It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Goliath Encounter-Puppy Sized Spider Surprises Scientist in Rainforest

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Thats cool!!!


Just pointing out guys - while the Goliath Birdeaters are pretty big, they certainly are not THAT big as in the picture above... that photo is most certainly fake.


Also I'm confused about the OPs article... why exactly is it news/surprising? We've known about these guys for a long time... the articles almost making out as if it's a new "surprising" discovery.

They make good pets, not quite as venomous or aggressive as the Australian variety but certainly a bit larger.




posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Navieko




Just pointing out guys - while the Goliath Birdeaters are pretty big, they certainly are not THAT big as in the picture above... that photo is most certainly fake.


Actually that photo is not faked in fact in the article I linked it says that one was captured and now resides in a meuseum.

The spider can weigh more than 6 oz. (170 grams) — about as much as a young puppy, it also sports a pair of 0.79-inch-long (2 centimeters) fangs the venom is not deadly to humans.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
I've seen and held mature adult Goliath Birdeaters in person, and I'm not trying to understate how big and impressive a species they are - but that particular picture is depicting the size of the specimen to be significantly larger than an average adult male's hand.

Take a look at the picture below of another large adult specimen actually being held in a hand:



Not trying to make a big deal out of this, but I challenge you to try and find an image of someone actually holding a specimen as large as the one in your image.... it might not necessarily be Photoshopped but at the very least the picture was taken in a deceiving way to make the specimen look larger than it actually is.
edit on 26/12/14 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

Couldn't find any pics staing it was a golith spider but I found a NatGeo clip stating they grow to over a foot wide and can have inch long fangs. The puppy sized one is reported at a foot long. I think it made news because it reported as a record.

video.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
While those numbers are correct (though they're referring to the leg-span being up to a foot long - not the actual length from fangs to abdomen) what makes the specimen in that particular picture look unrealistically big is the length and width of the thorax and abdomen in comparison to the hand. There is no way, even if it is a record sized specimen, that it's going to be that much larger than the average size of a large adult female.

At the end of the day it's still a huge spider... I guess as someone who has worked as an entomologist (which often involves having to make size estimations of the more uncommon species using available pictures) that picture got my attention that's all.
edit on 26/12/14 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

You may be correct that that picture is faked but I think there is a big possibility that you are not and here is why. First I appreciate that you are going in depth about what is being measured however the article I got that info from which was a national geographic article as well had stated that included the legs being measured from front to back.

Now as to why I think you may be wrong I ask you to do as I did and grab a tape measurer then look at it next to your hand at the one foot mark then look at that picture. Now I am 6 ft 3 with big hands and I did that and let me tell you the proportions look good to me.

If you try it please let me know what you think.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Unless the hand in that picture is incredibly small, the picture would have you believe that the thickest portion of the spiders legs are as thick as your fingers, a single fang as thick as your thumb, it's abdomen the size of an apple, etc.

Like I said I'm well acquainted with the species - have held an adult female in my hands, have seen many videos/pictures of what are considered very large specimens, and not one has come anywhere near close the proportions in that picture.

When they measure the legspan of these things, it's generally on a dead specimen and by completely outstretching the legs so that there is no bending as in the picture.

While I won't discount the legitimacy of picture 100%, I just think it's incredibly unlikely for it to be legit - my guess is either the hand or the spider has been scaled down/up to make it just that little bit more impressive. Again it's the ONLY picture/video on the internet I can find that depicts a T. blondi of that size. Surely in this day and age there would be many more if legit.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

That one certainly looks dead to me with outstretched legs and I said using a tape measurer at the one foot mark even my above average size hand makes that look in proportion.

As far as there being more I believe I read they are somewhat rare and in life it isn't all that uncommon to come across an oddly large individual of a species. I am sure you have been around them before but doesn't environment sort of dictate the limits to how big something like this can grow.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi
What looks dead about it? Looks like a natural pose with pretty vibrant/healthy looking colours (indicator that it's alive), and there's a definite bend in it's leg joints which can easily make the difference of a few cm's.

As far as I know they aren't endangered and it is relatively easy to come across their burrows in the Amazon. They are one of the more popular pet species of tarantulas, and as is generally the case when it comes to pet vs wild - they'll likely grow to a larger size in captivity (due to a much larger and constant supply of food). Pretty certain the largest recorded is one raised in captivity as a pet.

Again I'm not saying it's absolutely impossible that this one specimen could be a freak of nature and only one picture of it was taken - but I'd say the more simple and far more probable explanation is that someone took the privilege of exaggerating it's size - as is very often done in the world of nature photography - especially when it comes to "the world's biggest".

But we'll just have to agree to disagree as it really isn't high up on the agenda of most important issues needing debate today.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Navieko
I have been keeping tarantula's on and off for 15 yrs..I know collectors with hundreds of specimens and Im with you on being a bit skeptical on that particular pic..I will be looking through the links in this thread but if that pic is real its a record holder no doubt.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Navieko

Yeah I am not really looking to argue over it. It is what it is whatever it is. BTW I never said they were endangered.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join