H or C lividum... let's clear this up once and for all

[edesign]

OP, the Avicularia changes were made by real taxonomists, not wannabes like Michael Jacobi... Not to mention there was ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON BETWEEN C. paganus and H. doriae for them to make Haplopelma a junior synonym of Cyriopagopus. According to asian experts like S. Rafn and V. Vonwirth, they ARE NOT Cyriopagopus. Its up to you who to trust

LOL Wannabe. How do they know what Cyriopagopus is when they can't get access to the type material? It has been guessed it might be what we call Ornithoctonus right now. If it is then that name goes away and replaced.

H. doriae is nothing like the mainland "Haplopelma" so it may stay Haplopelma and Melopoeus resurrected to place the mainland species. Where does this leave the arboreals once in Cyriopagopus? Maybe left in Omothymus.

Now some back story for the "revision". Smith was sitting on the Phormingochilus pennellhewletti material for almost 8 years. They pushed for him to finally do something with it. Why did they decide to tackle other things and "shake" things up? Motivation. It was to give Wirth and Rafn the push they need to get Ornithoctoninae work done. Hopefully Wirth will start tackling it once he and Nunn are done with Selenocosmiinae.

Jacobi
http://kissmybighairyspider.blogspot.com/2015/12/98-revision-of-phormingochilus-related.html

With its existing species removed, Cyriopagopus is treated as a senior synonym of Haplopelma thereby relegating all valid "Haplopelma" to the genus "Cyriopagopus", which is in line with the type species C. paganus. We do note that further work on this material will likely restore Haplopelma and split the species into different groups with the Thailand and Myanmar species returning to the genus Melopoeus. But this is for other workers to decide.

 

[Angel Minkov]

How do they know what Cyriopagopus is when they can't get access to the type material?

If I recall correctly, Volker stated he has access or seen both type specimens?

 

[creepa]

If I recall correctly, Volker stated he has access or seen both type specimens?

The problem here is that it is all hear say.
Some guy heard frome some guy that...
Its not that i dont want to beleve you, but it would be nice if Volker, Søren and Steve would post there opinion here once in a while like they used to...

 

[Angel Minkov]

Its not hearsay, I got it straight from Volker. I've seen many of his and Soren's comments on the issue and none of them were even close to sounding like they agree with the change ^^

 

[creepa]

Its not hearsay, I got it straight from Volker. I've seen many of his and Soren's comments on the issue and none of them were even close to sounding like they agree with the change ^^

What I mean is here on arachnoboards it is all hear say...
The biggest part of the arachnoculture is unwillingly left in ignorance because Volker, Søren and others experienced in the taxonomy of Theraphosidae dont share there opinion here anymore...

It is now that we as the boardmembers here hear from you that Volker shares a different opinion on the subject than Smith and Jacobi...
Now again it is not that i dont beleve you because i have heard it from other people, but i would like to read it from them here on Arachnoboards so that it is shared with the yankee side of the arachnoculture...

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

What I mean is here on arachnoboards it is all hear say...
The biggest part of the arachnoculture is unwillingly left in ignorance because Volker, Søren and others experienced in the taxonomy of Theraphosidae dont share there opinion here anymore...

It is now that we as the boardmembers here hear from you that Volker shares a different opinion on the subject than Smith and Jacobi...
Now again it is not that i dont beleve you because i have heard it from other people, but i would like to read it from them here on Arachnoboards so that it is shared with the yankee side of the arachnoculture...

I'm glad they don't post their opinions openly all over the internet anymore. Pet websites are not the appropriate place to be doing so, in my opinion, primarily because not very many in the pet keeping community have a grasp on the science of taxonomy or what comments on such a topic would mean anyway. In other words, it would create more hearsay and speculation thus not resolving anything on the phylogeny or nomenclature of the organisms being discussed. A more appropriate means to respond to questionable, published research is to publish another viewpoint with better support. That way, no one would be repeating or taking the word of an author(s) based on reputation but instead basing an opinion on a work based on how well researched it is. Also, if someone's opinion at one time is changed at a later time when or if more information came to light, it would cause even more confusion as to why there were so many supposed changes when none were actually made.

In my opinion everything new and changed in the Smith & Jacobi paper was poorly supported. I base that opinion on whether or not I can use it to confidently ID any of the taxa written about. I can't so to me it is a badly written paper.

It was a frustrating time back in the day when many experienced amateur taxonomists and pet keepers alike would share their "insider" information in the old Yahoo! groups (anyone remember arachnid_word and the ATS list?) and on other sites because it was always vague and statements were made without support. I remember that it led to others repeating information that wasn't able to be referenced except by a link to an internet forum and it ended there. I also remember asking for more information on a topic myself and being denied because something was always "about to be published!"

So on the topic of the Cyriopagopus and Haplopelma synonymy, read the paper and come to your own conclusion as to whether the change was soundly supported. If so or not, ask yourself why. Really though, it does not matter what you call your pet blue Ornithoctonine- Cyriopagopus lividus or Haplopelma lividum - since the label you put on the cage in your own collection has no consequence to the hypothetical phylogeny of the group or whether you or others can identify it. Unless of course, you have the blue form of Cyriopagopus (=Haplopelma) longipes. Then you will need to know how to tell the difference between the two and update your collection labels accordingly.

 

[Angel Minkov]

The biggest part of the arachnoculture is unwillingly left in ignorance because Volker, Søren and others experienced in the taxonomy of Theraphosidae dont share there opinion here anymore...

Why do you assume its THEIR responsibility to come here and enlighten us? When you want to learn something you go on the internet or to the library and search for information relevant to the topic, they don't come to you.

 

[Dovey]

If it was reviewed, changed, and published it should be Cyriopagopus lividus. Names change constantly in taxonomy and complaining about it or fighting it just makes you seem childish. If someone else reviews the genus and discovered that it should be H. lividum again then so be it, but for a bunch of hobbyists that decide common names are awful and shouldn't be used, you guys sure are being hypocritical by saying you should call it what you want.

Taxonomy is not a pick and choose thing. Just because you believe something to be otherwise doesn't change it. Unless it is proven by an actual scientist to be incorrect, hobbyists really don't have a say in the naming or taxonomic change of scientific species.

Also comparing people who follow taxonomy closely to Nazis is just immature, but surprisingly a very good example of Godwins Law.

I haven't been back to Arachnoboards for some time now after leaving the hobby but it has changed so much. There isn't any respect, and many people seem like they need babysitters.

To which, one can only respond "nanner nanner boo boo!" And that's 16 actual years of college education giving you the raspberry!

No seriously, there's a level at which we have to appreciate the modern taxonomists. I recently read a dissertation on the cockroach genus Arenivega (Lord, do I need to revamp my bedtime reading list, or what?) that included several new species, among them, A. Pratchetti for my beloved Sir Terry Pratchett; and after all it was a desperately needed Aphonopelma reshuffle that gave us the incomperably named Aphonopelma johnnycashi. I'll put up with a lot of taxonomical shenanigans for the sake of that level of academic whimsy.