Grammostola aureostriata = G. pulchripes

[GoTerps]

Just an FYI, some of you will need to change your tank labels

Grammostola auerostriata is now a junior synonym of Grammostola pulchripes.

http://www.thebts.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5079

Eric

 

[Protectyaaaneck]

sweet thanks for the info.

 

[bamato]

Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?

 

[Protectyaaaneck]

Look at the title.

 

[GrammatonCleric]

Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??

Oh, and WAR GUIDA, PYN.

 

[bliss]

Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??

more than likely because it was never an Avicularia to begin with

maybe a bad description?

-dan

 

[bamato]

Look at the title.

Yeah I noticed that, just the funny jargain threw me off. :?

 

[GoTerps]

Hi Bamato,

Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Kirk]

Wait, what? How is an Avicularia being reclassified as a Grammastola??

This is a quite standard procedure in systematics. Avicularia borellii was originally described in 1897 as Eurypelma borellii. It's not uncommon that earlier conceptions of taxa have been based on poor definitions that didn't stipulate relevant characters indicating monophyly. Moving species into other genera becomes especially common as researchers are doing revisionary work.

 

[Kirk]

Forgive my ignorance, but does junior synonym mean it's just called pulchripes now?

No. The phrase junior synonym indicates that one taxon (species, in this instance) has been given two different names. The younger name is a junior synonym relative to the older name which is the senior synonym. Usually, systematists will use the older name as it has historical precedence, but there are rules that sometimes allow for the continued use of junior synonyms.

Grammostola aureostriata was described in 2001, whereas G. pulchripes was described in 1891 (I think). If it is shown that G. aureostriata is the same species as G. pulchripes, then the name G. aureostriata takes nomenclatural precedence.

 

[tabor]

Everyone should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy) before changing the labels, and also keep in mind it is just one paper. There will undoubtedly be people who disagree with him.

Here is a good quote from the wiki link:

"It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."

 

[Kirk]

Everyone should read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym_(taxonomy) before changing the labels, and also keep in mind it is just one paper. There will undoubtedly be people who disagree with him.

Here is a good quote from the wiki link:

"It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."

The situation is a little more involved. Article 23.9 Reversal of precedence in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) provides the stipulations for maintaining a junior synonym:

23.9. Reversal of precedence. In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:

23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:​

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and

23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies. From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be qualified by the term nomen protectum and the invalid, but older, name by the term nomen oblitum (see Glossary). In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid.​

One would have to look at the recent paper for reasons why the synonymy has be effected. If it's the case that Grammostola aureostriata was described in 2001, whereas G. pulchripes was described in 1891, then article 23.9 could not possibly be invoked.

 

[GoTerps]

Howdy,

If it's the case that Grammostola aureostriata was described in 2001, whereas G. pulchripes was described in 1891, then article 23.9 could not possibly be invoked.

This is exactly the case.

I haven't gotten the paper yet myself, but stayed with Ray for a few days last month and saw why he came to this conclusion.

Eric

 

[GoTerps]

Hi tabor,

Here is a good quote from the wiki link:

"It is possible for a junior synonym to be given precedence over a senior synonym, primarily when the senior name has not been used since it was first described, and the junior name is in common use. The older name becomes a nomen oblitum, and the junior name is declared a nomen protectum. This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature, were to be replaced by a completely unfamiliar name."

This does not apply here at all. There would be absolutely no reason at all to give precedence to the junior synonym in this case.

Eric

 

[Kirk]

Howdy,

This is exactly the case.

I haven't gotten the paper yet myself, but stayed with Ray for a few days last month and saw why he came to this conclusion.

Eric

Eric,

Yes, just knowing when each name was published immediately indicates his unquestionable justification. I've sunk a few families, genera, and species in my time, and it's a nice feeling doing the housework, as it makes life easier for everyone.

Kirk

 

[tabor]

Hi tabor,



This does not apply here at all. There would be absolutely no reason at all to give precedence to the junior synonym in this case.

Eric

I was just going off that one wiki article (a mistake, obviously), and didnt know there were bylaws or whatever. But yeah after reading more into it I do see why the new name would take presidency.

my main point is this though: do you think dealers will immediately change the name of the name from G. aureostriata to its new name? I don't think so. So while yes, the new name might apply in scientific context, most people in the hobby have known G. auerostriata and what it is for most of the last decade.

that's why i pointed that quote from the wiki article out, when it says "This is primarily to prevent the confusion that would result if a well-known name, with a large accompanying body of literature," i suppose the online hobby and community doesn't count (it makes sense that it wouldn't)


so, here is another question, would it be incorrect in any context to call them G. auerostriata? I mean outside of a scientific journal does it matter?

 

[Richard McJimsey]

I thought G.pulchripes was G.mollicoma? :?

 

[GoTerps]

Hi Ryan,

my main point is this though: do you think dealers will immediately change the name of the name from G. aureostriata to its new name?

Good ones will
At first, IMO, they should label them as such:
Grammostola pulchripes (formerly G. aureostriata)

This will reduce the confusion that would arise for those hobbyists not aware of the change.

i suppose the online hobby and community doesn't count (it makes sense that it wouldn't)

That's true, the use of that name in the hobby has no relevance. (In relation to the precedence issue you brought up)

so, here is another question, would it be incorrect in any context to call them G. auerostriata? I mean outside of a scientific journal does it matter?

But, why would you want to? As old types are continually examined, and new research done, this is just one of MANY changes in nomenclature that are sure to come. Hobbyists need to learn to embrace these changes.

Eric

 

[pato_chacoana]

Well this is great. The Grammostola genus keeps getting better. I wonder how many of the people writing Grammostola papers ever saw a Grammostola in the wild...hehe, or are aware of that the spider that in the USA and Europe was being called G. aureostriata all these years is quite different than the one sent in the first place for the G. aureostriata description.....

 

[GoTerps]

Hi Pato,

I wonder how many of the people writing Grammostola papers ever saw a Grammostola in the wild.

In this case, I don't understand how seeing them in the wild would make any difference at all? That's not what the paper is about. The relevant specimens for this paper can't be found in the wild. The only thing that matters (in this particular case) is to look at the type specimens.

The Grammostola genus keeps getting better.

I know you were being a bit facetious, but housecleaning such as this is critical in the genus "getting better".

Ok, I've commented enough in this thread I do believe, off to enjoy my afternoon and drink some good IPA's.

Eric