Volker Von Wirth & Haplopelma schmidti "Gold Morph" x S. hainana

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi "Thanks",

thank you for that offer, but it is not the a software-specialist problem. It's the Problem that I'm sure that my "special friend" will find a person of my authorized taxonomic friends from which he will receive the Passwords. As long as he is alive and his "sect" (yes, there are still some amateurs which believes in his work - curious!) still exists, I will publish my results and pictures only in printed publications!

Cheers, Volker

 

[TheDarkness]

Hi "Cheers, Volker"

Ok, I understood your opinion...

well, I you start my own database, and in the future, when your "special friend" die, we can change us database, and share with the world...

I will start collecting data from T of the South of Brazil... and in a next time from other areas of Brazil and South America, when it's possible...

Regards
TheDarkness

 

[Crotalus]

@Lelle:

Of course I can try to repeat this experiment 100 times, and then, when I'm old and wise, the Species is described by Schmidt since long! The result of this experiment was a hint(!!!) for me that both Species are probably real Species. The description of Hapl. longipes doesn't based on that experiment, but on the taxonomical features by which you can distinguish Hapl. longipes from Hapl. lividum. I think, it's better to use the hint of such an experiment, if possible, than only to distinguish Species by morphological characters!

The crossbreeding doesnt prove if it is a crossbreeding in the first place - since you use the term "crossbreeding" I might think that you allready decided they are infact two separate species.
And crossbreeding between species in the same genus is known to occur, Im not so sure what that prove in describing a species at all. Perhaps just prove the two spider belong to the same genus but thats about it.
Just my 0.1 cent.

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi guys,
Lelle, regardless, you have to applaud Volker for attempting a small experiment following the BSC (Biological Species Concept), after all, how many systematists or taxonomists have ever done that with a species they describe?

While mostly it is only viable to follow the MSC (Morphological Species Concept) due to the immense time and funding required to attmept a nov. sp. description an other way, to combine ANY and ALL additional work to a nov.sp. description is nothing but pure bonus really

And who knows what will happen in the future, just wait until the PSC (Phylogenetic Species Concept) becomes more popular, Linnean supporters will go insane :} Many who follow the PSC would rather see numbers assigned to individual "entites" rather then species names as we know them. It could go further then that too, ever heard of the "Phylocode"? Very interesting concept created by a bunch of bright young uni students that may well have hit on something, if your a science nut anyway, LOL

Steve

 

[Crotalus]

Hi guys,
Lelle, regardless, you have to applaud Volker for attempting a small experiment following the BSC (Biological Species Concept), after all, how many systematists or taxonomists have ever done that with a species they describe?

Of course Steve, Im not critizing his work. Im just asking a few questions thats all.

While mostly it is only viable to follow the MSC (Morphological Species Concept) due to the immense time and funding required to attmept a nov. sp. description an other way, to combine ANY and ALL additional work to a nov.sp. description is nothing but pure bonus really

And who knows what will happen in the future, just wait until the PSC (Phylogenetic Species Concept) becomes more popular, Linnean supporters will go insane :} Many who follow the PSC would rather see numbers assigned to individual "entites" rather then species names as we know them. It could go further then that too, ever heard of the "Phylocode"? Very interesting concept created by a bunch of bright young uni students that may well have hit on something, if your a science nut anyway, LOL

Steve

Still no matter what system that are used there are always room for questions and some degree of confusion.
I dont think that will ever change.
I personally dont think we need to change the system, it works quite well but some animals dont seem to follow the manuals

/Lelle

 

[Steve Nunn]

Hi Lelle,
Exactly This, unlike physics say, is not a precise science, we can only come up with a hypothesis that is not dissprovable, that is the absolute best we can do. And no matter how long we go on, there will alwasy be new species discovered to throw a spanner into the works!! Species can and will cross in nature, hybrids may be fertile, parapatric areas show very interesting intergrade spp. often, the list of curveballs are endless!!

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Theraphosid Research Team]

Hi Lelle,

maybe we are talking about different things. It's not the thing of "crossbreeding". Of course you can sometimes mate and breed different Species of one and the same genus. Often this Species are sistergroups in a phylogenetic analysis, which means that they are (genetically) next related to each other. But the question is, whether they can produce fertile offsprings, and to resolve this question I've made the crossbreeding exepriment with Hapl. lividum and Hapl. longipes. Unfortunately I can't check whether the offsprings of my experiment were fertile or not, because they all died very fast within the first months of their short live, and this gives a hint, not an argument(!!!), that both "forms" seems to be real Species concerning the BSC. Our decision to describe Haplopelma longipes as a Species mainly based on the taxonomical features by which you can distinguish this Species from the other Haplopelma Species!

Cheers, Volker

 

[phormingochilus]

For instance like the palm species that speciated into two discreete entities on a small island without any dividing barriers ;-) Though palms and tarantulas are not directly comparable this new find might also shed some light to how sympatric species within the same genus evolve:

http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/scihort/news/howea_speciation.html

Regards
Søren

Hi Lelle,
Exactly This, unlike physics say, is not a precise science, we can only come up with a hypothesis that is not dissprovable, that is the absolute best we can do. And no matter how long we go on, there will alwasy be new species discovered to throw a spanner into the works!! Species can and will cross in nature, hybrids may be fertile, parapatric areas show very interesting intergrade spp. often, the list of curveballs are endless!!

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Steve Nunn]

Great example Søren!! That's fascinating stuff.

 

[Crotalus]

Interesting but not easy to know for sure if one of the palmtrees are a introduced species and a fluke that the flowering times differ.
Or did I miss somewhere it was endemic species?

 

[phormingochilus]

Indeed it is endemic, the genus Howea is named for the only place you find this palm genus: Lord Howe Island, a little isolated island that is one of the world heritage sites due to the special flora and fauna ;-) And in this case also home to a very special speciation process that disproves the generally accepted speciation concept ;-)

Regards
Søren

Interesting but not easy to know for sure if one of the palmtrees are a introduced species and a fluke that the flowering times differ.
Or did I miss somewhere it was endemic species?

 

[Crotalus]

Indeed it is endemic, the genus Howea is named for the only place you find this palm genus: Lord Howe Island, a little isolated island that is one of the world heritage sites due to the special flora and fauna ;-) And in this case also home to a very special speciation process that disproves the generally accepted speciation concept ;-)

Regards
Søren

Its a must that two species must be separated by a barrier?
I dont know but Im not that impressed by these palm peoples discovery

 

[Steve Nunn]

Its a must that two species must be separated by a barrier?

Hi Lelle,
It is the normal situation, that a barrier forces speciation, although it is not the rule!! These are the curveballs

Hey, nature will find a way, it always has and lets face it, it does not have rule book to follow. What works, no matter how strange it may sound, works, it's just up to us to figure out how the heck it can happen!! Not always so easy, perhaps in the case of the palms, there was indeed a barrier involved, we just have no clue what the barrier was!! Perhaps there was no barrier at all. All guesswork at the moment, we know very little about speciation (but we hypothesize a hell of a lot) and this is good evidence of that.

Cheers,
Steve

 

[Crotalus]

Hi Lelle,
It is the normal situation, that a barrier forces speciation, although it is not the rule!! These are the curveballs

Hey, nature will find a way, it always has and lets face it, it does not have rule book to follow. What works, no matter how strange it may sound, works, it's just up to us to figure out how the heck it can happen!! Not always so easy, perhaps in the case of the palms, there was indeed a barrier involved, we just have no clue what the barrier was!! Perhaps there was no barrier at all. All guesswork at the moment, we know very little about speciation (but we hypothesize a hell of a lot) and this is good evidence of that.

Cheers,
Steve

And sometimes people cant agree on wheather a species is a valid species or a subspecies... or if the term subspecies should be used or not in the first place
This confusion wont go away and I think I would miss it in a strange way if it did

 

[phormingochilus]

I believe it's mainly because science is rarely entirely objective. That is, most sciences are in one way or the other based on assumptions made on validated observations that can be tested. Point is that all three categories (assumption, validated observation and testing) is determined by varying degrees of historical contingency of methods and accepted teories, conscious and unconscious subjective decisions, preconceived opinions, context and data (again subject to different ways of preparation, sorting and various other sources of variables) and other highly unobjective parameters. Actually it's sometimes a wonder that an experiment can be repeatable at all (and many can't, for instance in disciplines of natural history like palaeontology, where theories are based on implications rather than accumulative facts, the same goes for many other disciplines in some way or another). Objectivity is an utopia as long as human perception is involved. And thus results may vary ;-) ...

Søren

And sometimes people cant agree on wheather a species is a valid species or a subspecies... or if the term subspecies should be used or not in the first place
This confusion wont go away and I think I would miss it in a strange way if it did

 

[TheDarkFinder]

natural history like palaeontology, where theories are based on implications rather than accumulative facts,

Palaeontology is a bad example.
If we can not base a species, or genus. order or family for that matter, on implications then what else can be base it on? Let us take Kenyanthropus platyops.

Only a upper skull, no foramen magnum, of this early hominid or pre-hominid. What do we do. Do we see that it is in fact very close to the A. afarensis and A. africanus, alot of shared features.

That we know are hominid. So since we do not have the complete cranium is it safe for us to assure from implications of common features that this was in truth a hominid. Then since with limited facts place it into its own species under Australopithecus.


What about the date, 3.5 million. older then most. Should we not place it in to Australopithecus. No

Because it is not fully understood. So it stays where it is at and we move on. The skull is different so we imply that it is a different species and move on.

Palaeontology is a guessing game. We see common traits and we lable and name them. It at no time implies a direct line of descent. At no point do we say that all Australopithecus evolved from or together. We imply species into Palaeontology because we can never tell genetic lineages, just common traits.

In the living species concept we do imply that there is an relationship. We do say that a genus is a group of species that are closely related from common genetic point. We make assumptions. Like that so and so could not naturally mate. So and so split from this main group, because they where separated on this island. On this island they developed a genetic difference that is not part of the main population.

Species, in the concept that we apply do not exist. There is no such thing. Every time we turn around we see this problem. It is mans attempt to simplify a very diverse world.

 

[phormingochilus]

Palaeontology is an excellent example how a science works with implications, evolutionary theory even more so ;-) I didn't say that palaentology and evolutionary theory couldn't work without implications, but that most sciences are in fact based on implications, many a time based on indirect data and not as often perceived on objective observations and descriptions based on direct accumulative data. Only a few sciences can do this, like for example to a large extent mathematics, even "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry has vast areas of fuzzy theories based on implications rather than objective accumulative data. Thus - what I imply (excuse the intended but rather flat pun) is that concepts like in particular various species concepts and as mentioned evolutionary theory are based to a large extent but not solely on implications which in effect makes room for an array of different explanation models that can appear (and often is) contradictionary, but also can be supporting a theory thus enforcing the implications that that particular theory might be valid (at least as explanation model). On the other hand a theory can often be scattered by new observations and/or interpretations of existing facts, so that generally accepted theories are sometimes expelled to the dusty drawers of history (and sometimes revived again). This is the seed of most discussions in science. And let me put it straight - I think that this kind of discussions are very very very healthy for the refinement of our present theories and thus our understanding of nature, and I do welcome any change that reflect a deepening of these insights even though I have to change my own perceptions. But I also can understand why this may appear frustrating for some to have to revise or even replace their present favorite theory, or to realise that the facts they were presented with in school or uni are now outdated.

About the species status I believe this is one of the points that most biologists can agree upon, though some will (and do) discuss the actual borders between certain species/groups/complexes/clines. On the other hand there is a strong tendency that categories above and below species are usually very prone to discussion and change, though the higher in the phylae you go the less often the rearrangements.

Regards
Søren

Palaeontology is a bad example.
If we can not base a species, or genus. order or family for that matter, on implications then what else can be base it on? Let us take Kenyanthropus platyops.

Only a upper skull, no foramen magnum, of this early hominid or pre-hominid. What do we do. Do we see that it is in fact very close to the A. afarensis and A. africanus, alot of shared features.

That we know are hominid. So since we do not have the complete cranium is it safe for us to assure from implications of common features that this was in truth a hominid. Then since with limited facts place it into its own species under Australopithecus.


What about the date, 3.5 million. older then most. Should we not place it in to Australopithecus. No

Because it is not fully understood. So it stays where it is at and we move on. The skull is different so we imply that it is a different species and move on.

Palaeontology is a guessing game. We see common traits and we lable and name them. It at no time implies a direct line of descent. At no point do we say that all Australopithecus evolved from or together. We imply species into Palaeontology because we can never tell genetic lineages, just common traits.

In the living species concept we do imply that there is an relationship. We do say that a genus is a group of species that are closely related from common genetic point. We make assumptions. Like that so and so could not naturally mate. So and so split from this main group, because they where separated on this island. On this island they developed a genetic difference that is not part of the main population.

Species, in the concept that we apply do not exist. There is no such thing. Every time we turn around we see this problem. It is mans attempt to simplify a very diverse world.

 

[Crotalus]

I believe it's mainly because science is rarely entirely objective. That is, most sciences are in one way or the other based on assumptions made on validated observations that can be tested. Point is that all three categories (assumption, validated observation and testing) is determined by varying degrees of historical contingency of methods and accepted teories, conscious and unconscious subjective decisions, preconceived opinions, context and data (again subject to different ways of preparation, sorting and various other sources of variables) and other highly unobjective parameters. Actually it's sometimes a wonder that an experiment can be repeatable at all (and many can't, for instance in disciplines of natural history like palaeontology, where theories are based on implications rather than accumulative facts, the same goes for many other disciplines in some way or another). Objectivity is an utopia as long as human perception is involved. And thus results may vary ;-) ...

Søren

Dont forget there are people who want to put there name in the books that creating alot of the mess and confusion.
These are the people who lack objectivity.
Paleontology is a good example of that.

 

[phormingochilus]

But Lelle ;-) They DO have a clear objectivity: To get their (undeserved) place in history based on (conscious or unconscious) subjective and wrong interpretations of reality, shoe-horned to fit their hidden agenda. Even though with time they will eventually be weeded out from the halls of fame the names will stay in the record (in the drawers of shame ;-), only reflecting something markedly different than they intially hoped for.

Regards
Søren

Dont forget there are people who want to put there name in the books that creating alot of the mess and confusion.
These are the people who lack objectivity.
Paleontology is a good example of that.

 

[Michael.NEGRINI]

Another interesting exemple of unusual(?) speciation in the Cichlid family :
http://download.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/thomas.rintelen/schliewen%20&%20klee%202004.pdf

Others species of hybrid origin are known in this family, 2 or 3 are proven but they may be more ones. Also some Drosera species (sundews, insectivorous plants) are of hybrid origin. Speciation by hybridization is maybe more common than we think. Maybe not in theraphosids. Ways of speciations are numerous but I can't see any pair of species as exemple of sympatric speciation in theraphosids, or 3 sympatric species with one being a potential hybrid. Cichlids seems to have weak reproductive barriers and reproductive cycles are shorter than Theraphosids', so they evolve at fast rate.

Cheers, Michael