Theraphosa genus care in captivity

[KoffinKat138]

Nice Info Fran, It's probably the best Theraphosa species care sheet on the Web right now.

 

[Anubis77]

Very good caresheet. Makes me want to keep this genus.

Since the whole T. spinipes thing lately, I've been wondering how accurate it is to say that T. blondi is the largest species though. How certain of that can we be? Do we know that the largest spider was in fact a T. blondi and not a T. spinipes? I've never kept a large individual of T. blondi or spinipes, but from pictures, I don't see much size discrepancy between them. T. blondi looks slightly thicker due to the heavier bristles, but that's about it.

Is there any data on the average masses of each species from any decent sample size?

 

[robd]

Good question anubis, I have wondered that myself.

Big props on the caresheet, Fran. Thanks for picking your brain for everybody else. Much appreciated.

 

[pato_chacoana]

Thanks Tom!

I just weighed my largest female and she's at 119,4 grams I didn't even fed her much and still could be lot fatter :razz: She was really docile and let me cup her and weight her without kicking even a single hair. I love this girl...she's been with me since subadult, for 5 years now.
I'll def. stop feeding her until next molt lol

Here's a recent pic.

I now have treated that slight fungus on anterior abdomen...

Cheers,
Pato

 

[xhexdx]

Fran et al,

I'm including this thread in the reference sticky at the top of this subforum. Hopefully that will help to get this thread some extra views and help to keep the good information flowing.

Great job!

--Joe

 

[aracnobrachy]

Thanks Tom!

I just weighed my largest female and she's at 119,4 grams I didn't even fed her much and still could be lot fatter :razz: She was really docile and let me cup her and weight her without kicking even a single hair. I love this girl...she's been with me since subadult, for 5 years now.
I'll def. stop feeding her until next molt lol

Here's a recent pic.

I now have treated that slight fungus on anterior abdomen...

Cheers,
Pato

Sos pato del foro vida reptil argentina?



saludos seba argentina

 

[aracnobrachy]

my theraphosa sp burgundy adult female.

 

[Stan Schultz]

The Theraphosa genus (Thorell, 1870 ) encompass 2 known specie and a 3rd one under revision:

Theraphosa blondi, Latreille, 1804
Theraphosa apophysis , Tinter, 1991
Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" soon to be "spinipes" , under revision by Brazilian taxonomists. ...

Fran, you need to be very careful about announcing scientific names that are pending. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature specifically states that no animal may be given a name that has ever been previously used in reference to any animal. I don't know how the ICZN deals with publication of names on the Internet ("The world, she is a changin'."), specifically on a hobbyist forum, but this could potentially screw the whole show for those Brazilian taxonomists. They'd have to rewrite the seminal paper to change their proposed name to a new, unused name.

Besides being a royal pain in the ***, it could delay publication thereby allowing someone else the time to scoop the publication. And, the original taxonomists would then be cheated of their credits.

If the paper were already published when the fact of prior use of the name came to light it would mean that someone, possibly but not necessarily the original authors, would have to publish a correction. In the meantime arachnologists of the world, professional and amateur alike, would be using the illegitimate name, and the world of arachnid taxonomy would be forever saddled with another confusing synonym.

I am checking with taxonomists now to confirm this and will report back as soon as I have any further information.

Sorry.

 

[Fran]

Fran, you need to be very careful about announcing scientific names that are pending. The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature specifically states that no animal may be given a name that has ever been previously used in reference to any animal. I don't know how the ICZN deals with publication of names on the Internet ("The world, she is a changin'."), specifically on a hobbyist forum, but this could potentially screw the whole show for those Brazilian taxonomists. They'd have to rewrite the seminal paper to change their proposed name to a new, unused name.

Besides being a royal pain in the ***, it could delay publication thereby allowing someone else the time to scoop the publication. And, the original taxonomists would then be cheated of their credits.

If the paper were already published when the fact of prior use of the name came to light it would mean that someone, possibly but not necessarily the original authors, would have to publish a correction. In the meantime arachnologists of the world, professional and amateur alike, would be using the illegitimate name, and the world of arachnid taxonomy would be forever saddled with another confusing synonym.

I am checking with taxonomists now to confirm this and will report back as soon as I have any further information.

Sorry.

This is a bit of "old news" Stan. This has been talked about probably hundred of times by now.
There was paper out there talking about the whole "Spinipes" thing, open for the public.

 

[Zoltan]

The International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature specifically states that no animal may be given a name that has ever been previously used in reference to any animal. I don't know how the ICZN deals with publication of names on the Internet ("The world, she is a changin'."), specifically on a hobbyist forum, but this could potentially screw the whole show for those Brazilian taxonomists.

Only a published name can become a nomen nudum. By the standards of the ICZN, a name posted on an internet forum doesn't consitute a "published name": ICZN Article 9.9.

Edit: according to the entry of nomen nudum in the ICZN glossary, "a nomen nudum is not an available name, and therefore the same name may be made available later for the same or a different concept", so it could still be used later. Günter Schmidt has published a few nomina nuda before, then later published a description and the names became valid.

There was paper out there talking about the whole "Spinipes" thing, open for the public.

It wasn't a paper, it was just an abstract of a paper to come. Like a trailer of a movie.

 

[Fran]

Only a published name can become a nomen nudum. By the standards of the ICZN, a name posted on an internet forum doesn't consitute a "published name": ICZN Article 9.9.

It wasn't a paper, it was just an abstract of a paper to come. Like a trailer of a movie.

True, the abstract.

 

[Stan Schultz]

Fran, Zoltan and All -

I seem to have opened a small can of worms. Upon posing the following questions on the Taxacom mailing list -

Does such publication constitute prior publication by current ICZN rules? If so, must the taxonomists now use a different name?

If its announcement on the Internet constitutes prior usage, but it is (innocently) published anyway, and later its prior use on the Internet comes to light, how would the problem most probably be resolved?

I received a number of direct answers, but the total number of responses in the ensuing discussion now exceeds 75! Apparently the topic of the validity of scientific names published on the Internet is quite relevant and currently in a state of development.

While several responses answered my questions directly, perhaps two of the more telling are:

1) Francisco Welter-Schultes of the University of Goettingen, Germany and www.animalbase.org. I quote the relevant portion here.

"... you might fear that someone could read the name in the
internet resource and suddenly use it in a paper-based
publication, undeliberately causing problems there.

This had been a problem in the past centuries, but in the current
edition of the ICZN Code there is a provision not only that a new
name must be published on paper, but also that a previosuly
unpublished name will only be accepted as new and available if there
is an explicit statement in the paper-based publication that this
name shall be new (besides that types must be cited) (Art. 16.1,
16.4). So a mere use of such a name in a paper-based publication
alone, even if combined with a short and differentiating
description, would not make the name available."

2) Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California, Riverside. Again, I quote the relevant portion here. (The emboldening is mine for emphasis.)

"Under the present Code, this is not a problem, as others have
indicated. However, there will soon be a change in the Code that will
permit valid "electronic publication" of nomenclatural acts. There is
still some serious discussion as to the exact nature of the
conditions and restrictions involved, but this is fairly close on the
horizon, so in a year or two, a question such as yours might have a
very different answer.

... At this point, the perception is that the taxonomic community would
prefer absolute freedom - anyone can publish anything, anywhere - to
the imposition of any sort of restrictions (e.g., peer review, name
registration, or a "whitelist" of acceptable electronic journals). If
there is an overwhelming sentiment among taxonomists that we should
NOT allow hobbyists and other self-publishing online sources to be
validated, then now is the time to make that sentiment known (before
irrevocable changes are made) - along with an explanation as to how
we can make the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable
e-pubs objective (assuming that is a concern)."

Thus, we may draw the following conclusions:

1) While electronic publication (i.e., on the Internet), including perhaps mere mention of a proposed scientific name, is currently not considered "publication," per se, that time is coming.

2) The exact rules for allowing such publication, and for defining what is acceptable and what is not, have not yet been established, but are being worked on as we speak.

3) The question of whether or not publication of such names by a "hobbyist" (presumably synonymous with "amateur" and "enthusiast") should be considered valid is a very real concern. (The major stumbling block may likely be in determining at what level one ceases to be an amateur and advances to some more acceptable level.)

[Note: I have been told by several different authorities that one of the major reasons that theraphosid taxonomy is such a mess is that too many "amateurs" have been messing it up!]

When I first posted my warning to Fran about the use of preliminary scientific names I knew of the "prior use" restrictions by the ICZN, but didn't know the details of its application, specifically whether they now included publication on the Internet. That immediate question has been answered. But, the handwriting is on the wall. Until the ICZN specifically addresses the publication of species descriptions and their scientific names on the Internet, it is probably best that enthusiasts not use proposed or pending scientific names on the 'Net.

"The world, she is a changin'."

 

[arañacacata]

Very interesting this post I help myself to opening the eyes me and to understand three species of theraphosa.
THANK YOU FOR HIS EXPLANATIONS AND ALREADY I HAVE EVERYTHING filed.


Regards arañcacata

 

[pato_chacoana]

Fran, Zoltan and All -


[Note: I have been told by several different authorities that one of the major reasons that theraphosid taxonomy is such a mess is that too many "amateurs" have been messing it up!]


"The world, she is a changin'."

I think that's the lousy taxonomists excuse about not being able to key out the hard groups and making the ''easy'' papers because they have to publish anything to keep their jobs. While others take risks and do it the hard way but make respectable and useful research.
In the big picture, the world is not changing to me, everything works pretty much the same way.

And about saying the names on the internet, it's just freedom of speech... The taxonomist may pass the information they want before they publish, but if people start talking about it, well...you can't expect them to keep it secret. So, don't give any publish material information to any people that post in forums!!!!!

Cheers,
Pato

 

[Fran]

Yeap, agree with Pato.

To begin with so many Dealers started this "mess" already. As I recall, it was 2006-7 when people started to call them "Burgundy".

It is impossible for anyone to expect not to anounce or to keep quiet this sort of things on the vast internet.

I dont think the world have to change its ways but rather the sistem they use needs to "fit" the world.

 

[Stan Schultz]

I think that's the lousy taxonomists excuse about not being able to key out the hard groups and making the ''easy'' papers because they have to publish anything to keep their jobs. While others take risks and do it the hard way but make respectable and useful research.
In the big picture, the world is not changing to me, everything works pretty much the same way.

And about saying the names on the internet, it's just freedom of speech... The taxonomist may pass the information they want before they publish, but if people start talking about it, well...you can't expect them to keep it secret. So, don't give any publish material information to any people that post in forums!!!!!

Cheers,
Pato

Pato -

I have to admit that you make some very good points. And, I must also admit that the very most basic human qualities, motives, and ethics don't seem to change over very large periods of time. Good response!

What I was referring to in my closing quote was the fact that the way we do things (not necessarily the reasons we do them) is changing, sometimes almost too fast. Alvin Toffler coined the term "future shock" for the condition and subsequently published a book by that name (Toffler, A. 1970. Future Shock. Random House.). Any who are interested in more information about the subject are encouraged to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock or Google the term.

Another relevant quote to chew on:
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that." (Carroll, L. 1871. Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.)

Lastly, in spite of the incredible menagerie of animals that appear in Lewis Carroll's stories, I don't remember a tarantula. Most peculiar. Most peculiar indeed.

 

[Stan Schultz]

... I dont think the world have to change its ways but rather the sistem they use needs to "fit" the world.

At last! Fran and I agree on something!

You are so right, my friend! In the USA (as an example) "do-gooders" tried "Prohibition" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition) between 1920 and 1933. It failed miserably. Now the USA is trying to do the same thing with drugs. And the attempt is also failing miserably, but to the tune of $1 trillion (!) and hundreds of thousands of lives over the last 40 years. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/) They're trying to change the world and human nature instead of changing the system.

I don't know what the answers to addictions and the Drug War are. All I know is that what we're doing now is arguably almost as bad as not doing anything at all.

[AT THIS POINT I WILL PETITION THE MODERATORS TO FREEZE THIS THREAD IF IT DEVOLVES INTO A DISCUSSI0N OF U.S. DRUG POLICY!]

It isn't the world that has to change, it's the system. In our case, the taxonomists have to be very careful of what rules they make to control the impact and efficacy of the Internet. They need to change the taxonomic "system," but they need to do so WISELY. Rest assured that they are not a bunch of drooling idiots. I have the faith that they will accomplish the feat. I hope. Maybe. Probably. But, of course! After all, they're scientists, not politicians!

 

[Fran]

Stan,
Indeed I have the upmost respect for science and scientist of any field.
Is just that sometimes one questions why to do things so .."complicated".

Anyway, in regards the original comment you made, I really wasnt trying to make a statement (Im nobody on this matter, just an enthusiast ) with the "Spinipes-soon to be" ...but rather explain it a bit for those who are still lost with this genus.

PS: I literally hated when they came out with that "Burgundy"name out of the blue.

 

[pato_chacoana]

Stan,

I understand what you're saying. Also, scientists are above all, just people. Some of them will do good things, while others not... I'm not criticizing, just saying they are not some kind of superior elite or any different from everyone else. They are not exempt from making mistakes. Over here I'm studying Biology to hopefully one day get the chance to work with Theraphosids, and I hope to make the right decisions along the way

Cheers,
Pato

 

[Philth]

Stan,


PS: I literally hated when they came out with that "Burgundy"name out of the blue.

Why? To me it made more scene then calling them T. blondi like most dealers. (most still do:?)

Im not a big fan of the sp. "burgundy" name either , as I would rather seen unsubscribed/unknown spiders labeled with a country or local of origin. Example, Holothele "Norte de Santander"

Later, Tom