They have been classed as different species.

G. porteri NCF
G. rosea RCF, Described By: Walckenaer, 1837
Not sure if the changes has been published?
Maybe Hendrik or Dimitri or the Duke could help with this topic?

Well i think we need to get 2 mature males soon so we can start the barcoding and find out if they are really different species.

From what i know Hendrik has specified to me as well that they are different and that the one is G porteri. He can maybe also state his opinion here. But there is no paper at the moment unless they are waiting for it to be published....

Edit: Which one is the Gold one?

Anyways there is bibliography:

Grammostola porteri (Mello-Leitão, 1936)
– Chile

Mello-Leitão, C.F. de. 1936.
Etude sur les arachnides de Papudo et Constitucion (Chili), recueillis par le prof. Dr Carlos E. Porter.
Revta chilena Hist. nat. 40: 112-129 [p. 122, pl. 13].

And recently Perez Miles stated they are different and that the NCF is G porteri but his paper is awaiting publication...

Dimitri wrote: Well i think we need to get 2 mature males soon so we can start the barcoding and find out if they are really different species.

From what i know Hendrik has specified to me as well that they are different and that the one is G porteri. He can maybe also state his opinion here. But there is no paper at the moment unless they are waiting for it to be published....

In that case, no need to take precaution, lets just breed them anyway, but i better not tell anyone
as it shows my character.

If i didnt have my doubts that they were two different species i would of tried to
breed them without waiting for the male to molt out.



thanks Dimitri and Jake :thumbsup:

Dave wrote:

mammon wrote:

Dave wrote:

mammon wrote: Thanks Cascade.
G.rosea x G.rosea
And i did mention she was gonna molt.

As i recall, Rcf is known as Rosea and the Rosea we all know of is actually Porterii( or how ever you spell it)

Is this statement not influential ! Fact or opinion ?
So there was no pulchra involved uzi only shows your character unfortunatly whistle2
.

Shows my character? Ok Thanasi, think what you want . :thumbsup:

And when i saw that picture you posted years ago i remember seeing a Pulchra but clearly i was mistaken
' sorry, i make mistakes'

I was told last year that they were too seperate spiders, and this member is updated buy the British tarantula society,
so either he was thumb sucking or someone else is wrong, but i would like to believe they two seperate species, thats
MY opinion, that we all titled to, just like my opinion on hybrids, as i enjoy them and will continue to seek out
any possible outcomes of a special hybrid.

Cool Dude and all the best for your project.
Maybe a little less thumb-suck and false accusations if you are trying to convince people of how responsible you are.
Hope you understand where i come from as a resellers point of view. Hybrids= Nightmare
I too am curious but i dont allow my curiosity to get the better of me.
Guess we done now

cascade wrote: They have been classed as different species.

G. porteri NCF
G. rosea RCF, Described By: Walckenaer, 1837
Not sure if the changes has been published?
Maybe Hendrik or Dimitri or the Duke could help with this topic?

So i see nobody is looking at the dates but this was written by Duke 2 years ago on the bad mammon thread and hopefully he can give some feedback cause im not sure how Cascade,Dimitri or Hendrik are involved with the worldwide reclassification of tarantulas
DUKE on 'Bad Mammon' 2 years+ ago:
Still waiting on the Fernando Perez-Miles paper to be published but from what i can remember the main difference (aside from the colour) is that porteri (rosea NCF) have more well developed stridulating lyra on the coxa.
So at worst you are trying to hybridize two seperate species and at best you are attempting intraspecific hybridization which in my humble opinion is just as bad.

Ill repeat myself for the final time, i never once said i am going to do the project but speaking hypotheticially
and being open minded.

Wasnt a thumbsuck but was mistaken ID

Thanks for your part of the arguement Mammon, maybe the next time you come onto the site, maybe you
can add some educational benefit for the newbies instead of just coming on to stur some trouble and
judging other members character.

Guess we are done, which is sad as i was always fond of you and valued your advice, hince
the reason i GAVE you a Subfusca breeding trio.

But good luck to you too. :thumbsup: