Usumbara X starburst baboon (P. murinus)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lycanthrope

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
622
Ok so these were recently placed together as the same species. does this mean we can breed them interchangeably without creating hybrids? has anyone done this? I know tarantula taxonomy is a bit shaky at best, and its quite possible that they will later be two seperate species. my main question i guess is can i breed the two color morphs together without being burned at the stake for hybridizing? or is this a matter best left alone?
 

Professor T

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
722
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Ok so these were recently placed together as the same species. does this mean we can breed them interchangeably without creating hybrids? has anyone done this? I know tarantula taxonomy is a bit shaky at best, and its quite possible that they will later be two seperate species. my main question i guess is can i breed the two color morphs together without being burned at the stake for hybridizing? or is this a matter best left alone?
Tarantula breeders are no longer burned at the stake, now its just reserved for terrorists.

If you own opposite sex usambara and starburst and want to breed them, that is your choice, this is still America. They won't be hybrids because they're the same species. Some people might argue its best to keep the race bloodlines pure, but if they're your tarantulas, you are calling all the shots.

If you are wanting opinion, I'd be in favor of keeping the bloodlines separate. However, opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one.
 

Buspirone

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
1,064
If you are curious and want to see what the offspring will look like then go for it just keep the offspring out of circulation. Document everything, take lots of pics and share the info. If your planning on selling/trading the offspring then don't do it.
 

Lycanthrope

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
622
If you are curious and want to see what the offspring will look like then go for it just keep the offspring out of circulation. Document everything, take lots of pics and share the info. If your planning on selling/trading the offspring then don't do it.

thats basically it, i just want to see the results myself. i do strongly agree that bloodlines are important, its just that ever since they were classified the same species my curiosity has taken over. and yes opinions are what im looking for, and they will have some weight in my final descision. rude comments and smart assed remarks are also greatly appreciated.
 

Professor T

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
722
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
rude comments and smart assed remarks are also greatly appreciated.
Sweet, I finally found a threat where I'm appeciated!
 

invertepet

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
608
I've been hanging around the 'spider community' since the 80's and was peripherally involved with the ATS back when it was just first getting re-assembled (yes, there was a much more slipshod version prior to the one we now know). I was also part of the BTS and was getting bugs imported from Europe in the early 90's (actually, that's when I first invented the name 'Invertepet').

Anyway, I've been writing & reading articles and letters to the ATS and BTS as well tons of discussion forums as early as back in the pre-internet Prodigy, AOL and Compuserve days. So yeah, I've seen a lot of what's been said on this particular issue over the years.

What it boils down to for me is, I just can't see why something like P. murinus x P. murinus spiderlings should be forbidden or 'ethically wrong' to sell or distribute. The yellow form of P. murinus is now more scarce than the orange (used to be the other way 'round). But they're both the same species, so what's the problem? Just make sure people buying any understand it's 'orange x yellow' or 'usumbara x golden' and everything is fine.

Those of us decrying interbreeding should look at the other 'live' hobbys. Plants, reptiles, dogs, cats, fish, birds... They ALL get widely crossbred to produce the most beautiful and exotic strains imaginable. Why are we so afraid of such things, as long as they're identified as such?

Most cross-species pairings that weren't "meant to be" (too genetically different) won't be able to reproduce anyway, and the ones that can (like some species of Avicularia) were likely interbred in the wild somewhere back in their lineage, so it's not like we're committing some gross biological affront to God or Mother Nature...

I say as long as you're not passing it off as some new species to reap money or scientific recognition, it doesn't hurt a thing.

bill
 
Last edited:

kellygirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
1,055
I'm more inclined away from the hybrid attempts for a few reasons...

1. Why mess with a good thing? When I did a school visit with my tarantulas, I brought the kids over to the computer, asked them what their favorite color was and I would pull up a spider with that color. Eventually every color was named and there was a corresponding color for each one. If you're more into body type, speed, burrowing abilities, or whatever, there is a spider out there for you. We don't need "better" tarantulas, there's plenty of variety as is!

2. This hobby is still in its infant stages! There is so much we have yet to learn about the existing species. Shouldn't our attention be more focused on learning about the species we have than trying to create new ones? If someone thinks they can learn something about a particular species by creating hybrid spiderlings, then perhaps that is the way to go. But why go flooding the market with a new tarantula that may or may not be a mule? I'm no Nazi, but I want my tarantulas to be purebred, not some mutt.

3. Names are hard enough as is! We've already got all sorts of mess going on in Haplopelma and you've got the thorelli vs. the pet trade thorelli issue. There's plenty of junk going on in the taxonomy world, why create more chaos by introducing hybrid species? I could understand if you had the same situation as the rosea with its several color phases in the same eggsac but if these murinus mixes get out there, we'll be having to say "Well, this one is about 1/4 orange form and 3/4 golden form so that's why you've got this dirty macaroni and cheese coloration going on" or crap like that.

4. Captive breeding projects are needed! Of course captive breeding is terrific but since there are several species that are heading in the direction of the CITES list, wouldn't it seem more worth our time to try to breed and produce existing species, particularly the ones that are over-collected from the wild? I'd sure hate to see the day when we have to pay $80 for a Rosehair spiderling because we were all trying to create a tarantula the size of an apophysis, as docile as a campestratus, with patterns like a rufilata and the brightness of a boehmei---which, as cool as that may be, I'd rather have the different species for what they are than some super-spider.

Well.... that's just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

kellygirl
 

invertepet

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
608
Kelly, you make some good points and it's apparent you've thought this through. Allow me to clarify my position on the topic:

1. Why mess with a good thing? We don't need "better" tarantulas, there's plenty of variety as is!

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.

2. This hobby is still in its infant stages! There is so much we have yet to learn about the existing species.

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.

I'm no Nazi, but I want my tarantulas to be purebred, not some mutt.

First off, that wouldn't necessarily ever happen with cross-species breeding (many such pairings are infertile).

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.

3. Names are hard enough as is! We've already got all sorts of mess going on in Haplopelma and you've got the thorelli vs. the pet trade thorelli issue. There's plenty of junk going on in the taxonomy world, why create more chaos by introducing hybrid species?

Names are always hard, especially sorting taxonomy. It's true in many other live hobbies. There will always be a few uncertain ones, like C. thorelli and certain other species. Crossbreeding wouldn't necessarily have any impact on that. As I said, we have to be responsible about it.

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?

I could understand if you had the same situation as the rosea with its several color phases in the same eggsac but if these murinus mixes get out there, we'll be having to say "Well, this one is about 1/4 orange form and 3/4 golden form so that's why you've got this dirty macaroni and cheese coloration going on" or crap like that.

Well, that 'crap' occurs in the wild. And it's exactly the same as color morphs of G. rosea -- because it's the same species (not a real 'hybrid'). How hard is it to say "yellow x orange"? 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?

wouldn't it seem more worth our time to try to breed and produce existing species, particularly the ones that are over-collected from the wild?

This is an existing species (one, not two). You're not creating a new species, just a new (possibly) colormorph. That's it.

As for over-collection, it's an over-hyped concept. Most naturally occurring spider populations are so abundant that it would take years and years of mass collection to impact the local numbers significantly.

I'd sure hate to see the day when we have to pay $80 for a Rosehair spiderling because we were all trying to create a tarantula the size of an apophysis, as docile as a campestratus, with patterns like a rufilata and the brightness of a boehmei---which, as cool as that may be, I'd rather have the different species for what they are than some super-spider.

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).

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.

bill
 

Buspirone

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 10, 2003
Messages
1,064
It looks like a G. rosea but its got pedipalps as bulbous as a T. blondi .:D =D
 

kellygirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
1,055
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....:rolleyes:


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
 
Last edited:

invertepet

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
608

And this is related how? You're just playing devil's advocate.

Kelly, you said we don't 'need' hybrids. I am saying that we don't 'need' the whole hobby. None of it is a 'need'. It's a 'want'. And who knows, maybe we should find out if breeding yellow and orange murinus will produce a yellowy-orange or a batch of yellows and oranges?

Compare it to many other hobbies and it's still a baby. My point is there is still a lot to learn.

There's still a lot to learn about fish, snakes, frogs, butterflies... Maybe compared to model building it's young, but certainly not when compared to other pet hobbies.

Thanks for clearing that up....:rolleyes:

Why the eye-rolling? I didn't cite that example to say you didn't know about it, just to illustrate my point. That's all. Yeesh!

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.

How do you know? Didn't you just say we have a lot to learn? Well, I agree -- and one of those things we don't know is the exact range of many species, especially in less-populated and remote regions.

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....

Not at all. I was citing an example. You needn't take a differing opinion personally.

What I am saying is, many species that you can hybridize in captivity likely have some genetic similarities that point to a possible hybridization in past generations (perhaps when the species overlapped when they no longer do). After all, our globe is changing, especially with all the encroachment mankind is doing and has done.

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.

Yes, it was obvious. Anyway, look at the herp or plant hobby. Lots of 'this x that' crossbreed descriptives. And nothing really bad has come of it.

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.

Maybe they are -- we don't know yet.

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.

I just don't see that as a big deal, or even likely to happen (I suspect that orange x yellow would produce one or the other).

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.....

Again, some non-hobbyists could see a cambridgei as dull. But that's really neither here nor there -- since we're not talking about crossing irminia with cambridgei, specifically. Which, by the way, look interesting to me (darker with orange tarsal spotting and weird looking abdominal chevrons).

I'm not really ADVOCATING crosses like irminia x cambridgei, mind you - just speculating that some of these crosses might not be a big deal.

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!

Usumbaras have pretty much always been considered to be P. murinus. I haven't heard any scientific/taxonomic theories to the contrary.

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 agree, but I'll reject much of what the government forces me to do until I AM blue in the face. Their logic and 'facts' behind the CITES listing of Poecilotheria was pathetic.

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.

First off, I don't know that same-species colormorph interbreeding ISN'T acceptable in this hobby. Who determines that, you? Me?

Second, experimentation isn't exactly abhorrent in this sense unless someone proffers something like P. regalis x P. ornata as a new species or something similar.

I may not be the brightest crayon in the box but I'm not an idiot.

I certainly haven't implied that. I think you're a pretty bright crayon (kind of like the lime-green one). :) But I do have an opinion on this, as do you. I think we can discuss it without taking up defensive positions.

bill
 

Wade

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
2,929
In theory, if crosses (and even true hybrids) are identified as such all the way down the line, there's no problem. However, even if the breeder identifies the cross, there's no guarantee that the next person, wholesaler or pet shop who buys them will. When you consider how many dealers and pet stores don't identify the spiders correctly or even use scientific names at all, the possibility of these crossed spiders trickling into the hobby unidentified is uncomfortably high. Couple this with the fact that newly emerged spiderlings usually don't show adult coloration, making them harder to recognize variations at least at the early stages.

Not a huge deal with P. murinus, since these are the same species, but keeping the bloodlines "pure" would be my preferance, but it's probably a moot point. If the can be crossed, then they will be.

Wade
 

kellygirl

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 1, 2002
Messages
1,055
Originally posted by invertepet
But I do have an opinion on this, as do you. I think we can discuss it without taking up defensive positions.

bill
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. ;) :D

kellygirl
 

MizM

Arachnoprincess
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 13, 2003
Messages
4,915
All I want to know is: When will the Dodoma Mombassa Usambara Starburst Baboons be on the market?
 

Professor T

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
722
Originally posted by invertepet



Compare it to many other hobbies and it's still a baby. My point is there is still a lot to learn.

There's still a lot to learn about fish, snakes, frogs, butterflies... Maybe compared to model building it's young, but certainly not when compared to other pet hobbies.

bill


Bill,

You can't be serious with this statement. T breeding is NOT in its infancy compared to other pet hobbies? Get real!

You think you know as much about T breeding as ichthyologists know about breeding goldfish!? Or herpetologists know about breeding rat snakes!? Or ornithologists about parrots!? You been breeding T's for centuries like dog breeders have bred dogs!?

Others know something about the genes that control the traits in these animals, and you know nothing! We don't even know genus and species names of many of the inverts we cross! It is in the freaking stone age, and you're on you're high horse because you figured out rocks roll. The hobby is in diapers pal, we are just putting bigger loads in those diapers.
 
Last edited:

invertepet

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
608

You can't be serious with this statement. T breeding is NOT in its infancy compared to other pet hobbies? Get real!

I am quite real, and I am quite serious. I didn't say it's as old or advanced as some, but I do think it's out of its 'infancy'. Definitely.

You think you know as much about T breeding as ichthyologists know about breeding goldfish!? Or herpetologists know about breeding rat snakes!? Or ornithologists about parrots!? You been breeding T's for centuries like dog breeders have bred dogs!?

Again, I didn't say that. What I said was, it's not in its infancy - and I believe that while we may not have been breeding tarantulas as long as dogs have been bred, we do however have a very highly technical base for our interests. I think most dog owners aren't aware of the biology of their pets as many tarantula owners are of theirs.

I realize it's somewhat apples to oranges, but tarantula husbandry IS NOT in its infancy. It may be younger than, for example, herpetology, but I think it's quite comparable. Yes, I do believe some breeders of tarantulas know 'as much' about breeding their animal of choice as some rat snake breeders do about theirs.

Others know something about the genes that control the traits in these animals, and you know nothing!

Pardon me, but I think you're making a rather extreme generalization with that remark. Tarantula genetics may not be a broad subject taught in biology classrooms, but research has been done, and people have explored it.

We don't even know genus and species names of many of the inverts we cross!

I haven't head of any unknown theraphosid species being crossbred with other unknowns. Again, I think you are making a rather extreme generalization. Remember, we're talking about two different things, here: Breeding two morphs of the same species -- and two different species of the same genus.

Again, I think the prevalence of crossbreeding in other hobbies (since THEIR infancy) indicates that concerns over negative ramifications for our hobby MAY be overblown. THAT is all I'm saying.

It is in the freaking stone age, and you're on you're high horse because you figured our rocks roll. The hobby is in diapers pal, we are just putting bigger loads in those diapers.

If anyone is jumping on a high horse, it's someone who quantifies the vast research and advancements that have been made over just the last 10-15 years as 'being in diapers' and a perfectly rational discussion over crossbreeding as 'putting a load' in them.

Copping an aggressive, combative attitude isn't going to position your argument any higher or make you any more right. We can either discuss this issue or you can rail about on your own. I realize some people get rather emotional over this issue, but that serves no purpose. We can learn about it and argue the points without casting aspersions on each other.

bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top