Which species are of questionable purity?

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

There is confusion between brachypelma emilia and smithi where both look similar except for small differences mostly on the carapace. Even the scientific community disagrees on whether they are the same species or different.

EDIT* There is a lot of confusion on Aphonopelma genus for T's located in the USA.

EDIT2* I meant brachypelma annitha and smithi

The name Brachypelma annitha will be soon not to exist. With the new revision soon to be publish will know exactly how it will be affect our hobby stock.

For now this are the two species.

Brachypelma annitha

Brachypelma smithi

 

[Matttoadman]

So, I have had time to digest this information. It would make since to me, that hobbiests should unite in a common goal to reistabish these species to as close to original as possible. Key out the features that separate the different species. What makes a B. vagans a vagans and same for B. sabulosum, for example. Then sort your breeding stock. After several generations you could, in theory, return the stock to its original forms. This would take a lot of culling. Some specimens woul just not be useable. Culling in this hobby would be giving away as pets. This has been done in domestic animal breeds. I am sure there will always be "pet stock" species in hobby and the LPS but breeders should try to elevate their stock. Especially since there will be no pure Brachypelmas entering the hobby legally. Thoughts?

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

So, I have had time to digest this information. It would make since to me, that hobbiests should unite in a common goal to reistabish these species to as close to original as possible. Key out the features that separate the different species. What makes a B. vagans a vagans and same for B. sabulosum, for example. Then sort your breeding stock. After several generations you could, in theory, return the stock to its original forms. This would take a lot of culling. Some specimens woul just not be useable. Culling in this hobby would be giving away as pets. This has been done in domestic animal breeds. I am sure there will always be "pet stock" species in hobby and the LPS but breeders should try to elevate their stock. Especially since there will be no pure Brachypelmas entering the hobby legally. Thoughts?

Brachypelma species have entered the hobby legally by KenTheBugGuy a few years ago. Now Brachypelma baumgarteni, Brachypelma verdezi, 5 Brachyoelma boehmei and the new species Stichoplastoris sp. "Chiapas" were just recently imported legally by a Francisco Torres. All were imported from Mexico and the captive born slings were produced by wild caught parents.

 

[Matttoadman]

That's cool, but not to the point. I doesn't sound like any new wc vagans will be added.

 

[tetracerus]

Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious. Aren't species defined by reproductive compatibility? As in, if two animals can breed and make fertile offspring aren't they technically the same species? See dogs for an example. Wildly varying characteristics (from a chihuahua to a Tibetan mastiff) but they are all different breeds of Canis familiaris.

Would it follow that some of these tarantula "species" should actually be different breeds of the same species? Or am I missing something entirely? Forgive me for my very rudimentary understanding of taxonomy.

 

[Matttoadman]

I kind of feel the same way. If color and local are the only thing separating two species, is that really enough to call it a different species? Sub species maybe.

 

[tetracerus]

I kind of feel the same way. If color and local are the only thing separating two species, is that really enough to call it a different species? Sub species maybe.

Right, and some tarantula species even have different color forms, too. Seems like the classification of tarantulas gets revised regularly haha.

 

[myrmecophile]

These days it is recognized that there are more factors that separate species beyond the ability to interbreed. Often there will be different time periods when the females are receptive to breeding, or perhaps it may be temperature dependent or maybe just depends on which side of the mountain they live on.

 

[tetracerus]

These days it is recognized that there are more factors that separate species beyond the ability to interbreed. Often there will be different time periods when the females are receptive to breeding, or perhaps it may be temperature dependent or maybe just depends on which side of the mountain they live on.

Hm, can you elaborate on these other factors? The definition of species that I found was "the largest group of organisms in which two individuals are capable of reproducing fertile offspring". By that definition, if the "hobby vagans" are able to reproduce, then they are not a mix between two different species.

Seasons, temperature, and location, as you mentioned, certainly affect whether two specimens will breed, but not whether they are capable of it. By "capable", I loosely mean that there is no theoretical barrier to producing these offspring, say, in vitro.

 

[Haksilence]

USUALLY capable of fertile offspring.

This is not a rule, simply an overly generic definition, that simply does not apply to nearly any cold blooded creatures (reptiles, inverts, fish ect)
Species is simply the finest classification based on taxonomical charactaristics.

Hell in a lot of cases inbreeding is capable across genus lines.

But i digress, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge them as species or not, the fact and principal remain. Keeping bloodlines pure in animals such as these is paramount, the different species all have geological barriers of some sort that prevent inbreeding in the wild, as responsible keepers we have a duty to maintain that natural order.

 

[Ranitomeya]

Hm, can you elaborate on these other factors? The definition of species that I found was "the largest group of organisms in which two individuals are capable of reproducing fertile offspring". By that definition, if the "hobby vagans" are able to reproduce, then they are not a mix between two different species.

Seasons, temperature, and location, as you mentioned, certainly affect whether two specimens will breed, but not whether they are capable of it. By "capable", I loosely mean that there is no theoretical barrier to producing these offspring, say, in vitro.

Yes, species are generally defined as being groups of organisms that are capable of reproducing to produce fertile offspring, but you'll often find that it gets more complicated than that. For example, there are very many species in the wild that are capable of producing fertile offspring in captivity that are still considered separate species because in most cases things like temporal, geographical, or behavior barriers prevent them from being capable of reproducing together without human intervention or some unlikely event in the wild. You'll find that not only can different species within the same genus produce fertile offspring, but there are many cases of fertile intergeneric crosses being possible in captivity. For example, various species of pheasants within the same genus and in different genuses have been crossed to produce fertile offspring that can then be crossed again to produce further hybridized individuals. What makes them different species is the fact that in the wild, they are not only geographically isolated from one another, but also have different courtship behaviors that make interbreeding highly unlikely.

In plants, interbreeding is even more common and is used to produce a wide range of phenotypes that horticulturalists find aesthetically pleasing--of course, plants are different from animals in that polyploidy can be used to create crosses that would not be possible normally. These plants would not normally interbreed because they're often found geographically isolated from one another, they have differing blooming times, attract different pollinators, or have some chemical cues on the stigma that the pollen has to encounter before it germinates and initiates the process of delivering sperm to the ova. All of these things can be manipulated in captivity by humans and it's only in captivity that things get confusing if you only think of species as being defined as what is capable of producing fertile offspring.

Now, just because two organisms can reproduce together to produce fertile offspring does not automatically make them the same species, and definitely does not mean that their offspring are capable of producing their own offspring. Yes, fertile offspring may not be able to reproduce. An example in this case would be organisms that have genitalia that are structured in a way that they are meant to fit only with their own species. In some cases, males may be able to reproduce with another related species, but females cannot, or vice versa. The resulting offspring may be fertile, but might have genitalia that are incompatible with either species and other hybrids. Another example would be in hummingbirds. Occasionally, hummingbirds hybridize, but because hummingbirds choose mates based on courtship behavior and courtship behavior is genetically coded, the hybrids are never chosen as mates, and never reproduce.

Also keep in mind that although hybrids can be fertile, it does not necessarily mean that they can produce offspring that are fit. If the hybrids cannot produce offspring that can continue on to produce more offspring, you have reasonable support for the idea that the initial parents are different species and there are some genes that are incompatible. The hybrids might be able to produce offspring, but they might fail to thrive at any point in development and growth due to new genetic diseases or fatal gene combinations resulting from hybridization. Sure, some of the hybrids might survive and produce subsequent generations, but chances are that their fitness is so low that they eventually die off due to competition with both of the parental species.

 

[Exoskeleton Invertebrates]

That's cool, but not to the point. I doesn't sound like any new wc vagans will be added.

More species will be importer from Mexico, give it some time.

 

[tetracerus]

But i digress, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge them as species or not, the fact and principal remain. Keeping bloodlines pure in animals such as these is paramount, the different species all have geological barriers of some sort that prevent inbreeding in the wild, as responsible keepers we have a duty to maintain that natural order.

Oh definitely! I agree we have a duty to avoid possibly disruptive human intervention as much as possible. Fear not, I have no intention of creating hybrid slings. I was asking to clarify my understanding.

Yes, species are generally defined as being groups of organisms that are capable of reproducing to produce fertile offspring, but you'll often find that it gets more complicated than that. For example, there are very many species in the wild that are capable of producing fertile offspring in captivity that are still considered separate species because in most cases things like temporal, geographical, or behavior barriers prevent them from being capable of reproducing together without human intervention or some unlikely event in the wild. You'll find that not only can different species within the same genus produce fertile offspring, but there are many cases of fertile intergeneric crosses being possible in captivity. For example, various species of pheasants within the same genus and in different genuses have been crossed to produce fertile offspring that can then be crossed again to produce further hybridized individuals. What makes them different species is the fact that in the wild, they are not only geographically isolated from one another, but also have different courtship behaviors that make interbreeding highly unlikely.

In plants, interbreeding is even more common and is used to produce a wide range of phenotypes that horticulturalists find aesthetically pleasing--of course, plants are different from animals in that polyploidy can be used to create crosses that would not be possible normally. These plants would not normally interbreed because they're often found geographically isolated from one another, they have differing blooming times, attract different pollinators, or have some chemical cues on the stigma that the pollen has to encounter before it germinates and initiates the process of delivering sperm to the ova. All of these things can be manipulated in captivity by humans and it's only in captivity that things get confusing if you only think of species as being defined as what is capable of producing fertile offspring.

Now, just because two organisms can reproduce together to produce fertile offspring does not automatically make them the same species, and definitely does not mean that their offspring are capable of producing their own offspring. Yes, fertile offspring may not be able to reproduce. An example in this case would be organisms that have genitalia that are structured in a way that they are meant to fit only with their own species. In some cases, males may be able to reproduce with another related species, but females cannot, or vice versa. The resulting offspring may be fertile, but might have genitalia that are incompatible with either species and other hybrids. Another example would be in hummingbirds. Occasionally, hummingbirds hybridize, but because hummingbirds choose mates based on courtship behavior and courtship behavior is genetically coded, the hybrids are never chosen as mates, and never reproduce.

Also keep in mind that although hybrids can be fertile, it does not necessarily mean that they can produce offspring that are fit. If the hybrids cannot produce offspring that can continue on to produce more offspring, you have reasonable support for the idea that the initial parents are different species and there are some genes that are incompatible. The hybrids might be able to produce offspring, but they might fail to thrive at any point in development and growth due to new genetic diseases or fatal gene combinations resulting from hybridization. Sure, some of the hybrids might survive and produce subsequent generations, but chances are that their fitness is so low that they eventually die off due to competition with both of the parental species.

Ah, this is what I was looking for. Thank you! I will do some more reading on the examples you provided .

 

[Boaz Solorio]

I have two adult female C. marshalli that look rather different from eachother, and one was sold to a friend of mine as a C. darlingi, despite having an obviously straight horn.
This first image is of my C. marshalli, and the second is the specimen sold as C. darlingi. Input would be appreicated.

 

[Vanessa]

All of them.

 

[Arthroverts]

@Boaz Solorio, I would suggest starting your own thread to get an ID instead of having the pictures buried in a three year-old thread.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[Boaz Solorio]

@Boaz Solorio, I would suggest starting your own thread to get an ID instead of having the pictures buried in a three year-old thread.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[Boaz Solorio]

Fair enough!

 

[Arthroverts]

Fair enough!

Just wanna make sure you get your proper ID . A lot of questions like your's in old threads don't get answered, so that is why I suggested starting your own.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[Goopyguy56]

The w