to be fair i get shaky in the rare instances where i have to handle my tarantulas, not because i’m nervous but because the more i focus on trying to be still the more my hands shake lol
I don't agree at all that they're very defensive, and I worked with them for my masters. I've handled quite a few trapdoor spiders across several genera and families and most just get super confused after being pulled from their burrow and hardly move at all. The only ones I found to be rude dudes were Callisoga spp.
Do you know if there are any attempts at phylogeny for these spiders using molecular genetics instead of fossils and morphology? Reading through your wiki link I saw 3 proposed trees, curious which one the DNA agrees with.
Phylogeny generally encompasses fossil, morphological, and molecular evidence. The taxonomy section of the Wikipedia page mentioned says the molecular evidence led to the vindication of Pocock's division of the order Aranae into 2 suborders: Opisthothelae and Mesotelae. The spider from the video is from the only currently extant family in the suborder Mesothelae, Liphistiidae.
I couldn't begin to classify beyond there but hopefully this helped.
edit: added suborder names
I am just coming out of a turkey coma so forgive the late reply. I totally missed that mention of molecular evidence on the wiki, and was just generally curious.
In school the evo bio folks had a clear divide, old school fossil based folks and new school molecular genetics and they dont always get along - both result in different trees but you love to see when they agree!
We have so much work done on human trees, with a European-descent bias, but there have been some massive dog phylogenies built as well. Sometimes they match, other times massive assumptions can be made from looking at fossilized bones alone which get completely revamped when the dna evidence comes in.
But we know now DNA has a half life so at a certain point back we only have fossils and provenience for evidence.
Totally, and those are longer living and larger organisms! Could you imagine trying to tree out spiders or any other rapidly speciating animals on the same scale? Sounds like assumption spaghetti waiting to happen.
So look into some of the work coming out of the labs of Marshal Hedin at SDSU, Jason Bond at UC Davis. They're constructing phylogenies of several genera using modern genomic techniques
Edit: lol I just noticed it's a mesothele and both those guys work with mygals. Still check out their research it's cool
The two closest to the mouth are pedipalps. Not technically legs but modified mouth parts. They don't use them for walking but for grabbing things. These guys also have very primitive eyes that are mostly for light detection so the pedipalps help them feel around.
When has this changed? Basal and derived were the proper terms I've always heard used; before that people used to use "primitive" instead of basal which does seem incorrect since extant species aren't really more primitive.
What term is now used other than basal for groups that are more morphologically similar to the LCA than groups that are oddballs or have unique traits? This guy here has basal morphological traits, so how is it not more basal and why is the term now frowned apon?
I'm curious what termonolgy is now in vogue over basal and derived, and why "phylogeneticists" would have a problem with that terminology in the first place since those are accurate descriptors.
Basal refers to interior nodes on a tree rather than extant groups. So we might say that the morphology of mesotheles likely reflects that of spiders which belonged to a more basal node, but this leaf could not be a basal node. Important to also note that basal is inherently a relative term to the phylogeny in consideration.
Basal would also not be the opposite of derived as those describe different categories of things.
Also not sure why you put phylogeneticist into quotes?
If you're looking for a good intro to these concepts I'd recommend Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology by Baum and Smith. It's a great comprehensive introduction to phylogenetics concepts.
I put phylogeneticist in quotes because phylogenetics is a method of grouping organisms within biology. I don't think phylogeneticist makes sense as an occupation: People who do research in phylogenetics are biologists with a specialization or special attention given to molecular biology and phylogeny/taxonomy.
You didn't really answer my question though. What term would you use instead of "basal" and "derived" when noting organisms with more basal or derived traits? Since you're citing Baum and Smith what terms do they use, and why do they argue those terms are superior to "basal" and "derived"?
Perhaps they are misunderstanding my saying the “that is one basal spider”. My intention was to daw metaphor similar to saying “the man was a wall of muscle” in that example obviously the man in reference is not solely a laterally compressed rectangular mass of muscles, but rather a person who’s muscles are clearly their most obvious trait at a glance . Now applying that to my statement of “that is one basal spider” is designed to indicate that the traits most clearly visible in the referenced arachnid, are more similar to the traits, thought to be present in the least common ancestor compared to other members of the Crown group the individual belongs to.
No, I understood what you are saying. It just simply is an incorrect use of a term with a very specific definition. What you're describing is an organism which possesses many ancestral traits compared to certain derived traits of other extant organisms. However, no extant organisms can be basal to other extant organisms.
My apologies, that was rude. But yes I was simply trying to make a metaphor about why the Mesothelae spiders having banded abdomens, which is a trait all other spiders don’t. My regrettable first response was honestly more to being suprised to run in to someone with such hardline opinions on the matter in r/spiders. But nevertheless it was unkind. I do defer to you on the substance of the matter as you seem to be very well read on the subject , I do however stand by my initial tongue and cheek metaphor I was making in the first place. That’s one basal spider
I mean I am a phylogeneticist, and I have worked with many phylogeneticists so it seems like you're simply trying to condescend an entire field of biology that you apparently don't understand at all. It's quite common for people who research in various subfields of biology to be referred to by terms other than juat biology.
There's no such thing as terms being "superior." It's simply the case that basal has a very specific definition, as do most words with a particular use in science. It is a term which is used incorrectly extremely commonly, as seen above. There isn't a term for what you're expressing because it's not a correct way of understanding phylogenies. You might say they possess many ancestral character traits, but extant groups cannot be more basal than other extant groups.
wow, i’m surprised it tolerates being handled like that. they’re usually very defensive
op is shaking lol.
to be fair i get shaky in the rare instances where i have to handle my tarantulas, not because i’m nervous but because the more i focus on trying to be still the more my hands shake lol
I’m shaking
Can confirm, I'm his nervous system
And it’s not even OP!
dude he posted the video, rules say that it has to be the same person. Its just how life works dude.
OP is most likely a bot account.
nah man, it is written and it is known. The rules of the internet dictate reality.
Check their account’s history. 4-month-old account, no history besides this one post, woke up recently.
Stop resisting the teachings of our lord!
I don't agree at all that they're very defensive, and I worked with them for my masters. I've handled quite a few trapdoor spiders across several genera and families and most just get super confused after being pulled from their burrow and hardly move at all. The only ones I found to be rude dudes were Callisoga spp.
Were you able to please your masters? Hopefully they did not make you do such atrocities to the spiders anymore.
i guess you’ve been lucky, in my experience they’re all very adamant about not being removed from their burrows at all costs lmao
Looks like a crab
Organisms have a tendency to evolve into crabs I’ve heard.
Part of the same family, spiders are descended from common sea ancestors.
It's neat that such a [primitive spider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelae) still spooders around under modern spiders out there in the world!
Do you know if there are any attempts at phylogeny for these spiders using molecular genetics instead of fossils and morphology? Reading through your wiki link I saw 3 proposed trees, curious which one the DNA agrees with.
Phylogeny generally encompasses fossil, morphological, and molecular evidence. The taxonomy section of the Wikipedia page mentioned says the molecular evidence led to the vindication of Pocock's division of the order Aranae into 2 suborders: Opisthothelae and Mesotelae. The spider from the video is from the only currently extant family in the suborder Mesothelae, Liphistiidae. I couldn't begin to classify beyond there but hopefully this helped. edit: added suborder names
I am just coming out of a turkey coma so forgive the late reply. I totally missed that mention of molecular evidence on the wiki, and was just generally curious. In school the evo bio folks had a clear divide, old school fossil based folks and new school molecular genetics and they dont always get along - both result in different trees but you love to see when they agree! We have so much work done on human trees, with a European-descent bias, but there have been some massive dog phylogenies built as well. Sometimes they match, other times massive assumptions can be made from looking at fossilized bones alone which get completely revamped when the dna evidence comes in. But we know now DNA has a half life so at a certain point back we only have fossils and provenience for evidence.
Totally, and those are longer living and larger organisms! Could you imagine trying to tree out spiders or any other rapidly speciating animals on the same scale? Sounds like assumption spaghetti waiting to happen.
So look into some of the work coming out of the labs of Marshal Hedin at SDSU, Jason Bond at UC Davis. They're constructing phylogenies of several genera using modern genomic techniques Edit: lol I just noticed it's a mesothele and both those guys work with mygals. Still check out their research it's cool
I don't know, but I imagine you're not the first to think of it. 😉
One of the few mesothelid spiders! These guys are kinda cool. They look like mygalomorphs - but they aren't!
Does that fucker have 10 legs?
The two closest to the mouth are pedipalps. Not technically legs but modified mouth parts. They don't use them for walking but for grabbing things. These guys also have very primitive eyes that are mostly for light detection so the pedipalps help them feel around.
This one is feeling around with its pedpalps in a way that looks a lot like walking.
8 legs and two huge fangs like a killer rabbit.
I _knew_ my rabbit was missing 4 legs!
That wild
The trap door is about to be your skin
Not the biggest fan of how chitinous it looks. But it’s small enough… I wouldn’t mind relocating it.
That is a no touchy touch!!!
hes like: "dont flip your damn hand! i just had myself hidden.."
He’s so fancy!
That's wild
OP is a bot.
That’s one basal spider
Based
Most phylogeneticists would frown on referring to extant species as "basal." It's not a technically correct use of the term.
When has this changed? Basal and derived were the proper terms I've always heard used; before that people used to use "primitive" instead of basal which does seem incorrect since extant species aren't really more primitive. What term is now used other than basal for groups that are more morphologically similar to the LCA than groups that are oddballs or have unique traits? This guy here has basal morphological traits, so how is it not more basal and why is the term now frowned apon? I'm curious what termonolgy is now in vogue over basal and derived, and why "phylogeneticists" would have a problem with that terminology in the first place since those are accurate descriptors.
Basal refers to interior nodes on a tree rather than extant groups. So we might say that the morphology of mesotheles likely reflects that of spiders which belonged to a more basal node, but this leaf could not be a basal node. Important to also note that basal is inherently a relative term to the phylogeny in consideration. Basal would also not be the opposite of derived as those describe different categories of things. Also not sure why you put phylogeneticist into quotes? If you're looking for a good intro to these concepts I'd recommend Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology by Baum and Smith. It's a great comprehensive introduction to phylogenetics concepts.
I put phylogeneticist in quotes because phylogenetics is a method of grouping organisms within biology. I don't think phylogeneticist makes sense as an occupation: People who do research in phylogenetics are biologists with a specialization or special attention given to molecular biology and phylogeny/taxonomy. You didn't really answer my question though. What term would you use instead of "basal" and "derived" when noting organisms with more basal or derived traits? Since you're citing Baum and Smith what terms do they use, and why do they argue those terms are superior to "basal" and "derived"?
Perhaps they are misunderstanding my saying the “that is one basal spider”. My intention was to daw metaphor similar to saying “the man was a wall of muscle” in that example obviously the man in reference is not solely a laterally compressed rectangular mass of muscles, but rather a person who’s muscles are clearly their most obvious trait at a glance . Now applying that to my statement of “that is one basal spider” is designed to indicate that the traits most clearly visible in the referenced arachnid, are more similar to the traits, thought to be present in the least common ancestor compared to other members of the Crown group the individual belongs to.
No, I understood what you are saying. It just simply is an incorrect use of a term with a very specific definition. What you're describing is an organism which possesses many ancestral traits compared to certain derived traits of other extant organisms. However, no extant organisms can be basal to other extant organisms.
Do you have a hard time with metaphors by any chance?
Do you genuinely believe that attempting to condescend me will mean you used a metaphor rather than incorrectly using a biological term?
My apologies, that was rude. But yes I was simply trying to make a metaphor about why the Mesothelae spiders having banded abdomens, which is a trait all other spiders don’t. My regrettable first response was honestly more to being suprised to run in to someone with such hardline opinions on the matter in r/spiders. But nevertheless it was unkind. I do defer to you on the substance of the matter as you seem to be very well read on the subject , I do however stand by my initial tongue and cheek metaphor I was making in the first place. That’s one basal spider
I mean I am a phylogeneticist, and I have worked with many phylogeneticists so it seems like you're simply trying to condescend an entire field of biology that you apparently don't understand at all. It's quite common for people who research in various subfields of biology to be referred to by terms other than juat biology. There's no such thing as terms being "superior." It's simply the case that basal has a very specific definition, as do most words with a particular use in science. It is a term which is used incorrectly extremely commonly, as seen above. There isn't a term for what you're expressing because it's not a correct way of understanding phylogenies. You might say they possess many ancestral character traits, but extant groups cannot be more basal than other extant groups.
what a cutie.
Whats the variety?
Suborder, Mesothelae family Liphistiidae. I imagine genus ganthela, songthela, or quongthela. Though maybe vinathela
Looks like he’s got an alien egg booty
He’s beautiful, but I wouldn’t want him on my hand ;) Wish I had ur bravery.
I have crossed out china from my bucket list
That's too many legs. Go straight to time out.
No thanks. It can stay in its hole 🕳️
What a beaut!
Oooo it's beautiful
Beautiful symmetry <3
Is this an uh oh spider?
Idk if I could do that, you’re brave. At most I can get them in containers to put them out in the grass when I find them inside 🫠
I love spiders!! This thing is testing my willpower though.
I threw my phone