Theraphosas size

billopelma · Jul 9, 2010

Mack, the only thing here that amazes me more than your total lack of understanding of taxonomy as it applies to theraphosids, is how self righteous you are about it. I and I’m sure many others have seen ‘your type of reasoning’ here many times and I can’t believe I’m getting sucked into this waste of time. You need to forget about what what you perceive as 'official' and all your generalized analogies, get some specific info on what the bottom line is here, Theraphosid Taxonomy.

It's too cumbersome to address each misinformed point of yours so I will also generalize. I’ve been largely unsuccessful in trying to explain this to others in the past and I’m certain I’m oversimplifying but for what it’s worth…

For one thing it’s all orders of magnitude more complex than you seem to imagine, I for one have been reading everything about T taxonomy I see (mostly within the confines of the forums) for the last five years and still only have a vague impression of how it works.

Taxonomy is a very specialized field and most who are directly involved seem to be very specialized in what aspects of it they work in. Different types of organisms are classified using many different ways and what works for one won’t necessarily apply to another. These ways are not only fluid and continually changing but also are driven by in some part (as is most of academia) by internal politics that also have their own ebb and flow.

There are not necessarily hard and fast rules as to how things are classified but rather a continuing process that is agreed upon by ‘the powers that be’ with tools such as conferencing, publication and peer review. This applies to not only to things like defining a species by which physical characteristics should be considered but also whether entire philosophies such as phylogenic relationships should count at all. Within the community of professionals who do these things there is often much disagreement on the results of these processes, and ‘official’ results are constantly called into question. They are often overturned as new info becomes available, past info is discredited or maybe even because the power structure changes. Try doing some searches on terms like ‘traditional systematics’, ‘phylogenic systematics’ and ’cladistics’, combined with ‘theraphosid’. Unfortunately I’ve just found that most of my saved links are old and no longer work but here’s a couple (not specific to t's) that survived…

http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/fish_2/pdf/compleat_cladist.pdf
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html

Many researchers will hold off ‘leaking’ results premature to publishing as other parties can use it to complete their own competing work to leapfrog ahead and publish first. And by the time they’re ready to publish, more info has come to light that changes or further solidifies the whole thing, constantly rendering the work as never really finished.
Others will publish hastily so as to beat the competition or even just out of some professional/personal spite to ruin the others work. As a result this work can be of questionable quality and suffers under peer review but due to ‘politics’ is still more or less accepted until another proves otherwise.
What happens because of all this is that some work can take a long time from when pretty solid conclusions are made and when it goes public. Those in the know are well aware that it will inevitably become 'official' but when can be anyone's guess.

There used to be a lot more open discourse by some taxonomic heavy hitters here on the boards but that largely dried up due to these types of issues, definitely a bummer for those of us ‘non professionals’ for whom this was the best source. So now we must rely on info that passes down from those people with some direct connections, usually arriving much later than in the past. Just because it isn’t ‘official’, doesn’t mean it doesn’t count for anything, when you’re in this community for long enough you start to know who tends to have the good info and who doesn’t…

Also...
http://www.theraphosidae.cz/taxonomy/key-theraphosinae.htm

<edit> I just read mack's last post after the fact and of course now feel that some of mine has become redundant.
What I don't seem to get is that all this wiki stuff just seems to support others points and contradicts many of his. I get the impression he's learning a lot as he goes along here, which is a good thing....

Bill

The Mack · Jul 9, 2010

billopelma said:
Mack, the only thing here that amazes me more than your total lack of understanding of taxonomy as it applies to theraphosids, is how self righteous you are about it. I and I’m sure many others have seen ‘your type of reasoning’ here many times and I can’t believe I’m getting sucked into this waste of time. You need to forget about what what you perceive as 'official' and all your generalized analogies, get some specific info on what the bottom line is here, Theraphosid Taxonomy.

It's too cumbersome to address each misinformed point of yours so I will also generalize. I’ve been largely unsuccessful in trying to explain this to others in the past and I’m certain I’m oversimplifying but for what it’s worth…

For one thing it’s all orders of magnitude more complex than you seem to imagine, I for one have been reading everything about T taxonomy I see (mostly within the confines of the forums) for the last five years and still only have a vague impression of how it works.

Taxonomy is a very specialized field and most who are directly involved seem to be very specialized in what aspects of it they work in. Different types of organisms are classified using many different ways and what works for one won’t necessarily apply to another. These ways are not only fluid and continually changing but also are driven by in some part (as is most of academia) by internal politics that also have their own ebb and flow.

There are not necessarily hard and fast rules as to how things are classified but rather a continuing process that is agreed upon by ‘the powers that be’ with tools such as conferencing, publication and peer review. This applies to not only to things like defining a species by which physical characteristics should be considered but also whether entire philosophies such as phylogenic relationships should count at all. Within the community of professionals who do these things there is often much disagreement on the results of these processes, and ‘official’ results are constantly called into question. They are often overturned as new info becomes available, past info is discredited or maybe even because the power structure changes. Try doing some searches on terms like ‘traditional systematics’, ‘phylogenic systematics’ and ’cladistics’, combined with ‘theraphosid’. Unfortunately I’ve just found that most of my saved links are old and no longer work but here’s a couple (not specific to t's) that survived…

http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/fish_2/pdf/compleat_cladist.pdf
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad4.html

Many researchers will hold off ‘leaking’ results premature to publishing as other parties can use it to complete their own competing work to leapfrog ahead and publish first. And by the time they’re ready to publish, more info has come to light that changes or further solidifies the whole thing, constantly rendering the work as never really finished.
Others will publish hastily so as to beat the competition or even just out of some professional/personal spite to ruin the others work. As a result this work can be of questionable quality and suffers under peer review but due to ‘politics’ is still more or less accepted until another proves otherwise.
What happens because of all this is that some work can take a long time from when pretty solid conclusions are made and when it goes public. Those in the know are well aware that it will inevitably become 'official' but when can be anyone's guess.

There used to be a lot more open discourse by some taxonomic heavy hitters here on the boards but that largely dried up due to these types of issues, definitely a bummer for those of us ‘non professionals’ for whom this was the best source. So now we must rely on info that passes down from those people with some direct connections, usually arriving much later than in the past. Just because it isn’t ‘official’, doesn’t mean it doesn’t count for anything, when you’re in this community for long enough you start to know who tends to have the good info and who doesn’t…

Also...
http://www.theraphosidae.cz/taxonomy/key-theraphosinae.htm

Bill

Nowhere in any of my responses have I demonstrated a "lack of understanding of taxonomy as it applies to theraphosids." Please feel free to be specific. No, I won't just forget about "what I perceive as official," I consider the theory of gravity official and I'm not budging on that either lol.
I think it is you in fact that is being self righteous about your claims that they are different species, despite a lack of current scientific evidence to prove so. I am aware of the efforts and debates that take place within the scientific community to classify species, and I am aware that it isn't always done with a cut and dry single process. Again, I never made this claim, you are putting words in my mouth.

The truth is, everything you said in your post supports my point yet again. All of these obstacles would make it just as difficult to claim that they are a separate species than it would to take the stance that they are the same species. I appreciate the articulate, well written reply, but the information you have given doesn't change anything here.

The Mack · Jul 9, 2010

Bill, please do explain exactly how "all this wiki stuff" is in support of others' points? Any specific examples? Better yet, how does it contradict my points?? If anything, this information, along with what you stated about the political problems that come into play when classifying new species, only show that it will be that much more difficult to prove that these are separate species. The only point I am making is that the blondi and "burgundy" are officially a single species, despite everyone's current claims here to the contrary.

Not one person here has provided ample evidence, or even postulated theories or hunches on WHY they should be considered separate species (aside from differences in physical characteristics which should be clear by now is not a grounds to determine a new species).

Another point I should make is that the "theraphosid taxonomy community" as you seem to be putting it, can't be that much different from other taxonomy communities. I'm not sure if your statement about how you have been on this forum "reading everything" for the past 5 years makes you a part of this taxonomy community?. . .Either way, we are ALL living organisms. Heck, we share some of our DNA with tarantulas (not sure how much), and 50% of it with bananas. I'm sure that classifying tarantulas can be a difficult and mysterious endeavor at times (perhaps here), but I'm willing to bet that more than often it is very simple. There are many tarantulas out there that I have NO QUESTION whether or not they are a separate species. These are tarantulas that not only often have different physical characteristics, but also are distinguished by other factors such as being geographically separated and possibly being observed in nature mating with other like tarantulas. In these cases it really only takes common sense to classify them as their own species. "Hmm . . .these tarantulas live in different parts of the world, they look very different, and I've seen them only mate in nature with eachother. . yup they are definitely a separate species." No Problem!

This case is different though, and no one here has addressed this. The blondi and "burgundy" both come from South America, in fact they come from neighboring regions. I'm willing to bet that you can find "blondis" and "burgundys" in Brazil, Suriname, French Guiana, etc. On top of that, they look strikingly similar and only some specimens have small physical differences (easily attributed to variation). Indeed the chances are, tarantulas with these differences have met in nature out in a hot steamy spot in Brazil or Suriname and interbred

And by definition then, they would be the same species because they interbreed in nature.

The common theme here seems to be "Rick West said they are separate, so it must be so." The part that makes it even funnier is that the only source of information you all seem to have to support your claims is a paper that HASN'T BEEN PUBLISHED YET and NONE OF YOU HAVE READ!! LOL

At least I am explaining WHY I think they are not separate species and I have plenty of information to choose from. I haven't learned anything along this conversation except that this forum seems to be full of people who can't think for themselves and instead hold sway to whatever has been told to them through internet rumors and forums. The only reason this argument began is because I stated there are two species in the genus, and someone tried to correct me and say there are three. The fact still remains, after all of this, that there are TWO.

Scourge · Jul 9, 2010

It's not a new species because Rick West says so.

It's a new species because Bertani says so ;P

Well, OK, not a new species, but a new one in this genus at least (or will be in the future if it ever gets published, anyone know why it hasn't been yet?).

Crows Arachnids · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
Before I reply, can I please just give you a hug. You say you have a tarantula business. . I respect that, awesome. I'm not on this forum to make a bunch of enemies. Don't be bitter towards me and take this all personal, I'm just standing up for what I truly believe.

That being said, please understand that the approach you are taking is flawed. My take is that they are one species because the evidence and common sense just suggests so to me. But this is not a "claim." Under the logic you are using, all of my non-beliefs would be "claims." I personally don't believe in ghosts either, so is my lack of proof that they don't exist considered a claim? "Hey this guy Mack here, he Claims that Ghosts don't exist!" You wouldn't say that lol, but you WOULD say "Hey this Guy Mack here claims that Ghosts DO exist!"

The belief in ghosts (and the belief that these tarantulas are two separate species) are claims. . the absence of these beliefs are NOT claims.

Before I reply. Yes, I own a spider business, that is beside the point though, as it should not effect the way anyone corresponds with anyone. Also, I don't get on here to make enemies and I don't take things personal, unless they are a personal attack. You are free to state your disposition on any matter that you desire, there is no need for you to worry about me being bitter.

You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations! Your non-beliefs are indeed claims if they are contrary to common belief or fact, which your 'claim' indeed is. I thank you so much for using this analogy because it only solidified my point and I need not compose an analogy to help you see that it is your reasoning that is flawed. You are correct, the belief of ghosts are a claim, why? I'll tell you, because the existence of the metaphysical realm is not an established, nor proven concept of reality, thus, it is contrary to common belief or fact, and is indeed a claim, which will remain to be so until it is proven. On the other hand, if ghosts were considered part of common knowledge that they exist, the one who defies that and refuses to believe they exist is now making a claim that what everyone else sees is false (I use that example because that is what your driving point is). Why is this so? Due to the fact that your statement is contrary to common belief, not an opinion of mine, fact. I'm not going to sit here and play games with you anymore, or take another route and become aggressive about this, the fact of the matter is, by established common belief, authorities in this field, along with visable, major differences, your statement is not only a claim, but will stand to be wrong until all the factors that oppress your belief are obliterated. That means, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's possible, however I do not base that on your display of intelligence, truthfully you are a 'smart' guy but it is not only raw, it is definately misused, alas I'm pontificating, you don't want to hear that. By the notions that you are working with, our entire Theraphosid community is 'incorrect' in it's entirety, which I find to be a paradox, as someone mentioned in their post earlier, you are contradictary in your statements, and Wikipedia is in opposition to you, you denied this, sorry my friend, you are wrong, again. You are selecting minor excerpts and sentences that support your points, which are woven very weakly, however if you were to read on, you would see that even Wikipedia offers more insight to the matter and the end result is a matter of discretion. That being so, discretion has been established in this community, as it has in others, meaning that you will have to go all the way back, to 'the powers that be' and rectify this unsolidified matter, eliminate the gray areas, and unify the standards that govern taxonomy before you apply the unestablished principles of one situation and try to apply to another. My suggestion to you is to stop before you get further behind. You may not have to worry about me, but you have established yourself, in the very short time that you have wreaked your havoc on this thread as a very 'defined' person in many of these member's eyes, that 'definition' I will not begin to go through, but just to back my point up, I believe this

barf

was used in reference to you. I have lost interest in this thread and in your very skewed, one sided, no factors enclosed, way of thinking and handling yourself, so, I'm done. That means you are free to reply, but you will not receive one in return, but let's pray that you accept my advice as it was issued to help you, and it will. Cheers.

-Jonathan

The Mack · Jul 9, 2010

Crows Arachnids said:
You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations! Your non-beliefs are indeed claims if they are contrary to common belief or fact, which your 'claim' indeed is. I thank you so much for using this analogy because it only solidified my point and I need not compose an analogy to help you see that it is your reasoning that is flawed.

You couldn't be more wrong. You see up until relatively recently, the tarantulas have been considered as part of the same species. I believe since the 1800s? Either way, it has been COMMON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND NOT BELIEF that they are members of the same species for much longer than this small community of people you interact with has believed them to be separate species. You can't just come along after all this time, and expect the species classifications to change just because it has recently become "common belief" in some online communities you participate in. If you are going to make the CLAIM that they are separate, which goes AGAINST the long-standing established scientific knowledge that already exists, then you have to back up that claim with evidence.

Crows Arachnids said:
You are correct, the belief of ghosts are a claim, why? I'll tell you, because the existence of the metaphysical realm is not an established, nor proven concept of reality, thus, it is contrary to common belief or fact, and is indeed a claim, which will remain to be so until it is proven. On the other hand, if ghosts were considered part of common knowledge that they exist, the one who defies that and refuses to believe they exist is now making a claim that what everyone else sees is false (I use that example because that is what your driving point is). Why is this so? Due to the fact that your statement is contrary to common belief, not an opinion of mine, fact.

Wrong again. As you have stated, the non-belief in ghosts or any other similar spiritual entities cannot be considered claims because there lacks scientific evidence to prove the existence of these things. Guess what, you are currently lacking the scientific evidence to prove that these tarantulas are separate species, so you can't go around claiming that this is "common knowledge" or "common belief." How can it be common knowledge when there isn't a single reference you can point me to except for posts in internet forums riddled with misspelled words and incorrect grammar. You want common knowledge? Take the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity. You can test them a million times over, they will never fail; They have stood the test of time and endured rigorous experimentation by countless scientists. You can find TONS of information explaining these things in great detail. The claim that these tarantulas are considered separate species is just that, a CLAIM. There isn't a lick of evidence to support it.

But once again, if you feel better labeling that brown tarantula as "sp. burgundy" rather than "blondi" then be my guest! This still doesn't make it a new species.

xhexdx · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
You see up until relatively recently, the tarantulas have been considered as part of the same species. I believe since the 1800s? Either way, it has been COMMON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND NOT BELIEF that they are members of the same species for much longer than this small community of people you interact with has believed them to be separate species. You can't just come along after all this time, and expect the species classifications to change just because it has recently become "common belief" in some online communities you participate in.

So you're telling me the Earth is flat?

The Mack · Jul 9, 2010

xhexdx said:
So you're telling me the Earth is flat?

where do you even pull this stuff out from? How did my statements in your quote even justify this as being used as an example? There is plenty of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out there to support that the earth is indeed round. But I'm sure that when the first scientists were starting to discover that it might be round, they had to PROVE it to all the people who had believed that it was flat! I'm sure they didn't just come along and say "Mr. X says the earth is round, so it must be so!" When Galileo claimed that the earth was not at the center of the universe (which went against popular thought at the time), he had PLENTY of evidence to support his claims. Once again you have nothing for evidence, and once again you fail at trying to poke holes in my statements.

xhexdx · Jul 9, 2010

I don't need to poke holes in your statements, they're already full of them. You're just too stubborn to see it, that's all.

Why are we even continuing this debate?

smallara98 · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
where do you even pull this stuff out from? How did my statements in your quote even justify this as being used as an example? There is plenty of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out there to support that the earth is indeed round. But I'm sure that when the first scientists were starting to discover that it might be round, they had to PROVE it to all the people who had believed that it was flat! I'm sure they didn't just come along and say "Mr. X says the earth is round, so it must be so!" When Galileo claimed that the earth was not at the center of the universe (which went against popular thought at the time), he had PLENTY of evidence to support his claims. Once again you have nothing for evidence, and once again you fail at trying to poke holes in my statements.

Joe is right . Ok , so you are not right . I am gonna have to be on Joe's side on this thread . Like you said earlier about the pitbulls head and the grey hounds or whatever . If a pit has a big nice royal head , and a grey hound has a long , slender , little head , it DOES mean they are different species . They have names for the Theraphosa genus for a reason . A blondi is most common from what I know . A aphoyphys (spelling?) is the least most common . The burgundy is blondi , except is different and is NOT a regular blondi . Someone correct me if im wrong about anything . I have been reading this thread and laughing at the comments Joe makes to you when you fail .

The Mack · Jul 9, 2010

xhexdx said:
I don't need to poke holes in your statements, they're already full of them. You're just too stubborn to see it, that's all.

Why are we even continuing this debate?

My statements have holes? Please show me where and be specific. Everyone here is very good at being general but no one has quoted a single statement that I have made that was incorrect.

Your approach however, has been to try and twist my words and use inapplicable analogies to try and nullify my overall point, which is that they are officially separate species.

Crows Arachnids · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
My statements have holes? Please show me where and be specific. Everyone here is very good at being general but no one has quoted a single statement that I have made that was incorrect.

Your approach however, has been to try and twist my words and use inapplicable analogies to try and nullify my overall point, which is that they are officially separate species.

This is merely to state: I have been quoting you this whole time, and targeting specifics, go back and read.

xhexdx · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
My statements have holes? Please show me where and be specific. Everyone here is very good at being general but no one has quoted a single statement that I have made that was incorrect.

Your approach however, has been to try and twist my words and use inapplicable analogies to try and nullify my overall point, which is that they are officially separate species.

Right...your dog comparison was quite applicable.

I'm showing you that no matter what analogy you use, there are many examples that do not make sense based on them.

You can think what you want, we'll think what we want. When the paper comes out, it still won't be good enough for you, and that's your deal, not mine.

This is what you're saying, in a nutshell (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

"They are not two different species because there is no scientific evidence to prove it."

Is this correct?

Zoltan · Jul 9, 2010

smallara98 said:
I have been reading this thread

Have you?

smallara98 said:
The burgundy is blondi , except is different and is NOT a regular blondi .

:? *head scratch*

I have not read every single post since the first page, will do later if I'm in the mood... ;P but keep it civil and respectful if you want it to continue (not directed at anyone in particular, but everyone in general).

The Mack · Jul 9, 2010

smallara98 said:
Like you said earlier about the pitbulls head and the grey hounds or whatever . If a pit has a big nice royal head , and a grey hound has a long , slender , little head , it DOES mean they are different species . They have names for the Theraphosa genus for a reason . A blondi is most common from what I know . A aphoyphys (spelling?) is the least most common . The burgundy is blondi , except is different and is NOT a regular blondi .

Wow.

smallara98 said:
Someone correct me if im wrong about anything . I have been reading this thread and laughing at the comments Joe makes to you when you fail .

LOL "someone correct me if im wrong" OK, you are wrong in just about everything you posted. Pits and Greyhounds are members of the same species. . do some RESEARCH.

"The burgundy is blondi, except is different and is NOT a regular blondi." Huh? What are you even saying here lol

Falk · Jul 9, 2010

smallara98;1694040common . The burgundy is blondi said:
:clap::clap:

smallara98 · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
Wow.

LOL "someone correct me if im wrong" OK, you are wrong in just about everything you posted. Pits and Greyhounds are members of the same species. . do some RESEARCH.

"The burgundy is blondi, except is different and is NOT a regular blondi." Huh? What are you even saying here lol

What im saying is the burgundy is listed blondi "Burgundy" because it looks like a blondi , except gets larger from what I have heard and different colors . They are the same on the inside and what not , but on the inside they arent . And when I said the pit and grey hound are different , whatever made you think they are related ? Grey hounds are skinny naturaly , fast , slick , and VERY inteligent . Pitbulls are muscular , not a fast breed of dog , just normal like a rottweiler or something , and smart . Both look different , and act different . Same with blondi , and burgundy . Except both look diferrent , but act the same .

Crows Arachnids · Jul 9, 2010

Fantastic, Kirk is responding. I can't wait. Smallara, your typos are going to keep you the center of ridicule my little friend, please, use caution when typing on this forum.

xhexdx · Jul 9, 2010

smallara98 said:
What im saying is the burgundy is listed blondi "Burgundy" because it looks like a blondi , except gets larger from what I have heard and different colors . They are the same on the inside and what not , but on the inside they arent . And when I said the pit and grey hound are different , whatever made you think they are related ? Grey hounds are skinny naturaly , fast , slick , and VERY inteligent . Pitbulls are muscular , not a fast breed of dog , just normal like a rottweiler or something , and smart . Both look different , and act different . Same with blondi , and burgundy . Except both look diferrent , but act the same .

Really, just stop posting. You truly do not know what you're talking about.

Dogs are all the same species, regardless of breed. Rats are, too.

Why not take all the advice you've been given over the last couple days. Read more, post (a lot) less.

Kirk · Jul 9, 2010

The Mack said:
Cool, I get that there is a rumor that someone emailed Rick West and he said they are separate species so it must be so!

Now you should read this, yes it is taken from Wikipedia:

Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
Main article: Species problem

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[6]

Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:

* Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
* Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for various reasons.

The typical textbook definition above works well for most multi-celled organisms, but there are several types of situations in which it breaks down:

* By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the relatively few parthenogenetic multi-celled organisms. The term "phylotype" is often applied to such organisms.
* Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
* There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
* In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.
* In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept.

Horizontal gene transfer makes it even more difficult to define the word "species". There is strong evidence of horizontal gene transfer between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes; and Williamson[7] argues that there is evidence for it in some crustaceans and echinoderms. All definitions of the word "species" assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false.

The reality is that there are over 20 species 'concepts' that have been proposed. While Mayr's 'biological species concept' garnered the greatest popularity in the 20th century, by no means is there consensus among biologists.

I've offered a solution here:

Fitzhugh, K. 2009. Species as explanatory hypotheses: Refinements
and implications. Acta Biotheoretica 57: 201–248.

Theraphosas size

Arachnolord

Arachnosquire

Arachnosquire

Arachnoknight

Arachnoknight

Arachnosquire

ArachnoGod

Arachnosquire

ArachnoGod

Arachnobaron

Arachnosquire

Arachnoknight

ArachnoGod

Cult Leader

Arachnosquire

Arachnodemon

Arachnobaron

Arachnoknight

ArachnoGod

Arachnodemon