Yet another Theraphosa "sp" thread

[PhobeToPhile]

Don't T. Blondi, T. apophysis, and T. sp. "Burgundy" come from adjacent, but separate, geographical regions? Seems to be what I can recall.

 

[mcluskyisms]

Mack,

Did you pay a whole load of money for an adult female Theraphosa blondi and it turned out to be a Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" and now your in some sort of denial???

 

[The Mack]

Different sex organs dont make them the same specie.

:wall: A man and a woman have different sex organs, but they are the same species.

Mack,

Did you pay a whole load of money for an adult female Theraphosa blondi and it turned out to be a Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" and now your in some sort of denial???

I own a big brown spider which I purchased from Ken the bug guy for $100. It is a member of the single species commonly referred to as either T. blondi or "sp. burgundy." ;P

 

[mcluskyisms]

:wall: A man and a woman have different sex organs, but they are the same species.

Yes, but the same sex of the same species have the same reproductive organs where as Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" and Theraphosa blondi differ...

Your argument is flawed.

 

[PhobeToPhile]

:wall: A man and a woman have different sex organs, but they are the same species.

False analogy. I"f two females have different sex organs, are they still the same species" would be a more valid arguement. Ditto "Do two males have the same sex organs".

Edit: Beat me to it.

Edit 2: What does it matter? It's still a large spider of the theraphosa genus. Burgundy get huge too.

 

[mcluskyisms]

I own a big brown spider which I purchased from Ken the bug guy for $100. It is a member of the single species commonly referred to as either T. blondi or "sp. burgundy." ;P

So that was a yes then.....

 

[The Mack]

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.

Well you tell me, do you think that it helps make better sense of the world to label them as being separate species? If you just saw one B. smithi/B. auratum in the wild, do you honestly think that you could differentiate them?
If you were to ask any biologist, they would tell you that these spiders could definitely be considered to be members of the same species scientifically.
This is where things get sloppy in tarantula taxonomy. . .

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?

Yet another example where the line is blurry and it isn't a clear definition of whether they are the same or separate species. These examples make it more difficult to make the claims. .and remember you are the one making this claim, not me.

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?

You fail to get this: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS PROOF, not me. Of course I don't have proof that these spiders do or don't hybridize in nature. Nobody does because it would be nearly impossible to prove whether they were at one point separate species that began to hybridize or whether they have just been the same species all along with variations. But I am not the one who would need to provide this proof, because I am not claiming anything here. You are claiming that they are separate, which goes against the current species concepts used to classify species, so YOU need to provide evidence in support of your claims. Someone else in the last thread tried using this red herring argument. It won't work this time either. . .

Keep in mind what is not a long distance for us may be much, much longer for an animal that is mostly sedentary.

It is more than likely that these Theraphosa spiders have migrated and inhabited these neighboring regions in South America. It took millions of years for them to evolve, and that is plenty, plenty, plenty of time for them to inhabit the relatively small area where they are found.

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?

Are you personally in Brazil, Suriname and French Guiana collecting specimens? How can you know for sure which spiders come from where? I am willing to bet that even if you were in any given one of these places, you would find specimens that fit the descriptions of "T. blondi," "T. apophysis" and "sp burgundy" all from the same place. In other words, they are all the same species with minor variations.

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.

Imagine if the only proof that our earth was round was a single paper. Or the only proof of gravity was a single paper written by a single "expert." Or if the only evidence for evolution was a single paper. . I can go on lol

Relying on one single authority is NOT science.

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.

Why? What does it matter what threads my posts are in?

False analogy. I"f two females have different sex organs, are they still the same species" would be a more valid arguement. Ditto "Do two males have the same sex organs".

Edit: Beat me to it.

Edit 2: What does it matter? It's still a large spider of the theraphosa genus. Burgundy get huge too.

Not at all. You actually have the flawed argument. They really aren't even "different sex organs." They are the same sex organs with some variation. If they are totally different sex organs, then I suppose you will need to come up with a new name for them too? lol

I am open to this possibility, however, if you can show me some solid pictures/evidence that they are truly different organs altogether.

 

[Fran]

I only wish Rick West would show up here,(he wont) althought im affraid you, The Mack, will still keep on arguing with your very boring crap.

Once thing is, AGAIN, have a mind of your own and question certain authorities, another is being a simple pain in the but.

 

[mcluskyisms]

Not at all. You actually have the flawed argument. They really aren't even "different sex organs." They are the same sex organs with some variation. If they are totally different sex organs, then I suppose you will need to come up with a new name for them too? lol

I am open to this possibility, however, if you can show me some solid pictures/evidence that they are truly different organs altogether.

Your unbelievable, your either incredibly stupid or just bored you should run for congress....

 

[The Mack]

I only wish Rick West would show up here,(he wont) althought im affraid you, The Mack, will still keep on arguing with your very boring crap.

Once thing is, AGAIN, have a mind of your own and question certain authorities, another is being a simple pain in the but.

You wish he would show up here because you haven't a single clue as to how to rationally or scientifically back up your argument...All you do is parrot what you've been told by "experts" over the internet.

Between your jumbled grammar and misspelled words (despite the built in spell check) it is hard to take your opinion seriously.

 

[PhobeToPhile]

Ah, I simply think it's good to read/post in more than one area (diversity is always a good thing). That's all.

As for the separation...if they're all in the same area, like I said it makes me wonder why we see so much of the "burgundy" and nowhere near as much blondi and apophysis. If all three live together, they should be present in relatively equal quantities, but most of the WC stuff we see is burgundy from what I understand. If all three were equally available I'd see your point, but it seems they are not. And this is why I'm not getting why one particular morph has become so abundant if all three of these very similar in apearance spiders were living in the same area.

As for auratum and smithi...it'd be difficult, but I probably could distinguish them if I was more familiar with the Brachypelma.

In theory, you could prove whether they could hybridize in the wild. You'd need several mature females from both species, the same number of mature males, and a very, very, very large enclosure, as well as certain knowledge they share the same range. First, put only the males of one species in, and see if the females produce fertile sacks. (cameras near and in the brurrows to monitor activity would be helpful as well). Then introduce the males of the other species and see which females produce fertile sacks. A control group should also be used, in smaller enclosures where males were matched to specific females. The offspring and video should provide evidence.

Edit: I think that people are simply getting sick and tired of the arguement/debate, Mack. Frustrated, as well.

 

[The Mack]

Your unbelievable, your either incredibly stupid or just bored you should run for congress....

Right. So you make the claim that they possess totally different sexual organs, you provide NO evidence whatsoever for your claim, and I'm the unbelievable one!

:?

You people are a mystery.

 

[mcluskyisms]

You know fair well of the differences, your just bored......

I hope your still about when it gets described and classified.

 

[Fran]

You wish he would show up here because you haven't a single clue as to how to rationally or scientifically back up your argument...All you do is parrot what you've been told by "experts" over the internet.

Between your jumbled grammar and misspelled words (despite the built in spell check) it is hard to take your opinion seriously.

The one not having a clue is you. The one whos using the science word as a back up of NOTHING AT ALL is you...Are you not in your right mind? Did you read your own posts?

Second, you smart arse, you should have notice from my name or because of my hundreds of posts stating so,that Im a darn foreign. English is not my native language, althought, what the hell does that has to do with what we are talking about here?

Are you so short on arguments that you have to bring up orthography into an spider discussion?

You are the one looking like a brave ignorant trying to shove us that you have the edge on what others have been studying and dedicating all his life.
That is not only dumb but conceded.

Do yous seriously think ANY of the questions you ask yourself on this matter they didnt ask themselves before writing the propper orders and revision of the Genus??? I mean what is your background, what is your expertise here?
Are we dealing with some sort of guru on this matter or with a simple STUBBORN guy who thinks that knows better than anybody else?

How in the the world can you think that a recogniced SCIENTIST (not what you are, no)is gonna write a revision or contribute to a paper on something he is not sure about?

 

[Anastasia]

I really don't want to get in any arguments

The Mack,
Am not sure what point are you trying to proof here,
I read whole thread and must missed it somehow
Am also not sure how much you been involved with a hobby and to what extent
you been going back and forth with pretty large group of experienced tarantula keepers that been keeping breeding observing and studying this genus for long time
and here is quite a bit of info been collected over the years and posted and not just here possibly
so, please tell me what don't you understand in term 'three different species'?
there is possibly more then three, but its so far three been discussed
very good friend of mine also very long time tarantula keeper/breeder said ones all cats are gray in the dark, quick look, they all looks same, but when light on they all different, of course we not talking cats, but just seems like

 

[mcluskyisms]

Well said Fran, don't let him bother you, Ive checked some of his previous threads on this matter and it turns out that this is his forte, arguing a point that is flawed.

 

[The Mack]

As for the separation...if they're all in the same area, like I said it makes me wonder why we see so much of the "burgundy" and nowhere near as much blondi and apophysis.

There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps the person who collects them from the wild rejects the ones that aren't hairy enough, or only collects the ones with a certain color, or some other personal/aesthetic reason, and this is why you see so many similar specimens. The bottom line is you don't know, and you can't draw any conclusions from it.

But in all honesty, even spiders labeled as "sp burgundy" look like T. blondi and vice versa. I'm sure there is plenty of debate over it among "experts" when it comes to actually labeling them. So if it was obvious that they should be separate species, then why would this debate occur in the first place!

You talk about the apophysis, but have you ever really seen on in person? How sure could you be that it wasn't a blondi or a burgundy? Would you be able to tell? I don't think so. (And I don't think you'd be able to do it with the Brachypelmas smithi and auratum either for that matter.)

You have to take a step out of your viewpoint here for a second. When you look at these brown spiders you are making the assumption that some of them are eligible to be classified as different species. You make this assumption not based on your own intuition or reason, but only because you have been told this by others.

 

[Fran]

There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps the person who collects them from the wild rejects the ones that aren't hairy enough, or only collects the ones with a certain color, or some other personal/aesthetic reason, and this is why you see so many similar specimens. The bottom line is you don't know, and you can't draw any conclusions from it.
.

Ha ha ha, Obviously you have not much of an idea on how in the majority of cases they are collected in the wild.

But in all honesty, even spiders labeled as "sp burgundy" look like T. blondi and vice versa. I'm sure there is plenty of debate over it among "experts" when it comes to actually labeling them. So if it was obvious that they should be separate species, then why would this debate occur in the first place!
.

Either you dont know how to read, or you have a really bad memory.
THE SP WAS VERY WELL KNOWN. IT WAS PLACED IN THE WRONG GENUS.

You talk about the apophysis, but have you ever really seen on in person? How sure could you be that it wasn't a blondi or a burgundy? Would you be able to tell? I don't think so. (And I don't think you'd be able to do it with the Brachypelmas smithi and auratum either for that matter.)
.

ANYBODY with a minimun amount of experience and a couple of eyes will tell them appart.

You make this assumption not based on your own intuition or reason, but only because you have been told this by others.

I guess you dont believe in atoms, or in the gravity force equation .
In fact if you belive on it is only because you have believed what "others" have said about it.

 

[mcluskyisms]

There are many possible answers to this question. Perhaps the person who collects them from the wild rejects the ones that aren't hairy enough, or only collects the ones with a certain color, or some other personal/aesthetic reason, and this is why you see so many similar specimens. The bottom line is you don't know, and you can't draw any conclusions from it.

But in all honesty, even spiders labeled as "sp burgundy" look like T. blondi and vice versa. I'm sure there is plenty of debate over it among "experts" when it comes to actually labeling them. So if it was obvious that they should be separate species, then why would this debate occur in the first place!

You talk about the apophysis, but have you ever really seen on in person? How sure could you be that it wasn't a blondi or a burgundy? Would you be able to tell? I don't think so. (And I don't think you'd be able to do it with the Brachypelmas smithi and auratum either for that matter.)

You have to take a step out of your viewpoint here for a second. When you look at these brown spiders you are making the assumption that some of them are eligible to be classified as different species. You make this assumption not based on your own intuition or reason, but only because you have been told this by others.

Ok, lets break it down for you.....

Why does one in sling to juvenile stages have pink/white tarsi on legs I & II when the other one has no pink/white tarsi in the same stages at all?

Why does one have no hairs on the Pattela and the other one does?

Why do both species have totally different scientifically described spermathacae?

Why has qualified taxonomist R.Bertani decided to release an abstract saying that that Theraphosa sp."Burgundy" is to classified as its own species?

Why is one lot easier to get a good valid egg sac from than the other?

Because they are two closely related but entirely separate species......

 

[The Mack]

The one not having a clue is you. The one whos using the science word as a back up of NOTHING AT ALL is you...Are you not in your right mind? Did you read your own posts?

I have provided more "backup" here than anyone else. My replies are thorough and insightful, unlike yours. All you do is complain about why people aren't labeling these spiders to your liking, but you do no research or contributing to help understand the dilemma we are having. It is ignorance like this that only compounds the problem. . .

Second, you smart arse, you should have notice from my name or because of my hundreds of posts stating so,that Im a darn foreign. English is not my native language, althought, what the hell does that has to do with what we are talking about here?

I should have known that you were foreign because your name is Fran? Have you ever seen the Nanny? LOL And I'm sorry I didn't research your "hundreds of posts" stating that you are a "Foreign" but I do apologize, I wasn't trying to take a stab at you for your ethnicity or nationality.

You are the one looking like a brave ignorant trying to shove us that you have the edge on what others have been studying and dedicating all his life.
That is not only dumb but conceded.

I don't have "the edge" on anything. And you can study and dedicate your whole life to astrology but do you think it makes you right?

How in the the world can you think that a recogniced SCIENTIST (not what you are, no)is gonna write a revision or contribute to a paper on something he is not sure about?

Did you know that at one point in history, homosexuality was officially deemed a mental disorder? At the time, there was "evidence" to prove it. The "experts" of the time were so sure that it was a disease (just as you are sure that these are separate species). This occurred because of the results from only a few "authorities" papers on the subject and very little peer review to confirm whether or not these claims were true. It eventually made it into the books as a disorder because of lousy science like this and gullible people like you.