To what extent does selective breeding happen in this hobby?

[viper69]

Yeah, I really didn't know how to word that. I mean, we've definitely created phenotypes that simply weren't there before - look at a Shih-Tzu compared to a Gread Dane. No matter how many liters of Shih-Tzu's you have, you'll never get one to even be a quarter the size of a Great Dane. I suppose that's what I mean.

It's all about selecting the "right" traits, ie carrying over the gene/s responsible. For example, the original pit bull looks nothing like today's dog at all. There's a group of pit owners that are breeding pits to look like what the breed used to be originally. They are somewhat successful at the moment.

Of course sometimes mixing genes has unfortunately consequences, like in that ball python variant that has an obvious neurological defect.

 

[boina]

I'm almost positive this isn't true at all. Please provide info correcting me, because this would be new info, at least to me.

I read the original post of that pairing some years ago. I might still have it bookmarked. There was no selective breeding, the breeder bred two normal looking adults and out popped some golds and normals, it was not expected, ie not selective breeding.

To the best of my knowledge they did not know a priori that the adults they had were both heterozygous for the gold gene. That is the only way one can get gold with 2 normal phenotypes.


The only way the original breeders could have known they were going to get gold is if somehow they came upon a gold initially, and took that progeny and bred it.

Yes, exactly - and then the selective breeding happened AFTERWARDS with the mutated "gold" spiders to get more of them

That's basically how any selective breeding goes: You see a mutation like a new color, or short legs (dachshound, munchkin cat), or whatever, then crossbreed animals showing that trait with siblings/mother/father to get more animals with that trait. Selective breeding comes after the initial mutation.

 

[boina]

I think that you're taking things too quickly. It's not necessarily a mutation, but rather a set of different alleles. Would you call two tall humans mutants? No, but their offspring would likely be similarly tall. Keep breeding nothing but tall people over the course of generations and suddenly you've got freakishly tall people. Eugenics, yay!

I think that the same thing could happen with tarantulas, given enough time. I know that @Blue Jaye has some freakishly large pokies. Her communal of M. balfouri (which are all related) are popping into huge males and equally huge females.

Of course humans mutate all the time - that's how all the differences in different human genomes come into existence. A mutation is a genetic variation - nothing else. New allele = mutation.

 

[boina]

Right, but we're not necessarily talking about rare, just desirable. When we were selectively breeding Great Danes, we just kept choosing the largest dogs to breed over and over until the trait basically became a mutation.

No. Definitely no. You have a very strange definition of mutation that you won't find in any textbook. When we selectively breed big dogs the mutation has to be there BEFORE, otherwise the breeding won't produce any bigger dogs at all. The mutation is what creates the different trait.

 

[viper69]

Yes, exactly - and then the selective breeding happened AFTERWARDS with the mutated "gold" spiders to get more of them

That's basically how any selective breeding goes: You see a mutation like a new color, or short legs (dachshound, munchkin cat), or whatever, then crossbreed animals showing that trait with siblings/mother/father to get more animals with that trait. Selective breeding comes after the initial mutation.

The case of the N. incei "gold" is not an example of selective breeding. Selective breeding is generally when you observe a certain trait/s, and you breed other animals w/the same traits in hopes of producing progeny that exhibit that trait, often to a greater extent than the parents, but not always.

The incei parents weren't observed to have more gold coloring than others, and put together in hopes of producing a solid "gold" tarantula. IF that was the case, that would be selective breeding as most understand the term to be.

In the case of incei, there was no gold, both parents had normal phenotypes, but were both unknowingly het for gold


I personally don't think selective breeding is best defined by 2 homozygotic parents put together to produce more of the same, in this case, gold.


If so, than breeding 2 normals is selective breeding too.


With golds, as you know, you can't select for anything beyond gold w/2 gold parents


I have a feeling you and I have 2 different working definitions of selective breeding.

 

[boina]

The case of the N. incei "gold" is not an example of selective breeding. Selective breeding is generally when you observe a certain trait/s, and you breed other animals w/the same traits in hopes of producing progeny that exhibit that trait, often to a greater extent than the parents, but not always.

The incei parents weren't observed to have more gold coloring than others, and put together in hopes of producing a solid "gold" tarantula. IF that was the case, that would be selective breeding as most understand the term to be.

In the case of incei, there was no gold, both parents had normal phenotypes, but were both het for gold.

In that hypothetical case: Where would the parents with the *more gold" phenotype, that you'd then selectively breed come from? To make that breeding work they would need to have a mutation first. Sometimes a trait may change gradually and sometimes it changes completely. That's not a counter argument. Someone decided they wanted this gold phenotype and bred it - selective breeding.

Edit: Yes, it does seem we have different definitions (I was to fast with my reply I should have read EVERYTHING first)

 

[viper69]

In that hypothetical case: Where would the parents with the *more gold" phenotype, that you'd then selectively breed come from? To make that breeding work they would need to have a mutation first. Sometimes a trait may change gradually and sometimes it changes completely. That's not a counter argument. Someone decided they wanted this gold phenotype and bred it - selective breeding.

Edit: Yes, it does seem we have different definitions (I was to fast with my reply I should have read EVERYTHING first)

In the hypothetical case, if they had more gold, variance of course in their genome, like height, size etc. Not all differences are due to genetic variation at the base pair level, some are due to the level of gene expression, that's all scientifically proven. Epigenetics plays a large role in variation of phenotype for example, best exemplified in identical twins.

But in your "more gold" example, that would be selective breeding.

Correct on change.

Choosing a few golds to breed to produce more golds....not selective breeding from a development standpoint of introducing a trait, it's already present. Selective because one chose 2 golds, and not 1 gold and 1 normal, yeah, they chose something hahaha. Which may fall under the umbrella term "selective breeding" for all concerned

 

[boina]

In the hypothetical case, if they had more gold, variance of course in their genome, like height, size etc. Not all differences are due to genetic variation at the base pair level, some are due to the level of gene expression, that's all scientifically proven. Epigenetics plays a large role in variation of phenotype for example, best exemplified in identical twins.

But in your "more gold" example, that would be selective breeding.

Correct on change.

Choosing a few golds to breed to produce more golds....not selective breeding from a development standpoint of introducing a trait, it's already present. Selective because one chose 2 golds, and not 1 gold and 1 normal, yeah, they chose something hahaha

Uh oh, things are getting a bit confused here. Gene expression in general is genetically controlled - a mutation can very well lead to a different gene expression. Still means there is a mutation first, gene expression change afterwards.

Gene expression can also change in response to stimuli from the outside of the cell, without a mutation, yes, but that is usually NOT something that's hereditary. Identical twins DO NOT pass on the changes in gene expression acquired during life.

There are exceptions to that rule, though. SOME modifications may actually be passed on via epigenetic changes, but as far as has been proven, only for a few generations - epigenetic changes are not permanent.

 

[Angel Minkov]

Any idea why MM are getting smaller? And is that a bad thing?

Not really.

 

[Andrea82]

="Angel Minkov, post: 2610182, member: 101874beeally.

Thought so..I mean, look at the difference in size between a female and male A.junodi, and he still gets the job done....

 

[Xafron]

Like you said, probably none at all. I have heard reports of it being done but there is not hardcore proof and even then, it would take a very long time to see any different effects and there wouldn't be a big demand anyways

Edit: I am well aware of the differences of selective breeding and crossbreeding. I discussed both because 1. neither are really natural and 2. both are typically done for nothing more than creating visibly appealing animals, sometimes resulting in animals that may have some serious hindrances and 3. I saw it as being relevant to the above post: what is, or could in the future be, in demand from consumers as the hobby grows and changes. I am basing my opinion purely off of my experience with tropical fish and the breeding that occurs within that hobby as it grows. The ONLY thing I am promoting is responsibility. I have zero desire to attempt breeding Ts, but if I ever did, I assure you it would be kept pure.

I know not everyone will agree with me on this (it is a rather controversial topic) but I have had my own thoughts about selective breeding as well as crossbreeding (for any pets) for quite some time now.

I wouldn't be so quick to say there would be no demand for this in the T keeping world ever. If some breeder started selling P. Metallica "Platinum Blue" do you really think that wouldn't get attention? Selective breeding and crossbreeding is a regular occurrence with some kinds of pets (fish, dogs, reptiles) and a lot of people love it.

It WILL happen with captive bred animals, whether we like or not. The problem isn't that it happens IMO. The problem is when irresponsible or downright deceptive people sell them to the public under a different name *cough* Backwater Reptiles *cough*, and people buy them and breed them unaware of what they just did.

While researching Avicularia I have come to understand what an absolute mess they are at times. Some of that (not all) is due to...let's say, A. Versicolor x A. Metallica crossbreed being sold as A. Versicolor. I do not see these animals as abominations that should not exist. Merely a sign of a growing hobby, as more and more people join it. As the hobby gets more and more popular, these things will exist, and people may start to take an interest in them as they have within the fish hobby for whatever reason. But be up front about what you are selling. Sell it as a hybrid. Don't sell me an A. Versicolor when it isn't one. Seems like we (pet keepers in general) should teach responsibility on selling hybridized specimens rather than shaming those who do. Because again, it can and will (and has) happened.

Some of the best selling fish are selectively bred, or crossbred species. Discus and goldfish in the wild look nothing like the stunning fish you see being sold in our pet stores. "Longfin" varieties of fish are selectively bred. And the flowerhorn cichlid, a very impressive fish in many aspects, is a hybrid of more than a couple species if I remember correctly. These fish as well as others are at times controversial in the hobby but the fact is breeders will breed, and sellers will sell, and buyers will buy. These fish exist. So again, teach responsibility.

Irresponsibility exists in the pet trade, but the responses from some hobbyists always baffle me. Red belly pacu are sold when they are cute tiny little things. They get massive, they eat a lot, they poop a lot. Billy buys one for his girlfriend at Petsmart, it quickly outgrows their 10 gallon, so they buy a 40 gallon. Unexpectedly, it outgrows that. So they hop on a forum, post a pic of their fish and ask "when will he stop growing? I thought he wouldn't get larger than his tank would allow." Someone tells him they get 2-3+ feet long and you'll need to buy a 300 gallon, so Billy throws it in a river. So what do other fish keepers say? "Nobody should buy these fish, nobody should sell these fish. They're big, ugly, poop machines that get thrown into the wild. They don't belong in the hobby." The problem isn't the fish itself being available but the lack of knowledge and responsibility on both the seller's and buyer's parts. Some people like their 2+ foot ugly poop machines...sounds a lot like having a baby to me.

Many in the pet trade prefer to keep things entirely natural. Many do not. Find common ground in teaching responsibility.

I recently saw someone use a picture of Viktor from Underworld to declare hybrids an abomination. Just remember, in that movie Selene the purebred Vampire and the Vampire x Lycan hybrid Michael Corvin were the heroes and Viktor got his head lopped off because he couldn't adapt to the changing world.

 

[Hellblazer]

I know not everyone will agree with me on this (it is a rather controversial topic) but I have had my own thoughts about selective breeding and crossbreeding (for any pets) for quite some time now.

I wouldn't be so quick to say there would be no demand for this in the T keeping world ever. If some breeder started selling P. Metallica "Platinum Blue" do you really think that wouldn't get attention? Selective breeding and crossbreeding is a regular occurrence with some kinds of pets (fish, dogs, reptiles) and a lot of people love it.

It WILL happen with captive bred animals, whether we like or not. The problem isn't that it happens. The problem is when irresponsible or downright deceptive people sell them to the public under a different name *cough* Backwater Reptiles *cough*, and people buy them and breed them unaware of what they just did.

While researching Avicularia I have come to understand what an absolute mess they are at times. Some of that (not all) is due to...let's say, A. Versicolor x A. Metallica crossbreed being sold as A. Versicolor. I do not see these animals as abominations that should not exist. Merely a sign of a growing hobby. As the hobby gets more and more popular, these things will exist, and people may start to take an interest in them as they have within the fish hobby. But be up front about what you are selling. Sell it as a hybrid. Don't sell me an A. Versicolor when it isn't one. Seems like we (pet keepers in general, not specifically T keepers) should teach responsibility on selling hybridized and selectively bred specimens rather than shaming those who do. Because again, it can and will (and has) happened.

Some of the best selling fish are selectively bred, or crossbred species. Discus and goldfish in the wild look nothing like the stunning fish you see being sold in our pet stores. "Longfin" varieties of fish are selectively bred. And the flowerhorn cichlid, a very impressive fish in many aspects, is a hybrid of more than a couple species if I remember correctly. These fish as well as others are at times controversial in the hobby but the fact is breeders will breed, and sellers will sell, and buyers will buy. These fish exist. So again, teach responsibility.

Irresponsibility exists in the pet trade, but the responses from some hobbyists always baffle me. Red belly pacu are sold when they are cute tiny little things. They get massive, they eat a lot, they poop a lot. Billy buys one for his girlfriend at Petsmart, it quickly outgrows their 10 gallon, so they buy a 40 gallon. Unexpectedly, it outgrows that. So they hop on a forum, post a pic of their fish and ask "when will he stop growing? I thought he wouldn't get larger than his tank would allow." Someone tells him they get 2-3+ feet long and you'll need to buy a 300 gallon, so Billy throws it in a river. So what do other fish keepers say? "Nobody should buy these fish, nobody should sell these fish. They're big, ugly, poop machines that get thrown into the wild. They don't belong in the hobby." The problem isn't the fish itself being available but the lack of knowledge and responsibility on both the seller's and buyer's parts.

Many in the pet trade prefer to keep things pure. Many do not. Confrontation occurs. Find common ground in teaching responsibility.

I recently saw someone use a picture of Viktor from Underworld to declare hybrids an abomination. Just remember, in that movie Selene the purebred Vampire and the Vampire x Lycan hybrid Michael Corvin were the heroes and Viktor got his head lopped off because he couldn't adapt to the changing world.

Selective breeding and hybridization are completely different. One (selective breeding) could be very beneficial to the hobby if more people tried to breed the best looking specimens they can find of a given species. While hybridization ruins what most hobbyists want to achieve by polluting the captive bloodlines. It only takes one dishonest idiot to pass off some slings as something they aren't.

 

[Xafron]

Selective breeding and hybridization are completely different. One (selective breeding) could be very beneficial to the hobby if more people tried to breed the best looking specimens they can find of a given species. While hybridization ruins what most hobbyists want to achieve by polluting the captive bloodlines. It only takes one dishonest idiot to pass off some slings as something they aren't.

I understand they are different in many aspects. But in my experience there are people who stand firmly planted against both, which is why I wrapped them up together like that. Because my points were directed to both. If he thinks there will be no demand for selectively bred Ts in the future, I saw it as being entirely relevant to talk about both selective breeding and hybridization.

I'm not encouraging or discouraging anyone. I'm simply promoting responsibility. At the end of the day people are going to do what they want. Best way to handle it is to do so responsibly.

 

[Blue Jaye]

Gosh darn it. I came back to the thread to late lol. @Andrea82 actually I do see a problem with MMs getting smaller especially with the weight we put on our females. Smaller MMs has the potential to create smaller offspring. often they mature way before their time. This shortens breeding time and life span. And then there's the problem of being able to lift a behemoth of a female we have fed way to much. It was already like a human going up against a titan. And we went and made her fat as well. Geesh.....

We as a species have a tendency to change what is already beautiful and has a purpose in life. Take reptiles for instance. We take predators and make them albinos. That takes the ability to mask themselves away. Now they are a brightly colored target. Or an animal that needs sunlight to warm up and now they can't because the get sunburnt. So do to the fact that that selective breeding will be done for whatever purpose or inbreeding a species happens when there is a lack of information that it will cause a problem down the line. If inbreeding causes problems in most everything else. Why would we think it won't be a problem in tarantulas.

The problem is we just don't have the information. So these things really shouldn't be done. It's a lack of respect for the animals and a lack of responsibility on our part to change something before we have the proper information. My problem is I've worked with animals in many different situations from exotic to domestic. I've seen what we as humans are willing to do to another species without thinking about the cost to the species. Changing anything, breeding for color, inbreeding etc is just irresponsible on our part. Okay sorry, I'm off my soap box.

 

[Blue Jaye]

Selective breeding and hybridization are completely different. One (selective breeding) could be very beneficial to the hobby if more people tried to breed the best looking specimens they can find of a given species. While hybridization ruins what most hobbyists want to achieve by polluting the captive bloodlines. It only takes one dishonest idiot to pass off some slings as something they aren't.

This was well said. Thank you.

 

[cold blood]

wouldnt it be cool if we could get B smithis to be over a foot long

A dwarf smithi would be way cooler.

Any idea why MM are getting smaller? And is that a bad thing?

I see this as just randomness and not a hobby-wide trend. I can't tell you how many times I have raised decent numbers of males to maturity, in every case they were sac mates bred or bought together, and in every case, some matured really small, some matured really big, most were somewhere in between.

Take the P Metallica.. some are more blue than others, surely selecting the more blue ones would lead to a better quality blue animal.

Many brilliantly blue metallicas darken can with age. I've seen some that almost looked black.

And again, within every sac, there can be some variance, even if its slight.


Usually within the hobby breeders don't have a huge choice when looking for MMs...generally we take what's available...and with shipping the way it is now, you could make all the effort in the world to avoid siblings, only to end up with the same bloodline...the original gene pools for many species sprung from a small number of individuals, making breeding within the gene pool not only likely, but almost unavoidable....try as we might.

 

[awiec]

In order for any selection to go on you need genes to select on, which is quite hard in such a small inbred population such as hobby tarantulas. H.incei was pure luck in that we got several individuals in captivity carrying the gold gene and that it segregates in a pretty traditional Mendelian fashion. As for people suggesting "bluer" P.metallica, I am doubtful that will happen as most end up turning dark/black. Whether most of the wild population does this naturally or the few that were imported/smuggled and bred in the hobby happen to have this particular trait; we just don't know.

 

[grayzone]

No idea on the first question, but as for the second I'd assume so. Males maturing sooner/smaller, making for a shorter lifespan and probably less likely to get the job done/get out alive. But that's coming from an individual who's only watched breeding videos and has yet to breed T's himself.

Ive seen some tiny mms get the job done just fine. I once paired my huge b albo with a mm that was nearly a year mature (and about 4" max) end it ended with a huge sack and viable offspring

 

[Arachnophoric]

Ive seen some tiny mms get the job done just fine. I once paired my huge b albo with a mm that was nearly a year mature (and about 4" max) end it ended with a huge sack and viable offspring

Not trying to say that little MMs can't get it done, but I'm willing to bet there is a size - death ratio when it comes to mating.

Glad to hear you got a good sac out of that pairing though, love me some B. albos

 

[JoshDM020]

Edit: I am well aware of the differences of selective breeding and crossbreeding. I discussed both because 1. neither are really natural and 2. both are typically done for nothing more than creating visibly appealing animals, sometimes resulting in animals that may have some serious hindrances and 3. I saw it as being relevant to the above post: what is, or could in the future be, in demand from consumers as the hobby grows and changes. I am basing my opinion purely off of my experience with tropical fish and the breeding that occurs within that hobby as it grows. The ONLY thing I am promoting is responsibility. I have zero desire to attempt breeding Ts, but if I ever did, I assure you it would be kept pure.

I know not everyone will agree with me on this (it is a rather controversial topic) but I have had my own thoughts about selective breeding as well as crossbreeding (for any pets) for quite some time now.

I wouldn't be so quick to say there would be no demand for this in the T keeping world ever. If some breeder started selling P. Metallica "Platinum Blue" do you really think that wouldn't get attention? Selective breeding and crossbreeding is a regular occurrence with some kinds of pets (fish, dogs, reptiles) and a lot of people love it.

It WILL happen with captive bred animals, whether we like or not. The problem isn't that it happens IMO. The problem is when irresponsible or downright deceptive people sell them to the public under a different name *cough* Backwater Reptiles *cough*, and people buy them and breed them unaware of what they just did.

While researching Avicularia I have come to understand what an absolute mess they are at times. Some of that (not all) is due to...let's say, A. Versicolor x A. Metallica crossbreed being sold as A. Versicolor. I do not see these animals as abominations that should not exist. Merely a sign of a growing hobby, as more and more people join it. As the hobby gets more and more popular, these things will exist, and people may start to take an interest in them as they have within the fish hobby for whatever reason. But be up front about what you are selling. Sell it as a hybrid. Don't sell me an A. Versicolor when it isn't one. Seems like we (pet keepers in general) should teach responsibility on selling hybridized specimens rather than shaming those who do. Because again, it can and will (and has) happened.

Some of the best selling fish are selectively bred, or crossbred species. Discus and goldfish in the wild look nothing like the stunning fish you see being sold in our pet stores. "Longfin" varieties of fish are selectively bred. And the flowerhorn cichlid, a very impressive fish in many aspects, is a hybrid of more than a couple species if I remember correctly. These fish as well as others are at times controversial in the hobby but the fact is breeders will breed, and sellers will sell, and buyers will buy. These fish exist. So again, teach responsibility.

Irresponsibility exists in the pet trade, but the responses from some hobbyists always baffle me. Red belly pacu are sold when they are cute tiny little things. They get massive, they eat a lot, they poop a lot. Billy buys one for his girlfriend at Petsmart, it quickly outgrows their 10 gallon, so they buy a 40 gallon. Unexpectedly, it outgrows that. So they hop on a forum, post a pic of their fish and ask "when will he stop growing? I thought he wouldn't get larger than his tank would allow." Someone tells him they get 2-3+ feet long and you'll need to buy a 300 gallon, so Billy throws it in a river. So what do other fish keepers say? "Nobody should buy these fish, nobody should sell these fish. They're big, ugly, poop machines that get thrown into the wild. They don't belong in the hobby." The problem isn't the fish itself being available but the lack of knowledge and responsibility on both the seller's and buyer's parts. Some people like their 2+ foot ugly poop machines...sounds a lot like having a baby to me.

Many in the pet trade prefer to keep things entirely natural. Many do not. Find common ground in teaching responsibility.

I recently saw someone use a picture of Viktor from Underworld to declare hybrids an abomination. Just remember, in that movie Selene the purebred Vampire and the Vampire x Lycan hybrid Michael Corvin were the heroes and Viktor got his head lopped off because he couldn't adapt to the changing world.

Really enjoyed the way this was said. Even though I lack experience at this point and i do agree with you that its basically a free-will thing and some people will probably enjoy it, I would still have to side with the people keeping the species "pure". I enjoy the aspect of conservation that comes with this hobby. A lot of these spiders may not exist in the wild in the future because of deforestation and other such stuff, and us keeping them can save them from that. Mixing em up seems to defeat the purpose of that. But, like you said, it can and will happen and may even one day become normal.