Tarantula breeders are no longer burned at the stake, now its just reserved for terrorists.
Sweet, I finally found a threat where I'm appeciated!
=D
Originally posted by invertepet
Well, one could argue that we don't "need" to own a tarantula in the first place. We're already crossing a line by taking spiders out of their environment and placing them into captivity.
And this is related how? You're just playing devil's advocate.
I disagree about the hobby being in its infancy. Just because we still have much to learn doesn't mean we're just starting out. Some of us have been keeping tarantulas since the late 70's.
Compare it to many other hobbies and it's still a baby. My point is there is still a lot to learn.
First off, that wouldn't necessarily ever happen with cross-species breeding (many such pairings are infertile).
Thanks for clearing that up....
Second, "mutts" occur in nature. If you have an Avicularia avicularia, chances are good that it's a "mutt" to some extent. That means somewhere an A. urticans mated into A. avicularia and their genetics were similar enough to allow subsequent generations.
Notice the example you give is NATURAL. If their habitats overlap and it works, then sure, that's the way nature intended it. I have no problem with that and hope that more research will be done on how/why this happens. This does not, however, appear to be the case with the golden and orange.
Brachypelma baumgarteni is now believed to be a naturally occurring hybrid species (B. smithi X B. boehmei), btw. Should we just ignore them? Keep them out of the hobby to maintain 'pure' lines of Brachypelma?
Once again, naturally. And another obvious one: of course we shouldn't ignore them or keep them out of the hobby. I'm starting to think you take me for a fool....
Well, that 'crap' occurs in the wild.
I was not referring to the coloration being crap but to having to say what percentage of each morph the spider had.... and uh, the macaroni thing was a joke... maybe it wasn't obvious.
And it's exactly the same as color morphs of G. rosea -- because it's the same species (not a real 'hybrid').
It's not exactly the same because the different color morphs of rosea appear in the same eggsac. If the golden and orange "murinus" forms appear in the same eggsac, I am not aware of it.
How hard is it to say "yellow x orange"?
Obviously it's not hard but then you get back to the 'how much of each' question.
And as for coloration, how many tarantulas that we lovingly describe in such glowing hues could easily be seen as 'a big hairy brown spider' by the unwashed masses unfamiliar with spider color subtlety?
Um... I vaguely remember someone talking about having bred an irminia and a cambridgei and describing it as dull looking. Have you ever seen a dull looking irminia or cambridgei? Not I.....
This is an existing species (one, not two). You're not creating a new species, just a new (possibly) colormorph. That's it.
Currently, the classification is still shady, I believe. Otherwise, why is there so much confusion about what to call the Usambara? If we can't be sure, then all the more reason to wait!
As for over-collection, it's an over-hyped concept.
If CITES puts something on the list, we can claim it's just hype till we're blue in the face, but it'll still be on the list until they deem otherwise.
I don't think anyone is proposing anything remotely like that. In this case, we're talking about combining SAME-SPECIES colormorphs to see what happens (it could be a mixture color, or it could be several of each type).
Ok, first of all, I wasn't being completely serious--I am well aware that it was a completely bogus idea, but it was exaggerated to make a point. Maybe you can see what I mean though in that once breeding among colormorphs is "acceptable" in the hobby, it could lead to other experimentation. And I would also say that you're wrong--some people are trying to breed within genus, not just species.
By the way, I don't think my comment was all that far-fetched. Look at this quote from page 209 of "The Tarantula Keeper's Guide" by the Schultz's:
Assuming that the offspring were not infertile mules, there is the possibility that hybridization and selective breeding could produce unique color patterns, less irritating bristles, or significantly larger sizes. The imagination runs amuck with the thought of hybrid tarantulas the size of Theraphosa blondi and with the colors of Chromatopelma cyaneopubescens and Brachypelma smithi combined... Such thoughts make those of us who are obesessed with these fabulous creatures drool with anticipation.
Besides, you can't crossbreed spiders that diverse... Only similar species of the same genus. You can't produce a T. blondi/G. rosea cross.
I may not be the brightest crayon in the box but I'm not an idiot.
Well that was fun. I still rest with the inclination against captive hybridization.
kellygirl
Edit: typos
I knew that was coming.
That's funny stuff, Jason!
But I do have an opinion on this, as do you. I think we can discuss it without taking up defensive positions. 
Okay, while I still disagree on many of your points, you are right about this. I think I took some of your comments to be personal attacks when they probably weren't meant to be so. A few of the things you said were very obvious so I thought either you were mocking me or talking down to me. I guess I'll chalk it up to my hormones talking :8o ... forgive me for my attitude? I think I'm gonna go take a bath now and leave this one to rest until another time.
