Yet another Theraphosa "sp" thread

[syndicate]

It's gettin old Mack!Why not just wait for the paper to be published and move on?All your doing here is messing up this thread and starting tons of drama.
The original topic is why aren't dealers labeling these accordingly!Whether or not there a dif species they need to be kept separate for the obvious reasons stated a million times recently on the forum.
-Chris

 

[The Mack]

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

oh, so you personally go out and collect these spiders from the wild? Please enlighten me then on how they are collected. . .

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.

Um, no. The species is not well known at all. In fact there is very little known about it at all, which is why there is a problem classifying them in the first place.

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

Not true at all. I have heard multiple accounts from many experienced keepers that it is virtually impossible to tell them apart. This is partly why I am convinced that they are a single species.

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.

I don't understand where you pulled this out from. Of course I believe in atoms. . .and no I don't believe it because "others" have told me about it, I believe it because I can test it if I want at any time as many times as I want and come up with the same results. Can I do that with these tarantulas? No. I only believe things that can be tested and proved. And you should to, or else you might end up believing in some silly things

 

[mcluskyisms]

Um, no. The species is not well known at all. In fact there is very little known about it at all, which is why there is a problem classifying them in the first place.

f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).

I guess it was known some time back no? Seen as though this is its actual taxonomy hence the reason behind the forthcoming move into the genus Theraphosa.....

 

[PhobeToPhile]

While not well known, my understanding is that T. sp. "burgundy" was described as Lasiodora spinipes.

As for collecting...given how similar the three are, the collectors probably would just grab the ones they find. It's a numbers game after all-the more spiders they collect, the more money they make when they sell them. Which is the reason why I expressed my concerns about the three living together, yet only having T. sp. "burgundy" available in abundance. If they can get all three, it would make sense to sell all three.

 

[The Mack]

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?

Short answer: Variation.

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

Short answer: Variation.

Why do both species have totally different scientifically described spermathacae?

Show me the documentation of this, and even then, they are still SPERMETHACAE. Just because the lung, for example, of a poodle is a different size and shape than the lung of a greyhound, doesn't mean that they can be considered different species. That's just silly.

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

At this point, I'm sure your guess is as good as mine. Did he find genetic evidence? doubt it. Did he find some other sort of observational evidence that suggested so? Who knows. . .All I know is that from a scientific viewpoint, it will be very difficult for a single paper/person to definitively and scientifically prove whether they are they same species or not.

 

[mcluskyisms]

While not well known, my understanding is that T. sp. "burgundy" was described as Lasiodora spinipes.

Correct, someone who actually has a clue!!!

:clap:

At this point, I'm sure your guess is as good as mine. Did he find genetic evidence? doubt it. Did he find some other sort of observational evidence that suggested so? Who knows. . .All I know is that from a scientific viewpoint, it will be very difficult for a single paper/person to definitively and scientifically prove whether they are they same species or not.

Not trying to be blunt but.....

f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).

Lots of "short" answers there for someone so articulate, wouldn't you like to go into a little more detail and emphasize on some of your reasoning?

 

[The Mack]

f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).

I guess it was known some time back no? Seen as though this is its actual taxonomy hence the reason behind the forthcoming move into the genus Theraphosa.....

LOL, great. So you have a name for the spiders that was given to them in the 1800s. Someone saw it for the first time, named it, and now you think that it is "well known" ? There is only a handful of literature available on tarantulas in general, much less any specific species. For example, other than the documented name, what other credible info can you find on these Theraphosa spiders?

 

[Fran]

oh, so you personally go out and collect these spiders from the wild? Please enlighten me then on how they are collected. . .

:

Allow me to enlight you.

My brothers in laws are the main head of the Geography department of the "Universidad central de Venezuela, UCV" ( University of Caracas Venezuela ). They work on research on several matters in the middle of the heart of the Venezuelan jungle.

They know how they collect this animals. Most of the times are simply local people who get paid to bring as many tarantulas as they can catch.
Using all sorts of methods, from water to gas, to just sticking their hands on any burrow they see.
They give them to the person in chargue , they get paid some Bolivares and thats about it. They dont have ANY clue of what they are getting,taxonomy wise.

Um, no. The species is not well known at all. In fact there is very little known about it at all, which is why there is a problem classifying them in the first place.

Again, not sure what to think of you anymore. either you are just troling or you just dont comprehend your language....I dont really know how to explain you that they are catalogued, they know the sp.
:?

I don't understand where you pulled this out from. Of course I believe in atoms. . .and no I don't believe it because "others" have told me about it, I believe it because I can test it if I want at any time as many times as I want and come up with the same results. Can I do that with these tarantulas? No. I only believe things that can be tested and proved. And you should to, or else you might end up believing in some silly things

:?

So you think that when they label a specie, when they ctalogue one, when they put them in a genus...they do it basically just randomly? Just out of their arse?

How can you post what you post and then try for us to believe your claims and show yourself as believing only in whats testable and all that great sounding stuff?

 

[The Mack]

Not trying to be blunt but.....

f spinipes Ausserer, 1871....................Brazil [urn:lsid:amnh.org:spidersp:002210]
L. s. Ausserer, 1871a: 209 (Df).
L. s. Mello-Leitão, 1923a: 265, f. 95 (f).

Lots of "short" answers there for someone so articulate, wouldn't you like to go into a little more detail and emphasize on some of your reasoning?

I don't feel that I need to explain the mechanics of genetic variation and evolution to you, but I will address an example. You say that one of the things which makes these spiders a "different species" is the lack of hair on the patella on some specimens. I think that we can agree that this is a characteristic of the spider's physical appearance, right? Good. Now take the following into consideration:

Organisms may look different and yet be the same species. Many characteristics can vary within a single species. For example, the plant hydrangea may have pink “flowers”—they’re actually modified leaves—or blue “flowers.” But that doesn’t mean that we should classify the two forms as different species. In fact, you could cause a blue-“flowered” plant to become a pink-“flowered” plant just by changing the pH of the soil and the amount of aluminum taken up by the plant.

How do you know that these differences in hair on patella aren't caused by a simple genetic variation or even a unique diet within the same species?

 

[BlackCat]

Troll (n.): One who purposely and deliberately starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

(n.) One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Troll on, Mack.

trololol

 

[mcluskyisms]

LOL, great. So you have a name for the spiders that was given to them in the 1800s. Someone saw it for the first time, named it, and now you think that it is "well known" ? There is only a handful of literature available on tarantulas in general, much less any specific species. For example, other than the documented name, what other credible info can you find on these Theraphosa spiders?

That is a classified taxonomic description of a tarantula that was first described in 1871 by Anton Ausserer, upon sifting through and trying to sort out the genus Lasiodora R.Bertani found that the taxonomic report made by Ausserer matched up to that of the recently "found" Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" which has been in this hobby undoubtedly unnoticed since before you were probably even in nappy's. Therefore upon completion of Bertani's work the species known to us hobbyists as Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" will be classified into the genus Theraphosa as Theraphosa spinipes....

Is it seriously that hard to grasp?

:?

 

[ZooRex]

I think one of the biggest problems for describing and sorting through any theraphosid complex (in this case Theraphosa) would be the idea and probability of cross breeding. It’s apparent that there are many new species to describe and classify, but how to distinguish between a true blondi, a sp burgundy and a blondi-burgundy cross seems to complicate the issue even more.

 

[The Mack]

That is a classified taxonomic description of a tarantula that was first described in 1871 by Anton Ausserer, upon sifting through and trying to sort out the genus Lasiodora R.Bertani found that the taxonomic report made by Ausserer matched up to that of the recently "found" Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" which has been in this hobby undoubtedly unnoticed since before you were probably even in nappy's. Therefore upon completion of Bertani's work the species known to us hobbyists as Theraphosa sp. "Burgundy" will be classified into the genus Theraphosa as Theraphosa spinipes....

Is it seriously that hard to grasp?

:?

if it is recently found then how could it have been "in the hobby since I was in diapers," please lol you have contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Nothing was recently found, these spiders have all been here, in their present form for longer than HUMANS HAVE EXISTED so your guess is as good as mine is as good as Bertani's or whoever else as to whether they are separate or the same species. If all it takes is a single guy to say, "Hey that kinda fits the description I have here, lets change the name!" and then everyone just accepts it, then I really have no problem with it. I personally consider them the same species because the evidence suggests so currently. I am totally open to any evidence that may be presented in these papers, but your explanation is hardly convincing.

Troll (n.): One who purposely and deliberately starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

(n.) One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Troll on, Mack.

trololol

I am hardly here to start arguments in an offensive or attacking manner. I am voicing my view on this subject and supporting it every step of the way. I'm sorry if I speak up for what I think is right. If I have inspired even one person to be more inquisitive about the origin of the classification of species and tarantulas then I consider this to a be a productive discussion.

Ironically though, your last post could be considered "trolling," by the very definition you posted

 

[mcluskyisms]

if it is recently found then how could it have been "in the hobby since I was in diapers," please lol you have contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Nothing was recently found, these spiders have all been here, in their present form for longer than HUMANS HAVE EXISTED so your guess is as good as mine is as good as Bertani's or whoever else as to whether they are separate or the same species. If all it takes is a single guy to say, "Hey that kinda fits the description I have here, lets change the name!" and then everyone just accepts it, then I really have no problem with it. I personally consider them the same species because the evidence suggests so currently. I am totally open to any evidence that may be presented in these papers, but your explanation is hardly convincing.

I wrote "found" as in it was always actually there, I know from time to time the English sarcasm can sometimes gets lost in cross atlantic translation although you are actually doing a good job of emphasizing the factor....

Yawn, your boring, you haven't a decent argument for a few pages at all, the only reason I'm still commenting on this thread is because I'm bored.....

 

[Crows Arachnids]

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.




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. . .

All you do is shoot your gun, but you have not yet hit your target. Your words are senseless praddle, I'm being frank here. First off, I would suggest you cease with your condescending undertone, not only have I grown weary of it, it is riddled with so much disrespect, I don't appreciate how you are handling yourself with the individuals in this thread, this is a discussion, not a forum for you to attack individuals for their lack of English command. In the end I do not think you are articulate, as some have stated, you merely compose praddle, as mentioned above. Secondly, you suffer from severe tunnel vision in the realms of discussion, all you see is your arguement. What I don't understand is, you have provided naught but ash on this subject, merely refuting that which has yet to be established as fact, and yet continue to ramble on about how much disproof you have provided, I'm sorry, by the way you type to me, you must take me for an idiot, so let's run with that, please, in a single post, outline the proof that these are indeed the same species. Don't you muster up enough nerve to tell me that I misunderstand your words, they are as clear as day. You are telling me that the current functioning for taxonomy and the governing factors that determine tarantulas as different;species from one another, that we are currently abiding by, is wrong, period. Your "disproof* (In reality it is anything but) on this particular matter would unconstitute MANY other species as being different from one another, so yes, you challenge the entire mode of taxonomy that we currently function with. If you don't, then you have grossly misworded your conjured, on a whim and wikipedia, refute. Now look here, I'm anything but narrow-minded, so I acknowledge the possibility that we are all wrong, including the professionals, however you have less than we do to work with, despite what your distorted little brain tells you. I care not, in the end what happens, whether it is acknowldeged as a variant or otherwise, but once again, the very notions that would discern this issue and establish them as a single species, would have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, case closed. I should think that I do not need to get into complexities, your response may illicit that however. For future reference, stop manipulating the flexibility of species, in it's definitions, to formulate a point, it makes you look even more ignorant. This hobby has chosen one of those definitions, as established by ongoing convention, you have chosen another, do I see a hypocrite? Was this message a tad condescending? Just wanted to see how you like it.

 

[The Mack]

Yawn, your boring, you haven't a decent argument for a few pages at all, the only reason I'm still commenting on this thread is because I'm bored.....

Sure, the biological species concept might be boring, but it is reality. I'm not even sure what 'excitement' you would get out of labeling these tarantulas as separate species?

 

[mcluskyisms]

Sure, the biological species concept might be boring, but it is reality. I'm not even sure what 'excitement' you would get out of labeling these tarantulas as separate species?

You just got owned on post 99, give it up and wait for the paper, you might be right or 80% of this thread might be right...

Lets see if you have much to say when its published?

 

[Fran]

You just got owned on post 99, give it up and wait for the paper, you might be right or 80% of this thread might be right...

Lets see if you have much to say when its published?

It doesnt matter, it appears as Jhonathan has stated that he abides different rules. Its an entire new diff hobby what he has in mind.

He wants to reinvent whats already invented, pretty much.

 

[The Mack]

All you do is shoot your gun, but you have not yet hit your target. Your words are senseless praddle, I'm being frank here. First off, I would suggest you cease with your condescending undertone, not only have I grown weary of it, it is riddled with so much disrespect, I don't appreciate how you are handling yourself with the individuals in this thread, this is a discussion, not a forum for you to attack individuals for their lack of English command. In the end I do not think you are articulate, as some have stated, you merely compose praddle, as mentioned above. Secondly, you suffer from severe tunnel vision in the realms of discussion, all you see is your arguement. What I don't understand is, you have provided naught but ash on this subject, merely refuting that which has yet to be established as fact, and yet continue to ramble on about how much disproof you have provided, I'm sorry, by the way you type to me, you must take me for an idiot, so let's run with that, please, in a single post, outline the proof that these are indeed the same species. Don't you muster up enough nerve to tell me that I misunderstand your words, they are as clear as day. You are telling me that the current functioning for taxonomy and the governing factors that determine tarantulas as different;species from one another, that we are currently abiding by, is wrong, period. Your "disproof* (In reality it is anything but) on this particular matter would unconstitute MANY other species as being different from one another, so yes, you challenge the entire mode of taxonomy that we currently function with. If you don't, then you have grossly misworded your conjured, on a whim and wikipedia, refute. Now look here, I'm anything but narrow-minded, so I acknowledge the possibility that we are all wrong, including the professionals, however you have less than we do to work with, despite what your distorted little brain tells you. I care not, in the end what happens, whether it is acknowldeged as a variant or otherwise, but once again, the very notions that would discern this issue and establish them as a single species, would have to go through and rectify this entire hobby, case closed. I should think that I do not need to get into complexities, your response may illicit that however. For future reference, stop manipulating the flexibility of species, in it's definitions, to formulate a point, it makes you look even more ignorant. This hobby has chosen one of those definitions, as established by ongoing convention, you have chosen another, do I see a hypocrite? Was this message a tad condescending? Just wanted to see how you like it.

None of my replies are "praddle," whatever that is lol. I just describe time after time why you are wrong, supplemented with evidence which you can freely research yourself. You are running in circles, I agree, and this isn't really going anywhere for you. I'm sure a few others were able to get something out of this thread other than you though, so it evens out

And let's get this straight. If anyone is "rectifying the hobby" it is you. YOU are making the change by labeling them as separate. They are currently considered the same officially, remember? They have been considered one species this whole time, up until recently. So YOU are the one "rectifying," not me. I'm sure you will repeat this though as if you never read it in your next reply. . .:wall:

It doesnt matter, it appears as Jhonathan has stated that he abides different rules. Its an entire new diff hobby what he has in mind.

He wants to reinvent whats already invented, pretty much.

It is YOU that abides by different rules. Please tell me, what is YOUR definition of a species then for tarantulas, since you obviously don't agree with the universally accepted species concepts that I have previously discussed. You have to have some kind of rule or definition for a species of tarantula. .or do you just change the definition to match whatever you fancy labeling them?

 

[mcluskyisms]

And let's get this straight. If anyone is "rectifying the hobby" it is you. YOU are making the change by labeling them as separate. They are currently considered the same officially, remember? They have been considered one species this whole time, up until recently. So YOU are the one "rectifying," not me. I'm sure you will repeat this though as if you never read it in your next reply. . .:wall:

I don't know about over there in the USA, but over here in the UK and England they are known as a separate species???