Usumbara X starburst baboon (P. murinus)

[Professor T]

Bill,

I found your statement so absurd, I went off. I think if you think about how much you know about tarantula genetics you couldn't fit it in this space: []

Herpetologists know more about breeding that one species of snake(Elaphe guttata), than T breeders know collectively about all species of Tarantulas.

Maybe someone else wants to argue point by point how little T breeders know compared to other pet breeders, but its like arguing the Tampa Bay Devil Rays aren't in their infancy compared to the New York Yankees.

Invertebrate dealers ship inverts that they don't know the species of, quite common in millipedes and centipedes. T breeders aren't sure if crossing usambara with starburst is a same species cross.

We can get off the topic of genetics and argue Arthropod taxonomy is in its infancy. But you think humans are advanced about every topic because they're bipedal and have hair.

We know more about the breeding genetics of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals than tarantula genetics. You said we don't. You are wrong, and there is no way to escape that fact.

So, if knowledge of T breeding is behind the other pet hobby breeding, that makes it in its infancy compared to the others. It is so far behind some of the others, the argument is obtuse.

 

[MizM]

Please.... replace the word "argue" with "discuss" as this is a forum for "discussion" not "arguing!"

Please.... NO ONE knows everything. How do WE know that all Bill knows about T genetics couldn't fit in that space? How do WE know that some arachnologist somewhere hasn't figured it ALL out?

Open your mind, listen to what others have to say, maybe learn from it maybe not... but DON'T put others down for expressing their opinions. I hope I'm not just speaking for myself, but bad attitude isn't welcome on this site!

And, no, I'm not the moderator for this site, but I don't wanna be here if this is the kind of stuff I have to read. If ya can't be cool, C-U-LATER!!!! And THAT'S MY 2¢ worth!

PEACE, ALL!

 

[KelliH]

I agree 100% with what Wade says in his reply, as long as hybrids are honestly represented then there is no problem. It is when unscrupulous (or possibly just plain ignorant) dealers/breeders try to pass a cross as a pure animal that problems will begin. And we all know there are those types of dealers out there that only care about lining their own pockets unfortunately. I see it all the time in the reptile trade and it's a shame that everyone can't be honest about these things but it just isn't going to happen. I feel sorry for the first herper that finds a true albino grey banded kingsnake in the wild, no one will believe that it is a pure Lampropeltis alterna because there are so many albino variable kingsnake x greyband crosses out there. I have no problem with intergrades by the way, as these are crosses that occur in nature.

 

[belewfripp]

My entire position on the issue of hybrids mirrors what Sam Marshall writes about the subject in Tarsantulas and Other Arachnids: basically, there are tons of species out there that are not established in captivity, and even the ones that are could easily become not so if people stop for even a short period of time. I think we should be focused on preserving what we already have before we start fiddling with making something new.


Adrian

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by MizM


Please.... NO ONE knows everything. How do WE know that all Bill knows about T genetics couldn't fit in that space? How do WE know that some arachnologist somewhere hasn't figured it ALL out?

PEACE, ALL!

Nothing personal to Bill, but the reason I know Bill doesn't know anything about T genetics, is NO ONE knows....because T breeding is in its infancy. Some breeders can tell male from female......so we've come a long way baby!

 

[MizM]

Not ur baby........

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by belewfripp
My entire position on the issue of hybrids mirrors what Sam Marshall writes about the subject in Tarsantulas and Other Arachnids: basically, there are tons of species out there that are not established in captivity, and even the ones that are could easily become not so if people stop for even a short period of time. I think we should be focused on preserving what we already have before we start fiddling with making something new.

Adrian

That makes a lot of sense and illustrates the concept that T breeding is in its infancy and is in a fragile state for many species.

 

[Professor T]

Not my baby, Don't mean maybe

Originally posted by MizM
Not ur baby........

MizM,

I agree that you aren't my baby! I wasn't addressing you as "baby". Just using the expression "we've come a long way baby", didn't say "you've come a long way", you might be looking for an arguement, but I come in peace!

 

[invertepet]

I found your statement so absurd, I went off. I think if you think about how much you know about tarantula genetics you couldn't fit it in this space: []

I think it's best to speak for onesself when making such comments. I think you saying that is absurd, but you don't see me 'going off'.

More communication and less going off. Might work. Give it a thought.

Herpetologists know more about breeding that one species of snake(Elaphe guttata), than T breeders know collectively about all species of Tarantulas.

And that comment is as absurd as they come. Furthermore, the relevance is nil. It's a semantic issue. I said I agree that Theraphosidry (per se) isn't as old or advanced as say, herpetology. But is it an infant hobby? No, absolutely not - say I. You are welcome to your interpretation of what amounts to 'infancy'. But the above sentence is utterly without basis and at best, unprovable.

Maybe someone else wants to argue point by point how little T breeders know compared to other pet breeders, but its like arguing the Tampa Bay Devil Rays aren't in their infancy compared to the New York Yankees.

It isn't like that at all, since one is a baseball team and one is an exotic pet hobby. You're also confusing what general tarantula hobbyists know with what hardcore herpetologists know.

Invertebrate dealers ship inverts that they don't know the species of, quite common in millipedes and centipedes. T breeders aren't sure if crossing usambara with starburst is a same species cross.

I just told you that the Usumbara and Golden Starburst morphs are of the same species. If you don't want to take it from me, you're welcome to research it.

And now we're talking about millipedes and centipedes? OK, I would point out that many herp dealers don't know much about frogs, yet they sell those. It means nothing as to whether tarantula husbandry is 'infant' level and means even less about whether crossbreeding is any threat to the hobby.

We can get off the topic of genetics and argue Arthropod taxonomy is in its infancy. But you think humans are advanced about every topic because they're bipedal and have hair.

I think you are making it increasingly obvious that you really don't know what I think. Why do you have to make it personal? You'd think I just cast genetic aspersions on your mother, for crying out loud.

We know more about the breeding genetics of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals than tarantula genetics. You said we don't. You are wrong, and there is no way to escape that fact.

Huh? I said that we know MORE about tarantula genetics than we do about any other pet breeding? Not hardly. If there's any facts doing any 'escaping' it's in your fanciful retelling of what I've just said a scant hour or so ago. Go up half a page and review.

So, if knowledge of T breeding is behind the other pet hobby breeding, that makes it in its infancy compared to the others. It is so far behind some of the others, the argument is obtuse.

First, we needn't quantify therphosid genetics research as the sole developmental grade of the entire hobby. I would agree (as I have all along) that the genetic data we have on theraphosids is less than other pet genres, but in terms of actual hobbyist education, I feel we're quite a bit ahead of many, on average.

Case in point: How many tarantula owners do you think know the latin name of their pet? I'd say a majority, or at least half. The same cannot be said of your average snake owner, and certainly not of most bird, fish and small mammal owners. But those hobbies are older and there is a stronger scientific database, so they're out of their infancy. I submit that average awareness and education level of the hobbyist is also a key issue to take into consideration. In the late 70's and early to mid 80's, I would have agreed that 'Theraphosidry' was in its infancy. I no longer feel that is the case. Whatever you want to call it, 'infancy' ignores too much learning and overall 'evolution' that has taken place in just the last 10 years, let alone the last 20.

Secondly, I agree. Your argument is indeed obtuse.

bill

 

[invertepet]

Originally posted by Professor T
Nothing personal to Bill, but the reason I know Bill doesn't know anything about T genetics, is NO ONE knows....because T breeding is in its infancy. Some breeders can tell male from female......so we've come a long way baby!

Breeders aren't the only ones that can tell males from females.

As for "no one knows anything about tarantula genetics," you may be surprised to find several papers published on the subject, some of which have been listed here:

http://www.britishspiders.org.uk/library/p.htm

And here:

http://www.arachnology.org/ISA/meetings/2001abstracts.html

Hell, there's even been genetics studies done on prehistoric araneomorphs embedded in amber!

bill

 

[Mendnwngs]

Ill say this for what its worth.

There are many unanswered questions. For instance: Cats have been domesticated for 9,000+ generations. The ancient egyptians had pet cats..

Do we know why, specificaly they purr? Or even where in the throat it comes from? No.

Are there still puebred lines of felines? Yes.

point: We always have something to learn about a class of animals. No matter how long we've studied them.

Despite what we know, and despite our best efforts Certain people will crossbreed, Others will not. Thats why (like cats) you can find crossbreeds, and you can find purebreds.

In either case, theres a market for it.

Cant we all just get along

-Jason

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by invertepet



Case in point: How many tarantula owners do you think know the latin name of their pet? I'd say a majority, or at least half. The same cannot be said of your average snake owner, and certainly not of most bird, fish and small mammal owners. But those hobbies are older and there is a stronger scientific database, so they're out of their infancy. I submit that average awareness and education level of the hobbyist is also a key issue to take into consideration. In the late 70's and early to mid 80's, I would have agreed that 'Theraphosidry' was in its infancy. I no longer feel that is the case. Whatever you want to call it, 'infancy' ignores too much learning and overall 'evolution' that has taken place in just the last 10 years, let alone the last 20.

bill

Of course it could be argued that the common names are accepted so much better in the other pet hobbies because unlike T breeding... they are out of their infancy.

To know a lot about breeding, you have to know a lot about the genetics or your understanding is superficial at best. Genetics is the biological mechanism that controls the outcome, along with environment. The reason your understanding of T genetics is superficial, is because T breeding is in its infancy. Everyone can see that...expect for you. You took a poistion without thinking it through. Made a ridiculous statement that T breeding isn't in its infancy compared to other pet hobby breeding. Keep going...

Tell use how T breeding isn't in its infancy compared to dog breeding again!? Goldfish breeding? Corn snake breeding? Guinea pig breeding? Horn frog breeding? Parakeet breeding? You lose on any topic!

 

[invertepet]

Er, I don't 'lose' because I am not making the comments you keep attributing to me. What exactly happened to your Cheerios this morning, Prof?

What I AM saying is this:

1). The tarantula hobby, while it may be comparatively young next to say, Icthyology, is no longer in its infancy given the strides that have been made across the board in recent years.

2). Breeding alone doesn't necessarily classify a hobby as being in its 'infancy'. You could better argue that Tarantula BREEDING in itself is closer to its infancy (or in it, whatever you like) than birds or fish.

3). As I pointed out, there are elements of the theraphosid hobby that are more learned and advanced than others. I do not attribute this to its infancy (what an amusing concept), rather its advancement. Once upon a time, every tarantula was referred to as a 'Mexican Orange Knee'. Nobody knew any different. Then came 'Red Rumps' and 'Rose Hairs' and 'Cinnamons'. Nowadays most of us know exactly what a B. smithi or G. rosea is. That's progress.

4). Crossbreeding may not be as big a threat to the hobby as some believe. Then again, maybe it is - this is the main issue that I wanted to explore before you hijacked it and made it this bizarre personal crusade against thinking the hobby no longer in its 'infancy'.


Made a ridiculous statement that T breeding isn't in its infancy compared to other pet hobby breeding. Keep going...

I said the HOBBY isn't in its infancy. And even if I were somehow grossly at odds with reality as you seem to think, it's a SEMANTIC issue - open to individual interpretation. Not subject to ridicule and pointless flamboyant hyperbolic posturing.

Everyone can see that...expect for you.

Frankly, what I think 'everyone' is seeing (rather than a useful debate on crossbreeding) is you copping an enormous attitude over a largely semantic and secondary issue to the main topic.

bill

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by invertepet
Breeders aren't the only ones that can tell males from females.

As for "no one knows anything about tarantula genetics," you may be surprised to find several papers published on the subject, some of which have been listed here:

http://www.britishspiders.org.uk/library/p.htm

And here:

http://www.arachnology.org/ISA/meetings/2001abstracts.html

Hell, there's even been genetics studies done on prehistoric araneomorphs embedded in amber!

bill

Those links are too funny! A paper on A supplementary list of the spiders of Ireland and Abundance and phenology of Schizomida are what you are using to state you case of the vast knowledge of tarantula genetics for breeding purposes? LOL

Name one dominant trait found in the most commonly bred tarantula.

Name one recessive trait found in any tarantula.

Name a trait in any tarantula that is controlled by incomplete dominance.

Multiple alleles?

Multiple genes?

See my point about T breeding in its infancy? Yes or no?

 

[invertepet]

Originally posted by Professor T
Those links are too funny! A paper on A supplementary list of the spiders of Ireland and Abundance and phenology of Schizomida are what you are using to state you case of the vast knowledge of tarantula genetics for breeding purposes? LOL

That was one of dozens of papers on the page I linked to. "LOL"

Name one dominant trait found in the most commonly bred tarantula.

This isn't about what I know about specific traits, this is about you attacking the idea that the hobby is 'infant'. You can keep steering it back to this is you like, but it doesn't mean anything. How many herp hobbyists know what traits are dominant or recessive in Lampropeltus getulus? Does their ignorance classify that hobby as infantile?

Give us a break, Prof.

bill

 

[invertepet]

Originally posted by Mendnwngs

Despite what we know, and despite our best efforts Certain people will crossbreed, Others will not. Thats why (like cats) you can find crossbreeds, and you can find purebreds.

In either case, theres a market for it.

Cant we all just get along

-Jason

Good question.

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, I think there have been a few really valid points made in this thread (and others recently) about crossbreeding. On one hand, we have other hobbies that have endured it and not been significantly harmed... And yet we do enjoy a current status of relative purity in the theraphosids we do maintain in captivity (of the small array that are currently available, that is).

Is it better to explore and experiment, or better to avoid any possible genetic contamination from viable hybrids?

bill

 

[Professor T]

Which subspecies of Lampropeltis getula ? L.g.gutula? L.g. floridana? L.g. holbrooki, l.g. splendida? L.g. californica? There have been books written on their genetics...unlike T genetics which is in its infancy.

Most albino king snake owners know albino is recessive. They also know about striped, banded, bloched, and speckled!

What do you know about the genetics of the different color morphs of G. rosea? Seems like just yesterday experts were calling them different species!

You will never admit that compared to other older pet hobbies, less is know about T's , and with good reason...its still in its infancy.

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by invertepet

Originally posted by Professor T
How many herp hobbyists know what traits are dominant or recessive in Lampropeltus getulus? Does their ignorance classify that hobby as infantile?



bill

Besides most knowing something about the simple Medalian genetics of albino being recessive, somebody not knowing would not make king snake breeding be considered in its infancy.

But, NOBODY KNOWING ABOUT T BREEDING GENETICS does classify that in its infancy. See the difference? The experts know less about T's that the common pet owners knows about king snakes. You just helped illustate my point...T breeding IS in its infancy. You won't admit defeat!

 

[Satanika]

Enough Already Guys!

Agree to Disagree and leave it at that.


...... Because Mommy said so ...


Seriously ..... Stop now and no one will get hurt .... ;P


Debby (& Scott)

 

[Henry Kane]

I can see how in some ways the term "infancy" could be applied and in some ways wouldn't fit.
On one hand, the full log of documentation of any described sp. lists a date...ex. Chaetopelma olivaceum (C.L. Koch 1841). In that case, studies of inverts have been going on long enough to figure it's long out of it's infancy.
If the "hobby's" maturity is based on the amount of collective knowledge of genetics, then yeah, we don't know as much as with certain other animals.
One anomaly I see though is the word "hobby" used in the same paragraph as "genetics". IMO, the age or maturity of the "hobby" would be hard to determine. Who knows how the hell long ago the first invert hobbyist came along. Could have been centuries ago.
There can't very well be too many experts actually decoding T genetics on a mere "hobby level".
That said, I think the entire statement "the hobby is in it's infancy" is moot and impossible to back up. Of course, I personally wouldn't agree that scientific studies of T's are in their infancy. The studies obviously began a very long time ago and still go on so...

I will not partake in an arguement and really hope that just because someone doesn't agree doesn't automatically make me an enemy/threat/offender/attacker etc. etc.


My thoughts on the topic of hybridizing of same sp., different ssp. (?)
I feel that under strictly controlled conditions it may be useful for exactly what has just been argued. Some knowedge of dominant vs. recessive and other genetic info may be gained. I do not feel hybrids (sp. or ssp.) should be distributed to the average hobbyist. Particularly creatures belonging within a genus of which so little is yet known such as Pterinochilus.

Atrax