- Joined
- Dec 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,661
I tried to keep it simple for the masses, but hygrometers aren't as useful as some people would have you think.
Hygrometer shows 99%
- Thread starter mozkaynak
- Start date
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 661
I can see their use in breeding. I will get one when I'm ready to get to that point. I wouldn't want to make an investment in breedstock only to screw up somewhere along the line. God forbid, I try breeding something rare in the future (E. olivacea anyone? 
) and find out my epic fail was due to "guessing" my RH levels.
) and find out my epic fail was due to "guessing" my RH levels.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,351
I don't personally use hygrometers, and it's a combination of two things. First, when I started keeping reptiles and amphibians, which was over a decade ago, hygrometers made for the pet keeping field were complete garbage. It seems as though the quality has gotten marginally better but for the most part, gadgets produced for the keeping of pets are of low quality and highly overpriced.
Second, if your temperatures are low the solution is simple. You turn up the heater, heat tape, etc. If your humidity is low it's much more difficult to regulate. Unless you have a humidifier, you can't just monitor the humidity and turn a knob. Furthermore, humidity within a room can vary drastically depending upon the outside weather, and use of A/C or heating, not to mention the wide fluctuations in humidity from one enclosure to another. The best way to handle humidity, IMO, is to keep proper husbandry techniques such as keeping the substrate appropriately damp, water bowls filled, and proper amounts of ventilation. That way, you notice little things like the substrate drying quicker, and compensate by adding water more frequently.
With all that said, I do feel as though I'm getting to the point that a humidifier would be a good investment. In which case, I will be purchasing a hygrometer just so I can better monitor the effectiveness of the humidifier, and keep the ambient humidity at a comfortable level.
Second, if your temperatures are low the solution is simple. You turn up the heater, heat tape, etc. If your humidity is low it's much more difficult to regulate. Unless you have a humidifier, you can't just monitor the humidity and turn a knob. Furthermore, humidity within a room can vary drastically depending upon the outside weather, and use of A/C or heating, not to mention the wide fluctuations in humidity from one enclosure to another. The best way to handle humidity, IMO, is to keep proper husbandry techniques such as keeping the substrate appropriately damp, water bowls filled, and proper amounts of ventilation. That way, you notice little things like the substrate drying quicker, and compensate by adding water more frequently.
With all that said, I do feel as though I'm getting to the point that a humidifier would be a good investment. In which case, I will be purchasing a hygrometer just so I can better monitor the effectiveness of the humidifier, and keep the ambient humidity at a comfortable level.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2004
- Messages
- 1,677
First, sorry that this posting is so late. I have some difficulties maintaining an Internet connection because we live in a motorhome and travel a lot.
The initial proposition is not necessarily true, and such a state may actually not be optimal. I can as easily envision a perfectly realistic situation where an organism survives in its habitat IN SPITE of those conditions because disease, predators, or some other factor kills it off quickly in less harsh or different conditions. It survives in its habitat because conditions are bearable, but the conditions are far from optimal and it does not necessarily have to fit them "hand-in-glove." The species must merely survive, not necessarily thrive. And, attempting to emulate its natural conditions in a cage may very likely tip the survival balance too far in its disfavor, killing it.
I offer a very personal example, Homo sapiens: Our distant ancestors evolved in the forests and on the grasslands of east Africa several million years ago, and over a very long time managed to spread over most of Europe and Asia. (Apparently humans only invaded the New World less than 40,000 years ago, a mere blink of the eye in our history.) They survived in spite of giant cave bears, saber toothed cats, a number of different species of wolves, lions, and hyenas, predation by other humanoids, and a host of diseases. In their native habitats, their numbers never were very great. Somewhere I heard that there may have been as few as 15,000 to 125,000 humanoids at any one time on the entire planet during that time frame.
It was only with the advent of civilization and technology that, living in the completely artificial environment of our homes in our cities, we have managed to reach a worldwide population of 6.6 or 6.7 BILLION.
And, I don't care what you say, I DO NOT want to go back to living naked on a predator infested savanna or in a disease ridden swamp, giving up my wide screen HDTV, microwave, computer, polyester shirts, designer jeans, motorhome, Grand Am, and Sheltie dogs because someone believes that the habitat that my ancestors evolved in is best for me! And, I am most definitely not convinced that the "natural is better" hypothesis works for my tarantulas either.
No. There is no proof that "natural" conditions are best for any species' survival, especially in captivity, and far too many examples of the contrary. Scratch that theory. Why it manages to persist in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is way beyond me!
1. The humidity in nature varies far too widely and far too wildly to allow us to pin down a "correct" humidity for any species beyond such very general terms as swamp-like, semi-arid, arid, etc.
2. Tarantulas possess an exoskeleton that just about completely shuts off water loss to the rest of the world whereas we only have a semipermeable skin that sweats. There is every reason to believe that almost all tarantulas are at least as capable of adjusting to, surviving in, and even thriving in at least as full range of humidities as we are. And, there is scant evidence to the contrary.
3. Our consumer grade humidity gauges (hydrometers) are so inaccurate as to make most humidity determinations next to meaningless. In fact, with a little attention to detail, a homemade hygrometer stands a far better chance of being more accurate than a store bought one. So, there is a big question about us being able to recognize any sort of "optimal" humidity if we finally discovered one.
As an example, in my original posting, I alluded to the fact that over the last 50 years literally thousands of people have kept many tens of thousands of tarantulas, often breeding them, without paying attention to humidity or trying to manipulate it. At this point, I wish to add that of all the reasons for a tarantula's death that I can remember being reported, I cannot remember more than one or two reports blaming improper humidity. (With the single exceptions of the deaths of T. blondi and some of the Hysterocrates species.) From that, I draw the conclusion that, for the most part, humidity concerns are generally vastly overrated, red herrings.
If you feel a compulsion to spend your money on a hygrometer, by all means do so. The third world industries badly need your business. Just don't pass it off as a necessity, or even infer such, for tarantula keeping. There's far too much evidence to the contrary to lend any sort of veracity to that argument.
*******************************************************************************
The concept of "right way" and its partner "wrong way" are human moral/intellectual constructs. They do not exist in nature. In nature there is no "right way" to keep them, only some way that allows for their survival and reproduction. And, short of using a Ouija board, I can't imagine how would one go about determining what "having the right temps" would be for a tarantula except by apparent differences in how they act and react.
In the wild, tarantulas are exposed to widely and wildly varying temperatures. If that sounds vaguely familiar, it is no accident. I merely paraphrased a statement from above regarding humidity. I and many others have witnessed tarantulas actively hunting at temperatures as low as 63̊ F (17̊ C). And, I and many others have also witnessed tarantulas eating and mating (rarely at the same time!) at temperatures in the 100̊+ F (38̊+ C) range. Furthermore, many enthusiasts who are very successful at breeding tarantulas also make a practice of cooling their spiders to remarkably cool temperatures in winter to stimulate them to breed the following spring. Contrary to popular belief by we highly biased homeotherms, being a cold blooded animal is definitely NOT a disadvantage, and quite apparently has some distinct advantages!
From this it is no great leap of imagination to make a general statement that tarantulas can survive, if not thrive, within a wide range of temperatures. Further, it requires no great leap of faith to state that any temperature at which you or I were comfortable would also suit most tarantulas as well, simply because our preferred temperature lies somewhere between the two extremes that tarantulas are known to function in. Think of it as a happy medium.
And, because tarantulas apparently don't seem to care a lot, judging from the experiences of many of us who've kept them for decades, if we stray a few degrees, or even more than just a few degrees, from that happy medium, it's no big deal, at least from the tarantula's point of view. Literally ALL indicators point to one fact: The tarantulas don't seem to care. And there is scant or no evidence to the contrary.
So, temperature also seems to be another red herring. Something else that we can stress over, buy thermometers for, stimulate the international economy with, and hold extended discussions on these forums about! But generally, if kept within reason, of no real importance.
Enjoy your wet, damp, dry, mummified, cold, cool, warm, hot, little buddies for the marvels they really are.
I'm not convinced of this, largely because there are so many that come from scrub forests, dry forests, prairies, savannas, and deserts. I've never actually seen an accounting of the totals by habitat, although that data certainly would be interesting. Anybody out there ever see such data?Lets see if we understand here a bit.
1: Most of the NW tarantulas we keep as pets in our tanks, are from rain forests/jungles. ...
Not necessarily. For one, the term "jungle" is really too imprecise to allow such a blanket statement. And, there are lots of forest situations in the world that experience extended dry seasons. And, there are lots of habitats that really are forests that you might not at first consider forests. For that matter, what is a forest? (I guess I'm still having a lot of trouble accepting your first statement.)
This, I'm sorry, is blatantly wrong. The presumptions are that any given organism has evolved hand-in-glove to interact optimally with its environment, and that "natural and organic" is better. These hypotheses were popular in the 60s, but are now known to be a product of too much weed being blown by the flower children in an attempt to escape a very unpopular political reality.
The initial proposition is not necessarily true, and such a state may actually not be optimal. I can as easily envision a perfectly realistic situation where an organism survives in its habitat IN SPITE of those conditions because disease, predators, or some other factor kills it off quickly in less harsh or different conditions. It survives in its habitat because conditions are bearable, but the conditions are far from optimal and it does not necessarily have to fit them "hand-in-glove." The species must merely survive, not necessarily thrive. And, attempting to emulate its natural conditions in a cage may very likely tip the survival balance too far in its disfavor, killing it.
I offer a very personal example, Homo sapiens: Our distant ancestors evolved in the forests and on the grasslands of east Africa several million years ago, and over a very long time managed to spread over most of Europe and Asia. (Apparently humans only invaded the New World less than 40,000 years ago, a mere blink of the eye in our history.) They survived in spite of giant cave bears, saber toothed cats, a number of different species of wolves, lions, and hyenas, predation by other humanoids, and a host of diseases. In their native habitats, their numbers never were very great. Somewhere I heard that there may have been as few as 15,000 to 125,000 humanoids at any one time on the entire planet during that time frame.
It was only with the advent of civilization and technology that, living in the completely artificial environment of our homes in our cities, we have managed to reach a worldwide population of 6.6 or 6.7 BILLION.
And, I don't care what you say, I DO NOT want to go back to living naked on a predator infested savanna or in a disease ridden swamp, giving up my wide screen HDTV, microwave, computer, polyester shirts, designer jeans, motorhome, Grand Am, and Sheltie dogs because someone believes that the habitat that my ancestors evolved in is best for me! And, I am most definitely not convinced that the "natural is better" hypothesis works for my tarantulas either.
No. There is no proof that "natural" conditions are best for any species' survival, especially in captivity, and far too many examples of the contrary. Scratch that theory. Why it manages to persist in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is way beyond me!
I have said this before and I will repeat it again:
1. The humidity in nature varies far too widely and far too wildly to allow us to pin down a "correct" humidity for any species beyond such very general terms as swamp-like, semi-arid, arid, etc.
2. Tarantulas possess an exoskeleton that just about completely shuts off water loss to the rest of the world whereas we only have a semipermeable skin that sweats. There is every reason to believe that almost all tarantulas are at least as capable of adjusting to, surviving in, and even thriving in at least as full range of humidities as we are. And, there is scant evidence to the contrary.
3. Our consumer grade humidity gauges (hydrometers) are so inaccurate as to make most humidity determinations next to meaningless. In fact, with a little attention to detail, a homemade hygrometer stands a far better chance of being more accurate than a store bought one. So, there is a big question about us being able to recognize any sort of "optimal" humidity if we finally discovered one.
You, of course, are quite welcome to hold your own opinion. But, can you substantiate it? Can you, for instance, clearly demonstrate that a given humidity might be beneficial to the survival of the vast majority of tarantula species? Can you suggest some physiological mechanism? I remain very skeptical. "There ain't enough meat in that hamburger. I'm not buying it!"
As an example, in my original posting, I alluded to the fact that over the last 50 years literally thousands of people have kept many tens of thousands of tarantulas, often breeding them, without paying attention to humidity or trying to manipulate it. At this point, I wish to add that of all the reasons for a tarantula's death that I can remember being reported, I cannot remember more than one or two reports blaming improper humidity. (With the single exceptions of the deaths of T. blondi and some of the Hysterocrates species.) From that, I draw the conclusion that, for the most part, humidity concerns are generally vastly overrated, red herrings.
If you feel a compulsion to spend your money on a hygrometer, by all means do so. The third world industries badly need your business. Just don't pass it off as a necessity, or even infer such, for tarantula keeping. There's far too much evidence to the contrary to lend any sort of veracity to that argument.
*******************************************************************************
But you fail to appreciate that the inaccuracy is not the product of human frailty or ineptitude, but rather because natural temperatures tend to be so variable and chaotic as to foil a description in any meaningful way their relationship to tarantula keeping except in the very broadest, non-specific terms.
The concept of "right way" and its partner "wrong way" are human moral/intellectual constructs. They do not exist in nature. In nature there is no "right way" to keep them, only some way that allows for their survival and reproduction. And, short of using a Ouija board, I can't imagine how would one go about determining what "having the right temps" would be for a tarantula except by apparent differences in how they act and react.
In the wild, tarantulas are exposed to widely and wildly varying temperatures. If that sounds vaguely familiar, it is no accident. I merely paraphrased a statement from above regarding humidity. I and many others have witnessed tarantulas actively hunting at temperatures as low as 63̊ F (17̊ C). And, I and many others have also witnessed tarantulas eating and mating (rarely at the same time!) at temperatures in the 100̊+ F (38̊+ C) range. Furthermore, many enthusiasts who are very successful at breeding tarantulas also make a practice of cooling their spiders to remarkably cool temperatures in winter to stimulate them to breed the following spring. Contrary to popular belief by we highly biased homeotherms, being a cold blooded animal is definitely NOT a disadvantage, and quite apparently has some distinct advantages!
From this it is no great leap of imagination to make a general statement that tarantulas can survive, if not thrive, within a wide range of temperatures. Further, it requires no great leap of faith to state that any temperature at which you or I were comfortable would also suit most tarantulas as well, simply because our preferred temperature lies somewhere between the two extremes that tarantulas are known to function in. Think of it as a happy medium.
And, because tarantulas apparently don't seem to care a lot, judging from the experiences of many of us who've kept them for decades, if we stray a few degrees, or even more than just a few degrees, from that happy medium, it's no big deal, at least from the tarantula's point of view. Literally ALL indicators point to one fact: The tarantulas don't seem to care. And there is scant or no evidence to the contrary.
So, temperature also seems to be another red herring. Something else that we can stress over, buy thermometers for, stimulate the international economy with, and hold extended discussions on these forums about! But generally, if kept within reason, of no real importance.
Enjoy your wet, damp, dry, mummified, cold, cool, warm, hot, little buddies for the marvels they really are.
Fran, as impressed as I am with your dedication, we've been keeping these animals long enough to have a handle on whether or not we need to try and keep exacting humidity levels. 25 years of observation data tells me NO. As someone else pointed out above, humidity in the wild varies greatly. I have not observed any particular sensitivity or stress to varying humidity levels in captivity. I've seen nothing that tells me a sensible, observational approach to maintaining a modicum of humidity is not more than enough.
Yes I do posses a fair amount of intuition with regard to animal husbandry, and it's part of what enabled me to be such a successful reptile, bird, marine fish and reef keeper as well over the years. That being said, observation, and knowing how to interpret that data is all that is required. Nobody here has ever said "well I feel comfortable, so my T's do as well"
What we're saying is, nothing we've ever seen illustrates that our current "hygormeterless" husbandry methods are lacking in any way, in even the smallest amount, whatsoever. This is what the animals tell us by their health and vigor, and most importantly life span and reproduction.
It's like my experience with reef keeping, those spending money on unnecessary dry goods and supplements never fail to tout the degree to which they are replicating nature with their efforts. The truth is that they're chasing unknown and dynamic parameters that in no way affect the well being of the animals in question, in captivity. They are often making and acting upon false assumptions, they lack useful data from the wild, and ignore or fail to assimilate data from other hobbyists who raise vibrant, healthy organisms without said equipment or supplements. One side has results and data, the other has baseless claims born from misguided logic. Harmless for the most part, but a waste of time and money more often than not.
When we keep fish, we figure out a range at which they thrive, figure out if they are pH sensitive, and adjust parameters accordingly. If I have a species that has shown me, (and everyone else in the hobby) that pH is a non issue, I'm not going to take readings and constantly pick an arbitrary (remember that...arbitrary) value, or even a reading from the wild and knock myself out maintaining it when the critters have shown me that plain and simple, as long as extremes are avoided...it doesn't matter. Maybe I can make myself feel better, or convince myself that I'm "advanced" because I'm maintaining the exact pH of a river in South America, and now I'm taking better care of them...but at the end of the day it's silly, superfluous and unnecessary, and frankly a bit OCD.
Someone utilizing a hygrometer, or spending the money to maintain humidity in a room is likely to claim it makes a difference...they might as well, they spent the money. Until someone comes forward with data not only illustrating a good reason for using a hygrometer, but also illustrating how current husbandry methods are less than ideal....I'll continue to do without...and continue to maintain healthy animals....and losing ZERO avic slings BTW.
You sir, are a nice fella, and have fun with your readings.
Yes I do posses a fair amount of intuition with regard to animal husbandry, and it's part of what enabled me to be such a successful reptile, bird, marine fish and reef keeper as well over the years. That being said, observation, and knowing how to interpret that data is all that is required. Nobody here has ever said "well I feel comfortable, so my T's do as well"
What we're saying is, nothing we've ever seen illustrates that our current "hygormeterless" husbandry methods are lacking in any way, in even the smallest amount, whatsoever. This is what the animals tell us by their health and vigor, and most importantly life span and reproduction.
It's like my experience with reef keeping, those spending money on unnecessary dry goods and supplements never fail to tout the degree to which they are replicating nature with their efforts. The truth is that they're chasing unknown and dynamic parameters that in no way affect the well being of the animals in question, in captivity. They are often making and acting upon false assumptions, they lack useful data from the wild, and ignore or fail to assimilate data from other hobbyists who raise vibrant, healthy organisms without said equipment or supplements. One side has results and data, the other has baseless claims born from misguided logic. Harmless for the most part, but a waste of time and money more often than not.
When we keep fish, we figure out a range at which they thrive, figure out if they are pH sensitive, and adjust parameters accordingly. If I have a species that has shown me, (and everyone else in the hobby) that pH is a non issue, I'm not going to take readings and constantly pick an arbitrary (remember that...arbitrary) value, or even a reading from the wild and knock myself out maintaining it when the critters have shown me that plain and simple, as long as extremes are avoided...it doesn't matter. Maybe I can make myself feel better, or convince myself that I'm "advanced" because I'm maintaining the exact pH of a river in South America, and now I'm taking better care of them...but at the end of the day it's silly, superfluous and unnecessary, and frankly a bit OCD.
Someone utilizing a hygrometer, or spending the money to maintain humidity in a room is likely to claim it makes a difference...they might as well, they spent the money. Until someone comes forward with data not only illustrating a good reason for using a hygrometer, but also illustrating how current husbandry methods are less than ideal....I'll continue to do without...and continue to maintain healthy animals....and losing ZERO avic slings BTW.
You sir, are a nice fella, and have fun with your readings.
Mr.Shultz, comparing humans to taranulas isn't really relevent. It's well known that because of our use of tools and technology that we can adapt to any climate....tarantulas can't do that. Assuming that they can adapt to climates other than what they are from may or may not be true, there are many animals that are poor at adapting. Many Ts are kept in conditions that are very different than those of their native land and many do quite well, but I wonder how many bad molts are caused by low humidity. Perhaps if we kept rainforest Ts at a higher humidity it wouldn't happen at all? Truthfully, without side by side experimentation we will never know, so those who try to create natural conditions for thier Ts are only playing it safe....and there is nothing wrong with that.
Being new to this hobby, I'm going to reject most of these exaggerated arguments. I'm hearing people say because they have been in the hobby for several years, they have determined that hygrometers are not useful and that make no sense to me what so ever. I have been a professional irrigation contractor for many years and today I never measure anything unless it is over 100 ft, but I would not recommend it just because I'm that experienced. I think these walls of text prove you guys are splitting hairs and might be confusing people that are new to hobby.
I have yet to read any information suggesting how much water they add to their enclosures, only that they add water. Using that information I have added way to much water to a few of my enclosures and started growing mold. I went out and bought a cheap hygrometer, brought it home and took a reading of 55% next to my enclosures which is probably right due to the fact that I use air conditioning to cool my home. Inside the enclosure it reads 90, so I'm not going to add any water till that reading comes way down. The mold growth told me it was too moist, but is that not a little too late?
I have yet to read any information suggesting how much water they add to their enclosures, only that they add water. Using that information I have added way to much water to a few of my enclosures and started growing mold. I went out and bought a cheap hygrometer, brought it home and took a reading of 55% next to my enclosures which is probably right due to the fact that I use air conditioning to cool my home. Inside the enclosure it reads 90, so I'm not going to add any water till that reading comes way down. The mold growth told me it was too moist, but is that not a little too late?
I've seen mold grow on substrate that was supposedly dry before, so it helps to have some ventillation to combat the problem. Moist substrate (not sopping wet muck) and good air exchange create usually create a good atmosphere for rainforest Ts. I have my A.genic in a cage with 80% humidity and I have no mold, so it is possible.
Read again oh he of the red colored beard...read again.
While I agree that we don't have adequate data on humidity preferences/requirements for tarantulas in the wild, and I don't have a lot of faith in the accuracy of commonly available hygrometers, I see no reason to stop people from using them. It may not be necessary to the maintenance of tarantulas, someone using them can at least accumulate data that the rest of us are ignoring. And that data may help answer questions later on. Fran and others like him might make some useful discoveries, so rather than jumping on them, encourage them to report on what they find. Yes, those discoveries may well be that humidity in captivity isn't important. But who knows? I'm always in favor of accumulating knowledge - as long as I don't have to suffer great inconvenience in the process. I'm happy to see Fran continue in his pursuits, but not inspired to join him.
Of course Bill there's no reason to stop anyone from using them, I don't think anyone here is coming from that space.
I just think newbs have enough to worry about without creating a superfluous maintenance regime.
I mean we can get data about the mineral content, and amount of organics in the wild soil too, from various regions, at different times of the year and run tests to help recreate this in captivity for given species. I'm sure the barometric pressure at 30' up in a tree in the Amazon is quite different from that in our homes most of the time as well.
The rotting organic matter within the burrows at various depths must have an impact on O2 levels, and must be quite different within various micro habitats even.
I'm being silly, but you get the point.
Determining "well reproduction seems to shut off below 40% humidity" is one thing, and could be quite useful. Asserting that wild conditions are being emulated is silly.
Well, using your example - My wife works with native varieties of scopions, and she has noticed that some of them give birth when the barometric pressure drops at the beginning of the monsoon cycle.
Obviously I'm not going to suggest that we all start keeping barometers in our cages, or that we could do anything to control or alter barometric changes - but knowing that they have an influence or impact on reproductive behavior can help us in understanding when animals might most effectively be placed together for breeding, when to anticipate births, etc.
Knowledge of how and why animals behave is a good thing, whether we can control it or not. So I'm in favor of people gathering knowledge and data. Including all the details that you pretty much dismissed in your message as being foolish.
Monitoring humidity is not necessarily the same as asserting that wild conditions are being emulated.
I think we both agree that we cannot duplicate all wild conditons in captivity, nor should we feel the need to. But it does make sense when you are keeping animals to be aware of the conditions in which they evolved. And approximating those conditions makes a good starting point on the road to finding the best conditions. You obviously would not want to keep a desert animal in mangrove swamp conditions, and vice versa. At least not until you'd kept them and determined what their optimal requirements are. And short of recreating either a desert or a mangrove swamp, you might opt for dry or humid cage conditions as a starting point.
Given the outcry about how pointless it is for Fran to monitor the humidity - I'd have to disagree with you. There's definitely a lot of criticism here discouraging him from what he's doing.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,533
First of al, thanks a lot Bill S for your words, specially when I wasnt able to post.
Then ill begin to address Pikaia's post:
Originally Posted by me
1: Most of the NW tarantulas we keep as pets in our tanks, are from rain forests/jungles. ...
Take a look at the current and oficial list of Theraphosids in the world.
The greater amount of species inhabits the American continent ,and most of them comes from the very humid rainforests/jungle.
Thats a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
2: In te jungle, the relative humidity in the air is really high. ...
Theres no possible discussion about that. If you know what a jungle is, then you must know that the relative humidity in its air is high.
Theres no "wide range of humidity" . The humidity is all year round high, sometimes at %100.
To compare human beings with tarantulas is absolutely ridiculous.
So wild animals do better in captivity that in the wild, is that what you are saying?
If you dont provide the info where you get that conclusion from, this is pointless to read.
Mammals are different than insects and arachnids, and even between mammals there are great differences between animals when it comes to the toleration to captive life.
So far you are comparing arachnids with human beings and arachinds with larger more evolved mammals. No need to point out the ridiculous of that.
Then you talk about temperature.Wheter you think that tarantulas dont need wild life conditions or not, which is your opinion, the temperature in those jungles is high.Thats another fact.
Theres no wide range here either, in the jungle of the Amazonas in Venezuela, for example, the temperature all year round is between 80F and 90-92F.(UCV,Universidad de Caracas Venezuela, Department of Geography ) Very similar to the temps in the jungle of Brazil.
Again, you can post what you want but no facts whatsoever.
(On a said note, flashy posts needs flashy data= Facts. )
Then ill begin to address Pikaia's post:
Originally Posted by me
1: Most of the NW tarantulas we keep as pets in our tanks, are from rain forests/jungles. ...
Take a look at the current and oficial list of Theraphosids in the world.
The greater amount of species inhabits the American continent ,and most of them comes from the very humid rainforests/jungle.
Thats a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
2: In te jungle, the relative humidity in the air is really high. ...
Theres no possible discussion about that. If you know what a jungle is, then you must know that the relative humidity in its air is high.
Theres no "wide range of humidity" . The humidity is all year round high, sometimes at %100.
To compare human beings with tarantulas is absolutely ridiculous.
So wild animals do better in captivity that in the wild, is that what you are saying?
If you dont provide the info where you get that conclusion from, this is pointless to read.
Mammals are different than insects and arachnids, and even between mammals there are great differences between animals when it comes to the toleration to captive life.
So far you are comparing arachnids with human beings and arachinds with larger more evolved mammals. No need to point out the ridiculous of that.
Then you talk about temperature.Wheter you think that tarantulas dont need wild life conditions or not, which is your opinion, the temperature in those jungles is high.Thats another fact.
Theres no wide range here either, in the jungle of the Amazonas in Venezuela, for example, the temperature all year round is between 80F and 90-92F.(UCV,Universidad de Caracas Venezuela, Department of Geography ) Very similar to the temps in the jungle of Brazil.
Again, you can post what you want but no facts whatsoever.
(On a said note, flashy posts needs flashy data= Facts.
)
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,533
Again I dont understand how some people just say things for the heck of it.
Till you give a proven fact, a scientific fact that proves that other conditions rather than wildife ones are better for theraphosids, this is just a matter of opinions.Thats about it,thats as far as this gets.
If you copy the surroundings,the temperature, the humidity,the amount of daylight hours...Yes , you are emulting wildlife conditions,to a point.
Where is the silly of that? :? where is the ocd in that?
Still dont get it.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,533
Yeah, we have covered it yet not much of a valid argument by your side
How is it going? Long time!
How is it going? Long time!
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2008
- Messages
- 765
I'd venture to say that most terrestrial organisms have a fairly wide range of tolerance, and ability to successfully live and reproduce beyond the constraints imposed on them in their natural habitats. Abstractly diagrammed below. Rather than saying we need to impose as many natural constraints as possible under captive conditions, it'd be more reasonable to determine the ability of tarantulas to exploit conditions beyond such natural constraints, without compromising their intrinsic physiological and behavioral constraints.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,533
I agree Kirk.
I have always said that they wont die off the second you keep them at 65F, or that yes, they will keep leaving even though the conditions are not exactly like the ones in their natural enviroments. But again, we dont know how much those different conditions affect the tarantulas.
I have always said that they wont die off the second you keep them at 65F, or that yes, they will keep leaving even though the conditions are not exactly like the ones in their natural enviroments. But again, we dont know how much those different conditions affect the tarantulas.
Yes we do.