Updates on the mess: G. quirogai x G. pulchra x Argentine Black Grammostola

[Arachnid Addicted]

Hi fellow keepers, I'm a new member in here, maybe a few of you would recognize me because of Instagram or when I had Facebook.

I was looking into some threads and found a few about the G. quirogai x G. pulchra issue. Although in the hobby it is difficult to diferentiate them, I'll try to clarify some issues based on infos I received from some friends.

So, the article of Grammostola pulchra is old, and the type locality of these guys are from Uruguaiana, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The description of G. pulchra, made by Mello-Leitão, says that the individuals are "small", black, with whiteish setae on its body. This is an individual of the type locality:



When we talk about G. quirogai, we know that its distribution is from Uruguay and Brazil, and they supposed to have a different coloration from G. pulchra. This is an individual from Uruguay:



Now, before I talked about the argentine individual, I just want you to noticed how different these two individuals are. I don't know if every individual are like these two but, since we're talking about hypothesis here, imo most of them could be. On the other hand, most individuals we have in the hobby are similar to each other, of course there are exceptions but, would they be from different species or the same, with polychromatism?

Let's talk a little bit of the argentine specimen, usually when we have these debates we tend to forget about them so, first of all, here's one individual from Argentina:



Now, if you pay attention, it looks like with many individuals that are in the hobby too. But wait a minute, there aren't any G. pulchra nor G. quirogai described to Argentina so, what the hell is this? Lol.

I don't know too, like I always said, I think for now, we just have to ask ourselves "What is G. pulchra?"

From what I understood, both G. quirogai and G. pulchra can cross borders and, about Argentina, there's a river in Uruguaiana separating them from the other two countries, but who knows the history of these river to afirm they couldn't cross borders too a long time ago?

I think that's it, the intention of this thread is not clarify nor mess up (even more) anything, these are just some points I recently learned and decided to share with you, specially because of the differences some individuals actually have from each other.

If you want to breed them, be sure they are from the same area, or even eggsac, 'cause I believe, even with a further revision, they will still continue chaotic.

 

[Venom1080]

Thanks for the update, man.

 

[nicodimus22]

Update on the mess: It's still a mess.

 

[MikeC]

Good info!

Are those your spiders?

 

[Liquifin]

Grammostola Pulchrogai: the new hybrid species created in the hobby.

Thanks for the info, the G. pulchra, G. quirogai are a mess.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

This post does not take into consideration the results of Montes de Oca, et. al. (2015). Depending on one's perspective, there is no "mess" with the species Grammostola quirogai and Grammostola pulchra. I have no information or knowledge of what this black Argentinian species is, so I can not comment on it.

The phylogenetic analysis of Montes de Oca, et. al. (2015) have shown G. quirogai and G. pulchra to be two distinct species which can be identified by morphological characters and by mitochondrial DNA. The paper also states that the color of G. quirogai as "cephalothorax, abdomen and legs black with some grey hairs (proximal to moult, the spider lost the intensity and become brownish)." Given this color description, G. quirogai has the same coloration of G. pulchra. The question then is, does G. pulchra also turn brown as it approaches a molt? Either way, one can look at 100 pictures of either species and still not be able to identify what it is. The images of live G. quirogai in the aforementioned paper show one as black and brown and one as black with silver hairs.

There has been no published records of G. quirogai occurring in Brazil and no records of G. pulchra as being found in Uruguay. There have been no published records of either species as being found in Argentina. I will entertain the possibility that there are unpublished records of either species being found in Argentina, but I will be skeptical until a paper is published with information on how the species was identified.

If one could describe a mess with these two species, it would be that doubt has been raised that pet trade G. pulchra could be G. quirogai, or both species occurring in the pet trade with one being sold with the wrong species name; something that happens regularly due to the lack of effort to properly identify specimens in the hobby and a lack of collection data being provided by exporters.

With the Montes de Oca, et. al. paper, one could- in theory- know for certain that G. quirogai, or a third black Grammostola sp. from Argentina, occurs in the pet trade. However, due to the morphological homogeneity of Grammostola species a mitochondrial DNA sequence of many hobby G. pulchra will need to be performed and compared to the same published sequence of G. quirogai to know for certain if hobby G. pulchra is misidentified in the pet trade.

There is still a problem though. If a mitochondrial DNA sequence of pet trade G. pulchra revealed that G. quirogai, or another species, is being sold as G. pulchra, it still wouldn't help anyone identify what they have in their collections. As previously stated, G. pulchra and G. quirogai have the same coloration. The only morphological character that can be used to distinguish these two species, according to Montes de Oca, et. al. (2015), is the spine arrangement of the male tibial apophysis. Females are morphologically the same and can only be identified with DNA.

What it all comes down to is that there is no confusion that G. pulchra and G. quirogai are two distinct species. Since doubt has been raised as to the identify of hobby G. pulchra, confirmation of the species is needed. This is entirely possible given the right tools and skillset. Posting pictures of two distinct species that have the same coloration and where only mature males have the morphologically distinct characters will not help solve anything and only poses to confuse matters worse.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

This post does not take into consideration the results of Montes de Oca, et. al. (2015). Depending on one's perspective, there is no "mess" with the species Grammostola quirogai and Grammostola pulchra. I have no information or knowledge of what this black Argentinian species is, so I can not comment on it.

The phylogenetic analysis of Montes de Oca, et. al. (2015) have shown G. quirogai and G. pulchra to be two distinct species which can be identified by morphological characters and by mitochondrial DNA. The paper also states that the color of G. quirogai as "cephalothorax, abdomen and legs black with some grey hairs (proximal to moult, the spider lost the intensity and become brownish)." Given this color description, G. quirogai has the same coloration of G. pulchra. The question then is, does G. pulchra also turn brown as it approaches a molt? Either way, one can look at 100 pictures of either species and still not be able to identify what it is. The images of live G. quirogai in the aforementioned paper show one as black and brown and one as black with silver hairs.

There has been no published records of G. quirogai occurring in Brazil and no records of G. pulchra as being found in Uruguay. There have been no published records of either species as being found in Argentina. I will entertain the possibility that there are unpublished records of either species being found in Argentina, but I will be skeptical until a paper is published with information on how the species was identified.

If one could describe a mess with these two species, it would be that doubt has been raised that pet trade G. pulchra could be G. quirogai, or both species occurring in the pet trade with one being sold with the wrong species name; something that happens regularly due to the lack of effort to properly identify specimens in the hobby and a lack of collection data being provided by exporters.

With the Montes de Oca, et. al. paper, one could- in theory- know for certain that G. quirogai, or a third black Grammostola sp. from Argentina, occurs in the pet trade. However, due to the morphological homogeneity of Grammostola species a mitochondrial DNA sequence of many hobby G. pulchra will need to be performed and compared to the same published sequence of G. quirogai to know for certain if hobby G. pulchra is misidentified in the pet trade.

There is still a problem though. If a mitochondrial DNA sequence of pet trade G. pulchra revealed that G. quirogai, or another species, is being sold as G. pulchra, it still wouldn't help anyone identify what they have in their collections. As previously stated, G. pulchra and G. quirogai have the same coloration. The only morphological character that can be used to distinguish these two species, according to Montes de Oca, et. al. (2015), is the spine arrangement of the male tibial apophysis. Females are morphologically the same and can only be identified with DNA.

What it all comes down to is that there is no confusion that G. pulchra and G. quirogai are two distinct species. Since doubt has been raised as to the identify of hobby G. pulchra, confirmation of the species is needed. This is entirely possible given the right tools and skillset. Posting pictures of two distinct species that have the same coloration and where only mature males have the morphologically distinct characters will not help solve anything and only poses to confuse matters worse.

Hi dude. How are you?
I just wanna say that I understood what you meant and, because sometimes written messages can be mistaken with rudeness, I just want to have a healthy debate about this matters.

That said, I read the article you referred to, so it's not that I didn't take it into consideration, instead, I wanted to avoid so many scientifical references and subjects.

I think I couldn't make my point about this thread clear so, I'll try to explain it here.

The reason I made this thread is because usually, I saw keepers (in other words, in the hobby world) saying that G. pulchra and G. quirogai are practically identical so, when it comes to adult females, it is hard to say which is which. If you check the three pics I posted in here (all of adult females), you'll noticed that they are different, indeed, which makes me think: where the pet trade ones came from? Not only that, there are the argentine one, which to me, is very similar to most of the hobby pulchra I've seen already.

So, the "update on the mess" I was referring to, is that the individuals from the three countries in question could be different from each other and also, there are an argentine one in the hobby that few people didn't know about it. But in the hobby, we might have individuals from different countries that looks like the same.

I have one observation though, search for a scientifical note where a tarantula is eating a snake in situ, I forgot the authors name, unfortunately, but that register happened in Brazil and the tarantula was a G. quirogai. As far as I know, this note was validated, so much is that, in WSC you can see the distribution of G. quirogai is listed for both countries (Brazil and Uruguay).

Hope I got this clear now, sorry for the incovenient.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

Good info!

Are those your spiders?

Thanks, man.

No, they aren't mine.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

Hi dude. How are you?
I just wanna say that I understood what you meant and, because sometimes written messages can be mistaken with rudeness, I just want to have a healthy debate about this matters.

That said, I read the article you referred to, so it's not that I didn't take it into consideration, instead, I wanted to avoid so many scientifical references and subjects.

I think I couldn't make my point about this thread clear so, I'll try to explain it here.

The reason I made this thread is because usually, I saw keepers (in other words, in the hobby world) saying that G. pulchra and G. quirogai are practically identical so, when it comes to adult females, it is hard to say which is which. If you check the three pics I posted in here (all of adult females), you'll noticed that they are different, indeed, which makes me think: where the pet trade ones came from? Not only that, there are the argentine one, which to me, is very similar to most of the hobby pulchra I've seen already.

So, the "update on the mess" I was referring to, is that the individuals from the three countries in question could be different from each other and also, there are an argentine one in the hobby that few people didn't know about it. But in the hobby, we might have individuals from different countries that looks like the same.

I have one observation though, search for a scientifical note where a tarantula is eating a snake in situ, I forgot the authors name, unfortunately, but that register happened in Brazil and the tarantula was a G. quirogai. As far as I know, this note was validated, so much is that, in WSC you can see the distribution of G. quirogai is listed for both countries (Brazil and Uruguay).

Hope I got this clear now, sorry for the incovenient.

Hello there! I too like good friendly debates on topics relating to tarantulas. Your point was quite clear on attempting to clear up the confusion on what big black tarantula we have in the hobby. Your pictures are quite good and really does show that there is a difference between the three species. I just thought it should be made clear that this so-called mess is just in the hobby and not that there is any confusion concerning species delimitation. Contrast to the confusion of Hysterocrates species in the hobby where all species of Hysterocrates are poorly defined thus an accurate ID of the species in the hobby isn't possible.

I completely forgot about the publication you are referring to about G. quirogai being found in Brazil eating a snake! So I was wrong in stating there have been no records of G. quirogai being found in Brazil. But, the publication didn't say how they identified the tarantula as G. quirogai so I question the species that was found. The authors included a photo of the tarantula feeding on the snake and it is black and brown and looks like your photo of G. quirogai. Rogerio Bertani was a co-author of that paper so I assume he was the one who determined the ID. This is why I wonder if G. pulchra turns brown like G. quirogai when approaching a molt. If so, the appearance of brown coloration would not be a good way to distinguish G. quirogai from G. pulchra. And what about that Argentinian one? What species is that?

Here is the citation for that paper.

Borges, L. M., da Rosa, C. M., Dri, G. F., & Bertani, R. (2016). Predation of the snake Erythrolamprus almadensis (Wagler, 1824) by the tarantula Grammostola quirogai Montes De Oca, D’Elía & Pérez-Miles, 2016. Herpetology Notes, 9, 321-322. Read Online

 

[Vanessa]

@Arachnid Addicted Do you have any photos of the spermathecae of the third female from Argentina?

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

Hello there! I too like good friendly debates on topics relating to tarantulas. Your point was quite clear on attempting to clear up the confusion on what big black tarantula we have in the hobby. Your pictures are quite good and really does show that there is a difference between the three species. I just thought it should be made clear that this so-called mess is just in the hobby and not that there is any confusion concerning species delimitation. Contrast to the confusion of Hysterocrates species in the hobby where all species of Hysterocrates are poorly defined thus an accurate ID of the species in the hobby isn't possible.

I completely forgot about the publication you are referring to about G. quirogai being found in Brazil eating a snake! So I was wrong in stating there have been no records of G. quirogai being found in Brazil. But, the publication didn't say how they identified the tarantula as G. quirogai so I question the species that was found. The authors included a photo of the tarantula feeding on the snake and it is black and brown and looks like your photo of G. quirogai. Rogerio Bertani was a co-author of that paper so I assume he was the one who determined the ID. This is why I wonder if G. pulchra turns brown like G. quirogai when approaching a molt. If so, the appearance of brown coloration would not be a good way to distinguish G. quirogai from G. pulchra. And what about that Argentinian one? What species is that?

Here is the citation for that paper.

Borges, L. M., da Rosa, C. M., Dri, G. F., & Bertani, R. (2016). Predation of the snake Erythrolamprus almadensis (Wagler, 1824) by the tarantula Grammostola quirogai Montes De Oca, D’Elía & Pérez-Miles, 2016. Herpetology Notes, 9, 321-322. Read Online

Thanks for the article, it was that one that I was referring to, indeed. What I meant about the brown coloration, was that there are keepers that try to distinguished them by using this "character". Which is wrong. Both of them can turn brown when they are close to molt.
About the argentine specimen, I recently heard there was this poster with all argentine Grammostola in it (mendozae, vachoni, pulchripes, etc.)
This poster had a black Grammostola that was labeled as G. pulchra. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it and, even if I could, I really don't belive we can rely on it.

 

[Arachnid Addicted]

@Arachnid Addicted Do you have any photos of the spermathecae of the third female from Argentina?

Hi there. Unfortunately, I don't have. But I can check if someone has. Only thing is, when it comes to Grammostola, spermathacae check is only a thing hobbysts do to try to differentiate some species. Matter of fact, only this character, isolated, is not enough, unfortunately.

 

[Vanessa]

Hi there. Unfortunately, I don't have. But I can check if someone has. Only thing is, when it comes to Grammostola, spermathacae check is only a thing hobbysts do to try to differentiate some species. Matter of fact, only this character, isolated, is not enough, unfortunately.

Yes, it is unfortunate. We have gone through that exercise here recently with comparing spermathecae for my actaeon and iheringi. I was just hoping to have a look at it to see if it might be a bit different to the spermathecae on file at WSC for pulchra and quirogai, so I can compare my two female pulchra to it.