Embarressed to ask this - what are slings?

[Nicola Dolby]

Sorry Michael, I missed the bit about tarantula eggs being fertilised on deposition. Now I'm with you.

[Neil Richardson]

I tend to call them slings until they have their adult pigmentation, then they are juveniles.

[James Box]

i suppose by that definition, i could become gravid when i pop down Sainsbury's for a half a dozen eggs

thanks so much for the info! i didn't know what slings were till i eventually worked it out, and like Mandy was embarassed to ask!
as for instar, that's something i really didn't understand at all til now. cheers!!

[Ray Gabriel]

Nice debate going on here,to quote Foelix we would have:

1/ an egg
2/ pre larvae ......................(eggs with legs, Nymph 1)
3/ larvae ...........................(Nymph 2)
(my brackets with terms)
these "are called postembryonic or fetal-untill the first "true" molt occurs, in which a skin with extremities is shed. The following stages are then juvenile (nymphs) and they look like minature spiders."

This is fine and dandy with (as far as i am aware) all true spiders and 99% of Theraphosid spiders ....BUT....nature ALWAYS has exceptions to the rules which man tries to apply to her.

As Michael has said with some Poecilotheria there can be an extra 3rd (and sometimes a 4th) moult before the coloured thing we refer to as a spiderling, we would then have:

1/ an egg
2/ pre larvae (eggs with legs, Nymph 1)
3/ larvae (Nymph 2)
4/ larvae 2nd stage (Nymph 3)
5/ larvae 3rd stage (Nymph 4)
6-?/ juvenile stages - adult .


In the pet trade we have the terms Egg, nymph 1,nymph 2, spiderling, small juvenile, large juvenile, sub adult, adult, and mature, these can be defined (this is how I would define them) as follows:

Egg, colourless round sphere
Nymph 1, colourless early stage, virtually immobile
Nymph 2, colourless early stage, slow moving
Spiderling, 1st coloured stage fast, moving
Small juvenile, 1-2 moults on from the previous stage,
Large juvenile, another 1-2 moults on but starting to look less like the previous stages and looking more like the adult in "shape/dimensions"
Sub adult, another couple of moults on looks more like an adult
Adult, females are big spiders, males have bulbs and if applicable hooks,
Mature, females may not be big spiders but the same age as the males and producing eggsacs, males have bulbs and if applicable hooks

With the exception of the egg stage (and some mature males which do not feed) all of the others have been seen feeding, so this cannot be used as a criteria for development.

This is all fine on paper, untill we try to apply this to the pet trade where our old arch enemy the Dodgy Dealer comes in.

Most people selling spiders will sell as:
Nymph 2 - Nymph 2,
Spliderling - Spiderling
Juvenile - Juvenile
etc,

But what some dealers do is they sell Nymph 2 as spiderlings, spiderlings as juveniles. juveniles as sub adults, sub adults as adults etc but if you look back to the terms used by Foelix they are technically correct (but thier prices dont reflect this).

Some people have tried to supply spiders in the stages of moult, ie 1st moult MEANING spiderlings - spiderling, so in reality 1st stage coloured spiderlings which have had thier 1st moult to wards maturity , but along comes DD and sells first moults as Egg - N1 or N1-N2.

But this detracts away from the real question of what the terms mean.

So if Gravid cannot be used for spiders (and other creatures which fertilise outside the body) what is the term?????

Do we need to make up a word to refer to this?

Ray

[Michael Jacobi]

Ray

You and I will never agree on this terminology. It is the practice of entomologists and arachnologists to refer to invertebrate development in terms of stadia and refer to each successive molt as another instar. These are technical terms of the sciences. Nymph-1, -2, -3, etc. are, as far as I can tell, invented terms of the hobbies and I think they add to the confusion. It wouldn't be as bad if your "nymph-2" was the same as 2nd instar [i.e., they numerically coincided], but what you call "nymph-2" is a 1st instar, which correctly denotes that there has only been one molt.

This all leaves us with the following, which understandably can be hard for neophytes to grasp:

embryo = egg
postembryo = prelarva = "eggs with legs" = "nymph-1"
1st instar = larva = "nymph-2"
2nd instar = "spiderling" = "nymph-3"

[Note: in most species; terms that are, in my opinion, less accurate hobby terms in quotes (or what y'all would call inverted commas!)].

I understand that there are cultural and language differences (we haven't even commented on the German "NZ" for stadia), but this unfortunately isn't as simple as to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to - or "fanny" being a term you can say to a child in the US, but will get you slapped in the UK - this is about science, which intends to be a universal language.

Best regards, Michael

[Ray Gabriel]

Michael

your wrong,

If the terminology was sorted out and defined I would go along with it therefore we would agree. LOL

But like most other people i will use the "generally accepted" terminology especially when selling. (with the exception of those horrible nonsensical common names)

OK where would instar come in? if we could set a precedence, maybe through the websites and journals to get the terminology accurate then we could try to implement it.........i certainly would in my articles and adverts.

How do other people feel about this? even the new members who have just joined what are your views if we tried to get the corrent terminology implemented?

This is a nice ball to keep rolling

Ray

[Adam Smith]

Personally I think trying to change terminology whether it be correct or not will simply add more confusion if terms were changed some may be onboard and use those terms others may not and revert to the old terms and end up with dealers and breeders using 2 different terms which would be chaotic when it comes to reading articles. I Have never taken a deep look at the terminology but at the end of the day certain words I associate and know what it represents whether technically correct or not. The terms are very debatable but they seem to have worked for a good couple decades and everyone understands each other.

[James Box]

i feel, given that as was stated earlier scientific terminology tries to be universal and standard, that we should try to stick to it as much as possible, even changing habits. its better to be consistent!

on the other hand, language and labelling exists for understanding, and is ultimately us trying to impose categorisation and rules on nature which frankly doesn't care what we call it. it's just the way we cope with things: categorising, organising. helps us understand.
so in that sense, it's not really the end of the world if someone gets something wrong...though of course it's more useful to get the terminology as correct as possible.