I don't mean this to sound like a philosophical ramble or anything but..
I was thinking about some stone plants I have in my window and was contemplating how although the conditions provided indoors in England are nothing like the desert they hail from, the plants appear fuller, more colourful and in practically perfect condition while their wild counterparts are shrivelled, brown, snapped and chewed on. Much like captive tarantulas, if properly cared for. Our captives are immaculate and not marred by the loss of a few legs, scraped hairless patches, thin abdomens or external parasites because of the 'secure' conditions we provide.
In spite of this, there are some organisms which are seemingly crave unfavourable conditions in order to thrive. Some seeds for example need to experience freezing conditions before they will germinate, some fish eggs need months in bone dry dirt before they will hatch.
Now it would seem unethical to deliberately expose an animal in your charge to conditions which will cause it discomfort of any kind but I wonder how many spiders, for which only limited breeding success has been achieved, would actually benefit from some 'cruel' exposure to conditions like extended periods of dry heat with no available water or spend months below room temperature without food. These endurance trials may be the key to the seasonal cycling necessary to trigger moulting, egg production and hatching. This could be key in ensuring penultimate males and females moult at appropriate times for a successful encounter, ensuring eggs are being produced and released at the right time, sperm has not been stored in the spermatheca too long etc..
So after that long ramble, what does everyone think about this 'cruel to be kind' approach?
I was thinking about some stone plants I have in my window and was contemplating how although the conditions provided indoors in England are nothing like the desert they hail from, the plants appear fuller, more colourful and in practically perfect condition while their wild counterparts are shrivelled, brown, snapped and chewed on. Much like captive tarantulas, if properly cared for. Our captives are immaculate and not marred by the loss of a few legs, scraped hairless patches, thin abdomens or external parasites because of the 'secure' conditions we provide.
In spite of this, there are some organisms which are seemingly crave unfavourable conditions in order to thrive. Some seeds for example need to experience freezing conditions before they will germinate, some fish eggs need months in bone dry dirt before they will hatch.
Now it would seem unethical to deliberately expose an animal in your charge to conditions which will cause it discomfort of any kind but I wonder how many spiders, for which only limited breeding success has been achieved, would actually benefit from some 'cruel' exposure to conditions like extended periods of dry heat with no available water or spend months below room temperature without food. These endurance trials may be the key to the seasonal cycling necessary to trigger moulting, egg production and hatching. This could be key in ensuring penultimate males and females moult at appropriate times for a successful encounter, ensuring eggs are being produced and released at the right time, sperm has not been stored in the spermatheca too long etc..
So after that long ramble, what does everyone think about this 'cruel to be kind' approach?
Comment