hobbyists, we just want to know what name is valid on our labels. The bridge that appears to be missing is sharing and cooperation between taxonomists and breeders/collectors/importers/exporters. Without that, we might as well just print out labels for our enclosures that say Pamphobeteus sp. "mud".

 

[DonLouchese]

I love the way we put the bulb has to "fit" the lock. As on the opposite side we have so many pairings of specimens that are not the same species and there is still reproduction going on. So there is so many hybrid situations which we cannot undo or put an end to.

So no, the bulb does not need to be indirectly from the same species to get a succesfull insemination like many other animals don't.

And even between the same species there is differences in them as proven many times. It can not be huge but it still is.

As an amateur in distinguishing one spermathecae from another. If i were to say, the ventral view of example A (sp. Esmeraldas) and example D (sp. Machala) look way more similar to one another with the inward curve and example B and C with the no curve - larger space inbetween.

So no those keys , locks and fitting stuff just doesn't really do it justice. And all those attempts to make 50 different sp. either.

As long as those spermathecae picture shows no resamblance or atleast more of it than with specimens of another species then I can't really be satisfied with the answeres.


Also - the comment "we are forgetting that this is a hobby" - couldnt agree more. You make a statement as an member of the page and u get crucified how everything is wrong according to the papers and revisions.
Well these papers didn't really show much otherwise till this day. - talking about Pampho revisions.

Best regards,
Don

 

[xenesthis]

I love the way we put the bulb has to "fit" the lock. As on the opposite side we have so many pairings of specimens that are not the same species and there is still reproduction going on. So there is so many hybrid situations which we cannot undo or put an end to.

So no, the bulb does not need to be indirectly from the same species to get a succesfull insemination like many other animals don't.

And even between the same species there is differences in them as proven many times. It can not be huge but it still is.

As an amateur in distinguishing one spermathecae from another. If i were to say, the ventral view of example A (sp. Esmeraldas) and example D (sp. Machala) look way more similar to one another with the inward curve and example B and C with the no curve - larger space inbetween.

So no those keys , locks and fitting stuff just doesn't really do it justice. And all those attempts to make 50 different sp. either.

As long as those spermathecae picture shows no resamblance or atleast more of it than with specimens of another species then I can't really be satisfied with the answeres.


Also - the comment "we are forgetting that this is a hobby" - couldnt agree more. You make a statement as an member of the page and u get crucified how everything is wrong according to the papers and revisions.
Well these papers didn't really show much otherwise till this day. - talking about Pampho revisions.

Best regards,
Don

You get it Don. Thanks. It's a disconnect between communities; hobbyists, breeders, field-collectors, dealers/importers/exporters, amateur scientists, and professional taxonomists in the lack of sharing information because for various reasons related to $, status, jealously, greed, and envy. My wish is for the scientific community to get over their issues of disliking the pet trade and work with the field-collectors, and dealers/importers/exporters, so hobbyists can know what freaking name to put on our enclosure labels AND this would help the scientific community and conservation folks by breeding PURE species instead of breeding mud to mud to get more mud.

 

[slocoj91]

I love the way we put the bulb has to "fit" the lock. As on the opposite side we have so many pairings of specimens that are not the same species and there is still reproduction going on. So there is so many hybrid situations which we cannot undo or put an end to.

So no, the bulb does not need to be indirectly from the same species to get a succesfull insemination like many other animals don't.

And even between the same species there is differences in them as proven many times. It can not be huge but it still is.

As an amateur in distinguishing one spermathecae from another. If i were to say, the ventral view of example A (sp. Esmeraldas) and example D (sp. Machala) look way more similar to one another with the inward curve and example B and C with the no curve - larger space inbetween.

So no those keys , locks and fitting stuff just doesn't really do it justice. And all those attempts to make 50 different sp. either.

As long as those spermathecae picture shows no resamblance or atleast more of it than with specimens of another species then I can't really be satisfied with the answeres.


Also - the comment "we are forgetting that this is a hobby" - couldnt agree more. You make a statement as an member of the page and u get crucified how everything is wrong according to the papers and revisions.
Well these papers didn't really show much otherwise till this day. - talking about Pampho revisions.

Best regards,
Don

I suppose I can't help but wonder about hybrids in the hobby. There hasn't been a huge amount of information I've been able to find - understandably so from the perspective of not encouraging people to intentionally do it. I've yet to look for academic literature (even just across arachnids) as I've not had the opportunity. I'm not convinced there'll be much, though - funding is hard enough to come by in many areas, and it does feel there's a huge void of research that could be done but hasn't been, yet.

I would like to know so many things on this topic though. Under what conditions are these hybrid matings occurring? What are the results in the organs of the offspring? Are the breedings occurring between species with very similar structures, or have they occurred between vastly dissimilarly structured species?

Part of my thought process is that researching thoroughly, documenting the process, and otherwise sourcing individuals who have apparently been behind any such pairings before and getting honest answers, is the only way this aspect can be puzzled out. The problem we have is one @xenesthis just mentioned. Well it's one of them. The disconnect between some of the communities involved/some of the individuals from those communities. Working together seems like the most logical choice overall, yet that's frequently the case in social species like ours and frankly we fail at it pretty magnificently. We prefer to manufacture methods by which we can evade overt cooperation, as far as possible, it seems.

I just wonder how much hybridisation truly occurs/has occurred. Can't help but question the veracity of the information coming from people apparently willing to attempt such things. Is there any human intervention in the process that could be seen to be highly involved in any successful hybridisation? It's interesting to me to think about the fact that sperm webs are torn down, for example.

As an evolutionary 'device' the specificity of the reproductive organs would likely occur to avoid closely occuring species engaging in non-productive pairings or wasting energy/genetic material on them. Whether something is useful from an evolutionary perspective depends on it happening and then whether it has positive or negative impacts on survival...explained pretty poorly to be honest but it gets the gist. Except of course its not an intelligent process, simply cause and effect on a huge scale. Either way this may play a part in any successful hybridisations that occur in captivity - species that would never have otherwise encountered one another, or where the male would have been rejected as a mate based on incompatible pre-mating behaviour, that sort of thing.

We just know so little. Found a paper about what happens to the sperm packets, albeit in Araneae, which I'm browsing. Has me wondering how long sperm packets would remain stable on an external surface like the web.

Considering the visible structures, and using them for ID, I understand what you mean about degrees of similarities vs differences. In this case, as much as I hate being unable to analyse everything I read to the nth degree - including historical data that informs current papers -, I have to assume that these papers dont go entirely unreviewed. Or that, otherwise, there are experts in these areas who will bring to light issues. Off the top of my head I can't think of the number of specimens typically considered for species descriptions, for example. If a team has what is considered a reliable source for a species then it would be sufficient to demonstrate that a specimen does or does not align with the description across all points - provided they are analysing the specimen in the typical way, traversing nodes from the top down (ie narrow down genus, likely species, then compare in detail to those - and locale of the individual in question is also used). I don't think it's necessarily helpful that the images used for A and B appear to show marked differences in the degree of sclerotisation, possibly due to age/development level- maybe the paper details whether this is in fact true, again I'll have to look. But I imagine this *could* alter the apparent shape due to some areas thickening more than others (as an example).

Apologies for the fact that I very clearly do a lot of considering as I go If I were to do this, then organise a post, I'd never get anything done - and that includes the post, though that probably wouldn't be a terrible loss for others xD.

And for what it's worth my intention is generally not to tell anyone they're wrong. I find information interesting, so I share in the same way I like it to be shared with me. I try to include qualifiers to demonstrate where I stand regarding the info, but sometimes forget. I'm not someone who is typically fixed in their views, and try to openly acknowledge when I'm wrong or only looking at a part of the whole.

In the event I seem particularly invested in/attached to a specific perspective that's often because it is something I've done huge amounts of reading around, including of other perspectives from individuals - ones that sit on the fence, and ones strongly for either side though I'm more likely to seek out the opposite of my own opinion in those cases. And/or I've already considered any arguments being used to counter - again, many times over - and they don't hold water when considering everything that applies. The rest of the time, with painful frequency to be honest, it's that the individual has thrown out those - often boilerplate - arguments without considering any of what I actually said, and then decided that because their no effort attempt didn't change my mind then I must be holding a fixed opinion. Ie they project their own issue onto me, then say they're not going to waste their time arguing with me any longer. Despite not spending any time doing so to begin with. That latter one I don't see occur here with nearly the frequency it does elsewhere (to others I mean). I suspect this relates to the wonderful approach I often see here of "not sorry that we care more about the life of the animal you hold in your hands than your feelings". Has me strongly consider getting it tattooed on my forehead at times, though I'd like if I could think of an artistic representation to put in a slightly more acceptable area.

Essay over, I really should do something 'useful'...

 

[Terrovax]

My wish is for the scientific community to get over their issues of disliking the pet trade and work with the field-collectors, and dealers/importers/exporters, so hobbyists can know what freaking name to put on our enclosure labels AND this would help the scientific community and conservation folks by breeding PURE species instead of breeding mud to mud to get more mud.

That is never going to happen. Just look at the nonsense work Gunther Schmidt produced just by working with pet trade specimens. Side from that, it's a good way to get scientific careers discredited. Just look at the controversy that surrounded B. simoroxigorum. One big reason why taxonomists really don't like the hobby is that the pet trade has actually made it harder to study these animals in the wild.

 

[xenesthis]

That is never going to happen. Just look at the nonsense work Gunther Schmidt produced just by working with pet trade specimens. Side from that, it's a good way to get scientific careers discredited. Just look at the controversy that surrounded B. simoroxigorum. One big reason why taxonomists really don't like the hobby is that the pet trade has actually made it harder to study these animals in the wild.

True, but we need each other. The different communities, and in my opinion, especially the scientific community, doesn't feel that way, so they continue to produce papers that mean everything in their world, but not the "real" world of our hobby. Yes, Schmidt and the B. simoroxigorum situations made the scientific community NOT want to work with the pet trade, but aside from isolated incidents likes these, the pet trade, field collectors, dealers, importers/exporters can provide incredible information such as locality, which is everything to taxonomists. Breeding data, growth rates, etc. can also be provided, but the scientific community regards us hobbyists as beneath them and stay isolated in their world believing only "their" data matters. This cycle continues and it's so unfortunate. @DonLouchese hit it on the head by expressing their papers are interesting and then......means nothing to hobbyists because of the fact the communities don't cooperate. IF the two communities could cooperate, amazing knowledge could made available to "everybody" not just the "somebodies". I believe it starts with the scientific community opening that door of communication.

 

[DonLouchese]

Well to be fair the only way to do this is to adapt to eachother and communicate to solve these things out. Maybe if I choose another way to describe the situation we are in. Me and my friends are pretty young enthusiasts for tarantula, and the problem I was presenting is quite crucial in nowadays. As "tarantula lovers" we are actually trying to help out the proccedure of keeping species in our society as in breeding them, keeping them and so on. I am lucky enough to able to travel the world when my work lets me be, that means I'm actually using my "vacation" for something that I consider vacation as well. Trying to find tarantulas in nature and document them on my own, ofcourse this doesn't make me a revisionist but let's put it it brings out the child in me and I can do my own research which brings a lot of peace to my mind.

I don't know if we realise this yet but this hobby is CRUCIAL to keep this species alive and well in our world. We might not see it but we are soon to talk about first extinct species of tarantulas in the wild, maybe it's sad to see but it's true. A first confirmation is most likely Poecilotheria sp. from the videos done from Smith, but I am sure we have plenty of tarantula species that are also endangered and we haven't even realised it yet. Which brings me to a conclusion and all of us that we "hobby enthusiasts" are the only people who are gonna breed and encurage this species to go on with our world as it is changing.
It will be indefinitly sad to see if this tarantulas we are talking about in the Pamphobeteus species are not gonna be revised because in the future we might not find any. It will be sad to see that in maybe 30-40 years I might have grandchildren to whom I won't be able to tell about the species that I am actually having. I'll just say sp. machala, they are from machala, not an actual species, not described, and they are not present anymore in the wild. So it is at the end just a tarantula from machala.

Oh well, I think all this writing is seriously pretty hard for someone not native in English to express my feelings about it but I guess most of you can understand what I'm trying to say. I wish I could help, but I most certainly can't. I respect the work nontheless and I hope they can work it around maybe first for the benefit of them and then as well for all of us.

Maybe we should be the first people to bring "love" to eachother and not war , like the whole world.

Best regards,
Don

 

[slocoj91]

True, but we need each other. The different communities, and in my opinion, especially the scientific community, doesn't feel that way, so they continue to produce papers that mean everything in their world, but not the "real" world of our hobby. Yes, Schmidt and the B. simoroxigorum situations made the scientific community NOT want to work with the pet trade, but aside from isolated incidents likes these, the pet trade, field collectors, dealers, importers/exporters can provide incredible information such as locality, which is everything to taxonomists. Breeding data, growth rates, etc. can also be provided, but the scientific community regards us hobbyists as beneath them and stay isolated in their world believing only "their" data matters. This cycle continues and it's so unfortunate. @DonLouchese hit it on the head by expressing their papers are interesting and then......means nothing to hobbyists because of the fact the communities don't cooperate. IF the two communities could cooperate, amazing knowledge could made available to "everybody" not just the "somebodies". I believe it starts with the scientific community opening that door of communication.

How do 'we' ensure data is as reliable as possible, if 'we' are scientists wanting to do serious research? Yes we can gather it ourselves and exclude everything else, on the assumption that it is inferior.

Except we have data science. Algorithms that can give hints as to the reliability of data, or how strongly it fits the pattern another dataset shows.

Is it so hard to label the data source as personally collected and verified vs other sources? Quantity and quality both have their place. There are numerous husbandry related aspects of tarantulas that we accept are likely to be different in captivity - thinking of those obligate fossorial species that web up the 'top floor' of an enclosure and never burrow. Yet these differences are in and of themselves informative. As an example, every species I have from the Heterothele genus - villosella, gabonensis, sp Mahonda (might have been described fully but haven't confirmed and stick with the term used by the seller) - webs *everything* and doesn't bother with substrate regardless of depth. Don't employ the dirt curtain method either. I live in the UK. I've wondered if the climate is simply similar to what they try to achieve by burrowing in their natural habitat. Differences here can direct us to the cause.

There are plenty of hobbyists, breeders, collectors, who actively care. With cooperation, surely veracity of data becomes easier to assess? At the very least, with cooperation researchers can inform people as to the degree of specificity needed. Normalise records of where stock originated, possible parentage of a sack if multiple pairings occur, being included or easily requested. Once a method is established, shorthand can be used for identifiable/known lines (ie x breeder got a sac from a female from Y breeder whose Ts of that species had a specific background).

Thing is, this facilitates transparency re. the origin of the tarantulas being sold or traded. And it's not a lot of work, least of all if there was a standard set for desirable data re locality etc.

Specimens collected and verified from a research perspective as fitting a description can then be compared to Ts of various lines in the hobby, if people are willing to participate. Having hubs in different places, protocols for preserving specimens and shipping to hubs.

Its large scale, but it is hardly impossible. Certainly researchers in some fields have realised some data is better than no data, and take various steps to verify it - thinking of nature sighting websites, spider logging etc.

My problem is, from what I know of people, this might as well be physically impossible. Too many put ego before other things, hold tightly to biases, want to know what's in it for them. The cynic in me recognises this, while the idealist - and frankly the darn autistic who simply cannot see why many others apparently can't see sense and just work together - sees how it can work. Exactly like my thoughts on decentring humanity and anthropomorphism in animal welfare.

Painful to watch at times.
Sorry for the cheery post

So seems apt to use this quote to refer to Don's post.

Maybe we should be the first people to bring "love" to eachother and not war , like the whole world.



Best regards,

Don

What I said above, about comparing hobby species to wild-types, as you say it essentially needs to happen now. Probably years ago, frankly.

Identifying *if* there are differences, if certain lines in the hobby are more different than others, and so on, can still be helpful. Even for longstanding breeders who may not have info about original origins, or lines that have obscure roots, identifying 'type' and whether hobby Ts truly match up or not seems necessary.

It's about knowing what you're working with, so you have a possible foundation. We know there are species at risk around the world, so how do we help? For dwindling species you wouldn't want to attempt to introduce captive slings, for example, only to find that they compete with the species at risk and are unable to mate. Noone wants a Giant African Land Snail scale incident. Obviously there's far more to this, and I've likely sent ample board user's to sleep - I sell recorded monologues on a topic of your choice, or dealer's choice for £5 a pop - but just covering the basics.

I certainly feel like for many hobbyists the question is simply "How can I help?". Maybe I'm wrong.