Yet another Theraphosa "sp" thread

Terry D

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
733
[ the evidence and current available knowledge just points me in that direction.[/QUOTE]

The Mack, Okay...... lets see it- Your knowledge as it pertains to this 3rd species. From what I've read thus far there hasn't been a thing except circling around and comparisons of everything else except these 3 spp. Yet you still argue the point :wall: Terry
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
Jmugleston, believe you me, I am VERY aware of the species concept(s) that exist.

They look similar: (Morphological species concept?)-So do all the great apes, but we see unique characters in each species.
Please then, show me an example of three different species of ape that show as much similarity in appearance, size, and geographical region as these spiders do.

Same Region (Biological Species Concept): South America? Chimps are from Africa. Humans originated in Africa? No geographical isolation. According to your methods, same continent = same species? Though Guyana, Surinam, and Venezuela are large areas when you're an 8" spider.
You sure do jump to conclusions very fast! Nowhere in my post did I state that the "same continent = same species." But are you going to argue that there are species that exist in nature who naturally live in remotely different parts of the world (hmm with the possible exception of some birds maybe ?

And you're going to tell me that it isn't possible that over millions of years, these 8" spiders haven't made it into Guyana Surinam and Venezuela!? Please, that's plenty of time lol. . .

Genetic similarity (Phylogenetic species concept?): Over 95% similarity in chimp and human genomes..........What arbitrary limit would you set on genetic diversity to differentiate spiders?
Tell me, what would happen if the genetic testing was done among these tarantulas and they came back 100% the same? And how can you know for sure now that this wouldn't happen?


There is method for determining species. This can be tested and refuted. You are mixing multiple species concepts. Of course we cannot prove the populations are isolated. On your reasoning, we cannot "prove" many populations are separated. That is not a feasible option on many species. So either we throw our hands up and give up, or look at other evidence and draw ideas. It might not be tested in the description paper but further phylogenetic analyses will test the hypothesis and either support it or refute it. Using your methods, is it safe to pair any species of Mexican brachy since we cannot be 100% sure they aren't breeding in nature? How about Pamphos? Haplos? Where do you draw the line?
You are wrong on so many counts here it is difficult to decide where to begin. Firstly, we can definitely "prove" that many populations are separated. Although we share 97% (or whatever it is) of our DNA with chimps, it is clear that we are separate species based on a combination of these species concepts. We look significantly different, don't mate in nature, etc. Under "my methods" you can pair any species you want, in fact I would encourage you do to so. I bet lots could be learned from it. If you are concerned with "preserving the bloodlines" which you aren't even sure about in the first place, then just do it in a controlled environment.

Who knows, maybe one day it will be scientifically proven that all tarantulas are one species, like dogs. Are you open to this possibility? I don't see how you could be if you're not even open to the possibility that these three spiders are the same. . .
 

Miss Bianca

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,151
I agree with your train of thought TheMack, and I am turned off with the whole issue also Fran.
I traded in January for some slings, being told they were T. blondi and I went on
the whole they're so rare as CB,
only to be told later by over 5 collectors, that they were not true T. blondi @ all.
In this hobby the changes keep coming, and we have to deal with that and accept the changes.
The name changes are especially annoying.

 
Last edited:

PhobeToPhile

Arachnoknight
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
210
They're not 100% identical genetically; the physical expression of the genes-and the spermethecae shapes, related-can tell us that much. Even if they are 99% similar genetically, the difference in traits tell us it is NOT 100%.

*breaks out popcorn* Might as well. The heat will be more than enough to make it self-popping afterall. Anyone want some?
 

NevularScorpion

Arachnoangel
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
917
after seeing the pics from this thread it made me think twice of breeding the theraposa sp. that I own. looks like I have to post some pics to get peoples opinion.
 

billopelma

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
604
Mack... Though your tail chasing Troll logic is nauseating me :barf: I'll be Troll Bait just one more time....





If you have read my posts thoroughly you would see that I have provided many sound logical and scientific reasons for why these tarantulas should be considered one species. Just to summarize:
*They look very similar
What a horrible, useless generalization...This is relatively meaningless in the taxonomy of Tarantulas, if you knew *anything* about Tarantula classification you'd know at least this. Even if they looked exactly the same it doesn't get you much, but 'similar' {D. I can't believe I would have to explain this to anyone here...

*They come from the same geographical region, and it CANNOT be proved that they do not interbreed in nature.
There are lots of different Tarantula species (disclaimer; Tarantula species as defined by the classification system currently in place, must spell everything out for you lest you take it the wrong way) that inhabit the same areas, so again, relatively meaningless.

Whether or not they can interbreed is yet again, relatively meaningless within the scope of this discussion. Lots of different Tarantula species (see above disclaimer) can interbreed within their own genus, hence the often discussed term 'hybrid'. I have never seen that used in the definition of a Tarantula species. Can you point me to an example perhaps?

(Sooo many of you fail to understand this point)
Including yourself, evidently...

*Not a single bit of genetic testing has been done to provide any evidence of your claim that they are separate.
As far as I am aware no species of Tarantula (see above disclaimer) has ever been specifically defined/classified by genetic testing. So, yet still again, meaningless .

I never "defined tarantulas the same as other forms of life" as you said.
If you're going to quote me then use the actual quote please. Which would be "Yes, it does change indeed, obviously Tarantulas are not defined/classified the same as other types of life." (and obviously in the context of my post I meant defined as a species, see disclaimer).

When you posed the question "Are you suggesting then that the definition of species changes when it comes to tarantulas?" I took it to mean you believe that, yes, they are defined/classified the same as other than tarantulas. Or was that only yet another attempt at Trolling and not what you actually believe?

So...Yes, you did use, pertaining to Tarantulas, points defining the classification for other forms of life but not Tarantulas, see your above asterisked (and exact) quotes...

Well I am certainly the first in these threads to say it.
Wrong. See post #101 of this thread. Boy, you are full of yourself...
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?p=1693632#post1693632

Very interesting Bill. So in this world you speak of where the definition of a species changes from organism to organism, I suppose we are all free to decide what makes certain organisms separate species then? That would make everyone a taxonomist then now wouldn't it! Even you.
You must have me confused with some of your other Troll Bait, I never said anything that remotely suggests just anyone can define/classify a species, quite the opposite in fact.
It somehow sounds like you still think with worms or rats, spermathecae shape or presence of tibial apophysis can be used as a point for classification?:? Who's world are we talking about here?

I think Terry D summed it up nicely;

The Mack, Okay...... lets see it- Your knowledge as it pertains to this 3rd species. From what I've read thus far there hasn't been a thing except circling around and comparisons of everything else except these 3 spp. Yet you still argue the point TerryD

Bill
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
What a horrible, useless generalization...This is relatively meaningless in the taxonomy of Tarantulas, if you knew *anything* about Tarantula classification you'd know at least this. Even if they looked exactly the same it doesn't get you much, but 'similar' {D. I can't believe I would have to explain this to anyone here...
How can this be useless when you and everyone else here is trying to establish that they are different species based on physical characteristics like lack of hair on the patella and different spermethecae? Oh I see, you must have twisted this to fit your personal hunch just as you do with other scientific definitions and theories that don't coincide with your opinions. So physical appearance is useless then, except when the it supports your view that they are different species! LOL please, your fallacies are too easy to point out.

It is just common sense to immediately look at two organisms that look considerably alike, and assume that they are relatively close on the evolutionary tree. It is not safe to assume that they are scientifically different species based on this single observation, but it certainly isn't "meaningless" as you put it.




There are lots of different Tarantula species (disclaimer; Tarantula species as defined by the classification system currently in place, must spell everything out for you lest you take it the wrong way) that inhabit the same areas, so again, relatively meaningless.
Hmm, you seem to still be living in your own world where the definition of species is whatever you want it to be. I can't really argue with this type of ignorance. . there really is no way to convince you that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't control my thoughts either. . .

Please then, enlighten me with this "special" definition of species that exists for tarantulas which doesn't exist for other organisms. I would love to see this definition that you have tucked away somewhere. .

Whether or not they can interbreed is yet again, relatively meaningless within the scope of this discussion. Lots of different Tarantula species (see above disclaimer) can interbreed within their own genus, hence the often discussed term 'hybrid'. I have never seen that used in the definition of a Tarantula species. Can you point me to an example perhaps?

As far as I am aware no species of Tarantula (see above disclaimer) has ever been specifically defined/classified by genetic testing. So, yet still again, meaningless .
I cannot point you to an example of this, because there simply are no examples! The research doesn't exist, and therefore you can't be making claims about species lol.

At least you are starting to understand (though unconsciously I suppose) the inherent problems with tarantula taxonomy and especially with classifying these tarantulas as separate species in a scientific sense. The interbreeding is not at all meaningless, and your saying so only illustrates your ignorance of how important this concept is in identifying new species of organisms in the world.



You must have me confused with some of your other Troll Bait, I never said anything that remotely suggests just anyone can define/classify a species, quite the opposite in fact.
It somehow sounds like you still think with worms or rats, spermathecae shape or presence of tibial apophysis can be used as a point for classification?:? Who's world are we talking about here?

I think Terry D summed it up nicely;




Bill
Oh good, so then you are agreeing with me that it simply isn't clear whether or not these spiders are separate species. And you are also agreeing with me that a single paper (which everyone here seems to always refer to) cannot change that status. Great, I'm glad we are on the same page now. :cool:
 

Tindalos

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
158
all the lps in my area sell T.sp burgundy but the keep as the Goliath bird eater.
i asked an owner about this and he said that they dont sell T.blondi and they actually have not seen one in a long time so they sell T. sp burgundy as the Goliath bird eater. But they dont hi jack the prices, usually a sub adult will run 80-99 dollars.

they said that burgundy are actually easier to keep than blondi or apophosys (is that how it is spelled?). more tolerant to dry conditions than the other two, but doesn't get as large as them.

does this ring true?
 

Falk

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
679
all the lps in my area sell T.sp burgundy but the keep as the Goliath bird eater.
i asked an owner about this and he said that they dont sell T.blondi and they actually have not seen one in a long time so they sell T. sp burgundy as the Goliath bird eater. But they dont hi jack the prices, usually a sub adult will run 80-99 dollars.

they said that burgundy are actually easier to keep than blondi or apophosys (is that how it is spelled?). more tolerant to dry conditions than the other two, but doesn't get as large as them.

does this ring true?
Yes it does
 

Fran

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,533
Yes it does
Hmm not sure about it.

I have had 3 females (SP) around de 11" mark...
And I have seen many 10+

I have never seen a 12" blondi, althought it doesnt mean they are not out there...
So the difference in sizes might be really small, if any...
 
Last edited:

Falk

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
679
Hmm not sure about it.

I have had 3 females (SP) around de 11" mark...
And I have seen many 10+

I have never seen a 12" blondi, althought it doesnt mean they are not out there...
So the difference in sizes might be really small, if any...
You are correct, i read what Tindalos wrote to fast and i missed the size question.
 

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
Well, Mr. Fran, I assume you were aware that you were opening another can of worms. The Mack, I'm sure you recall very well, we have had this discussion before. You may be aware that there are more than one species concept, I truly believe that as you tried to use that in your argument last time, however you seem to think that you have the soverign right to decide which species concept we should abide by. I will make that notion short and sweet, you don't, if you think you do, leave this hobby and start your own, based entirely off of your own ideals, that should prove fruitful, after all, you are consistent with the thought, that we, along with professionals in this field, have no idea what we are doing. I will not repeat what I mentioned prior, but I warn you now Mugleston, you are saying the same thing I did, it does not register. Once again Mack, you will have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, no, taxonomy in it's entirety, once you do that, along with unifying the species concept that various fields abide by (Note various, unfortunately for your claim that it is universial and we cannot pick which concept to abide by, it rings with error) your statements may hold water.


Now, on to more appropriate things. What I don't understand is the complaint about the "jacked up" pricing, because we are "slapping" a new name on it. First off, it is a huge spider, especially in "LPS" and that abiding retail world, size is more money, secondly, prices are based off of cost of import etc. in fact the mark-up percentage for them is hardly stark, there was only one dealer that I was aware of that ran with the "Burgundy" thing and jacked the prices accordingly, other than that, I have yet to see it. Also, if it were a new species, in contrast to current belief (Theraphosa blondi/burgundy are different) the price would soar, as compared to availability. If we had Theraphosa blondi (No comment from you Mr. Mack, please) right now, I would venture to say that you would pay $400+ for a female of appropriate size. So, a fair price, which I believe is in direct corralation with Fran's original post, what is it? $100? $200? $60?
 

spiderworld

Arachnosquire
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
90
Please excuse my english! its not my firs languge!


I 100% agree with Mack! People everywhere already refere to the 3, sell them in the 3 diff types! Just because they might look a bit diff to each other doesnt make them diff sp! almost every living thing in the world will look diff to its exact same sp compared to what it eats, temps, humidity, its everyday encounters changes the way they look & behave even to what size they grow, colour etc... and they are then also born slightly diff through the years! EVALUTION! If i can go to the 'ape' that was an example! same sp apes that dont even live that far from each other carry diff carictaristics! They might have longer hair they might have bigger hands they might have smaller bodies diff colours etc.. But this doesnt make them diff sp!! everything makes a diff eg: the spacific food thats in the erea, the elements, sea level, how hard or soft the grownd is every bit of their saroundings make a diff to how they look, act, breed, feed etc...
As we all know alot of resurch will have to be done to prove above reasonable doubt that there is a 3rd!
Just anothere topic alltogether maybe or maybe not!?-- I bread Acanthoscurria insubtilis 1 year ago, some babies are close to black and others brown!? some answers to that maybe?

******Anyhow we all love spides and hope it all gets straitened out! I just dont enjoy people that jump the gun to make a buck or 2 or for whatever reason! wait for undoubtable proof first!*****
 

Falk

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
679
Please excuse my english! its not my firs languge!


I 100% agree with Mack! People everywhere already refere to the 3, sell them in the 3 diff types! Just because they might look a bit diff to each other doesnt make them diff sp! almost every living thing in the world will look diff to its exact same sp compared to what it eats, temps, humidity, its everyday encounters changes the way they look & behave even to what size they grow, colour etc... and they are then also born slightly diff through the years! EVALUTION! If i can go to the 'ape' that was an example! same sp apes that dont even live that far from each other carry diff carictaristics! They might have longer hair they might have bigger hands they might have smaller bodies diff colours etc.. But this doesnt make them diff sp!! everything makes a diff eg: the spacific food thats in the erea, the elements, sea level, how hard or soft the grownd is every bit of their saroundings make a diff to how they look, act, breed, feed etc...
As we all know alot of resurch will have to be done to prove above reasonable doubt that there is a 3rd!
Just anothere topic alltogether maybe or maybe not!?-- I bread Acanthoscurria insubtilis 1 year ago, some babies are close to black and others brown!? some answers to that maybe?

******Anyhow we all love spides and hope it all gets straitened out! I just dont enjoy people that jump the gun to make a buck or 2 or for whatever reason! wait for undoubtable proof first!*****
Come on read the threads:mad:
They have different patella, pedipalps, tarsus and metatarsus and spermatechae and that says a whole lot of things. And you talk about evalution!!! Theraphosids hasnt evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. Why do you think they are called primitive spiders?
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
Come on read the threads:mad:
They have different patella, pedipalps, tarsus and metatarsus and spermatechae and that says a whole lot of things.
Please do tell, what exactly is this "whole lot of things" these differences tell us? Be specific. They certainly don't tell us that they are different species for sure. . .

And you talk about evalution!!! Theraphosids hasnt evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. Why do you think they are called primitive spiders?
Of course they haven't evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. . the present form of the spiders we see today is the product of who knows how many hundreds of thousands/millions of years worth of evolution. The idea isn't that they are evolving before our very eyes, but that the differences you are seeing today in these Theraphosa spiders (different pedipalps, patella, etc.) are EASILY attributable to genetic variations within the same species that have already taken place.
 

Falk

Arachnodemon
Old Timer
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
679
Please do tell, what exactly is this "whole lot of things" these differences tell us? Be specific. They certainly don't tell us that they are different species for sure. . .



Of course they haven't evolved for hundreds of thousands of years. . the present form of the spiders we see today is the product of who knows how many hundreds of thousands/millions of years worth of evolution. The idea isn't that they are evolving before our very eyes, but that the differences you are seeing today in these Theraphosa spiders (different pedipalps, patella, etc.) are EASILY attributable to genetic variations within the same species that have already taken place.
Different sex organs dont make them the same specie.
 

PhobeToPhile

Arachnoknight
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
210
B. auratum, B. smithi. These two spiders look nearly identical (if not that, very, very similar) and can interbreed. Yet they are listed as separate species, not morphs of the same species. B. albopilosum crosses with B. vagans (two spiders which look VERY different) to form a fertile (I believe) hybrid. These are STILL considered to be separate species by the taxonomy. Would anyone care to elaborate on this?

Mack, do you have proof that T. sp. burgundy and T. blondi hybridize in nature? Do you know if there is not a barrier that does not keep the two from interbreeding regularly? Keep in mind what is not a long distance for us may be much, much longer for an animal that is mostly sedentary. Furthermore...can you explain why if burgundy and T. blondi are identical, why there are not more of what WE are calling T. blondi coming from the same area that T. burgundy is coming from? If they are to hybridize, the range MUST have overlap, and if they overlap both must be present in the same area. Furthermore, there should be "intermediates" which display a phenotypic mix of traits. In other words: give us some HARD evidence rather than just speculating that they probably breed together in the wild.

We already have Rick's abstract telling us that they are in fact different species; combined with the physical traits, that is the hard evidence for our arguement.

My popcorn is done, btw.

Edit: This is just a suggestion, Mack, but around half your posts are in this kind of thread. Maybe it'd be a good idea to post in other topics as well? Just a thought.
 
Last edited:

mcluskyisms

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
843
If they aren't an entirely different species (which they obviously are due to having a totally different spermathacae to Theraphosa blondi) then why did Bertani release an abstract from his current work in the genus Lasiodora stating about moving the species Lasiodora spinipes into the genus Theraphosa in the view that the Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" are to be classified as Theraphosa spinipes???

:?
 

Crows Arachnids

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
281
Please excuse my english! its not my firs languge!


I 100% agree with Mack! People everywhere already refere to the 3, sell them in the 3 diff types! Just because they might look a bit diff to each other doesnt make them diff sp! almost every living thing in the world will look diff to its exact same sp compared to what it eats, temps, humidity, its everyday encounters changes the way they look & behave even to what size they grow, colour etc... and they are then also born slightly diff through the years! EVALUTION! If i can go to the 'ape' that was an example! same sp apes that dont even live that far from each other carry diff carictaristics! They might have longer hair they might have bigger hands they might have smaller bodies diff colours etc.. But this doesnt make them diff sp!! everything makes a diff eg: the spacific food thats in the erea, the elements, sea level, how hard or soft the grownd is every bit of their saroundings make a diff to how they look, act, breed, feed etc...
As we all know alot of resurch will have to be done to prove above reasonable doubt that there is a 3rd!
Just anothere topic alltogether maybe or maybe not!?-- I bread Acanthoscurria insubtilis 1 year ago, some babies are close to black and others brown!? some answers to that maybe?

******Anyhow we all love spides and hope it all gets straitened out! I just dont enjoy people that jump the gun to make a buck or 2 or for whatever reason! wait for undoubtable proof first!*****
Who is making a buck or two? In fact if I sell it as a Theraphosa blondi, then I'll be making a buck, as an "Sp. Burgundy", I'm not, sorry, but highly inaccurate.
 

The Mack

Arachnosquire
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
140
The Mack, I'm sure you recall very well, we have had this discussion before. You may be aware that there are more than one species concept, I truly believe that as you tried to use that in your argument last time, however you seem to think that you have the soverign right to decide which species concept we should abide by.
I think that you (and most others here) are confused as to how the species concepts can be applied to this situation. You are referring to the species concepts as if they help your claims that these are different species, when in reality they only make it more difficult for you to prove so. And I did not at any point suggest that you should "abide by" any certain species concept, but it is a fact that the 'biological species concept' is currently the most widely accepted and most often used. I never said that there weren't any exceptions to the biological species concept, but I can show you that there is no exception when it comes to these Theraphosa spiders.

Let's start with the definition of the biological species concept: "The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."

We use this concept to define species so often, that most if not all of the animals and organisms you know today (from dogs to fish to plants and insects) were all defined and classified using this method. So why then are you questioning it now? If these spiders come from the same geographical place and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are potentially interbreeding in nature, then the facts seem to point that they are a single species. I'm not saying that this is for sure, but until there is sufficient evidence which suggests otherwise, it is just logical to label them as one species.

Now let's get to the problems and exceptions with the biological species concept, and we can understand why they actually work against your claims rather than for them. In nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this "biological species" definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually.The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually. But do these spiders produce asexually? Nope. So the first exception is irrelevant to this situation.


"Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups—but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?" The second exception are for organisms that hybridize in nature. In this situation, no one can be sure if these spiders were at one time separate species and then began to hybridize, so it really is unclear and very difficult to prove that they are either the same or separate species. Again, this exception is working against you, not for you.

Now just for kicks, we can explore these other species concepts, so that you understand no matter which one you choose, you still can't prove the claim that these spiders are separate species.

*Recognition species concept: a species is a set of organisms that can recognize each other as potential mates. Guess what? These spiders i'm sure recognize each other as potential mates in nature (and in captivity). So under that concept they would be considered the same species.

*Phenetic species concept: a species is a set of organisms that are phenotypically similar and that look different from other sets of organisms. According to this concept, phenotypic similarity is all that matters in recognizing separate species. Since the Theraphosa spiders look the same, they would be considered the same species according to the phenetic species concept. Sorry, you can't go with this species concept either.

*Phylogenetic species concept: a species is a “tip” on a phylogeny, that is, the smallest set of organisms that share an ancestor and can be distinguished from other such sets. Under this definition, a ring species is a single species that encompasses a lot of phenotypic variation. Again, under this concept our spiders would be considered a single species.


Once again Mack, you will have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, no, taxonomy in it's entirety, once you do that, along with unifying the species concept that various fields abide by (Note various, unfortunately for your claim that it is universial and we cannot pick which concept to abide by, it rings with error) your statements may hold water.
Funny how because I have challenged and corrected your false unsupported claims that you think I am on some mission to "rectify taxonomy in it's entirety." That is hardly the case, I think a better solution would be for you to do some research and better understand taxonomy and its inherent challenges and then you might see why you can't be sure that these are different species. . .
 
Top