Yeah, sounds like a dud.Yeah I thought... It was actually kind of wrinkly when I found it, it wasn't like the pictures I saw on here where they are like golf ball sized... Dang!!
That's assuming you count the post embryo stage as an instar. Most don't and simply call 'em eggs-with-legs. After that would be first instar, then second instar. At second instar, most species, including the OPs G. rosea, will start to feed and should be seperated then if you don't want any cannibalism.If you manage to get third instars, you will want to seperate them each into their own individual vials and start feeding them.
Edited to add information.
Do you have any evidence of this? According to what I've read (TKS 3rd Ed pg. 277), this species are one of the exceptions to the second-instar rule.At second instar, most species, including the OPs G. rosea, will start to feed...
We are talking about the same instar.Do you have any evidence of this? According to what I've read (TKS 3rd Ed pg. 277), this species are one of the exceptions to the second-instar rule.
Here are some G.rosea 2nd instars molting into 3rd instar, being kept together with no problems. Not suggesting the video substantiates my position, only that it is and can be done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7RUifkEguE
I am also making a updated incubator.You can leave the sack with mom to hatch or incubate them yourself by taking them from mom at 30 days. Robc has a good tutorial on egg incubation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri-m9ZMV-ZU&feature=channel
If you manage to get third instars, you will want to seperate them each into their own individual vials and start feeding them.
Edited to add information.
This is basically correct. Some people prefer to leave 2nd instar babies, especially of those species that produce huge numbers of very small babies (e.g., Lasiodora parahybana - Brazilian salmon tarantula [~2,000 per eggsac], Brachypelma smithi - Mexican redknee and B. emilia - Mexican redleg [~1,000 per eggsac]), in the incubator because the process of transferring them and of their resulting readjustment to a different environment at such an early age sometimes kills more babies than it saves. Others transfer 2nd instar babies, especially of those species that produce larger babies, to avoid any cannibalism whatsoever.... If you manage to get third instars, you will want to seperate them each into their own individual vials and start feeding them. ...
The exact course of events in spider development is often difficult for inexperienced arachnophiles to understand. I even had trouble with the details, and Dr. R. G. ("Spider Bob") Breene had to go through the entire process with me three times before I finally got it straight.That's assuming you count the post embryo stage as an instar. Most don't and simply call 'em eggs-with-legs. After that would be first instar, then second instar. At second instar, most species, including the OPs G. rosea, will start to feed and should be seperated then if you don't want any cannibalism.
This is incorrect. On that and related pages the only references to predation and cannibalism appear in the captions to the two photos on page 277. The top figure merely mentions fully formed chelicerae and fangs. And, the bottom figure mentions that 3rd instar G. rosea are predacious carnivores, but neither states whether G. rosea are cannibalistic or not, or at what stage if any they become so. We simply didn't have any data for any such statement.... Do you have any evidence of this? According to what I've read (TKS 3rd Ed pg. 277), this species are one of the exceptions to the second-instar rule. ...
The logic is covered above.We are talking about the same instar.
Like I said in my previous post, Most don't count the post embryo (eggs with legs) as an instar for whatever reason ...
You are confusing the 'typical "feeding stage",' which can be defined as the stage at which the babies become actively predacious carnivores, with a stage where occasional cannibalism by precocious individuals occurs. We need to be precise here to avoid a gross misunderstanding or confusion.... and therefore the typical "feeding stage" is called second instar. I felt like it should be clarified in case the OP finds seemingly conflicting info. ...
No. The photos are labeled correctly. Compare the appendage development and the lack or presence of bristles. Remember that the instar's number is determined by the number of molts (which is often not readily apparent) rather than by the appearance of the spider. We only use the spider's appearance as a guesstimate because we seldom know the exact number of times the spider has shed some sort of membrane or skin.... In the TKG, I so believe that they label a pic of post embryos as 1st instar. ...
I would be most interested in seeing some sort of believable documentation (other than unsupported surmise) of what instar G. rosea, P. formosa, and P. metallica begin cannibalism. Mind you, I don't doubt you because the Poecilotheria, among others, are known to live in semi-social groups at nearly all stages from (reportedly) 3rd instar to adults, apparently due mostly to a suppressed tendency towards cannibalism. And, there is no reason to believe that this also wasn't true in the eggsac. But, I would like to incorporate that data in TKG4, and I need something just a little better than an off-handed allusion. Where did you get this data?... With that in mind I don't think rosea reach the feeding stage an instar later like P. formosa, metallica, etc. ...
No, no, no! Absolutely not! See the discussion above.... EDIT: ... perhaps the TKG considers 1st instar and post embryo synonymous? ...
The "naming convention" propounded in that thread is bogus, a mistaken adulteration of the one proposed by Downes, 1987 and detailed above. It is without any real merit, and if you start trying to use it around any professional arachnologist you're either going to be corrected "real soon now" or laughed out of the room.... This makes the most sense to me as that's the situation with the two naming conventions for slings. Here's a thread about it. ...
This happens because these people don't understand the system and naming conventions, but are rather trying to reinvent the wheel imperfectly from flawed anecdotal references and a flawed understanding. Or, they simply haven't looked carefully enough at their developing babies.... I am unsure what to think as far as roseas reaching the "feeding stage" an instar later, as most of the breeding reports for G. rosea don't mention a molt from post embryo to a similar looking "eggs-with-legs" stage. ...
First off, thanks for clearing all that up. I think I've gotten most of it down now!I would be most interested in seeing some sort of believable documentation (other than unsupported surmise) of what instar G. rosea, P. formosa, and P. metallica begin cannibalism. Mind you, I don't doubt you because the Poecilotheria, among others, are known to live in semi-social groups at nearly all stages from (reportedly) 3rd instar to adults, apparently due mostly to a suppressed tendency towards cannibalism. And, there is no reason to believe that this also wasn't true in the eggsac. But, I would like to incorporate that data in TKG4, and I need something just a little better than an off-handed allusion. Where did you get this data?
After approximately five to seven days I attempted feeding them 1/8 in [3.2 mm] crickets. All the spiderlings refused to eat. This was very odd to me. Within all of my experience I had never witnessed one hundred percent of a group of fully hardened 2nd instar spiderlings refusing food.
In a conversation with Frank Somma I explained that none would feed and Frank replied, "Oh, they're like P. formosa." Apparently, like Poecilotheria formosa, P. metallica spiderlings don't feed until they reach 3rd instar (one molt later than most tarantulas). This next molt came in record time and within a week they had all molted again! After a few days of hardening they finally began to feed.
Great! I love data!... Second, I got that info about the P. metallica (which also mentions that they are "like P. formosa") from The Arachnoculture E-zine, when they featured an article on the sucessful breeding of P. metallica by Kelly Swift. Here's a link to it. ...
From the way the article is written he got the instars correct. In most tarantulas, 2nd instars probably occasionally become cannibalistic, and they also emerge from the eggsac. At that point in their lives they are apparently able to feed and after leaving the eggsac are capable of predation.... I'll quote the relavent part here, with the interesting/confusing bits in bold: